| Abstract: | 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. |
