Saturday, September 26, 2009

Reinsurance sidecar

Reinsurance sidecars, conventionally referred to as Sidecars, are financial structures which are created to allow investors to take on the risk and return of a group of insurance policies (a "book of business") written by an insurer or reinsurer (henceforth re/insurer) and earn the risk and return that arises from that business. A re/insurer will only pay ("cede") the premiums associated with a book of business to such an entity if the investors place sufficient funds in the vehicle to ensure that it can meet claims if they arise. Typically the liability of investors is limited to these funds. These structures have become quite prominent in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as a vehicle for re/insurers to add risk-bearing capacity, and for investors to participate in the potential profits resulting from sharp price increases in re/insurance over the four quarters following Katrina. An earlier and smaller generation of sidecars were created after 9-11 for the same purpose.

Precedents

Sidecars have precedents in the reinsurance market under the name "quota-share reinsurance." In such an agreement, a re/insurer agrees to cede to the quota-share reinsurer a percentage of all premiums arising from a book of business in exchange for the reinsurer bearing the same percentage liability for losses. The quota-share reinsurer pays an amount called the ceding commission to compensate the ceding company for its expenses. The ceding commission typically also includes a profit allowance which increases in proportion to the expected profitability of the business. These reinsurance treaties currently and traditionally provide ceding companies with the ability to write more business than they could bear based on their own capital and to earn a certain amount of fee-based income (through the ceding commission). Quota-share reinsurers act as insurance wholesalers, allowing them to earn a return on capital without creating primary insurance distribution. Lloyd's of London "names" act as such reinsurers, placing the resources of individual and firms at risk to books of business written by professional underwriters and agents.

Early sidecars: reinsurance joint ventures

Re/insurers have occasionally created joint ventures through which multiple parties place capital at the disposal of one or more expert underwriters for the same reasons. The earliest sidecars were created in Bermuda in the 1990s in such a fashion, and included Top Layer Re and OpCat, both of which placed capacity under the control of Renaissance Re on the part of other re/insurers (Overseas Partners, State Farm).

Market growth following 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina

In the years following 9-11, the idea of raising funds from capital markets investors in addition to re/insurers to support quota-shares arose, and a handful of such ventures were consummated (Olympus, DaVinci, Rockridge). These were the first true sidecars, and were a natural outgrowth of the development of re/insurance as an asset class in the form of catastrophe bonds.
Following Hurricane Katrina the sidecar idea became very prominent among investors because it was seen as a way to participate in the risk/return of the higher-priced ("hard") reinsurance market without investing in either existing reinsurers (who might have liabilities from the past that would undermine returns) or new reinsurers ("newcos" that would have a lengthy and expensive "ramp up" period). Three such entities were up and running by year end 2005 (sidecar, capital raised, ceding re/insurer).
Flatiron, $840mm, Arch Capital
Blue Ocean, $355mm, Montpelier Re
Cyrus, $550mm, XL Capital
These entities have been created since 2006 (sidecar, capital raised, ceding re/insurer, book of business).:
Petrel, $200mm, Validus, marine and energy reinsurance
Kaith/K5, $370mm, Hannover Re, several lines of insurance and reinsurance
Helicon, $330mm, White Mountains Re, property catastrophe reinsurance
BayPoint, $150mm, Harbor Point, selected short-tailed lines of business
Timicuan/RPP, $70mm, Renaissance Re, reinstatement premium protection
Starbound, $315mm, Renaissance Re, Florida treaty business
Sector Re, $220mm, Swiss Re, property catastrophe and aviation reinsurance
Castlepoint Re, $265mm, Tower Group, program and specialty insurance
Monte Fort Re, $60mm, Flagstone Re, peak zone and ILW (industry loss warranty) coverage
Sirocco, $95mm, Lancashire Re, Gulf of Mexico offshore energy
Concord, $730mm, AIG, US commercial property business
MaRI, $400mm, Marsh / ACE, US commercial property
Together with supplementary capital raises at Olympus, DaVinci, Blue Ocean and Kaith, this brought the total capital raised to over $4bn by September 2006 and established sidecars as a major capital raising vehicle for catastrophe risk.
By year end 2006 it began to appear as though supply and demand in the reinsurance and catastrophe bond markets had achieved balance at the prevailing price level, and the market began to "soften" (fall in price), particularly following the decision by the State of Florida to expand the size of the reinsurance protection offered by the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund by at least $12 billion in January 2007. Creation of new sidecars slowed markedly in the first half of 2007 in consequence, with only one transaction being closed that included an equity offering (Starbound II, itself in some respects as much a rollover of Starbound I as a new transaction). The sidecar market continued to be active however with three different issuers accessing the bank loan market for debt to leverage their own equity: Hannover Re (Kepler), the Citadel reinsurance companies (Emerson) and State Farm (Merna, primarily a 4(2) bond issuance but in part a bank loan offering).

Sidecar investments

Investors are typically offered debt (generally in the form of bank loans), preferred stock and equity investments in the sidecar. Debt may be rated by the rating agencies which include Standard & Poors, Moody's, and A. M. Best. Most sidecar debt has been rated in the "BB" category (below investment grade) but some investment grade debt has been issued. In 2007 the rating agencies offered detailed criteria discussions for this type of issuance.

Market participants

Investment banks including Aon Capital Markets, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Swiss Re Capital Markets and Deutsche Bank have advised on the creation of sidecars, typically alongside specialist consultancies such as Risk Management Solutions.

Lead equity investors that have been publicly disclosed include J.C. Flowers, First Reserves, Goldentree, Highfields, Goldman Sachs, Farallon.

Numerous law firms have been active in this space, notably Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Conyers Dill & Pearman in Bermuda and Fried Frank, Wilkie Farr, Dewey & LeBoeuf, Debevoise & Plimpton, and others in the US and UK.

Read more...

Reinsurance

Reinsurance is a means by which an insurance company can protect itself with other insurance companies against the risk of losses. Individuals and corporations obtain insurance policies to provide protection for various risks (hurricanes, earthquakes, lawsuits, collisions, sickness and death, etc.). Reinsurers, in turn, provide insurance to insurance companies. The company requesting the cover is called the cedant and the reinsurer can be called the ceded, although the latter term is not in
common use.

Functions

There are many reasons why an insurance company would choose to reinsure as part of its responsibility to manage a portfolio of risks for the benefit of its policyholders and investors.

Risk transfer

The main use of any insurer that might practice reinsurance is to allow the company to assume greater individual risks than its size would otherwise allow, and to protect a company against losses. Reinsurance allows an insurance company to offer higher limits of protection to a policyholder than its own assets would allow. For example, if the principal insurance company can write only $10 million in limits on any given policy, it can reinsure (or cede) the amount of the limits in excess of $10 million.
Reinsurance’s highly refined uses in recent years include applications where reinsurance was used as part of a carefully planned hedge strategy.

Income smoothing

Reinsurance can help to make an insurance company’s results more predictable by absorbing larger losses and reducing the amount of capital needed to provide coverage.

Surplus relief

An insurance company's writings are limited by its balance sheet (this test is known as the solvency margin). When that limit is reached, an insurer can do one of the following: stop writing new business, increase its capital, or buy "surplus relief" reinsurance. Buying reinsurance is usually done on a quota share basis and is an efficient way of not having to turn clients away or raise additional capital.

Arbitrage

The insurance company may be motivated by arbitrage in purchasing reinsurance coverage at a lower rate than what they charge the insured for the underlying risk, which can be in the area of risk associated with any form of the asset that is being issued or loaned against. It can be a car, a mortgage, an insurance (personal, fire, business, etc.) and alike.
In general, the reinsurer may be able to cover the risk at a lower premium than the insurer because:

The reinsurer may have some intrinsic cost advantage due to economies of scale or some other efficiency

Reinsurers may operate under weaker regulation than their clients. This enables them to use less capital to cover any risk, and to make less prudent assumptions when valuing the risk.

Even if the regulatory standards are the same, the reinsurer may be able to hold smaller Actuarial reserves than the cedant if it thinks the premiums charged by the cedant are excessively prudent.

The reinsurer may have a more diverse portfolio of assets and especially liabilities than the cedant. This may create opportunities for hedging that the cedant could not exploit alone. Depending on the regulations imposed on the reinsurer, this may mean they can hold fewer assets to cover the risk.
The reinsurer may have a greater risk appetite than the insurer.

Reinsurer's expertise

The insurance company may want to avail of the expertise of a reinsurer in regard to a specific (specialised) risk or want to avail of their rating ability in odd risks.

Creating a manageable and profitable portfolio of insured risks

By choosing a particular type of reinsurance method, the insurance company may be able to create a more balanced and homogenous portfolio of insured risks. This would lend greater predictability to the portfolio results on net basis (after reinsurance) and would be reflected in income smoothing. While income smoothing is one of the objectives of reinsurance arrangements, the mechanism is by way of balancing the portfolio.

Managing cost of capital for an insurance company

By getting a suitable reinsurance, the insurance company may be able to substitute "capital needed" as per the requirements of the regulator for premium written. It could happen that the writing of insurance business requires x amount of capital with y% of cost of capital and reinsurance cost is less than x*y%. Thus more unpredictable or less frequent the likelihood of an insured loss, more profitable it can be for an insurance company to seek reinsurance.

Types

Proportional

Proportional reinsurance (the types of which are quota share and surplus reinsurance) involves one or more reinsurers taking a stated percent share of each policy that an insurer produces ("writes"). This means that the reinsurer will receive that stated percentage of each dollar of premiums and will pay that percentage of each dollar of losses. In addition, the reinsurer will allow a "ceding commission" to the insurer to compensate the insurer for the costs of writing and administering the business (agents' commissions, modeling, paperwork, etc.).

The insurer may seek such coverage for several reasons. First, the insurer may not have sufficient capital to prudently retain all of the exposure that it is capable of producing. For example, it may only be able to offer $1 million in coverage, but by purchasing proportional reinsurance it might double or triple that limit. Premiums and losses are then shared on a pro rata basis. For example, an insurance company might purchase a 50% quota share treaty; in this case they would share half of all premium and losses with the reinsurer. In a 75% quota share, they would share (cede) 3/4 of all premiums and losses.

The other form of proportional reinsurance is surplus share or surplus of line treaty. In this case, a retained “line” is defined as the ceding company's retention - say $100,000. In a 9 line surplus treaty the reinsurer would then accept up to $900,000 (9 lines). So if the insurance company issues a policy for $100,000, they would keep all of the premiums and losses from that policy. If they issue a $200,000 policy, they would give (cede) half of the premiums and losses to the reinsurer (1 line each). The maximum underwriting capacity of the cedant would be $ 1,000,000 in this example. Surplus treaties are also known as variable quota shares.

Non-proportional

Non-proportional reinsurance only responds if the loss suffered by the insurer exceeds a certain amount, which is called the "retention" or "priority." An example of this form of reinsurance is where the insurer is prepared to accept a loss of $1 million for any loss which may occur and they purchase a layer of reinsurance of $4 million in excess of $1 million. If a loss of $3 million occurs,then insurer will retain 1 Million and will recover $2 million from its reinsurer(s). In this example, the reinsured will retain any loss exceeding $5 million unless they have purchased a further excess layer (second layer) of say $10 million excess of $5 million.

The main forms of non-proportional reinsurance are excess of loss and stop loss.

Excess of loss reinsurance can have three forms - "Per Risk XL" (Working XL), "Per Occurrence or Per Event XL" (Catastrophe or Cat XL), and "Aggregate XL". In per risk, the cedant’s insurance policy limits are greater than the reinsurance retention. For example, an insurance company might insure commercial property risks with policy limits up to $10 million, and then buy per risk reinsurance of $5 million in excess of $5 million. In this case a loss of $6 million on that policy will result in the recovery of $1 million from the reinsurer.

In catastrophe excess of loss, the cedant’s per risk retention is usually less than the cat reinsurance retention (this is not important as these contracts usually contain a 2 risk warranty i.e. they are designed to protect the reinsured against catastrophic events that involve more than 1 policy). For example, an insurance company issues homeowner's policies with limits of up to $500,000 and then buys catastrophe reinsurance of $22,000,000 in excess of $3,000,000. In that case, the insurance company would only recover from reinsurers in the event of multiple policy losses in one event (i.e., hurricane, earthquake, flood, etc.).

Aggregate XL affords a frequency protection to the reinsured. For instance if the company retains $1 million net any one vessel, the cover $10 million in the aggregate excess $5 million in the aggregate would equate to 10 total losses in excess of 5 total losses (or more partial losses). Aggregate covers can also be linked to the cedant's gross premium income during a 12 month period, with limit and deductible expressed as percentages and amounts. Such covers are then known as "Stop Loss" or annual aggregate XL.

Risk-attaching Basis

A basis under which reinsurance is provided for claims arising from policies commencing during the period to which the reinsurance relates. The insurer knows there is coverage for the whole policy period when written.
All claims from cedant underlying policies incepting during the period of the reinsurance contract are covered even if they occur after the expiration date of the reinsurance contract. Any claims from cedant underlying policies incepting outside the period of the reinsurance contract are not covered even if they occur during the period of the reinsurance contract.

Loss-occurring Basis

A Reinsurance treaty from under which all claims occurring during the period of the contract, irrespective of when the underlying policies incepted, are covered. Any claims occurring after the contract expiration date are not covered.
As opposed to claims-made policy. Insurance coverage is provided for losses occurring in the defined period. This is the usual basis of cover for most policies.

Claims-made Basis

A policy which covers all claims reported to an insurer within the policy period irrespective of when they occurred.

Contracts

Most of the above examples concern reinsurance contracts that cover more than one policy (treaty). Reinsurance can also be purchased on a per policy basis, in which case it is known as facultative reinsurance. Facultative reinsurance can be written on either a quota share or excess of loss basis. Facultative reinsurance is commonly used for large or unusual risks that do not fit within standard reinsurance treaties due to their exclusions. The term of a facultative agreement coincides with the term of the policy. Facultative reinsurance is usually purchased by the insurance underwriter who underwrote the original insurance policy, whereas treaty reinsurance is typically purchased by a senior executive at the insurance company.

Reinsurance treaties can either be written on a “continuous” or “term” basis. A continuous contract continues indefinitely, but generally has a “notice” period whereby either party can give its intent to cancel or amend the treaty within 90 days. A term agreement has a built-in expiration date. It is common for insurers and reinsurers to have long term relationships that span many years.

Markets

Most reinsurance placements are not placed with a single reinsurer but are shared between a number of reinsurers. For example a $30,000,000 excess of $20,000,000 layer may be shared by 30 or more reinsurers. The reinsurer who sets the terms (premium and contract conditions) for the reinsurance contract is called the lead reinsurer; the other companies subscribing to the contract are called following reinsurers.

About half of all reinsurance is handled by reinsurance brokers who then place business with reinsurance companies. The other half is with “direct writing” reinsurers who have their own production staff and thus reinsure insurance companies directly. In Europe reinsurers write both direct and brokered accounts.

Using game-theoretic modeling, Professors Michael R. Powers (Temple University) and Martin Shubik (Yale University) have argued that the number of active reinsurers in a given national market should be approximately equal to the square-root of the number of primary insurers active in the same market. Econometric analysis has provided empirical support for the Powers-Shubik rule.

Insurers (that is to say, reinsureds) tend to choose their reinsurers with great care as they are exchanging insurance risk for credit risk. Risk managers monitor reinsurers' financial ratings (S&P, A.M. Best, etc.) and aggregated exposures regularly.

Top Reinsurers

1. Münchener Rück – Germany (US$31.4 billion Gross Written Premiums)
2. Swiss Re – Switzerland (US$30.3 billion)
3. Berkshire Hathaway / General Re – USA (n.a.)
4. Hannover Rück – Germany (US$12 billion)
5. SCOR – France (US$6.9 billion)
6. Reinsurance Group of America – USA (US$5.7 billion)
7. Transatlantic Re – USA (US$4.2 billion)
8. Everest Re – Bermuda (US$4.0 billion)
9. Partner Re – Bermuda (US$3.8 billion)
10. XL Re – Bermuda (US$3.4 billion)
(Based on the last company figures)
Retrocession
Reinsurance companies themselves also purchase reinsurance, a practise known as a retrocession. They purchase this reinsurance from other reinsurance companies. A reinsurance company that sells reinsurance is a "retrocessionaire". A reinsurance company that buys reinsurance is a "retrocedent".
It is not unusual for a reinsurer to buy reinsurance protection from other reinsurers. For example, a reinsurer that provides proportional, or pro rata, reinsurance capacity to insurance companies may wish to protect its own exposure to catastrophes by buying excess of loss protection. Another situation would be that a reinsurer which provides excess of loss reinsurance protection may wish to protect itself against an accumulation of losses in different branches of business which may all become affected by the same catastrophe. This may happen when a windstorm causes damage to property, automobiles, boats, aircraft and loss of life, for example.
This process can sometimes continue until the original reinsurance company unknowingly gets some of its own business (and therefore its own liabilities) back. This is known as a "spiral" and was common in some specialty lines of business such as marine and aviation. Sophisticated reinsurance companies are aware of this danger and through careful underwriting attempt to avoid it.
In the 1980s, the London market was badly affected by the creation of reinsurance spirals. This resulted in the same loss going around the market thereby artificially inflating market loss figures of big claims (such as the Piper Alpha oil rig). The LMX spiral (as it was called) has been stopped by excluding retrocessional business from reinsurance covers protecting direct insurance accounts.
It is important to note that the insurance company is obliged to indemnify its policyholder for the loss under the insurance policy whether or not the reinsurer reimburses the insurer. Many insurance companies have experienced difficulties by purchasing reinsurance from companies that did not or could not pay their share of the loss (these unpaid claims are known as uncollectibles). This is particularly important on long-tail lines of business where the claims may arise many years after the premium is paid.

Read more...

Financial reinsurance

Financial Reinsurance (or fin re), is a form of reinsurance which is focused more on capital management than on risk transfer. In the non-life segment of the insurance industry this class of transactions is often referred to as finite reinsurance.

One of the particular difficulties of running an insurance company is that its financial results - and hence its profitability - tend to be uneven from one year to the next. Since insurance companies generally want to produce consistent results, they may be attracted to ways of hoarding this year's profit to pay for next year's possible losses (within the constraints of the applicable standards for financial reporting). Financial reinsurance is one means by which insurance companies can "smooth" their results.

A pure 'fin re' contract for a non-life insurer tends to cover a multi-year period, during which the premium is held and invested by the reinsurer. It is returned to the ceding company - minus a pre-determined profit-margin for the reinsurer - either when the period has elapsed, or when the ceding company suffers a loss. 'Fin re' therefore differs from conventional reinsurance because most of the premium is returned whether there is a loss or not: little or no risk-transfer has taken place.

In the life insurance segment, fin re is more usually used as a way for the reinsurer to provide financing to a life insurance company, much like a loan except that the reinsurer accepts some risk on the portfolio of business reinsured under the fin re contract. Repayment of the fin re is usually linked to the profit profile of the business reinsured and therefore typically takes a number of years. Fin re is used in preference to a plain loan because repayment is conditional on the future profitable performance of the business reinsured such that, in some regimes, it does not need to be recognised as a liability for published solvency reporting.

History

'Fin re' has been around since at least the 1960s, when Lloyd's syndicates started sending money overseas as reinsurance premium for what were then called 'roll-overs' - multi-year contracts with specially-established vehicles in tax-light jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands. These deals were legal and approved by the UK tax-authorities. However they fell into disrepute after some years, partly because their tax-avoiding motivation became obvious, and partly because of a few cases where the overseas funds were siphoned-off or simply stolen.

More recently, the high-profile bankruptcy of the HIH group of insurance companies in Australia revealed that highly questionable transactions had been propping-up the balance-sheet for some years prior to failure. To be clear, although fin re contracts were involved, it was the fraudulent accounting for those contracts - and not the actual use of fin re - which was the problem. As of June 2006, General Re and others are being sued by the HIH liquidator in connection with the fraudulent practices.

In the life segment, fin re has been widely used in Europe.

Fin Re for Life Insurers

The regulator's perspective

When looking at the financial position of a Life insurer, the company's assets and liabilities are measured. The difference is called the 'free assets' of the company. The greater the free assets relative to the liabilities, the more 'solvent' the company is deemed to be.

There are different ways of measuring assets and liabilities - it depends on who is looking. The regulator, who is interested in ensuring that insurance companies remain solvent so that they can meet their liabilities to policyholders, tends to under-estimate assets and over-estimate liabilities.

In taking this conservative perspective, one of the steps taken is to effectively ignore future profits. On the one hand this makes sense - it's not prudent to anticipate future profits. On the other hand, for an entire portfolio of policies, although some may lapse - statistically we can rely on a number to still be around to contribute to the company's future profits.

Future profits can thus be seen to be an inadmissible asset - an asset which may not (from the regulator's point of view, anyway) be taken into account. (Current developments, particularly Solvency 2 in Europe, will likely base solvency tests on market to market assets and liabilities, thereby including some value for future profits. Solvency 2 looks more like banks' Value at risk.)

A banker's perspective

If a bank were to give the insurer a loan, the insurer's assets would increase by the amount of the loan, but their liabilities would increase by the same amount too - because they owe that money back to the bank.

With both assets and liabilities increasing by the same amount, the free assets remain unchanged. This is generally a sensible thing, but it's not what financial reinsurance is aiming for.

The reinsurer's perspective

In setting up a financial reinsurance treaty, the reinsurer will provide capital (there are a number of ways of doing this, discussed below). In return, the insurer will pay the capital back over time. The key here is to ensure that repayments only come out of surplus emerging from the reinsured block of business. The benefit of this surplus-limitation comes from the fact that in the regulatory accounts there is no value ascribed to future profits - which means the liability to repay the reinsurer is made from a series of payments which are deemed to be zero.
The impact is that there is an increase in assets (from the financing), but no increase in liabilities. In other words, financial reinsurance increases the company's free assets.

Different accounting regimes

Financial reinsurance is generally intended to impact the regulatory balance sheet on the premise that that balance sheet provides a distorted view of a company's solvency otherwise. Many financial reinsurance transactions, particularly for life insurers, have little impact on GAAP accounts and shareholder-reported profits.
Over the 2004-2006 period a number of financial or finite reinsurance transactions attracted regulatory scrutiny, notably from New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, due to the concern that their primary result was to distort and manage accounting presentation rather than to transfer risk. In particular, a transaction between AIG and General Re through which the former buttressed its reserves was identified as transferring insufficient risk, and this review led to management changes at both companies. Accountants, regulators and other constituencies proposed a variety of tests for such transactions.

Read more...

Captive insurance

Captive insurance companies are insurance companies established with the specific objective of financing risks emanating from their parent group or groups but they sometimes also insure risks of the group's customers as well. Using a captive insurer is a risk management technique where a business forms its own insurance company subsidiary to finance its retained losses in a formal structure. The term "captive" comes from the "father of captive insurance", Frederic M Reiss, who coined the term while he was bringing his concept into practice for an industrial client in Ohio in the 1950s. The term "captive" came to Reiss when working with his first client, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company. The company had a series of mining operations and its management referred to the mines whose output was put solely to the corporation's use as captive mines. When Reiss helped them incorporate their own insurance subsidiaries, they were referred to as captive insurance companies because they wrote insurance exclusively for the captive mines. Reiss continued to use the term for his concept, and both the captive and the term have adopted a far wider context. The term also made sense as the policyholder owns the insurance company i.e. the insurer is captive to the policyholder. If the captive only insures its parent and affiliates it is called a pure captive.

Domicile

Captives are licensed by many jurisdictions with the primary jurisdiction known as the captive's domicile. Many captive insurers make their home "offshore". Belize, Bermuda, The Cayman Islands, Vermont, Guernsey, Luxembourg, Barbados, Malta, Singapore and the British Virgin Islands are a few examples.

Several offshore jurisdictions have lower capitalization requirements, which may allow captives to be set up for less. Offshore captive insurers also sometimes have lower tax rates on investment and underwriting income which reduces expected tax payments relative to domestic captives. However, many such advantages have been eliminated in recent years for U.S. entities that own offshore captives.

Bermuda is the leading captive domicile, although its market dominance has decreased as many jurisdictions enacted captive-friendly legislation in order to attract or preserve this business. The onshore regulatory burden and cost of operating either a US-based or Lloyd's-based captive in the early 1960s drove Reiss to seek out a jurisdiction that would allow his captive concept to flourish. After significant travel and investigation, Bermuda was Reiss' first choice for its geographic location, clean reputation and its position as a British Dependent Territory which removed the risks and uncertainties often experienced by international businesses operating in politically unstable and unaccountable jurisdictions. Bermuda's captives are predominantly owned by large U.S. corporations. Thus, for instance, American International Group (AIG) operated a captive insurance scam that involved fraudulent use of Bermuda as an offshore tax haven, see Lucy Komisar: "AIG’s Past Could Return to Haunt". International Press Service. http://thekomisarscoop.com/2008/12/19/aigs-past-could-return-to-haunt/. Retrieved on 2008-12-20. The Cayman Islands is the second largest licensing jurisdiction in terms of the number of captives licensed. Vermont is second in terms of insurance company assets but third in terms of captives licensed.

In the United States, Vermont is home to more captive insurers than any other U.S. state, with over 800 licensed captive companies as of December 2007. Other U.S. states with significant numbers of captive insurers calling the state home include: Hawaii, South Carolina, Arizona, Montana, Nevada and New York. In many U.S. licensing jurisdictions, a captive insurer is subject to an annual audit and annual loss certification by a consulting actuary.

Policies

Reiss conceptualized the captive to provide his clients with coverages they needed but could not obtain through the traditional insurance market, thereby reducing the high cost of insurance to large corporations. Almost simultaneously he recognized the tax advantages under the concept under the US Tax Reform Act 1962. The tax advantages often attracted corporations to form captives solely for tax-reduction, but, over the years the business purposes for establishing a captive remained long after the tax loopholes were gone. Companies have turned to captives to reduce costs, enhance risk management, gain greater control over their insurance and directly access the reinsurance market. Today, captives are established to insure a wide variety of risks. Virtually every risk underwritten by a commercial insurer is provided for in a subset of captive insurers. Examples include: property, workers' compensation, casualty (general and auto liability, product liability), and employee benefits such as long-term care and supplemental life insurance plans.

The most common use of captive insurance is to provide liability coverages for those lines of business, such as workers compensation, that have regular and predictable loss payments and for working layer professional liability coverage in order to access the reinsurance market, including Lloyd's syndicates, for excess protection that may be unavailable or cost-prohibitive at the primary level such as products liability, general and professional liability and directors & officers liability. Vehicle insurance, both property damage and third party liability of corporate fleets and vehicles is also quite common.

Regulation

For some lines of business a captive can operate without restriction. In other cases, such as workers' compensation in the U.S., for example, a captive often must go through a fronting process. They pay a fee, usually somewhere between 5 and 15 percent, to participate in the risk. The fronting insurer issues the required policy using its insurance licenses and then the company "cedes" (sends some or all the risk and some of the premium) to the captive. If there is a loss, the captive provides the funding to pay the loss even though the contractually responsible party from the injured party’s perspective is the commercial "front". Because premiums paid to captives are deductible, the terms of the policy (including the premium amount) must be reasonable. A captive cannot arbitrarily set the premium amount simply to generate a deduction for the parent. For example: Smith Dentists Inc. is insured by the company's captive, Acme Insurance for loss of employee wages, fire, loss of computer equipment, etc. Acme Insurance cannot arbitrarily set the policy premium at $50,000, but rather, should base the premium amount on actuarial projections.

In the European union a new set of regulatory requirements (Solvency II) is planned with additional tasks and responsibilities for captives and reinsurance companies. Some European captives ask for simplified regulation.

Captive Manager

Reiss created the first captive management company, International Risk Management Limited (IRML), in Bermuda in 1962 to provide the administration of his client's captives. Most captive management is usually outsourced to a captive manager located in the jurisdiction that holds the primary license for the captive. The two largest captive insurance company managers in the world are units of Marsh & McLennan Companies and Aon Corporation -- the two largest commercial insurance company brokerages in the world. Each manages more than 1,000 captive insurers.
In 2007, Frederic Reiss was posthumously inducted into the Insurance Hall of Fame for his significant achievements in the insurance industry.

Types of captive

There are several types of insurance captives, the most common are defined below:

Single Parent Captive - is an insurance or reinsurance company formed primarily to insure the risks of its non-insurance parent or affiliates.
Association Captive - is a company owned by a trade, industry or service group for the benefit of its members.

Group Captive - is a company, jointly owned by a number of companies, created to provide a vehicle to meet a common insurance need.

Agency Captive - is a company owned by an insurance agency or brokerage firm so they may reinsure a portion of their clients risks through that company.

Rent-a-Captive - is a company that provides 'captive' facilities to others for a fee, while protecting itself from losses under individual programs, which are also isolated from losses under other programs within the same company. This facility is often used for programs that are too small to justify establishing their own captive.

Two other types of insurance companies which have developed recently are special purpose vehicles (SPV) and segregated portfolio companies (SPC):

SPV - Although used extensively in the past for various financing arrangements, recently they have been used for catastrophe bonds and reinsurance sidecars.

SPC - SPCs can be formed as a rent-a-captive facility to enable those companies who lack sufficient insurance premium volume, or who are averse to establishing their own insurance subsidiary, access to many of the benefits associated with an offshore captive.

Commercial advantages and issues

The key issues with captive insurers is that they are conduits for risk -- unless risk is placed with the captive it remains with the owner. There are a number of commercial advantages to using captives to provide a better risk management than the conventional insurance market.

Cost. Premiums charged by commercial insurers include amounts to cover the insurer's profit margin and overheads. Such overheads can be significant when considering insurers with large corporate structures to maintain.

Flexibility. When the market is soft, the captive can take advantage of the low rates by reinsuring a relatively large proportion of its risks. The low cost of reinsurance allows the captive to build its reserve base. When the market hardens, the captive is able to retain a larger proportion of its risks, and can maintain cover for its parent even when commercial insurance is unavailable or prohibitively expensive.

Claims management. The process of making a claim from a third party insurer can be long and involve a good deal of cost for the claimant. Where the insurer is a captive, the claims handling procedures can be dictated by management, cutting down on the delays and bureaucracy that are often a necessary part of the claims handling procedures of commercial insurers.

Claims experience benefits. Captives generally retain a portion of the overall risk and reinsure the remainder. For this reason, when claims experience is better than anticipated, the excess of net premiums over claims is retained by the group. The reinsurance taken out by the captive is tailored to minimize the group's exposure where claims experience is worse than projected.

The types of risk that a captive can underwrite for the parent include property damage, public and products liability, professional indemnity, employee benefits, employers liability, motor and medical aid expenses.

Captives are becoming an increasingly important component of the risk management and risk financing strategy of their parent. A number of reasons have been put forward as the basis for the growth in the use of captives:
heavy and increasing premium costs in almost every line of insurance coverage.
difficulties in obtaining coverage for certain types of risk.
differences in coverage in various parts of the world.
inflexible credit rating structures which reflect market trends rather than individual loss experience.
insufficient credit for deductibles and/or loss control efforts.

Setting Premiums

Because premiums paid to captives generate valid business deductions, the terms of the policy (including the premium amount) must be reasonable. A captive cannot arbitrarily set the premium amount simply to generate a deduction for the parent and, on a consolidated basis, a US taxpayer gets no deduction for premiums paid to wholly-owned captives that write only related business. However, on a consolidated basis, a non-insurance parent can deduct amounts actuarially accrued as loss reserves, on a discounted basis for tax purposes and, for most lines of business, an undiscounted basis for US GAAP earnings. Other corporations may not accrue or expense any general loss provisions, insurance-related or otherwise until the amount is identifiable, measurable and owed. Incurred-but-not-reported (IBNR) losses are excepted from this accounting rule for insurance and reinsurance entities.

Read more...

Agency (law)

Agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set of relationships when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the Principal) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party. Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly, authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:

Agents and Principals;

Agents and the Third Parties with whom they deal on their Principals' behalf; and

Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal on their behalf.

The common law principle in operation is usually represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium, facit per se, i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests and it is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in Criminal law or Tort for the acts or omissions of another.

The concepts

The reciprocal rights and liabilities between a principal and an agent reflect commercial and legal realities. A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a business. In the case of a corporation, since a corporation is a fictitious legal person, it can only act through human agents. The principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so long as the agent performs within the scope of the agency.
A third party may rely in good faith on the representation by a person who identifies himself as an agent for another. It is not always cost effective to check whether someone who is represented as having the authority to act for another actually has such authority. If it is subsequently found that the alleged agent was acting without necessary authority, the agent will generally be held liable.

Brief statement of legal principles

There are three broad classes of agent
1. Universal agents hold broad authority to act on behalf of the principal, e.g. they may hold a power of attorney (also known as a mandate in civil law jurisdictions) or have a professional relationship, say, as lawyer and client.
2. General agents hold a more limited authority to conduct a series of transactions over a continuous period of time; and
3. Special agents are authorized to conduct either only a single transaction or a specified series of transactions over a limited period of time.

Authority

There are three bases by which parties may be held to have assumed the duties of principal and agent. These are actual authority, apparent authority, and implied authority.

Actual authority

Actual authority arises where the principal's words or conduct reasonably cause the agent to believe that he or she has been authorized to act. This may be express in the form of a contract or implied because what is said or done make it reasonably necessary for the person to assume the powers of an agent. If it is clear that the principal gave actual authority to agent, all the agent's actions falling within the scope of the authority given will bind the principal. This will be the result even if, having actual authority, the agent in fact acts fraudulently for his own benefit, unless the third party with whom the agent is dealing was aware of the agent's personal agenda. If there is no contract but the principal's words or conduct reasonably led the third party to believe that the agent was authorized to act, or if what the agent proposes to do is incidental and reasonably necessary to accomplish an actually authorized transaction or a transaction that usually accompanies it, then the principal will be bound.

Apparent authority

Apparent or ostensible authority exists where the principal's words or conduct would lead a reasonable person in the third party's position to believe that the agent was authorized to act, even if the principal and the purported agent had never discussed such a relationship. For example, where one person appoints a person to a position which carries with it agency-like powers, those who know of the appointment are entitled to assume that there is apparent authority to do the things ordinarily entrusted to one occupying such a position. If a principal creates the impression that an agent is authorized but there is no actual authority, third parties are protected so long as they have acted reasonably. This is sometimes termed "agency by estoppel" or the "doctrine of holding out", where the principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if third parties have changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made.

Implied authority

Implied authority considered held by the agent by virtue of being reasonably necessary to carry out his express authority. As such, it can be inferred by virtue of a position held by an agent. For example, partners have authority to bind the other partners in the firm, their liability being joint and several, and in a corporation, all executives and senior employees with decision-making authority by virtue of their position have authority to bind the corporation.
• Authority by virtue of a position held:
To deter fraud and other harms that may befall individuals dealing with agents, there is a concept of Inherent Agency power, which is power derived solely by virtue of the agency relation.
For example, partners have apparent authority to bind the other partners in the firm, their liability being joint and several (see below), and in a corporation, all executives and senior employees with decision-making authority by virtue of their declared position have apparent authority to bind the corporation.
Even if the agent does act without authority, the principal may ratify the transaction and accept liability on the transactions as negotiated. This may be express or implied from the principal's behavior, e.g. if the agent has purported to act in a number of situations and the principal has knowingly acquiesced, the failure to notify all concerned of the agent's lack of authority is an implied ratification to those transactions and an implied grant of authority for future transactions of a similar nature.

Liability of agent to third party

If the agent has actual or apparent authority, the agent will not be liable for acts performed within the scope of such authority, so long as the relationship of the agency and the identity of the principal have been disclosed. When the agency is undisclosed or partially disclosed, however, both the agent and the principal are liable. Where the principal is not bound because the agent has no actual or apparent authority, the purported agent is liable to the third party for breach of the implied warranty of authority.

Liability of agent to principal

If the agent has acted without actual authority, but the principal is nevertheless bound because the agent had apparent authority, the agent is liable to indemnify the principal for any resulting loss or damage.
Liability of principal to agent
If the agent has acted within the scope of the actual authority given, the principal must indemnify the agent for payments made during the course of the relationship whether the expenditure was expressly authorized or merely necessary in promoting the principal’s business.

Duties

An agent owes a fiduciary duty to be loyal to the principal.
An agent must not accept any new obligations that are inconsistent with the duties owed to the principal. An agent can represent the interests of more than one principal, conflicting or potentially conflicting, only after full disclosure and consent of the principal.
An agent also must not engage in self-dealing, or otherwise unduly enrich himself from the agency. An agent must not usurp an opportunity from the principal by taking it for himself or passing it on to a third party.
In return, the principal must make a full disclosure of all information relevant to the transactions that the agent is authorized to negotiate and pay the agent either a prearranged commission, or a reasonable fee established after the fact.

Termination

An agent's authority can be terminated at any time. If the trust between the agent and principal has broken down, it is not reasonable to allow the principal to remain at risk in any transactions that the agent might conclude during a period of notice.

As per Section 201 to 210 The Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agency may come to an end in a variety of ways:

(i) By the principal revoking the agency – However, principal cannot revoke an agency coupled with interest to the prejudice of such interest. Such Agency is coupled with interest. An agency is coupled with interest when the agent himself has an interest in the subject-matter of the agency, e.g., where the goods are consigned by an upcountry constituent to a commission agent for sale, with poor to recoup himself from the sale proceeds, the advances made by him to the principal against the security of the goods; in such a case, the principal cannot revoke the agent’s authority till the goods are actually sold, nor is the agency terminated by death or insanity. (Illustrations to section 201) (ii) By the agent renouncing the business of agency; (iii) By the business of agency being completed; (iv) By the principal being adjudicated insolvent (Section 201 of The Indian Contract Act. 1872)

The principal also cannot revoke the agent’s authority after it has been partly exercised, so as to bind the principal (Section 204), though he can always do so, before such authority has been so exercised (Sec 203).

Further, as per section 205, if the agency is for a fixed period, the principal cannot terminate the agency before the time expired, except for sufficient cause. If he does, he is liable to compensate the agent for the loss caused to him thereby. The same rules apply where the agent, renounces an agency for a fixed period. Notice in this connection that want of skill continuous disobedience of lawful orders, and rude or insulting behavior has been held to be sufficient cause for dismissal of an agent. Further, reasonable notice has to be given by one party to the other; otherwise, damage resulting from want of such notice, will have to be paid (Section 206). As per section 207, the revocation or renunciation of an agency may be made expressly or impliedly by conduct. The termination does not take effect as regards the agent, till it becomes known to him and as regards third party, till the termination is known to them (Section 208).
When an agent’s authority is terminated, it operates as a termination of subagent also. (Section 210).

This has become a more difficult area as states are not consistent on the nature of a partnership. Some states opt for the partnership as no more than an aggregate of the natural persons who have joined the firm. Others treat the partnership as a business entity and, like a corporation, vest the partnership with a separate legal personality. Hence, for example, in English law, a partner is the agent of the other partners whereas, in Scots law where there is a separate personality, a partner is the agent of the partnership. This form of agency is inherent in the status of a partner and does not arise out of a contract of agency with a principal. In the English Partnership Act 1890 provides that a partner who acts within the scope of his actual authority (express or implied) will bind the partnership when he does anything in the ordinary course of carrying on partnership business. Even if that implied authority has been revoked or limited, the partner will have apparent authority unless the Third Party knows that the authority has been compromised. Hence, if the partnership wishes to limit any partner's authority, it must give express notice of the limitation to the world. However, there would be little substantive difference if English law was amended (see Law Commission Report 283): partners will bind the partnership rather than their fellow partners individually. For these purposes, the knowledge of the partner acting will be imputed to the other partners or the firm if a separate personality. The other partners or the firm are the principal and third parties are entitled to assume that the principal has been informed of all relevant information. This causes problems when one partner acts fraudulently or negligently and causes loss to clients of the firm. In most states, a distinction is drawn between knowledge of the firm's general business activities and the confidential affairs as they affect one client. Thus, there is no imputation if the partner is acting against the interests of the firm as a fraud. There is more likely to be liability in tort if the partnership benefited by receiving fee income for the work negligently performed, even if only as an aspect of the standard provisions of vicarious liability. Whether the injured party wishes to sue the partnership or the individual partners is usually a matter for the Plaintiff since, in most jurisdictions, their liability is joint and several..

Agency relationships

Agency relationships are common in many professional areas.
employment procurement
real estate transactions (real estate brokerage, mortgage brokerage). In real estate brokerage, the buyers or sellers are the Principals themselves and the broker or his/her salesperson who represents each Principal is his/her Agent.
financial advice (insurance agency, stock brokerage, accountancy)
contract negotiation and promotion (business management) such as for publishing,fashion model ,music,movies, theatre, show business and sport.

Read more...

Monday, August 3, 2009

Universal health care

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the one exception being the United States. It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.
Implementation
Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues. Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues. In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.

Read more...

Social insurance

Social insurance is any government-sponsored program with the following four characteristics:
the benefits, eligibility requirements and other aspects of the program are defined by statute;
explicit provision is made to account for the income and expenses (often through a trust fund);
it is funded by taxes or premiums paid by (or on behalf of) participants (although additional sources of funding may be provided as well); and
the program serves a defined population, and participation is either compulsory or the program is heavily enough subsidized that most eligible individuals choose to participate.
Social insurance has also been defined as a program where risks are transferred to and pooled by an organization, often governmental, that is legally required to provide certain benefits.
In the U.S., programs that meet these definitions include Social Security, Medicare, the PBGC program, the railroad retirement program and state-sponsored unemployment insurance programs. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is also a social insurance program.
Similarities to private insurance
Typical similarities between social insurance programs and private insurance programs include:
Wide pooling of risks;
Specific definitions of the benefits provided;
Specific definitions of eligibility rules and the amount of coverage provided;
Specific premium, contribution or tax rates required to meet the expected costs of the system.
Differences from private insurance
Typical differences between private insurance programs and social insurance programs include:
Equity versus Adequacy: Private insurance programs are generally designed with greater emphasis on equity between individual purchasers of coverage, while social insurance programs generally place a greater emphasis on the social adequacy of benefits for all participants.
Voluntary versus Mandatory Participation: Participation in private insurance programs is often voluntary, and where the purchase of insurance is mandatory, individuals usually have a choice of insurers. Participation in social insurance programs is generally mandatory, and where participation is voluntary, the cost is heavily enough subsidized to ensure essentially universal participation.
Contractual versus Statutory Rights: The right to benefits in a private insurance program is contractual, based on an insurance contract. The insurer generally does not have a unilateral right to change or terminate coverage before the end of the contract period (except in such cases as non-payment of premiums). Social insurance programs are not generally based on a contract, but rather on a statute, and the right to benefits is thus statutory rather than contractual. The provisions of the program can be changed if the statute is modified.
Funding: Individually purchased private insurance generally must be fully funded. Full funding is a desirable goal for private pension plans as well, but is often not achieved. Social insurance programs are often not fully funded, and some argue that full funding is not economically desirable.

Read more...

Publicly-funded health care

Publicly-funded health care is a form of health care financing designed to meet the cost of all or most health care needs from public funds or a publicly managed fund. Usually this is under some form of democratic accountability, the right of access to which are set down in rules applying to the whole population contributing to the fund or receiving benefits from it. The fund may be general tax revenues, a tax levy specific to healthcare, or a not-for-profit trust which pays out for health care according to common rules established by the members or by some other democratic form. In some countries the fund is controlled directly by the government or by an agency of the government for the benefit of the entire population. This distinguishes it from privately funded health care whereby the patient pays an insurance company or healthcare providers directly. Healthcare in most countries involves a mixture of publicly and privately funded health care, often with basic health care funded by the government and optional extras funded privately. Publicly-funded health care may or may not involve insurance companies. If it does, the public monies pay the insurance premiums, at least for basic care.
Financing
Publicly funded health care systems are usually financed in one of two ways: through taxation or via required national health insurance.
When taxation is the primary means of financing health care, everyone receives the same level of coverage regardless of their ability to pay, their level of taxation, or risk factors.
In compulsory insurance models, healthcare is financed through a "sickness fund", which can receive income from a number of places such as employees' salary deductions, employers' contributions, or top-ups from the state.

Varieties of public systems
Most developed countries currently have partially or fully publicly funded health systems. For example, each country of the United Kingdom has a National Health Service (NHS). Other examples would be the Medicare systems in Canada and in Australia. In most countries of Europe, a system of social insurance based on the principle of social solidarity shields the citizen from bearing the burden of most health care expenditures at the time of consumption. The citizen contibutes to these costs in taxation during his or her lifetime.
Among countries with significant public funding of health care there are many different approaches exist to the funding and provision of medical services. Systems may be funded from general government revenues (as in the United Kingdom and Canada), or through a government social security system (as in France, Belgium, Japan, and Germany) with a separate budget and hypothecated taxes. The proportion of the cost of care covered also differs: in Canada, all hospital care is paid for by the government, while in Japan patients must pay 10 to 30% of the cost of a hospital stay. Services provided by public systems vary. For example, the Belgian government pays the bulk of the fees for dental and eye care, while the Australian government covers only eye care.
Publicly funded medicine may be administered and provided by the government, as in the United Kingdom; in some systems, though, medicine is publicly funded but most health providers are private entities, as in Canada. The organization providing public health insurance is not necessarily a public administration, and its budget may be isolated from the main state budget. Some systems do not provide universal healthcare, or restrict coverage to public health facilities. Some countries, such as Germany, have multiple public insurance organizations linked by a common legal framework. Some, like Holland, allow private for-profit insurers to participate.
Innovations in health care can be very expensive. Population aging generally implies more health care, at a time when the taxed working population decreases.
Two-tier health care
Almost every major country that has a publicly funded health care system also has a parallel private system, generally catering to private insurance holders.
From the inception of the NHS model (1948), public hospitals in the United Kingdom have included "amenity beds" which would typically be siderooms fitted more comfortably, and private wards in some hospitals where for a fee more amenities are provided. Patients using these beds are in an NHS hospital for surgical treatment, and operations are generally carried out in the same operating theatres as NHS work and by the same personnel but the hospital and the physician will receive funding from an insurance company. These amenity beds do not exist in other publicly funded systems, such as in Spain. From time to time, the NHS pays for private hospitals (arranged hospitals) to take on surgical cases under contract.
Policy discussion
Many countries are seeking the right balance of public and private insurance, public subsidies, and out-of-pocket payments.
Many OECD countries have implemented reforms to achieve policy goals of ensuring access to health-care, improving the quality of health care and health outcomes, allocating an appropriate level of public sector other resources to health care, whilst at the same time ensuring that services are provided in a cost-efficient and cost-effective manner (microeconomic efficiency). A range of measures, such as better payment methods, have improved the microeconomic incentives facing providers. However, introducing improved incentives through a more competitive environment among providers and insurers has proved difficult.

Read more...

National health insurance

National health insurance is health insurance that insures a national population for the costs of health care and usually is instituted as a program of healthcare reform. It may be administered by the public sector, the private sector, or a combination of both. Funding mechanisms vary with the particular program and country. Therefore National health insurance does not equate to government run or government financed health care, but is usually established by national legislation.
Types of programs
Some countries implement national health insurance through a national insurance fund operated by the government from which medical expenses are paid. These services are provided by private health care providers. This is known in the United States as single-payer health care, and if US Medicare were expanded and covered all Americans (Medicare for All), it would be considered national health insurance. A 2008 survey shows that a majority of US physicians (by almost 2 to 1), favor national health insurance. Two existing examples of this type of program are Australia's Medicare and Canada's health insurance system.
In other programs, the funds can only be spent on health services commissioned by the government. An example of this is the UK's National Health Service.
National schemes have the advantage that the pool or pools tend to be very very large and reflective of the national population. Health care costs, which tend to be high at certain stages in life such as during pregnancy and childbirth and especially in the last few years of life can be paid into the pool over a lifetime and be higher when earnings capacity is greatest to meet costs incurred at times when earnings capacity is low or non existent. This differs from the private insurance schemes that operate in some countries which tend to price insurance year on year according to health risks such as age, family history, previous illnesses, and height/weight ratios. Thus some people tend to have to pay more for their health insurance when they are sick and/or are least able to afford it. These factors are not taken into consideration in NHI schemes. In private schemes in competitve insurance markets, these activities by insurance companies tend to act against the the basic principles of insurance which is group solidarity.
Some countries implement national health insurance by legislation requiring compulsory contributions to competing insurance funds. These funds (which may be run by public bodies, private for-profit companies, or private non-profit companies), must provide a minimum standard of coverage and are not allowed to discriminate between patients by charging different rates according to age, occupation, or previous health status. To protect the interest of both patients and insurance companies, the government establishes an equalization pool to spread risks between the various funds. The government may also contribute to the equalization pool as a form of health care subsidy.
Other countries are largely funded by contributions by employers and employees to sickness funds. With these programs, funds do not come from the government, and neither from direct private payments. This system operates in countries such as Germany and Belgium. These countries have so-called social health insurance systems, characterized by the presence of sickness funds, which can be based on professional, regional, religious, or political affiliation. Usually characterization is a matter of degree: systems are mixes of these three sources of funds (private, employer-employee contributions, and national/sub-national taxes). These funds are usually not for profit institutions run solely for the benefit of their members.
In addition to direct medical costs, some national insurance plans also provide compensation for loss of work due to ill-health, or may be part of wider social insurance plans covering things such as pensions, unemployment, occupational retraining, and financial support for students.
National health insurance schemes
Health care in Ghana - National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS)
Health care in Colombia - Law 100 - National Health Insurance Scheme: Contributory Vs. Subsidized coverage (NHIS)
Health care in Japan - People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments.
Health care in South Korea
Health care in Switzerland - A compulsory health insurance covers a range of treatments which are set out in detail in the Federal Act.
Health care in Taiwan - National Health Insurance (NHI)
Health care in Nigeria - National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS)

Read more...

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Health insurance

Health insurance is insurance that pays for medical expenses. It is sometimes used more broadly to include insurance covering disability or long-term nursing or custodial care needs. It may be provided through a government-sponsored social insurance program, or from private insurance companies. It may be purchased on a group basis (e.g., by a firm to cover its employees) or purchased by individual consumers. In each case, the covered groups or individuals pay premiums or taxes to help protect themselves from high or unexpected healthcare expenses. Similar benefits paying for medical expenses may also be provided through social welfare programs funded by the government.
By estimating the overall risk of healthcare expenses, a routine finance structure (such as a monthly premium or annual tax) can be developed, ensuring that money is available to pay for the healthcare benefits specified in the insurance agreement. The benefit is administered by a central organization such as a government agency, private business, or not-for-profit entity.
History and evolution
The concept of health insurance was proposed in 1694 by Hugh the Elder Chamberlen from the Peter Chamberlen family. In the late 19th century, "accident insurance" began to be available, which operated much like modern disability insurance. This payment model continued until the start of the 20th century in some jurisdictions (like California), where all laws regulating health insurance actually referred to disability insurance.
Accident insurance was first offered in the United States by the Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts. This firm, founded in 1850, offered insurance against injuries arising from railroad and steamboat accidents. Sixty organizations were offering accident insurance in the U.S. by 1866, but the industry consolidated rapidly soon thereafter. While there were earlier experiments, the origins of sickness coverage in the U.S. effectively date from 1890. The first employer-sponsored group disability policy was issued in 1911.
Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case.
Hospital and medical expense policies were introduced during the first half of the 20th century. During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis, eventually leading to the development of Blue Cross organizations. The predecessors of today's Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) originated beginning in 1929, through the 1930s and on during World War II.
How it works
A health insurance policy is a contract between an insurance company and an individual or his sponsor (e.g. an employer). The contract can be renewable annually or monthly. The type and amount of health care costs that will be covered by the health insurance company are specified in advance, in the member contract or "Evidence of Coverage" booklet. The individual insurered person's obligations may take several forms
Premium: The amount the policy-holder or his sponsor (e.g. an employer) pays to the health plan each month to purchase health coverage.
Deductible: The amount that the insured must pay out-of-pocket before the health insurer pays its share. For example, a policy-holder might have to pay a $500 deductible per year, before any of their health care is covered by the health insurer. It may take several doctor's visits or prescription refills before the insured person reaches the deductible and the insurance company starts to pay for care.
Copayment: The amount that the insured person must pay out of pocket before the health insurer pays for a particular visit or service. For example, an insured person might pay a $45 copayment for a doctor's visit, or to obtain a prescription. A copayment must be paid each time a particular service is obtained.
Coinsurance: Instead of, or in addition to, paying a fixed amount up front (a copayment), the co-insurance is a percentage of the total cost that insured person may also pay. For example, the member might have to pay 20% of the cost of a surgery over and above a co-payment, while the insurance company pays the other 80%. If there is an upper limit on coinsurance, the policy-holder could end up owing very little, or a great deal, depending on the actual costs of the services they obtain.
Exclusions: Not all services are covered. The insured person is generally expected to pay the full cost of non-covered services out of their own pocket.
Coverage limits: Some health insurance policies only pay for health care up to a certain dollar amount. The insured person may be expected to pay any charges in excess of the health plan's maximum payment for a specific service. In addition, some insurance company schemes have annual or lifetime coverage maximums. In these cases, the health plan will stop payment when they reach the benefit maximum, and the policy-holder must pay all remaining costs.
Out-of-pocket maximums: Similar to coverage limits, except that in this case, the insured person's payment obligation ends when they reach the out-of-pocket maximum, and the health company pays all further covered costs. Out-of-pocket maximums can be limited to a specific benefit category (such as prescription drugs) or can apply to all coverage provided during a specific benefit year.
Capitation: An amount paid by an insurer to a health care provider, for which the provider agrees to treat all members of the insurer.
In-Network Provider: (U.S. term) A health care provider on a list of providers preselected by the insurer. The insurer will offer discounted coinsurance or copayments, or additional benefits, to a plan member to see an in-network provider. Generally, providers in network are providers who have a contract with the insurer to accept rates further discounted from the "usual and customary" charges the insurer pays to out-of-network providers.
Prior Authorization: A certification or authorization that an insurer provides prior to medical service occurring. Obtaining an authorization means that the insurer is obligated to pay for the service, assume it matches what was authorized. Many smaller, routine services do not require authorization.
Explanation of Benefits: A document sent by an insurer to a patient explaining what was covered for a medical service, and how they arrived at the payment amount and patient responsibility amount.
Prescription drug plans are a form of insurance offered through some employer benefit plans in the U.S., where the patient pays a copayment and the prescription drug insurance part or all of the balance for drugs covered in the formulary of the plan.
Some, if not most, health care providers in the United States will agree to bill the insurance company if patients are willing to sign an agreement that they will be responsible for the amount that the insurance company doesn't pay. The insurance company pays out of network providers according to "reasonable and customary" charges, which may be less than the provider's usual fee. The provider may also have a separate contract with the insurer to accept what amounts to a discounted rate or capitation to the provider's standard charges. It generally costs the patient less to use an in-network provider.
Health plan vs. health insurance
Historically, HMOs tended to use the term "health plan", while commercial insurance companies used the term "health insurance". A health plan can also refer to a subscription-based medical care arrangement offered through HMOs, preferred provider organizations, or point of service plans. These plans are similar to pre-paid dental, pre-paid legal, and pre-paid vision plans. Pre-paid health plans typically pay for a fixed number of services (for instance, $300 in preventive care, a certain number of days of hospice care or care in a skilled nursing facility, a fixed number of home health visits, a fixed number of spinal manipulation charges, etc.) The services offered are usually at the discretion of a utilization review nurse who is often contracted through the managed care entity providing the subscription health plan. This determination may be made either prior to or after hospital admission (concurrent utilization review).
Comprehensive vs. scheduled
Comprehensive health insurance pays a percentage of the cost of hospital and physician charges after a deductible (usually applies to hospital charges) or a co-pay (usually applies to physician charges, but may apply to some hospital services) is met by the insured. These plans are generally expensive because of the high potential benefit payout — $1,000,000 to 5,000,000 is common — and because of the vast array of covered benefits.
Scheduled health insurance plans are not meant to replace a traditional comprehensive health insurance plans and are more of a basic policy providing access to day-to-day health care such as going to the doctor or getting a prescription drug. In recent years, these plans have taken the name mini-med plans or association plans. These plans may provide benefits for hospitalization and surgical, but these benefits will be limited. Scheduled plans are not meant to be effective for catastrophic events. These plans cost much less than comprehensive health insurance. They generally pay limited benefits amounts directly to the service provider, and payments are based upon the plan's "schedule of benefits". Annual benefits maximums for a typical scheduled health insurance plan may range from $1,000 to $25,000.
Inherent problems with multiple insurance funds and optional insurance
The basic concept of insurance is population solidarity. There are inherent risks in a population but the population absorbs the cost of risks to an individual by spreading the impact of incurred costs amongst the insured population. However, if the population is split into insured and uninsured groups, or into selectively groups (as with private insurance with pre-insurance selection either by the insurance company or the insured) the concept of population solidarity breaks down. Insurance systems must then typically deal with two inherent challenges: adverse selection and ex-post moral hazard.
Some national systems with compulsory insurance utilize systems such as risk equalization and community rating to overcome these inherent problems. Proponents of single-payer health care in the United States aim to provide the population of the country with health care from a single fund and thus avoid problems and costs associated with adverse selection, moral hazard, and private profiteeringfrom insurance.
Although the general principle of insurance is population solidarity, the economic behavior of insurance companies that are run for profit often seems to go against this very principle. An Urban Institute paper argues that the whole medical insurance industry in the United States is geared to managing two groups that it tries to keep from overlapping: the group of people who are healthy and will make only very small claims as policy holders (which it seeks to attract), and the group of people who will make above average claims (which the companies will do all they can to avoid paying out for — by exclusions, higher co-pay rates, etc). The authors say that these activities are antithetical to the whole concept of insurance (which is that the fortunate healthy should meet the health care costs of the unfortunately ill). The paper argues that American insurers are so focused on the process of managing these groups that they forget that their primary aim ought to be to buy cost-effective, efficiently delivered care on behalf of their clients. On the other hand, insurance companies might argue that they are trying to achieve fairness to policy holders given the fact that the split nature of the market means that risks are not evenly distributed between the various funds.
Adverse selection
Insurance companies use the term "adverse selection" to describe the tendency for only those who will benefit from insurance to buy it. Specifically when talking about health insurance, unhealthy people are more likely to purchase health insurance because they anticipate large medical bills. On the other side, people who consider themselves to be reasonably healthy may decide that medical insurance is an unnecessary expense; if they see the doctor once a year that's much better than making monthly insurance payments.
The fundamental concept of insurance is that it balances costs across a large, random sample of individuals (see risk pool). For instance, an insurance company has a pool of 1000 randomly selected subscribers, each paying $100 per month. One person becomes very ill while the others stay healthy, allowing the insurance company to use the money paid by the healthy people to pay for the treatment costs of the sick person. However, when the pool is self-selecting rather than random, as is the case with individuals seeking to purchase health insurance directly, adverse selection is a greater concern. A disproportionate share of health care spending is attributable to individuals with high health care costs. In the U.S. the 1% of the population with the highest spending accounted for 27% of aggregate health care spending in 1996. The highest-spending 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all spending. These patterns were stable through the 1970s and 1980s, and some data suggest that they may have been typical of the mid-to-early 20th century as well. A few individuals have extremely high medical expenses, in extreme cases totaling a half million dollars or more. Adverse selection could leave an insurance company with primarily sick subscribers and no way to balance out the cost of their medical expenses with a large number of healthy subscribers.
Because of adverse selection, insurance companies employ medical underwriting, using a patient's medical history to screen out those whose pre-existing medical conditions pose too great a risk for the risk pool. Before buying health insurance, a person typically fills out a comprehensive medical history form that asks whether the person smokes, how much the person weighs, whether the person has been treated for any of a long list of diseases and so on. In general, those who present large financial burdens are denied coverage or charged high premiums to compensate. One large U.S. industry survey found that roughly 13 percent of applicants for comprehensive, individually purchased health insurance who went through the medical underwriting in 2004 were denied coverage. Declination rates increased significantly with age, rising from 5 percent for individuals 18 and under to just under a third for individuals aged 60 to 64. Among those who were offered coverage, the study found that 76% received offers at standard premium rates, and 22% were offered higher rates. On the other side, applicants can get discounts if they do not smoke and are healthy.
Moral hazard
Moral hazard occurs when an insurer and a consumer enter into a contract under symmetric information, but one party takes action, not taken into account in the contract, which changes the value of the insurance. A common example of moral hazard is third-party payment—when the parties involved in making a decision are not responsible for bearing costs arising from the decision. An example is where doctors and insured patients agree to extra tests which may or may not be necessary. Doctors benefit by avoiding possible malpractice suits, and patients benefit by gaining increased certainty of their medical condition. The cost of these extra tests is borne by the insurance company, which may have had little say in the decision. Co-payments, deductibles, and less generous insurance for services with more elastic demand attempt to combat moral hazard, as they hold the consumer responsible.
Self-Funded Health Insurance
Other factors affecting insurance prices
A recent study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers examining the drivers of rising health care costs in the U.S. pointed to increased utilization created by increased consumer demand, new treatments, and more intensive diagnostic testing, as the most significant driver. People in developed countries are living longer. The population of those countries is aging, and a larger group of senior citizens requires more intensive medical care than a young healthier population. Advances in medicine and medical technology can also increase the cost of medical treatment. Lifestyle-related factors can increase utilization and therefore insurance prices, such as: increases in obesity caused by insufficient exercise and unhealthy food choices; excessive alcohol use, smoking, and use of street drugs. Other factors noted by the PWC study included the movement to broader-access plans, higher-priced technologies, and cost-shifting from Medicaid and the uninsured to private payers.

Read more...

Monday, June 1, 2009

List of finance topics

Fundamental financial concepts

Finance an overview
Arbitrage
Capital (economics)
Capital asset pricing model
Cash flow
Cash flow matching

Debt
Default
Consumer debt
Debt consolidation
Debt settlement
Credit counseling
Bankruptcy
Debt diet
Debt-snowball method

Discounted cash flow

Financial capital
Funding

Financial modeling

Entrepreneur
Entrepreneurship

Fixed income analysis

Gap financing

Hedge
Basis risk

Interest rate
Risk-free interest rate
Term structure of interest rates

Short rate model
Vasicek model
Cox-Ingersoll-Ross model
Hull-White model
Chen model
Black-Derman-Toy model

Interest
Effective interest rate
Nominal interest rate
Interest rate basis
Fisher equation
Crowding out
Annual percentage rate
Interest coverage ratio

Investment
Foreign direct investment
Gold as an investment
Over-investing

Leverage
Locked-in value
Long (finance)
Liquidity
Margin (finance)
Mark to future
Mark to market
Market Impact
Medium of exchange
Microcredit

Money
Currency
Coin
Banknote
Counterfeit

Portfolio
Modern portfolio theory

Reference rate
Reset

Return
Absolute return
Investment performance
Relative return

Right-financing

Risk
Risk management
Risk measure
Coherent risk measure
Spectral risk measure
Value at Risk

Scenario analysis
Short (finance)
Speculation
Day trading
Position trader
Spread
Standard of deferred payment
Store of value
Time horizon
Time value of money
Discounting
Present value
Future value
Net present value
Internal rate of return
Modified internal rate of return
Annuity
Perpetuity
Unit of account
Volatility
Yield
Yield curve

Accounting (financial records)
Accounting
Philosophy of Accounting
List of accounting topics
Financial accountancy
Financial statements
Balance sheet
Cash flow statement
Income statement
Auditing
Management accounting
Accounting software

Actuarial topics
Actuarial topics

Institutional setting

Financial services companies
Financial institutions
Bank
List of banks
List of banks in Canada
List of banks in Hong Kong
List of banks in Singapore
List of bank mergers in United States
Advising bank
Central bank
List of central banks
Commercial bank
Community development bank
Cooperative bank
Custodian bank
Depository bank
Investment bank
Islamic banking
Merchant bank
Microcredit
Mutual bank
Mutual savings bank
National bank
Offshore bank
Private bank
Savings bank
Swiss bank
Bank holding company
Building society
Clearing house
Commercial lender
Community development financial institution
Credit rating agency
Credit union
Diversified financial
Edge Act Corporation
Export Credit Agencies
Financial adviser
Financial intermediary
Financial planner
Futures exchange
List of futures exchanges
Government sponsored enterprise
Hard money lender
Independent Financial Adviser
Industrial loan company
Insurance regulatory
Insurance company
Investment adviser
Investment company
Investment trust
Large and Complex Financial Institutions
Mutual fund
Non-banking financial company
Prime brokerage
Retail broker
Savings and loan association
Stock broker
Stock exchange
List of stock exchanges
Trust company

Banking terms
Anonymous banking
Automatic teller machine
Deposit
Deposit creation multiplier
Loan
Pre-qualification
Pre-approval
Subprime
Withdrawal

Financial regulation
Corporate governance
Financial regulation
Bank regulation
Banking license

Designations and accreditation

Certified Financial Planner
Chartered Financial Analyst
CFA Institute
Chartered Financial Consultant
Canadian Securities Institute
Independent Financial Adviser
Chartered Insurance Institute
Financial Risk Manager
Chartered Accountant

Fraud

Forex scam
Insider trading
Legal origins theory
Petition mill
Ponzi scheme

Industry bodies
International Swaps and Derivatives Association
National Association of Securities Dealers

Regulatory bodies
Autorité des marchés financiers
Bank for International Settlements
Canadian securities regulation

United Kingdom
Financial Services Authority (UK)

European Union
European Securities Committee (EU)
Committee of European Securities Regulators (EU)

United States
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (U.S.)
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (US)
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (US)
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

United States legislation

Glass-Steagall Act (US)
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (US)
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (US)
Securities Act of 1933 (US)
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (US)
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (US)
USA PATRIOT Act

Financial markets

Market and instruments
Capital markets
Securities
Financial markets
Primary market
Initial public offering
Aftermarket
Free market
Bull market
Bear market
Bear market rally
Market maker
Dow Jones Industrial Average
Nasdaq
List of stock exchanges
List of stock market indices
List of corporations by market capitalization

Equity market
Stock market
Stock
Common stock
Preferred stock
Treasury stock
Equity investment
Index investing
Private Equity
Financial reports and statements
Fundamental analysis
Dividend
Dividend yield
Stock split

Equity valuation
Dow Theory
Elliott Wave Theory
Economic value added
Gordon model
Growth stock
Mergers and acquisitions
Leveraged buyout
Takeover
Corporate raid
PE ratio
Market capitalization
Income per share
Stock valuation
Technical analysis
Chart patterns
V-trend

Investment theory
Behavioral finance
Dead cat bounce
Efficient market hypothesis
Market microstructure
Stock market crash
Stock market bubble
January effect
Mark Twain effect
Quantitative behavioral finance
Quantitative analyst
Statistical arbitrage

Bond market
Bond (finance)
Zero-coupon bond
Junk bonds
Convertible bond
Accrual bond
Municipal bond
Sovereign bond
Bond valuation
Yield to maturity
Bond duration
Bond convexity
Fixed income

Money market
Repurchase agreement
International Money Market
Currency
Exchange rate
International currency codes
Table of historical exchange rates

Commodity market
Commodity
Asset
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Day trading
Drawdowns
Forfaiting
Fundamental analysis
Futures contract
Fungibility
Gold as an investment
Hedging
Jesse Lauriston Livermore
List of traded commodities
MACD
Ownership equity
Position trader
Risk (Futures)
Seasonal traders
Seasonal spread trading
Slippage
Speculation
Spread
Technical analysis
Breakout
Bear market
Bottom (technical analysis)
Bull market
Moving average
Open Interest
Parabolic SAR
Point and figure charts
Resistance
RSI
Stochastic oscillator
Stop loss
Support
Top (technical analysis)
Trade
Trend

Derivatives market
Derivative (finance)
(see also Financial mathematics topics; Derivatives pricing)
Underlying instrument

Forward markets and contracts
Forward contract

Futures markets and contracts
Backwardation
Contango
Futures contract
Currency future
Financial future
Interest rate future
Futures exchange

Option markets and contracts
Options
Stock option
Box spread
Call option
Put option
Strike price
Put-call parity
The Greeks
Black-Scholes formula
Black model
Binomial options model
Implied volatility
Option time value
Moneyness
At-the-money
In-the-money
Out-of-the-money
Straddle
Option style
Vanilla option
Exotic option
Binary option
European option
Interest rate floor
Interest rate cap
Bermudan option
American option
Quanto option
Asian option
Employee stock option
Warrants
Foreign exchange option
Interest rate options
Bond options
Real options
Options on futures

Swap markets and contracts
Swap (finance)
Interest rate swap
Basis swap
Asset swap
Forex swap
Stock swap
Equity swaps
Currency swap
Variance swap

Derivative markets by underlyings
Equity derivatives
Accelerated Market Participation Securities (AMPS)
Accelerated Return Equity Securities (ARES)
Asset Return Obligation Securities (ASTROS)
Automatic Common Exchange Securities (ACES)
Basket Adjusting Structured Equity Securities (BASES)
Basket Opportunity Exchangeable Securities (BOXES)
Bifurcated Option Note Unit Securities (BONUSES)
Broad Index Guarded Equity-Linked Securities (BRIDGES)
Canadian Originated Preferred Securities (COPrS)
Closed-end fund
Commodity-Indexed Preferred Securities (ComPS)
Common-Linked Higher Income Participation Securities (CHIPS)
Common stock
Convertible Contingent Debt Securities (CODES)
Corporate-Backed Trust Securities (CorTS)
Corporate Obligation Basket Listed Trust Securities (COBALTS)
Currency Protected Notes (CPNS), (SPNS)
Currency Protected Securities (CPS)
Customized Upside Basket Securities (CUBS)
Debt Exchangeable for Common Stock (DECS)
Equity Growth Long-Term Strategy (EGLS)
Enhanced Equity-Linked Debt Securities (ELKS)
Enhanced Income Securities (EISs)
Enhanced Stock Index Growth Notes (E-SIGNS)
Equity Providing Preferred Income Convertible Securities (EPPICS)
Exchange Preferred Income Cumulative Shares (EPICS)
Exchange-traded fund (ETF)
Exchangeable Capital Units (ExCaps)
Foreign Currency Return Notes (FORENS)
Global Bond Linked Securities (GLOBELS)
Hybrid Income Securities Units (HITS)
Income Deposit Securities (IDS)
Inverse exchange-traded fund
Leading Stockmarket Return Securities (LASERS)
Leveraged Upside Indexed Accelerated Return Securities (LUNARS)
Liquid Yield Option Notes (Zero Cupon) (LYONS)
Mandatorily Exchangeable Debt Securities MEDS)
Mandatory Adjustable Redeemable Convertible Securities (MARCS)
Market Index Target Term Securities (MITTS)
Market Participation Securities (MPS)
Medium Term Equity Related Investment Securities (MERITS)
Monthly Income Debt Securities (MIDS)
Monthly Income Preferred Securities (MIPS)
Participating Index Notes (PINS)
Performance Equity-Linked Redemption Quarterly Pay Securities (PERQS)
Performance Equity-Return Linked Securities (PERKS)
Performance Leveraged Upside Securities (PLUS)
Principal Accruing Enhanced Return Securities (PACERS)
Preferred Equity Redemption Cumulative Stock (PERCS)
Preferred Income Equity Redeemable Shares (PIERS)
Preferred Redeemable Increased Dividend Equity Securities (PRIDES)
Preferred stock
Premium Equity Participating Securities (PEPS)
Premium Income Equity Securities (PIES)
Protected Exchangeable Equity-Linked Securities (PEEQS)
Protected Growth Securities (ProGroS)
Protected Performance Equity Linked Securities (PROPELS)
Public Credit & Repackaged Securities (PCARS)
Public Income Notes (PINES)
Putable Automatic Rate Reset Securities (PARRS)
Quarterly Income Capital Securities (QUICS)
Quarterly Income Debt Securities (QUIDS)
Quarterly Income Preferred Securities (QUIPS)
Quarterly Interest Bond (QUIB)
Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)
Reset Put Securities (REPS)
Return Enhanced Convertible Securities (RECONS)
Rights
Risk Adjusting Equity Range Securities (RANGERS)
Secure Principal Energy Receipts (SPERS)
Select Equity Indexed Notes (SEQUINS)
Senior Quarterly Income Debt Securities (SQUIDS)
Shared Preference Redeemable Securities (SpuRS)
Shares of Beneficial Interest (SBI)
Step-Up Increasing Redeemable Equity Notes (SIRENS)
Step-Up REIT Securities (StREITs)
Stock Appreciation Income-Linked Securities (SAILS)
Stock market Annual Reset Term (Notes) (SMART)
Stock Participation Accreting Redemption Quarterly-pay Securities (SPARQS)
Stock Return Income Debt Securities (STRIDES)
Stock Upside Note Securities (SUNS)
Structured Asset Trust Unit Repackaging (SATURNS)
Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities (STRATS)
Structured Yield Product Exchangeable for Common Stock (STRYPES)
Subordinated Capital Income Securities (SKIS)
Target Return Investment Growth Securities (TRIGGERS)
Targeted Efficient Equity Securities (TEES)
Targeted Growth Enhanced Terms Securities (TARGETS)
Term Convertible Securities (TECONS)
Threshold Appreciation Price Securities (TAPS)
Trust Automatic Common Exchange Securities (TRACES)
Trust Certificate (TRUC)
Trust Investment Enhanced Return Securities (TIERS)
Trust Issued Mandatory Exchange Securities (TIMES)
Trust Originated Preferred Securities (TOPrS)
Trust Preferred Stock (TruPs)
Trust Units Exchangeable for Preference Shares (TrUEPrS)
Warrants
Warrants & Income Redeemable Equity Securities (WIRES)
Yield Enhanced Equity-Linked Debt Securities (YEELDS)
Yield Enhanced Stock (YES)

Interest rate derivatives
LIBOR
Forward rate agreement
Interest rate swap
Interest rate cap
Exotic interest rate option
Bond option
Forward rate agreement
Interest rate future
Money market instruments
Interest rate swap
Range accrual Swaps/Notes/Bonds
In-arrears Swap
Constant maturity swap (CMS) or constant treasury swap (CTS) derivatives (swaps, caps, floors)
Interest rate Swaption
Bermudan swaptions
Cross currency swaptions
Power Reverse Dual Currency note (PRDC or Turbo)
Target redemption note (TARN)
CMS steepener
Snowball
Inverse floater
Strips of Collateralized mortgage obligation
Ratchet caps and floors

Credit derivatives
Credit default swap
Collateralized debt obligation
Credit default option
Total return swap
Securitization

Foreign exchange derivatives
Foreign exchange option
Currency future
Forex swap
Foreign exchange hedge
Binary option: Foreign exchange

Valuation
Value (economics)
Fair value
Intrinsic value
"The Theory of Investment Value"

Discounted cash flow valuation
Cash flow
Operating cash flow
Time value of money
Present value
Future value
Actualization
Discounting
Bond valuation
Yield to maturity
Duration
Convexity
Equity valuation
Equivalent Annual Cost
Net present value
Discount rate
Capital Asset Pricing Model
Arbitrage pricing theory
Cost of capital
Weighted average cost of capital
Fundamental analysis
Stock valuation
Business valuation
The investment decision

Relative valuation
Dividend yield
Financial ratio
Market-based valuation
PE ratio
Relative valuation
Stock image
Stock profile

Contingent claim valuation

Corporate finance
Balance sheet analysis
Financial ratio
Business plan
Capital budgeting
Capital investment decisions
The investment decision
Business valuation
Stock valuation
Fundamental analysis
Real options
Valuation topics
Fisher separation theorem
The financing decision
Capital structure
Cost of capital
Weighted average cost of capital
Modigliani-Miller theorem
The Dividend Decision
Dividend
Dividend tax
Dividend yield
Modigliani-Miller theorem
Corporate action
Managerial finance
Management accounting
Mergers and acquisitions
leveraged buyout
takeover
corporate raid
Real options
Return on investment
Return on assets
Return on equity
Return on capital
Working capital management
cash conversion cycle
Return on capital
Economic value added
Just In Time
Economic order quantity
Discounts and allowances
Factoring (trade)

Investment management
Fund management
Active management
Efficient market hypothesis
Portfolio
Modern portfolio theory
Capital asset pricing model
Arbitrage pricing theory
Passive management
Index fund
Activist shareholder
Mutual fund
Open-end fund
Closed-end fund
List of mutual-fund families
Financial engineering
Long-Term Capital Management
Hedge fund
Hedge
Visualization of Financial Implications

Personal finance
529 plan (college savings)
Budget
Coverdell Education Savings Account (Coverdell ESAs, formerly known as Education IRAs)
Credit and debt
Credit card
Debt consolidation
Mortgage loan
Continuous-repayment mortgage
Debit card
Direct deposit
Employment contract
Commission
Employee stock option
Employee or fringe benefit
Health insurance
Paycheck
Salary
Wage
Financial literacy
Insurance
Predatory lending
Retirement plan
401(a)
401(k)
403(b)
457 plan
Keogh plan
Individual Retirement Account
Roth IRA
Traditional IRA
SEP IRA
SIMPLE IRA
Conduit IRA
Pension
Social security
Tax advantage
Wealth
Comparison of accounting software
Personal financial management
Comparison of personal financial management online tools
Investment club
Collective investment scheme
Car financing

Public finance
Central bank
Federal Reserve
Fractional-reserve banking
Deposit creation multiplier
Tax
Income tax
Payroll tax
Sales tax
Tax advantage
Tax, tariff and trade
crowding out
Industrial policy
Agricultural policy
Currency union
Monetary reform

Insurance
Actuarial science
Annuities
Catastrophe modeling
Earthquake loss
Extended coverage
Insurable interest
Insurable risk
Insurance
Health insurance
Injury cover
Disability insurance
Flexible spending account
Health savings account
Long term care insurance
Medical savings account
Life insurance
Life insurance tax shelter
Permanent life insurance
Term life insurance
Universal life insurance
Variable universal life insurance
Whole life insurance
Property insurance
Auto insurance
Boiler insurance
Earthquake insurance
Home insurance
Title insurance
Pet insurance
Casualty insurance
Business continuation insurance
Fidelity bond
Liability insurance
Personal umbrella liability policy
Commercial general liability policy
Political risk insurance
Surety bond
Terrorism insurance
Credit insurance
Reinsurance
Self insurance
Travel insurance
Insurance contract

Economics and finance
Economic growth
Financial economics
Mathematical economics
Managerial economics
Utility theory

Mathematics and finance

Time value of money
Present value
Future value
Discounting
Net present value
Internal rate of return
Annuity
Perpetuity

Financial mathematics

Mathematical tools
Probability
Probability distribution
Binomial distribution
Log-normal distribution
Poisson distribution
Expected value
Value at risk
Risk-neutral measure
Stochastic calculus
Markov process
Brownian motion
Itô's lemma
Girsanov's theorem
Radon-Nikodym derivative
Martingale representation theorem
Feynman-Kac formula
Dynkin's formula
Stochastic differential equations
Monte Carlo methods in finance
Monte Carlo methods for option pricing
Quasi-Monte Carlo methods in finance
Partial differential equations
Heat equation
Finite difference method
Volatility
ARCH model
GARCH model

Derivatives pricing
Rational pricing assumptions
Risk neutral valuation
Arbitrage free pricing
Futures
Futures contract pricing
Options (and Real options)
Black-Scholes formula
Black model
Binomial options model
Monte Carlo methods for option pricing
The Greeks
Volatility
Implied volatility
Historical volatility
Volatility smile
Volatility surface
SABR Volatility Model
Swaps
Swap Valuation
Interest rate derivatives
Short-rate models (used in pricing bond options, swaptions and other interest rate derivatives)
Rendleman-Bartter model
Vasicek model
Ho-Lee model
Hull-White model
Cox-Ingersoll-Ross model
Black-Karasinski model
Black-Derman-Toy model
Longstaff-Schwartz model
Chen model

Constraint finance
Creditary economics
Environmental finance
Feminist economics
Green economics
Islamic economics
Uneconomic growth
Value of Earth
Value of life

Virtual finance

Virtual finance

The history of finance

Tulip mania 1620s/1630s
South Sea Bubble & Mississipi Company 1710s; see also Stock market bubble
Panic of 1837
Railway mania 1840s
Erie War 1860s
Long Depression 1873 to 1896
Post-WWI hyperinflation; see Hyperinflation and Inflation in the Weimar Republic
Wall Street Crash 1929
Great Depression 1930s
Oil Shock 1973
1979 energy crisis
Notable Bankrupts
Savings and Loan Crisis 1980s
Black Monday 1987
Asian financial crisis 1990s
Dot-com bubble 1995-2001
Stock market downturn of 2002
United States housing bubble 2001-


Financial software tools


Straight Through Processing Software
Technical Analysis Software
Algorithmic trading
List of numerical analysis software
Comparison of numerical analysis software

Read more...

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP