Exploring the market risk profiles of US and European stock insurers

Market risks account for an integral part of insurers' risk profiles. We explore market risk sensitivities of insurers in the United States and Europe. Based on panel regression models and daily market data from 2012 to 2018, we find that sensitivities are particularly driven by insurers' product portfolio. The influence of interest rate movements on stock returns is 60% larger for US than for European life insurers. For the former, interest rate risk is a dominant market risk with an effect that is five times larger than through corporate credit risk. For European life insurers, the sensitivity to interest rate changes is only 44% larger than toward credit default swap of government bonds, underlining the relevance of sovereign credit risk.     

Do Stock Prices of Property Casualty Insurers Fully Reflect Information about Earnings,Accruals, Cash Flows,and Development?

This paper examines whether the stock prices of property and casualty (P&C) insurers fully reflect information contained in earnings, cash flows and accruals, and one particular accrual—development of loss reserves. The reserve for policy losses is a major accrual for P&C firms, requires substantial judgment and is the subject of unique disclosures that reveal the ex post error in management estimates. We find that investors underestimate the persistence of cash flows and overestimate the persistence of accruals for P&C insurers, but our evidence suggests the market does not underestimate the persistence of the development accrual.     

Book–to–Market Equity, Distress Risk, and Stock Returns

This paper examines the relationship between book–to–market equity, distress risk, and stock returns. Among firms with the highest distress risk as proxied by Ohlson's (1980) O–score, the difference in returns between high and low book–to–market securities is more than twice as large as that in other firms. This large return differential cannot be explained by the three–factor model or by differences in economic fundamentals. Consistent with mispricing arguments, firms with high distress risk exhibit the largest return reversals around earnings announcements, and the book–to–market effect is largest in small firms with low analyst coverage.     

Risk and Market Segmentation in Financial Intermediaries' Returns

This study examines both the quantity and price of risk exposure for different segments of financial intermediaries. Overall, we find evidence of market segmentation in the U.S. financial services industry. Specifically, we find that securities firms, consistently over the sampling period 1974–1994, had the most market risk exposure with the lowest market risk premium. Banks' market risk fluctuated over the sampling period. Banks increased their market risk-taking after the shift in monetary target in October 1979 and the announcement of the risk-based capital requirements in July 1988. The banks' market risk became the highest and insignificantly different from securities firms'. The results are consistent with the moral hazard argument; that is, banks took on more risk to take advantage of government guarantees as their charter value declined. Banks were subject to relatively high interest rate risk premium. However, in response to increased interest rate volatility and decreased charter value after October 1979, banks (while they increased their market risk exposure) lowered their interest rate risk exposure to an insignificant level. The results suggest that the federal safety net may have been perceived by the market as covering only market risk but not interest rate risk. Overall, we find little evidence of interest rate risk exposure, suggesting the prevalence of hedging programs using interest rate derivatives. The interest rate risk premiums, unlike the risk exposure, differ across financial intermediaries.     

Default Risk in Equity Returns

This is the first study that uses Merton's (1974) option pricing model to compute default measures for individual firms and assess the effect of default risk on equity returns. The size effect is a default effect, and this is also largely true for the book‐to‐market (BM) effect. Both exist only in segments of the market with high default risk. Default risk is systematic risk. The Fama–French (FF) factors SMB and HML contain some default‐related information, but this is not the main reason that the FF model can explain the cross section of equity returns.     

Capital and Risk Revisited: A Structural Equation Model Approach for Life Insurers

The role of risk in the capital structure decision of firms is a vast topic in finance. Commonly, models of the interrelationship between risk and capital enumerate as many risk factors as possible by appropriate proxies, with the goal of detailing their individual effects. In this study of the life insurance industry for 1994 through 2000, we take a broader, holistic view of enterprise risk, identifying two groups of insurer risk factors that arise from the major activities of life insurers: investing and underwriting. We call the group of risk factors associated with investing asset risk, and the group associated with underwriting product risk. After specifying other important determinants of capital structure as controls, we allow all other risk factors to find expression in residual error. Within this framework, our focus is to compare two candidate measures for the role of proxy for asset‐related risks. One measure, called regulatory asset risk (RAR), derives from the regulatory tradition of concern with solvency and is related to the C‐1 component of risk‐based capital. The other measure, called opportunity asset risk (OAR), is motivated by traditional finance concerns with market risk and reflects volatility of returns. Product‐related risks are proxied by underwriting exposures in different product lines. We employ structural equation modeling (SEM), which uses longitudinal factor analysis. SEM is an innovative technique for such studies, in dealing effectively with multiple structural equations, autocorrelated panel data, unobserved underlying factors, and other issues that are not simultaneously addressed in other methodologies. We find that RAR and OAR are not equivalent proxies for asset risks. Although overlapping to some extent, each illuminates different aspects of the asset risk–capital interrelationship. In particular, RAR does not seem to affect the capital structure decision of small firms, although OAR does. We interpret this to suggest that small firms as a whole are not as sensitive in their capital decisions to the proxy of regulatory concerns as to the proxy of market opportunity. This contrasts with large insurers, for whom both RAR and OAR have significant effects on capital that comport with the finite risk hypothesis. More detailed analysis suggests that the lack of effect of RAR for small insurers may result from RAR's proxying some factors that induce finite risk for part of the small insurer sample, and other factors that favor the excessive risk hypothesis.     

Portfolio diversification effects of trading blocs: The case of NAFTA

This study investigates the evolving nature of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) stock market interdependencies and their association with diversification gains from the perspective of US investors. The issues are addressed for both short- and long-run interdependencies through correlation of stock market returns and cointegration of stock market prices. The basic findings include: (1) the existence of a long-term relationship (a cointegration relation) which is time-varying and statistically unstable and (2) diversification gains with cointegration not consistently lower than without cointegration. Thus, per-unit-of-risk diversification gains to US investors from NAFTA stock markets are determined by return volatilities, return correlations and domestic market performance. Based on increased return volatilities and return correlations and the very small per-unit-of-risk diversification gains even when the US stock market performs poorly, US investors’ diversification gains have diminished since the implementation of NAFTA.     

The relation between stock returns and short-term interest rates

This study examines the relation between the expected returns on common stocks and short-term interest rates. Using a two-factor model of stock returns, we show that the expected returns on common stocks are systematically related to the market risk and the interest-rate risk, which are estimated as the sensitivity of common-stock excess returns to the excess return on the equally weighted market index and to the federal fund premium, respectively. We find that the interest-rate risk for small firms is a significant source of investors' portfolio risk, but is not properly reflected in the single-factor market risk. We also find that the interest-rate risk for large firms is “negative” in the sense that the market risk estimated from the single-factor model overstates the true risk of large firms. An application of the Fama-MacBeth methodology indicates that the interest-rate risk premium as well as the market's risk premium are significant, implying that both the market risk and the interest-rate risk are priced. We show that the interest-rate risk premium explains a significant portion of the difference in expected returns between the top quintile and the bottom quintile of the NYSE and AMEX firms. We also show that the turn-of-the-year seasonal is observed for the interest-rate risk premium; however, the risk premium for the rest of the year is still significant, although small in mangitude.     

Risk,Mispricing, and Value Investing

We evaluate the stock return performance of a modified version of the book-to-market strategy and its implications for market efficiency. If the previously documented superior stock return of the book-to-market strategy represents mispricing, its performance should be improved by excluding fairly valued firms with extreme book-to-market ratios. To attain this, we classify stocks as value or glamour on book-to-market ratios and accounting accruals jointly. This joint classification is likely to exclude stocks with extreme book-to-market ratios due to mismeasured accounting book values reflecting limitations underlying the accounting system. Using both 12-month buy-and-hold returns and earnings announcement returns, our results show that this joint classification generates substantially higher portfolio returns in the post-portfolio-formation year than the book-to-market classification alone with no evidence of increased risk. In addition, this superior stock return performance is more pronounced among firms held primarily by small (unsophisticated) investors and followed less closely by market participants (stock price <$10). Finally, and most importantly, financial analysts are overly optimistic (pessimistic) about earnings of glamour (value) stock, and for a subset of firms identified as overvalued by our strategy, the earnings announcement raw return, as well as abnormal return, is negative. These last results are particularly important because it is hard to envision a model consistent with rational investors holding risky stocks with predictable negative raw returns for a long period of time rather than holding fT-bills and with financial analysts systematically overestimating the earnings of these stocks while underestimating earnings of stocks that outperform the stock market.     

Convergence and risk-return linkages across financial service firms

We examine the risk and return linkages across US commercial banks, securities firms, and life insurance companies during the 1991–2001 period. After controlling for changes in the broader stock market, interest rates, and foreign currency values, we find that return and risk interdependencies across these financial firms are significant and size-varying; larger institutions display stronger volatility transmission linkages, while smaller ones exhibit more prominent return-related linkages. The tighter link in risk among large financial institutions (FIs) suggests stronger convergence, employment of common models of risk measurement and risk management, and more intense inter-industry competition, particularly between large banks and large securities firms, compared to smaller institutions. Lack of risk spillover among smaller FIs confirms the intuition that they typically assume more localized and idiosyncratic risk. The co-movement of stock returns among smaller FIs has been helped by the effects of locally based factors, such as economic conditions and state regulations, on all such institutions, and a less diversified product set. Differences in spillover patterns between large and smaller institutions have implications on investment choices and mergers and acquisitions in the industry. Introduction of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) has had dissimilar effects on the riskiness of large versus smaller life insurance and securities firms, and an insignificant effect on commercial banks.     

Funding conditions and insurance stock returns: Do insurance stocks really benefit from rising interest rate regimes?

We examine funding conditions and U.S. insurance company stock returns. Although constrained funding conditions, signaled by restrictive Federal Reserve monetary policy, correspond with increases in the future payouts of fixed‐income securities held by insurance firms and potentially provide value through the liability side of insurer balance sheets, they also decrease the values of securities currently held in insurer portfolios. Prior research finds that restrictive policy has a negative effect on equity returns in general. Our results suggest the negative impacts of constrained funding environments outweigh the potential positives, as insurance company stock returns are significantly lower during periods of constrained funding. This effect varies within a given funding state and also across insurer type. The effect is strongest during the first 3 months of a constrained funding environment and for life and health insurers—insurer types with longer portfolio durations. For property and liability (P&L) insurers, lower stock return performance only exists in the first 3 months of a constrained funding environment. In the subsequent months, P&L insurers actually have higher stock returns during constrained periods, consistent with their typically shorter duration asset portfolios, which are more quickly rolled over into new higher‐yielding securities.     

Effects of business diversification on asset risk-taking: Evidence from the U.S. property-liability insurance industry

We investigate the effect of line-of-business diversification on asset risk-taking in the U.S. property-liability industry. The coordinated risk management hypothesis (Schrand and Unal, 1998) implies a negative relation between underwriting risk and investment risk. Consistent with this hypothesis we find that diversified insurers take more asset risk than non-diversified insurers, and that the degree of asset risk-taking is positively related to diversification extent. Our results are robust to corrections for potential endogeneity bias, selectivity bias, and alternative diversification and asset risk measures. We also provide event study evidence that further supports the coordinated risk management hypothesis. Specifically, we find that when a focused firm diversifies, it increases its asset risk relative to firms that remain focused, and when a diversified firm refocuses, it reduces its asset risk relative to firms that remain diversified.     

Keeping Some Skin in the Game: How to Start a Capital Market in Longevity Risk Transfers

The recent activity in pension buyouts and bespoke longevity swaps suggests that a significant process of aggregation of longevity exposures is under way, led by major insurers, investment banks, and buyout firms with the support of leading reinsurers. As regulatory capital charges and limited reinsurance capacity constrain the scope for market growth, there is now an opportunity for institutions that are pooling longevity exposures to issue securities that appeal to capital market investors, thereby broadening the sharing of longevity risk and increasing market capacity. For this to happen, longevity exposures need to be suitably pooled and tranched to maximize diversification benefits offered to investors and to address asymmetric information issues. We argue that a natural way for longevity risk to be transferred is through suitably designed principal-at-risk bonds.     

Systemic Risk,Financial Crisis,and Credit Risk Insurance

Differing from conventional insurance firms whose underwriting business does not contribute to systemic risk, credit risk insurance companies providing credit protections for debt obligations are exposed to systemic risk. We show that credit risk insurers (CRIs) underperformed conventional insurance companies during the 2007–2009 financial crisis, and such underperformance is attributed to the greater systemic risk of CRIs. We also find that the credit spreads of insured bonds increase significantly after their insurers are downgraded or put in the negative watch list. We control for alternative factors affecting bond credit spreads and the result is robust.     

The Impact of Merger Bids on the Participating Firms' Security Holders

This paper investigates whether merger bids have an impact on the wealth of the participating firms' bondholders and stockholders. Monthly and daily bond and stock returns are calculated relative to the announcement date of a merger bid for a sample of conglomerate mergers. The results show that while the stockholders of target firms gain from a merger bid, no other securityholders either gain or lose. To provide direct evidence on the existence of “diversification effects” and “incentive effects,” we test whether the bondholders' returns are dependent upon the correlation between the returns of the merging firms and whether the size of the bondholders' and stockholders' returns in individual mergers are correlated. The results are consistent with a capital market that efficiently resolves conflicts of interest between stockholders and bondholders.     

Effects of Corporate Diversification: Evidence From the Property–Liability Insurance Industry

Using a sample of property–liability insurers over the period 1995–2004, we develop and test a model that explains performance as a function of line‐of‐business diversification and other correlates. Our results indicate that undiversified insurers consistently outperform diversified insurers. In terms of accounting performance, we find a diversification penalty of at least 1 percent of return on assets or 2 percent of return on equity. These findings are robust to corrections for potential endogeneity bias, alternative risk measures, alternative diversification measures, and an alternative estimation technique. Using a market‐based performance measure (Tobin's Q) we find that the market applies a significant discount to diversified insurers. The existence of a diversification penalty (and diversification discount) provides strong support for the strategic focus hypothesis. We also find that insurance groups underperform unaffiliated insurers and that stock insurers outperform mutuals.     

Earnings Announcements and Systematic Risk

Firms scheduled to report earnings earn an annualized abnormal return of 9.9%. We propose a risk‐based explanation for this phenomenon, whereby investors use announcements to revise their expectations for nonannouncing firms, but can only do so imperfectly. Consequently, the covariance between firm‐specific and market cash flow news spikes around announcements, making announcers especially risky. Consistent with our hypothesis, announcer returns forecast aggregate earnings. The announcement premium is persistent across stocks, and early (late) announcers earn higher (lower) returns. Nonannouncers' response to announcements is consistent with our model, both over time and across firms. Finally, exposure to announcement risk is priced.     

Stock Liquidity Risk and the Cross‐sectional Earnings‐Returns Relationship

We argue that a higher sensitivity to aggregate market‐wide liquidity shocks (i.e., a higher liquidity risk) implies a tendency for a stock's price to converge to fundamentals. We test this intuition within the framework of the earnings‐returns relationship. We find a positive liquidity risk effect on the relationship between return and expected change in earnings. This effect on the earnings‐returns relationship is distinct from the negative effect observed for stock illiquidity level. Notably, the liquidity risk effect is evident (absent) during periods of neutral/low (high) aggregate market liquidity. We also show that the liquidity risk effect is dominant in firms that: (a) are of intermediate size; (b) are of intermediate book‐to‐market; and (c) are profit making.     

Oil Risk Exposure: The Case of the U.S. Oil and Gas Sector

We estimate oil price risk exposures of the U.S. oil and gas sector using the Fama‐French‐Carhart's four‐factor asset pricing model augmented with oil price and interest rate factors. Results show that the market, book‐to‐market, and size factors, as well as momentum characteristics of stocks and changes in oil prices are significant determinants of returns for the sector. Oil price risk exposures of U.S. oil and gas companies in the oil and gas sector are generally positive and significant. Our study also finds that oil price risk exposures vary considerably over time, and across firms and industry subsectors.     

Future Realized Return,Firm‐specific Risk and the Implied Expected Return

In this paper, I propose a novel approach to derive a firm‐specific measure of expected return. It builds on recent accounting‐based valuation models developed by Clubb (2013) and Ashton and Wang (2013). The measure is intrinsically linked to commonly used financial ratios, including book‐to‐market, (forward) earnings yield, and dividend‐to‐price, as well as growth and past returns. The empirical evidence shows that it is significantly positively associated with future realized stock returns and also significantly correlated with commonly used risk characteristics in a theoretically predictable manner. The results are likely to be of interest to practitioners and managers in making capital allocation decisions and to academics in need of proxies for firms’ discount rates and expected returns.