global reinsurance special report: financial modelling

21

SPECIAL REPORT: FINANCIAL MODELING

GLOBAL REINSURANCE JUNE/JULY 2011

Calculated risks

DFA goes globalDynamic fi nancial analysis is fi nding favour in new territories24:

The magic numberThe three factors that property casualty modellers need to consider27:

Model managementHow will recent major updates to cat models affect the industry?25:

The last big pushDo internal Solvency II models create more problems than they solve?22:

PRESENTED IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

GR_21.indd 21GR_21.indd 21 10/06/2011 17:1710/06/2011 17:17

JUNE/JULY 2011 GLOBAL REINSURANCE22

Special Report: Financial Modelling

The main problem is that many feel that capital requirements under the standard formula will be too high. After substantial lobbying by industry bodies, these were recalibrated ahead of the latest impact study (QIS5).

The results, which came out on 11 March, revealed lower solvency capital requirements (SCR) than had been feared. “I would say it’s not as disastrous as people were expecting,” says AM Best Europe general manager Vasilis Katsipis. “It started with the original technical specifi cations and these got a strong reaction from the industry, but then they started getting more fl exible.”

However, the fi ndings did show that most insurers would need to hold more capital – in some cases, a lot more. While European (re)insurers are, on the whole, strongly capitalised – holding $395bn of capital in excess of their solvency capital requirement – several may fall short of the requirements.

Furthermore, many remain dissatisfi ed with the standard formula. In particular there is worry over how small insurers and captives will be treated and the defi nition of contract boundaries. Meanwhile, a concern for international carriers is that non-European catastrophe risk is not adequately accounted for under the standard formula.

Following the release of the QIS5 results, representatives of the European insurance industry – including European insurance and reinsurance federation the Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA), the Pan European Insurance Forum, CFO Forum and the CRO Forum – wrote a strongly worded letter to the European commissioner for the internal market and services, Michel Barnier, highlighting their concerns with Solvency II.

They also wrote to the Financial Times’ letter page, saying: “It is absolutely imperative that changes are made to the overly conservative approach being adopted in several areas.”

The last big puIn the run-up tp Solvency II, many companies are seeking to develop their own internal models to avoid the problems of the standard formula. But this approach is likely to hold troubles of its own. Helen Yates reports

Europe and the rest of the world are gearing up for Solvency II, as the 18-month countdown begins. The directive, which will come into effect on 1 January 2013, is set to trigger a major change in how risk is measured and managed. While this will herald a new era in analytics and modelling, areas of uncertainty and controversy remain.

This will, of course, affect companies in Europe. But it could also have wider implications, as the new regulatory regime is looking more and more likely to be rolled out to other major insurance jurisdictions as they seek equivalence.

It’s a great time for actuaries and risk professionals, and a tough time for all (re)insurers – particularly small to mid-sized companies, which will be required to invest a lot of time and money in the process, potentially only to see their capital requirements rise substantially.

With the deadline fast approaching, we examine the pitfalls that lie in wait for (re)insurers navigating the last leg of this journey.

Ups and downsFor an industry that has had mixed success in embracing the tenets of enterprise risk management (ERM) and risk-based capital modelling, Solvency II is proving to be a signifi cant driver.

“It’s been going on for 20 years now and things have become a lot more technical,” says BMS Group executive vice-president and chief actuary David Spiegler. “People are focusing on stochastic modelling and distributions of losses. But with Solvency II pushing things forward, it has gone into a whole new generation of analytical requirements that companies are going to be required to use in managing their business.”

However, those businesses preparing internal models for approval still have numerous hurdles to overcome, not least whether the regulators themselves

‘I’m wary of the regulators’ abilities to oversee

the process fairly and consistently’

David Spiegler BMS Group

will be resourced enough to cope with multiple model assessments.

“I’m a little wary of every company developing their own internal model, and of the regulators’ abilities to oversee the process fairly and consistently,” says Spiegler. “One of the nice things about catastrophe models is that, although they have their own issues, everyone is using the same models – so you can compare the relative merits of companies or portfolios.

“But when everyone is developing their own model, it seems like it’s going to be awfully diffi cult for regulators to police this process.”

He does not think there is much risk of over-regulation, simply because of the pressures the task at hand will place on regulators.

“In a world where you didn’t have to worry about resource issues, over-regulation could be a concern,” he says. “But Solvency II could create such a burden on regulators, including having to evaluate every company’s individual model and oversee this process, that I don’t see how they’ll have the resources to over-regulate.”

Breaking the mouldIt is mainly the large, more diversifi ed, organisations that are looking to develop their own internal capital models for the new regime. Smaller, monoline writers lack the resources, so are more likely to use the standard formula – a one-size-fi ts-all approach to risk-based capital modelling.

GR_22-23 SpRep feat1.indd 22GR_22-23 SpRep feat1.indd 22 10/06/2011 17:0210/06/2011 17:02

GLOBAL REINSURANCE JUNE/JULY 2011 23


The letter stated that, while QIS5 demonstrated the health of the European insurance industry, it confi rmed that some areas of the implementing measures needed correction. These include a more balanced calibration of certain requirements, the tackling of procyclicality and volatility in the Solvency II framework and the need to address unnecessary complexity.

“There are still elements in there that need clarifi cation or need to be adopted – and there are also elements that seem to be unrealistically cumbersome and absorb too much capital,” says Katsipis.

A matter of timingFor its part, the regulatory body European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) is performing additional work to improve the calibrations.

Nevertheless, given the expected capital burdens under the standard formula, it is understandable that many insurance industry players with the necessary resources are opting to go the internal model route.

But this is a tough exercise, and those who have left it too late will not be guaranteed internal model approval, warns Katsipis. “For companies that have not applied for pre-approval, the boat has probably sailed because there is no guarantee that they will get their capital model for 1 January 2013.”

The release of the Omnibus II directive – which sets out the transitional measures in adopting Solvency II – has done little to ease pressure over this issue. There has been little clarity on whether transitional measures might be adopted and, if they are, whether this will buy more time for companies seeking internal model approval.

Experts think it is a dangerous game to lose momentum in an effort to wait and see if Solvency II will be staggered in some way. “On the one hand, Omnibus II may mean a softer

landing for the whole industry on Solvency II capital requirements, and in the long run that is good for the industry,” says Katsipis. “However, the timing for adopting Omnibus II is the fi rst quarter of 2012, which is relatively late and therefore a lot of companies will feel that they are in uncertain and unchartered waters.”

For companies lagging behind, there is a real risk that they could be required to use the standard formula, meaning that their regulatory capital requirements could go up.

Katsipis says: “If they haven’t gone through the pre-approval process before the implementation of Solvency II then, yes, companies that have not started will most likely fall into the standard formula.

“Companies that have started, but not applied for the pre-approval, will begin to fi nd it diffi cult if not impossible to have an internal model to be used for regulatory purpose in 2013.”

The longer companies leave it, the more expensive the process will become, he adds: “The resourcing issues are quite well publicised – there are limited resources, and insurers, consultants and regulators are fi ghting for the same type of resources.

“I would expect companies that start their capital model now to have higher costs than if they had started earlier, because they will have to do the same amount of work in a more limited timeframe, which typically brings additional cost.”

While the cost of compliance and uncertainty is an issue, Katsipis thinks too much time has been spent looking

at the capital implications of Solvency II and not enough on Pillar II. “The more exciting part of Solvency II is probably the second pillar with the own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA),” he says.

“I know a lot of effort, brain power and cost has been expended on capital models in Pillar I, but when all is said and done even companies that do not have an internal capital model will have a standard formula. That standard formula is going to be more accurate in describing their capital requirements than the current Solvency I standard.”

“But the big sea change,” he says, “is around ERM and how you take that model and make it part of your overall practice.”

Katsipis thinks Solvency II through ORSA and the standard formula will force ERM into the lower echelons of the insurance industry in a way that has not been achieved before and that arguably could not have been achieved without the regulatory framework.

“Before Solvency II there were certain companies globally that were thinking in these terms, but these tended to be the larger (re)insurers that probably already had their own capital model and ERM framework,” says Katsipis. “If you look further down at small-to-medium-sized companies, I don’t think these had well-developed ERM or the appetite to do so.” GRGR

push

FINANCIAL MODELLING REPORT PRESENTED

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

Preparations for Solvency II are creating a boom for all kinds of risk specialist. Forty-four percent of risk professionals expect their teams to grow over the next 12 months, according to research from the Institute of Risk Management and Kinsey Allen International. It also found that a senior risk professional now dedicates almost 50% of their working day to Solvency II compared to 20% just 18 months ago.

While it is an exciting time for people in the risk world, there are practical challenges. The demand for skills and lack of suitable candidates is pushing salaries up in the sector, as insurers, consultants and regulators staff up and do all they can to hold on to existing talent. The skills requested by organisations have necessarily become more analytical, with fi nancial risk expertise, capital modelling, prudential regulation, fi nancial modelling, strong mathematical modelling and quantitative analysis all featuring strongly on job forms.

“The demand they’ve got for headcount has increased but the supply hasn’t increased. You will get businesses who will sometimes have to

wait six months for a position to be fi lled, so that’s one of the fi rst frustrations,” says Kinsey Allen International senior consultant Loraine Silvester.

“To fi ll those gaps you have interims who have modelling skills and understand the insurance business,” she continues. “Their day rates are being increased dramatically and you have to retain their knowledge, because Solvency II isn’t going to be implemented until the beginning of 2013. So if they’re being attracted by companies who are screening for that skillset you’re in a very competitive market and it’s creating a bubble.”

It’s a great time to be an actuary, thinks BMS Group’s David Spiegler, who anticipates that his team with be double its size within a year both due to BMS’s expanding business in the USA, as demand grows from clients with business in Europe, and as the USA gears up for Solvency II equivalence. “It is a great thing for actuaries – we’ll see how it works for insurance companies, but it is defi nitely going to create a huge analytical resource demand for all insurance and reinsurance companies.”

Modelling experts: a fi nite resource




the impact of unanticipated events and to decide the level of risk to take in relation to their company’s capital. The daunting list of risks confronting any insurer or reinsurer today requires more than traditional risk assessment tools to know the range of outcomes produced by different scenarios.

At Ultimate Risk Solutions, our DFA model Risk Explorer™ will: simulate hundreds of thousands of random scenarios for corporate portfolios;

evaluate reinsurance, investment, and underwriting strategies; help manage catastrophe exposures; analyse strategic business options; and quantify risk costs.

Risks cut across all aspects of a company’s business. Without a formal ERM programme, the different risks cannot be singled out, compared to other company risks and analysed in terms of their collective impact on the company. This is the holistic approach that leads to good decisions, and any successful ERM programme depends on state-of-the-art DFA. This insight into a company’s future balance sheets is vastly superior to the current ‘what if?’ or series of ‘stress tests’ that an organisation may perform.

Global economic modelIf your company does business in different parts of the world, it is essential to know the risks in the other national and regional economies where you operate. Our new product, URS Real World™ is a global economic model that meets this need. It employs revolutionary modelling ideas and approaches to help corporate executives measure the impact of macro-economic volatilities on fi nancial results of their

DFA goes globalUltimate Risk Solutions chief executive Alex Bushel talks about the value of dynamic fi nancial analysis software in mapping future business strategies

Insurers and reinsurers worldwide are integrating dynamic fi nancial analysis (DFA) into the process of making strategic decisions. DFA models have long been accepted by the industry in the UK, Europe and the USA. Today, we’re seeing companies in Russia, the Middle East and Asia adopting fi nancial risk modelling. In the global economy, decision makers recognise the need to identify and quantify all the risks they face when making critical decisions.

Two major developments infl uenced the recent growth of DFA models. Over the last few years, rating agencies began to evaluate companies on the quality of their enterprise risk management (ERM)programmes and, for those doing business in the EU, preparing to comply with Solvency II became a high priority.

The value of DFA software is now recognised by regulators around the world. By the end of 2012, Solvency II will require insurers to maintain capital based on fi nancial risk models. In the USA, ERM programmes fueled by fi nancial risk software are being considered in fi nancial stability ratings. Standard & Poor’s and AM Best are expecting companies to show they have an ERM programme that includes a DFA model to quantify risk.

But the wide acceptance of modelling technology to identify and quantify risks is based not only on rating agency pressure and regulatory compliance. Since the framework for ERM was published by the Casualty Actuarial Society in 2003, insurance industry chief executives have learned to depend on fi nancial risk models to avoid the pit falls of making decisions without knowing all the risks.

Facilitating good decisionsThe word is spreading that DFA models facilitate good decisions and insurance companies in the fast-growing economies of Asia and the fi nancial centres of the Middle East are working with regulators and industry associations to take advantage of the sophisticated new technology. They are using DFA models to prepare for

The value of DFA software is recognised by regulators

around the world

companies in multiple economies where they do business.

These scenarios include the simulated values of GDP growth, infl ation, unemployment and wage growth rates, as well as investment rate and interest rate yield curves, corporate and municipal bond spreads, stock market indexes and exchange rates. Each scenario can include any number of future years.

We are celebrating the 10th anniversary of URS this month. When we opened, DFA was in its infancy. We were determined to create a model, Risk Explorer™, that would be fast, fl exible, and user-friendly. Today, our model is used by many of the world’s leading insurers, reinsurers, and brokers. We are the only independent fi nancial risk software provider. We’re an innovative company focused on only one thing: providing the best software solutions for our clients.

I believe our single-minded dedication to designing, implementing and maintaining the best models in the market is why companies are turning to URS. We have no other priorities. The URS R&D staff is composed of highly trained mathematicians, actuaries and software designers. They are determined to provide analytical products that are at the frontier of computer technology to serve the emerging needs of insurers and reinsurers in today’s interdependent, international economy. We stand ready to work with companies across the world that are looking to install state-of-the-art fi nancial risk software. GRGR

Alex Bushel is chief executive of Ultimate Risk Solutions (URS). URS is an actuarial software company providing software products in the areas of economic capital modelling, stochastic reserving and dynamic fi nancial analysis



Alex Bushel

GR_24 SpRep Sp word.indd 24GR_24 SpRep Sp word.indd 24 10/06/2011 17:1410/06/2011 17:14



The history of catastrophe models dates back to the 1980s when it fi rst became possible for computers to perform analytical calculations based on scientifi c information (such as meteorological and seismic data) and historical claims data to simulate the potential outcome of catastrophes such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Armed with this insight, reinsurance companies began to use the model outputs to better manage their books of business.

While most property catastrophe reinsurers adopted the use of cat models after Hurricane Andrew, their widespread usage throughout the industry is much newer. “Catastrophe modelling has very quickly grown in importance from being something that was perhaps slightly peripheral only a few years ago to being at the heart of everyone’s insurance thinking,” says Lockton Companies LLP partner Adam Sayers.

The infl uence of the models on a fi rm’s risk management will vary depending on how much catastrophe business it writes. “We have clients who purely write in catastrophe-prone areas like Florida. It’s their only sphere of operation; their catastrophe modelling is at the heart of

any dynamic fi nancial analysis (DFA) they’re doing,” explains Sayers. “For a more well-rounded insurance company it is only one component of the DFA, because there are all sorts of other things you need to throw into the pot.”

Setting the agendaWhile many (re)insurers and brokers have built their own in-house

Model management

The modelling of catastrophe risk lies at the heart of many (re)insurers’ approach to enterprise risk management. With major updates to the industry’s vendor catastrophe models, what does this mean as the Atlantic wind season begins?

The major catastrophe events so far in 2011 and now a signifi cant catastrophe model update – RMS version 11 – have introduced a great deal of controversy and uncertainty ahead of the mid-year ‘Florida Book’ renewals. The result is an expected rise in demand for reinsurance, which could cause prices to turn after several years of softening.

The fact that the latest version of RMS’s US Hurricane Model (released at the end of February) is making such an impact is testament to the three vendor models’ signifi cance in the industry.

“It’s based on a few more years of data and their methodology, which gives a lot more weight to the likelihood of there being much higher losses further inland than their prior model version did,” explains BMS Group executive vice-president and chief actuary David Spiegler. “It has a big impact everywhere but in certain areas it has a massive impact, like Texas and the mid-Atlantic states. So if your portfolio happens to be concentrated in those areas, you can see RMS’s measure of your exposure doubling or more.”

A brief historyCatastrophe models have evolved and developed because catastrophe risk is such a signifi cant exposure for many (re)insurance fi rms. In the past, a major hurricane loss – such as Andrew in 1992 – had the potential to cause widespread insolvencies. Today, a major shock-loss should not lead to failures, as companies should have a better grip on their exposures and be adequately capitalised in order to better absorb potential losses.

“The use of catastrophe models in the industry – even with all the issues with the models themselves – has made the risk management of the industry vastly superior to what it was prior to those models being developed,” says Spiegler. “Companies know where their exposures are, they know not to accumulate too much in any one area and certainly not in areas prone to catastrophes. Japan is one example and Florida is another where companies know a lot more about their risks now than they ever did before.”

‘The use of cat models has made risk management vastly superior to

what it was before’David Spiegler, BMS Group








catastrophe modelling teams, the benchmark continues to be set by three independent fi rms: RMS, AIR Worldwide and EQECAT. “Virtually everybody uses the model outputs from RMS and AIR and others as the baseline from which they’re going to take their own views, so that’s why the huge changes that RMS 11 have thrown out so severely affect what companies can look to do,” says Sayers.

The vendor models have become more sophisticated over time as improvements in computing are fed back into the models along with better data from catastrophes and the occasional leap forward in scientifi c understanding of major hazards. “In terms of the amount of data we are able to analyse, it’s grown by leaps and bounds even in the last several years,” says Lockton Re catastrophe analytics manager Jeff Tennis. “Models have become much more robust and much more refi ned at a much higher resolution than the models offered four, fi ve or six years ago – it’s captured at such a granular resolution now it’s a much more refi ned model than what was previously offered.”

Nevertheless, the models remain imperfect approximations of reality and are often unable to precisely predict the outcome of any given catastrophe. This is particularly the case when dealing with major events like the magnitude 9.0 Japanese earthquake and resulting tsunami, which hit the country’s north-east coast on 11 March.

The event was so powerful it shifted Earth on its axis. Coming after last year’s magnitude 8.8 Chile quake it might appear such massive earth temblors are fairly common, but the reality is they occur infrequently and as a result modellers are forced to rely on patchy historical data in order to build a complete picture.

“As events occur like the Japan earthquake we still see how much we really don’t know about catastrophe risk, in particular mega-catastrophes,” continues Tennis. “The classic example in the USA is do we really know what would happen if a moderate to severe earthquake occurred in the New Madrid seismic zone right in the central part of America? And the answer to that is no, we don’t, because the historic record is very short and very sparse.”

By contrast, there is a wealth of information on hurricanes given their frequency. Each time a major landfalling disaster occurs, modellers are able to accumulate further understanding by analysing the claims data. “Fortunately, as these events occur we do get a better understanding of what we don’t know and what we need to start thinking about,” says Tennis.

It is precisely this sort of analysis that has led RMS to update its US wind model – an update which has come at a critical time for the industry, according to Tennis. “A perfect storm has come up where we have signifi cant worldwide catastrophes occurring in Japan

and elsewhere, in the USA we have a weakening US dollar which could make the reinsurance spend for our clients more expensive, and we have a new updated version of the model which has dramatically increased loss estimates.”

Greater inland exposuresThe model used claims data from recent events, including Hurricane Ike in 2008 which penetrated much further inland than had been expected despite being a Category 2 storm. It was this and numerical weather prediction models that revealed an increased exposure for areas inland from the coast.

“We have also done a lot of additional research on hurricane loss outside Florida – we had a lot of claims data in Florida from 2004 and 2005 – in particular in Texas with Ike,” explains RMS chief research offi cer Robert Muir-Wood. “We did a lot of digging into claims data – to see if lessons from a storm like Ike could have implications for other regions in the Gulf of Mexico or even up the East Coast.”

The impact on insurers from this change could be profound depending on their portfolios. For those writing a lot of coastal business, their probable maximum loss (PML) under RMS 11.0 could actually come down. But most are expecting to see their PMLs rise.

Muir-Wood notes that many reinsurers had already been making their own adjustments to model results having witnessed the inland penetration of storms such as Ike and Hurricane Isabel in 2003.

“It may have come as a surprise to some people,” he says. “For others they have told us they had already made an adjustment to the model because they thought it was too low inland. The market is very diverse and a lot of the market doesn’t simply use the results that come out of models – especially

reinsurers. They tend to apply their own factors on top and sometimes those factors simply refl ect worst case.”

Sometimes model updates will show an enhanced view of hazard risk, other times the risk will come down as a result of new understanding. Each time it creates a buzz, as it has the potential to impact the level of capital or contingent capital companies are required to hold.

“In 2009 we released our updated model for California earthquakes in which the results went down,” says Muir-Wood. “So we were quizzed quite strongly by reinsurers to test us about the evidence that the losses were going to go down and that was something quite hard for them to swallow. This time round insurers are rightly quizzing us to show all the evidence for why they’ve gone up. At the same time we have discussions with reinsurers asking whether they can now take all these extra factors off.”

Mid-year uncertaintyWith the impact of the updated RMS model still sinking in, clients are in the midst of trying to establish what it means for them and whether they will need to purchase more reinsurance or retrocession, or write less business. At the time of writing in late May there was still not much Florida business in the market as both clients and reinsurers were continuing to come to terms with the impact of recent catastrophes and RMS 11.

“Just from standing still we’ve got clients in Florida who are looking at a 100% increase in their model outcome,” says Lockton’s Sayers. “So they have to take notice of it because their reinsurers will, and the reinsurers have to take notice of it because the rating agencies will. It’s something which hasn’t fed through the whole system yet but it will do.”

“It puts them under tremendous pressure to buy a lot more reinsurance because if you’re buying to your 1-in-100 year loss then in most cases that will have signifi cantly increased according to RMS 11,” he continues.

“If you’re a privately held company, you’re not under any obligation to buy to those levels and you should look at the RMS model as one of the factors when you buy your programme, but nevertheless that’s the one that has got all the alarm bells ringing for a lot of companies.” GRGR

‘Models have become more robust and more

refi ned than the models previously offered’

Jeff Tennis, Lockton Re




Patrick Grealy

able to simulate the expected reserve in one year’s time and, therefore, what may have further eroded your capital.

Underwriting profi tabilityAnd if you have future business that you are about to write, then you are very keen to ensure that this business is profi table, particularly when you take account of the extensive and complex reinsurance you might be considering purchasing to limit your exposure. Many people seem to have tools to model this latter aspect more so than the fi rst two.

However, all three ingredients are combined and woven together, since changes to economic scenario generators and deterioration in prior year’s business can have a signifi cant, simultaneous effect on your new business too. Combine the effects of taxation, expenses, bad debt and multiple balance sheets, and the economic capital model task now appears to be more complicated and involved than it might fi rst appear.

So the next time that those three buses appear at the same time, remember that it doesn’t happen without a good reason.

Patrick Grealy is a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries in the UK and is managing director of Ultimate Risk Solutions (URS) in Europe

The magic numberURS managing director Patrick Grealy sets out the ingredients of an economic capital model that will see your business through the uncertain years to come

Why is it that when you are waiting for a bus, three come along at once? And that people say after two unfortunate events you should be careful because bad luck always happens in blocks of three? It seems that three is a number that has certain powers. As it happens, three is also the number of factors that property casualty modellers need to consider when seeking to develop a comprehensive economic capital model (ECM). This is especially true in the era of Solvency II.

Economic scenario generatorsSo what are these three key ingredients? First, you need to have access to some way to generate the economic scenarios (ESG) that govern the movements of many of the fi nancial items that affect an insurance undertaking. When performing an ECM analysis (this is particularly the case in Solvency II) you need to model your opening balance sheet and also the balance sheet one year from now.

For starters, the assets you hold now will certainly have different valuations in 12 months, and this will directly affect the free capital you have at that time. Interest rates, foreign exchange rates and equity and property values are likely to change during this period. Depending on your asset profi les (type, term, nature, currency and security) you need to be able to revalue these assets on the future scenarios that are created by a comprehensive ESG.

Adequate reservingUnless you are a brand new company with no prior liabilities, you will have during the past earned exposures that cause you to hold a reserve for unpaid claims relating to these exposures. In the history of insurance and reinsurance, the run-off of these liabilities – substantially larger than you reserved for in your opening balance sheet – has been the single largest cause of company failures.

Therefore, you will need to be able to simulate how these liabilities will perform in future and see if your existing capital will be suffi cient (at least with a very high probability) to keep you solvent until these liabilities are fully paid off. You will need to be

Combine the effects of taxation, expenses,

bad debt and multiple balance sheets and the economic capital model

seems more complicated

FINANCIAL MODELLING SPECIAL REPORT PRESENTED




GR_27 SpRep Sp word.indd 27GR_27 SpRep Sp word.indd 27 10/06/2011 17:1710/06/2011 17:17

The Right Technology. The Right Answers.

BREAKTHROUGHDYNAMIC FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (DFA) SOFTWARETHAT OUTPERFORMS ANY OTHER ON THEMARKET TODAY

Ultimate Risk Solutions, LLC

www.ultirisk.com • [email protected]

U R S

THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE RIGHT JOB.

Over the past ten years, Ultimate Risk Solutions has beenhelping risk professionals stay ahead of the technology curvewhen it comes to making better business decisions. As anindependent company with no ties to big brokerage or consultingfirms, we’re focused on only one thing and that is providingthe absolute best software solutions for our clients.

Risk Explorer™ and Risk Explorer Express Edition™

provide companies of any size the analytical power of themost sophisticated DFA models.

URS RealWorld™ is a global economic model that simulatesmacroeconomic variables that impact market value of companyassets and, for multinationals, contribute to currency exchange risk.

Visit our website or contact us at [email protected] for detailedproduct information or to schedule a no-obligation demonstration.

RISK EXPLORER™

• Solvency II compliant• Low startup and licensing fees• Point & click operation• Scaleable• Instant customer support• Easy to integrate with internal systems• Excellent references

URS REAL WORLD™

• Global economic model essential formulti-national company decisions

• Consistent economic scenarios for anyfuture time horizon

• Simulates economic scenarios inmultiple world regions

• Simulates effects of supply/demandshocks in economic zones

• Simulates economic variables includingGDP growth rate/inflation/wage growth/unemployment

• Simulates investment as % of GDP/interest rate yield curve /stock marketindexes.

YOUR KEYS TOGOOD DECISION

MAKING

ULTIMATE RISK SOLUTIONS

GR_Ad_Page.indd 1GR_Ad_Page.indd 1 24/06/2011 10:1524/06/2011 10:15

global reinsurance special report: financial modelling

Documents

european insurance industry

standard formula

pan european insurance

european commissioner

european reinsurers

internal models

big pushdo internal

bn of capital