III - Captives and Other Risk-Financing Options

ISSUES UPDATES

Captives and Other Risk-Financing Options

THE TOPIC

AUGUST 2008

RELATED INFORMATION

Powerpoint Presentation: Mega-Trends in the World of Insurance: Impacts on Captive & Alternative Risk Transfer Markets

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

An August 2008 report by A.M. Best found a 15 percent drop in net premiums written for a composite of 177 captive insurance companies. The decline was fueled by a 26 percent drop in premiums written for medical malpractice captives, the largest segment in the composite. However, captives overall benefited from favorable underwriting trends. Solid underwriting results in medical malpractice helped the captive composite’s loss ratio to improve substantially in 2007 to 61.9. The combined ratio for the composite improved from 94.1 in 2006 to 92.3 in 2007. Looking ahead, A.M. Best predicts that in spite of the soft market, the outlook for the captive industry is stable. Captive formations continue even as the commercial market softens and new domiciles have entered the market. The report notes that a key advantage for captive insurers is their ability to compete not just on price, but on customized services for their insureds.
Risk Retention Groups: The number of risk retention groups (RRGs) in the U.S. rose from 238 in 2006 to 254 in 2007, a 6 percent increase, according to the Risk Retention Reporter. RRG premiums dropped by 3 percent from $2.64 to $2.56 million during the same period (see chart). Most of the decline in premiums was in the property development sector, reflecting problems in the subprime mortgage market. This sector includes RRGs for contractors, which saw premiums drop by 35.2 percent and homebuilders, which saw premiums fall by 30.8 percent
RRGs would be able to provide property insurance coverage to their members under legislation introduced in the House of Representives in April 2008. The bill, introduced by Representatives Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) and Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), would mark the second major expansion of the Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981. The federal law, which provided for the formation of RRGs and purchasing groups in the areas of products and completed operations liability, was expanded by 1986 amendments to include all areas of commercial liability, except workers compensation. (See Background). In addition to the property insurance expansion, the new bill includes corporate governance requirements for RRGs, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office in a 2005 report. Other provisions reduce state regulators' authority over the activites of RRGs licensed in other states.
While a report on RRGs, released by A.M. Best in July 2007, found that A.M. Best rated-RRGs showed a signifiant increase in profitability in 2006, reflecting strong risk management and loss control programs among these groups. The groups posted a combined ratio of 92.40 after dividends, which the study notes is better than those posted by most traditional insurers. Rated RRG's policyholders’ surplus and assets increased in 2006, with surplus reaching $668 million and total assets climbing to $1.91 billion. The medical malpractice line dominated the RRG sector, accounting for 43 percent of the rated rrgs, followed by "per occurrence" other liability (29 percent).
Twenty-nine RRGs were formed in 2006, compared with 33 in 2005, according to the Risk Retention Reporter. The health care sector (including groups covering doctors, nursing homes, hospitals and other facilities) continued to account for the majority of formations, with 19 new groups in 2006. As of April, 2008 there were a total of 255 RRGs and 744 risk purchasing groups, according to the Risk Retention Reporter.
Taxation: In February, 2008 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) withdrew a proposed rule that would have removed favorable tax treatment for companies that use a captive to cover the risks of their corporate affiliates and file a consolidated tax return covering the affiliates and the captive. The proposed rule would have affected hundreds of captives and removed a key tax break for captive sponsors.
Size of the Alternative Market: Alternative market mechanisms cover 30 percent of the U.S. commercial market, with traditional insurance companies covering the remaining 70 percent, according to a September 2006 report by Conning Research & Consulting. Conning put traditional direct commercial premiums at $228.9 billion and alternative market "premiums" at $326.9 billion, based on 2004 data. Self insurance is the leading alternative mechanism, followed by captives, according to Conning, which estimates that the two mechanisms account for 90 percent of the alternative market.
Captives: In June 2008 Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law legislation intended to attract captive insurers to the state. Connecticut's law allows captives to be licensed to serve single businesses and their affiliates, groups of companies in the same industry, or members of an association. The law also allows the licensing of risk retention groups, which insure members of groups engaged in similar businesses or activities (see background).
At the end of May 2008, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas signed S.B. 284, a bill that makes it easier for the state's captive owners to merge two existing captive facilities. The bill reduces the amount of information that must be submitted to obtain regulatory approval for captive mergers. A provision increases liability protection for "special purpose” financial captives. The bill, which will become law in July 2008, is intended to keep the state's captive market competitive.
A July 2007 study from Aon indicates that there is room for growth in the global captive market. According to the study, over half (53 percent) of the world’s top 1,500 companies (the "G1500") do not currently own a captive. Captive penetration varies widely by region. In the U.S., captive ownership by G1500 companies is at 58 percent. In markets like Asia, which traditionally have not been extensive captive users, the percentages are lower. Only 14 percent of Japanese G1500 companies have a captive, for example.
The number of worldwide captives increased by 94.7 percent from 2,535 in 1989 to 4,936 in 2006, based on data in an annual survey conducted by Business Insurance magazine.
The number of captives based in the United States grew dramatically in 2006, with Arizona, Nevada and Utah posting growth that approached or topped 50 percent. With 1,251 licensed captives, the United States was the largest captive domicile in 2006, followed by Bermuda, with 989.
Capital Markets: With investor interest driven principally by hurricane activity in the United States in 2004 and 2005, annual issuance of catastrophe bonds reached a record $4.69 billion in 2006, up 136 percent from $1.99 billion in 2005, according to the February 2007 Catastrophe Bond Market study by Guy Carpenter. Twenty transactions were completed in 2006, compared with 10 in 2005.
On December 14, 2007, a catastrophe bond issued by Kamp Re, a special-purpose vehicle for Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., is set to make a payout on Hurricane Katrina losses. The bond was structured to be triggered if Swiss Re's losses from hurricanes and/or earthquakes exceeded $1 billion. This marks the first time a catastrophe bond has been activated by an insurance event.

CAPTIVE GROWTH, 1989-2007

Year	Number of captives
1989	2,535
1992	2,896
1995	3,199
1997	3,361
1998	3,418
2005	4,772
2006	4,951
2007	5,119
Source: Insurance Information Institute, based on Business Insurance and Conning Research data.

LEADING CAPTIVE DOMICILES, 2007

		Number of captives
Rank	Location	2006	2007
1	Bermuda	989	958
2	Cayman Islands	740	765
3	Vermont	563	567
4	British Virgin Islands	400 (1)	409 (1)
5	Guernsey	381	368
6	Barbados	235	256
7	Luxembourg	208	210
8	Turks and Caicos Islands	169 (2)	173 (1)
9	Hawaii	160	163
10	South Carolina	146	158
11	Isle of Man	161	155
12	Dublin	154 (3)	131
13	Nevada	95	115
14	Arizona	83 (3)	108
15	Utah	30	92
16	D.C.	70	77
17	Singapore	60	62
18	Switzerland	48	48
19	New York	39	44
20	Labuan	26 (1)	31
	Total top 20	4,757	4,890
	Total worldwide	4,951	5,119
(1) Business Insurance estimate. (2) Excludes credit life insurers. (3) Restated. Source: Business Insurance, March 3, 2008.

The number of worldwide captives increased from 3,361 in 1997 to 5,119 in 2007, according to Business Insurance.

CAPTIVES BY STATE, 2006-2007

		Number of captives
Rank	State	2006	2007
1	Vermont	563	567
2	Hawaii	160	163
3	South Carolina	146	158
4	Nevada	95	115
5	Arizona	83	108
6	Utah	30	92
7	D.C.	70	77
8	New York	39	44
9	Kentucky	10	31
10	Montana	21	30
11	Georgia	17	14
12	Delaware	6	10
13	Colorado	8	6
14	Tennessee	3	3
15	Illinois	3	2
16	Missouri	0	2
17	Alabama	1	2
18	Arkansas	1	1
19	Kansas	1	1
20	Oklahoma	1	1
21	South Dakota	1	1
22	Maine	0	0
23	Rhode Island	0	0
	United States	1,259	1,428
Source: Business Insurance, March 8, 2008.

TOP TEN CATASTROPHE BOND TRANSACTIONS, 2007

($ millions)

Rank	Special purpose vehicle	Sponsor	Risk amount	Peril	Risk location
1	Merna Reinsurance Ltd.	State Farm	$1,058.6	Multiple	U.S./Canada
2	Residential Reinsurance 2007 Limited	USAA	600.0	Multiple	U.S.
3	Longpoint Re Ltd.	The Travelers	500.0	Hurricane	U.S.
4	Redwood Capital X Ltd.	Swiss Re	498.6	Earthquake	California
5	Spinnaker Capital Limited	Swiss Re	380.2	Hurricane	U.S.
6	Blue Fin Ltd.	Allianz SE	290.7	Windstorm	Europe
7	Green Valley Ltd.	Groupama SA	288.0	Windstorm	France
8	Gamut Re Ltd.	Nephila Capital Ltd.	265.0	Multiple	U.S./Europe/Japan
9	Midori Re Ltd.	East Japan Railway (1)	260.0	Earthquake	Japan
10	Calabash Re II Ltd.	Ace American Insurance Company (2)	250.0	Hurricane, earthquake, multiple	U.S.
(1) Sponsored through Munich Re. (2) Sponsored through Swiss Re. Source: GC Securities.

CATASTROPHE BOND TRANSACTIONS BY SPONSOR TYPE, 1997-2007

($ millions)

	Insurer		Reinsurer		Corporate		Total
Year	Capital	Number	Capital	Number	Capital	Number	Capital	Number
1997	$521.0	4	$112.0	1	NA	NA	$633.0	5
1998	575.0	4	271.1	4	NA	NA	846.1	8
1999	460.0	4	424.8	5	$100.0	1	984.8	10
2000	469.0	4	670.0	5	NA	NA	1,139.0	9
2001	150.0	1	816.9	6	NA	NA	966.9	7
2002	195.0	2	849.5	4	175.0	1	1,219.5	7
2003	730.0	3	768.0	3	231.8	1	1,729.8	7
2004	600.0	3	542.8	3	NA	NA	1,142.8	6
2005	1,071.0	4	920.1	6	NA	NA	1,991.1	10
2006	2,575.3	12	1,908.2	6	210.0	2	4,693.5	20
2007	3,603.6	10	3,132.7	16	260.0	1	6,996.3	27
Total	$10,949.9	51	$10,416.0	59	$976.8	6	$22,342.7	116
NA=Data not available. Source: GC Securities.

CATASTROPHE BOND RISK CAPITAL BY SPECIFIC PERIL, 1997-2007

($ millions)

Year	U.S. earthquake	U.S. hurricane	Europe windstorm	Japan earthquake	Japan typhoon	Other
1997	$112.0	$395.0	NA	$90.0	NA	$36.0
1998	145.0	721.1	NA	NA	$80.0	45.0
1999	327.8	507.8	$167.0	217.0	17.0	10.0
2000	486.5	506.5	482.5	217.0	17.0	129.0
2001	696.9	551.9	431.9	150.0	NA	120.0
2002	799.5	476.5	334.0	383.6	NA	NA
2003	803.8	416.1	474.1	691.2	277.5	100.0
2004	803.3	660.8	220.3	310.8	NA	NA
2005	1,269.0	994.0	830.1	138.0	NA	405.0
2006	2,228.7	2,294.9	1,166.0	824.1	400.3	507.5
2007	3,630.0	4,631.6	1,678.9	1,160.0	725.0	1,913.9
Total	$11,302.4	$12,156.1	$5,784.8	$4,181.6	$1,516.8	$3,266.4
NA=Data not available. Source: GC Securities.

RISK RETENTION GROUP PREMIUMS AND
NUMBER OF RISK RETENTION GROUPS, 2000-2007

Year	Premium ($ millions)	Number
2000	$65	803
2001	69	944
2002	90	1,265
2003	141	1,738
2004	186	2,197
2005	216	2,449
2006	238	2,638
2007	254	2,559
Source: Risk Retention Reporter.

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, businesses and other organizations have handled risk by transferring it to an insurance company through the purchase of an insurance policy or, alternatively, by retaining the risk and allocating funds to meet expected losses through an arrangement known as "self insurance," in which firms retain rather than transfer risk.

During the liability crisis of the 1980s, when businesses had trouble obtaining some types of commercial insurance coverage, new mechanisms for transferring risk developed, facilitated by passage of the federal Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981. The 1981 law, which provided for the formation of risk-retention groups and purchasing groups in the areas of products and completed operations liability, was expanded by 1986 amendments to include all areas of commercial liability, except workers compensation. To facilitate their operation, the Act exempts both risk retention and purchasing groups from many of the state laws which normally apply to insurance organizations. The hardening of the commercial property insurance market in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks has led to a push by some groups, including schools and real estate firms, to expand the scope of the Risk Retention Act to commercial property, surety and commercial automobile lines.

Growth of Alternative Markets

Rising rates and a shortage of sufficient amounts of coverage in some commercial insurance lines, a trend which began in 2000 and intensified following the September 11 attacks, spurred businesses to look at a number of alternative risk transfer (ART) vehicles, including captives and risk retention groups. Today’s alternative market is dominated by two mechanisms: self insurance, in which businesses retain rather than transfer risk, and “single parent” captives, set up by businesses to insure their own risks. While these mechanisms account for 90 percent of the alternative market, Conning anticipates growth among other alternative mechanisms, including capital market securitizations, government pools, group captives and risk retention groups.

In its 2003 study, “The Picture of ART,” global commercial lines direct premium volume written by traditional carriers was about $ 370 billion in 2001, while the premium volume for various types of ART carriers was about $88 billion. Self insurance (with $44 billion in gross premiums written) accounted for the largest ART segment, followed by captives ($38 billion), U.S. state pools ($5 billion) and risk retention groups ($1 billion). The study noted that while captives were global phenomena, self-insurance and RRGs are U.S-specific products. Comprehensive data was not available for the size of the non-U.S. pools. The study projected that the market would grow about 10 percent per year through 2005.

Federal Taxation

A number of regulatory rulings since 2001 have favored captives. In June 2001 the Internal Revenue Service ruled that it would allow premiums paid for captive insurance to be tax deductible, signaling it would no longer invoke its long-held “economic family” theory. The IRS first espoused its theory in 1977 in Revenue Ruling 77, which held that a policyholder, its noninsurance subsidiaries, and its captive form one “economic family,” and the premiums paid within the family are not deductible because the risk was not shifted from the policyholder. In various rulings in the 1980s courts rejected that reasoning.

In 2004 United Parcel Service (UPS) agreed to provide vouchers to customers to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit that alleged that UPS overcharged shippers for excess-value package insurance written by a Bermuda-based company owned by UPS employee-shareholders. UPS was hit with 27 such lawsuits across the country after a U.S. Tax Court judge ruled in 1999 that Bermuda-based Overseas Partners Ltd. (OPL) was a ''sham'' intended to divert taxable UPS income from the excess-value program. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, finding OPL served a legitimate business purpose.

Federal Regulation

Captives that are owned by publicly held companies now have to comply with all the regulatory compliance and governance requirements stipulated by the Sarbanes Oxley Act, enacted in 2002 to increase the accountability of boards of publicly held companies to their shareholders.

The alternative market has also been affected by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), enacted in November 2002 to provide a federal backstop for terrorism insurance. The U.S. Treasury Department has taken the position that domestic captive and risk retention groups chartered in the United States or its territories are to be considered “insurers” under the act, which requires commercial insurers to offer terrorism insurance coverage. This means that all domestic risk retention groups and captives, except those writing medical malpractice and other lines excluded by the Act, are required to offer terrorism coverage to their insureds and are subject to the law’s 3 percent surcharge provision. Some observers believe TRIA will prompt companies without significant terrorism exposure to locate their captives offshore to avoid the surcharge, on the one hand, and spur captive formations on the part of companies seeking to take advantage of the federal backstop, on the other. A September 2003 presentation by AON, an insurance brokerage firm, reported that at least 40 captives have issued terrorism insurance policies. In 2006 SL Green Realty Corp. formed a captive, Belmont Insurance Company, to help protect it against terrorism-related risks. The captive received its license from the New York State Insurance Department on September 16, 2006.

State Regulation

Captives

There are approximately 30 U.S. captives domicles, including Michigan which amended its insurance code in March 2008 to allow the formation of captives.
The leading domicile for captives in the United States is Vermont, which first passed captive legislation in 1981. Vermont has seen its captive business rise significantly in the last 16 years, from 230 captives in 1992 to 567 by 2007. Hawaii, with 163 captives in 2007, is the second largest U.S. domicile, followed by South Carolina with 158. (see chart)

Risk Retention Groups (RRGs)

The federal Liability Risk Retention Act partially preempts state insurance laws to permit risk retention groups to be regulated by a single state, even though the groups operate in multiple states. According to a September 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, this partial preemption has resulted in “a regulatory environment characterized by widely varying state standards.” The GAO reports that most RRGs are domiciled in six states that permit them to be chartered as captives--which are less strictly regulated than traditional insurance companies--rather than in the states where they conduct most of their business. As of April 2006, 18 states permitted RRGs to be regulated under captive charters according to an article in the Risk Retention Reporter. The states are home to over 95 percent of RRGs, according to the article.

The GAO report recommended that state insurance regulators adopt consistent regulatory standards for RRGs and that Congress consider granting the partial preemption only to states that adopt the standards and establish minimum corporate governance standards for RRGS.

Alternative Market Mechanisms

I. Captives

Captives may be owned by one entity or several and they may insure the risks of organizations other than their major owners. Wholly owned captives are companies set up by large corporations to finance or administer their risk financing needs. If such a captive insures only the risks of its parent or subsidiaries it is called a "pure" captive.

While the leading domicile for captives in the U.S. is Vermont, offshore captives covering U.S. risks are predominantly located in Bermuda, where they enjoy tax advantages and relative freedom from regulation. The Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Luxembourg and Barbados are also significant centers for captives. In May 2003 Anguilla, a British territory, introduced an insurance act that would establish the tax-friendly Caribbean island as a captive insurers domicile. In August 2004 Bahrain licensed its first captive insurer.

Captives may be established to provide insurance to more than one entity. An association or group of companies may band together to form a captive to provide insurance coverage. Professionals — doctors, lawyers, accountants — have formed many captives over the years. Captives may, in turn, use a variety of reinsurance mechanisms to provide the coverage. In particular, many offshore captives use a "fronting" insurer to provide the basic insurance policy. Fronting typically means that underwriting, claims and administrative functions are handled in the United States by an experienced commercial insurance company, since a captive generally will not want to get involved directly in running the insurance operation. Also, fronting allows a company to show it has an insurance policy with a U.S.-licensed insurance company, which it may need to do for legal and business reasons.

The rent-a-captive concept was introduced in Bermuda 20 years ago and remains a popular alternative market mechanism. Rent-a-captives serve businesses that are unable to capitalize a captive but are willing to assume a portion of their own risk and share in the underwriting profits and investment income. Generally sponsored by insurers or reinsurers, which essentially "rent out" their capital for a fee, the mechanism allows users to obtain some of the advantages of a captive without having the expense of setting up a single parent captive and meeting minimum capital and surplus requirements.

An offshoot of rent-a-captives, the segregated or protected cell captive (PCC), was introduced in Guernsey in 1997. A PCC offers participants many of the benefits of a group captive but with lower startup costs. A PCC offers more security to policyholders by isolating each participant's assets and liabilities as if they were a separate company, called a cell, doing business with the core company. The mechanism has helped fuel the growth of the captive market. Actual numbers of segregated cells may be underreported because some captive domiciles don’t report the number of cells within them. Such mechanisms accounted for some 10 percent of new captive formations in 2002. Overall, the number of segregated cell companies increased 20 percent in 2002, with Guernsey and the Cayman Islands recording a combined growth of 45.8 percent.

Captives are expanding into the employee benefits arena. In December 2004 the U.S. Department of Labor gave tentative approval for Alcoa to use its Vermont-based captive insurer to fund its U.S. employee benefit risks. Approval was facilitated by a May 2003 ruling in which the DOL gave final approval to Archer Daniels Midland Co.'s plan to use its Vermont captive to reinsure group life insurance benefits--a decision that was expected to open a new frontier for captives.

II. Self Insurance

Estimates of the self-insurance market vary widely, possibly as a result of variances in definitions. In its 2003 study of alternative markets, Swiss Re put the segment at $44 billion in gross premiums.

Self insurance can be undertaken by single companies wishing to retain risk or by entities in similar industries or geographic locations that pool resources to insure each other’s risks. According to A.M. Best report, there were 178 self-insured government pools and 240 self-insurance funds in 2002, up slightly from 177 government pools and 237 self-insurance funds in 2001.

A wide variety of industries participate in self-insurance pools. Respondents to a July 2006 Business Insurance survey of public entity risk pools included cities/towns (26 percent of respondents); counties, school districts and special purpose districts (14.5 percent each); housing authorities (10.5 percent); transit districts (8.5 percent); and higher education (4 percent). The majority of pools (79.3 percent) provided property/casualty coverage. 13.1 percent provided employee benefits and 7.6 percent provided both. Commonly covered risks included general liability (73.9 percent); followed by auto/equipment liability, auto physical damage and property (67.4 percent each); and employment practices liability (65.2 percent).

The use of higher retentions/deductibles is increasing in most lines of insurance. In workers compensation many companies are opting to retain a larger portion of their exposure through policies with large deductible amounts of $100,000 or higher. Large deductible programs, which were first introduced in 1989, now account for a sizable portion of the market. In workers compensation large deductible amounts were estimated at $7.4 billion in 2000, equal to more than 30 percent of the total workers compensation market of $24.8 billion, based on information from the National Council on Compensation Insurance.

III. Risk Retention Groups:

A risk retention group (RRG) is a corporation owned and operated by its members. It must be chartered and licensed as a liability insurance company under the laws of at least one state. The group can then write insurance in all other states. It need not obtain a license in a state other than its chartering states. A report by the General Accountability Office released in September 2005 notes that while RRGs accounted for about $1.8 billion, or about 1.17 percent, of all commercial liability insurance in 2003, the groups have played an important role in expanding the availability and affordability liability insurance for certain groups. According to the GAO, more RRGs formed in the years from 2002 to 2004 than in the previous 15 years, with about three-quarters of the new RRGs offering medical malpractice coverage. The report called on state regulators to enact uniform regulatory standards for RRGs, and for Congress to consider enacting corporate governance standards.

IV. Risk Purchasing Groups

Like risk retention groups (RRGs), purchasing groups must be made up of persons or entities with like exposures and in a common business. However, whereas RRGs are liability insurance companies owned by their members, purchasing groups purchase liability coverage for their members from admitted insurers, surplus lines carriers or RRGs. Laws in some states prohibit insurers from giving groups formed to purchase insurance advantages over individuals. However, purchasing groups are not subject to so-called "fictitious group" laws, which require a group to have been in existence for a certain period of time or require a group to have a certain minimum number of members. The Risk Retention Act of 1986 specifically provided for purchasing groups to be created to purchase liability insurance for members of the sponsoring groups.

Four states with hospitable regulatory climates accounted for the majority of the purchasing groups formed during the 18-year period from 1987 to September 2004: Texas (289); California (227); Illinois (183); and Delaware (102). When retirements are taken into account, the five states with the greatest number of operational purchasing groups, as of September 2004, are: Illinois (110); Texas (80); Delaware (75); California (57); and New York (55). Purchasing groups are now domiciled in 44 states. As of March 2006 there were 675 purchasing groups, according to the Risk Retention Reporter.

V. Catastrophe Bonds and other Alternative Risk Transfer (ART) Products

In its 2003 study Swiss Re identifies two segments of the alternative market: alternative carriers, such as captives and risk retention groups, and alternative risk transfer (ART) products, such as insurance-linked securities and weather derivatives, developed to meet the financial risk transfer needs of businesses. One such product, catastrophe bonds, risk-based securities sold via the capital markets, developed in the wake of hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in 1992 and the Northridge earthquake in 1994 — megacatastrophes that resulted in a global shortage of reinsurance (insurance for insurers) for such disasters. Tapping into the capital markets allowed insurers to diversify their risk and expand the amount of insurance available in catastrophe-prone areas. Power failures, terrorism and sport events were among the risks covered by catastrophe bonds last year, according to Risk Management Solutions. With investor interest driven principally by hurricane activity in the United States, annual issuance of catastrophe bonds reached a record $4.7 billion in 2006, up 136 percent from $1.99 billion in 2005, according to Guy Carpenter. The momentum continued into 2007, with publicly disclosed issuances increasing by 49 percent to $7 billion, according to Guy Carpenter's latest review of the cat bond market. In addition, 27 transactions were completed in 2007, also a new high.

Content permission and free insurance content feeds
For permission click here

Are you a reporter searching for insurance-related information?
Click here for help