How much will TWIA pay on losses?

How much will TWIA pay on losses? With the information about reinsurance discussed yesterday, we now have a pretty good sense of what the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association’s finances are going to look like this summer. This lets us build an interactive property insurance calculator for Texas. Yes, if there’s a special session, all of this could change, but unless there is a special session and the bill that emerges out of it passes by a two thirds vote of both Houses, it won’t take effect until deep into this hurricane season anyway. So, in the mean time, what I’m about to show should be quite useful. It’s an interactive property insurance calculator for Texas that lets you see how much your claim against TWIA might be worth.

If you install a CDF player, which you can get for free right here, you will have an interactive widget appear below that produces a pie chart showing the percent of claims that TWIA will be able to pay (green) and the percent that it will not (red).  You get to vary the size of the Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund, the amount of Class 2 (or Class 2 alternative bonds) TWIA will sell, and, if all the Class 2 bonds are sold, the amount of Class 3 bonds that will sell.  You also get to choose the size of the loss TWIA will face. Or, if you want to watch a movie that shows how the percentages are affected by varying these parameters, click the little arrow in the top right of the widget. The output is an easy to read pie chart that shows how much TWIA will be able to pay.

[WolframCDF source=”” width=”600″ height=”515″ altimage=”” altimagewidth=”553″ altimageheight=”580″]

For those who don’t want to install a CDF player, here’s a snapshot showing some sample output.

An example of how much TWIA might pay: output from the interactive property insurance calculator for Texas

An example of how much TWIA might pay

Troubling news: TWIA loses $500 million in anticipated funding

The short term finances of the already shaky largest property insurer on the Texas coast took an unanticipated and significant turn for the worse Monday.  Outgoing Texas Insurance Commissioner Eleanor Kitzman rejected Monday plans of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association to borrow $500 million via a “Bond Anticipation Note” to help pay claims this hurricane season.  The Commissioner did not reject a plan to issue post-event bonds in the event of a significant storm this season.  As a practical matter, however, it may be difficult to persuade the market to loan money to TWIA after a storm due to peculiarities in the existing law that were not ironed out during the regular session of the Texas legislature.

The refusal to permit TWIA to borrow at this time, coupled with the announced $135 million settlement earlier this week of most of the remaining lawsuits against TWIA arising out of Hurricane Ike, probably cuts in half the amount of cash TWIA would have immediately available to pay claims in the event of a storm this summer without having to rely on untested, legally questionable and potentially slow efforts at “post-event” borrowings.  The action leaves both the cash position and the long run finances of the troubled insurer in question.

My best guess is that without the Bond Anticipation Note (BAN), and including its Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund (CRTF), TWIA probably has between $400 to $700 million in cash with which to pay claims.  That’s not much when your direct exposure is over $75 billion, your total exposure is over $80 billion and a Category 2 or 3 hit at a bad spot on the Texas coast could easily cause losses of over $2 billion. The Bond Anticipation Note would have doubled the amount of cash available to pay claims.

As it stands, and as set forth below, I now believe it is not unduly pessimistic to set the odds of a TWIA insolvency this summer at 10%. If we consider two summers until the next regular legislative session, this risk roughly doubles. Given the grave effects of a TWIA insolvency on the entire Texas economy, this is way, way too high a risk.

Cash position

To understand this, take a look a TWIA’s 2012 Annual Statement. TWIA ended 2013 with about $430 million in cash (Assets, line 5; column 1) and total admitted assets (including the cash) of about the same amount, $430 million. (Assets, line 28, column 3) It has agreed to pay about $135 million in cash to settle the bulk of the Ike lawsuits. How much that will reduce the $323 million in loss reserves (Liabilities, Surplus and Other Funds, line 1, column 1) is unclear.  Because lawsuits remain, it is unlikely to reduce those reserves down to zero.  It will, however, likely reduce TWIA’s cash position by the full $135 million in relatively short order, depending on the details of the settlement. That would leave TWIA with just $295 million in cash.

Of course, it’s a little more complicated.  I don’t have access to TWIA’s financial statements for the first quarter of 2013 or thereafter. TWIA has likely earned some cash since January 1, 2013. It has been earning and collecting premiums, although it has had to pay off about $50 million on a thunderstorm in Hitchcock.  So, let’s be generous and credit TWIA with about $120 million more in new cash. This brings a guesstimate of its cash levels back up to around $415 million.

The problem is that not all of this cash is available to pay policyholder claims.  Some of it will be used to pay for operations, for commissions, and for other matters, including the Ike claims not resolved earlier this week.  So, I would be surprised if someone were to audit TWIA today and found it had more than $400 million in cash available to pay claims before resort to the CRTF. I would not be surprised if the number actually came out in the $300 million range.  And both of these figures will be reduced by $100 million or so less if TWIA succeeds in its plan to purchase reinsurance.

So, without the hoped-for borrowings, TWIA might have had $300 million to pay claims out of operating funds and another $180 million out of its CRTF.  TWIA might have had a total of $500 million.  (If the settlement came out of the CRTF rather than operations, the total would stay the same).  If the BAN had been approved, at least in the short run before TWIA had to pay the loan back, TWIA might have had $1 billion.  Both sums are, of course, grossly inadequate to deal with the $80 plus billion in TWIA exposure. Nonetheless, $1 billion in cash would have left TWIA in a better short run position.

Long run finances

Perhaps the greater impact, however, of the BAN ban is on the ability of TWIA to sell post-event bonds following a storm.  We’ve been through this matter before on this blog, but it is worth repeating because it is so very important.  The short version is, however, that there is a significant risk that very little in post-event bonds will actually be able to be sold.  And, thus, TWIA may very well have less than $1 billion with which to pay claims even after borrowing.  I would not be surprised if it ended up with as little $700 million.  The probability of such losses occurring this summer would be about 7-9% if this were a normal hurricane season.  If, as climate experts agree, however, this proves to be a bad hurricane season the probability of TWIA going broke and unable to pay claims fully could rise to 10-14%.

Here’s the longer version.  I, by the way, am not alone in my alarm on this matter. TWIA itself raised the issue in its submission to the Texas legislature.  the Texas Public Finance Authority (TPFA) had trouble last year trying to help TWIA borrow. And several of the pieces of proposed legislation this session would have fixed this particular problem.  But all of these bills failed during the regular session. Governor Perry has thus far resisted calls that he add windstorm insurance reform to the agenda for a special legislative session.

if there is a storm that pierces the CRTF, TWIA will need to rely on post-event Class 1 bonds.  But, unless something has changed, per the Texas Public Finance Authority they won’t sell, at least not up to $1 billion authorized.  But if the Class 1’s don’t fully sell, then TWIA/TPFA is prohibited from selling the regular Class 2 bonds. (Section 2210.073). Instead, we go to the Class 2 Alternatives under section 2210.6136.  But if less than $500 million of Class 1 bonds have sold — which is likely to be the case —  the first $500 million of the  Class 2 bonds  are paid in the same problematic way as the Class 1 bonds (surcharges on TWIA policyholders).  (Section 2210.6136(b)(1)). And there is a serious question as to whether anyone will loan TWIA money on those terms. Why? Because as soon as substantial policy surcharges are issued on TWIA policies, some TWIA policyholders will either find other insurance, reduce the sizes of their policy, or simply choose to go bare.  This is particularly likely if a storm has impoverished many TWIA policyholders. And if enough TWIA policyholders reduce their premiums, the percent surcharge will need to go up to compensate in order to pay off the bonds.  But if the surcharge rate goes up, more TWIA policyholders will drop out.  And, we get into a death spiral.

But here’s the catch.  Under section 2210.6136(c), if TWIA/TPFA can’t sell every dollar of the $1 billion in Class 2 Alternatives, then TWIA/TPFA can not issue the class 3 bonds of $500 million.  The statute is crystal clear on this point.  And this means that TWIA has no Class 1 bonds, no Class 2 bonds, little or no Class 2 Alternative bonds and no Class 3 bonds.  The system has completely collapsed in a cascade of failures.  TWIA basically has no money beyond cash on hand, and the CRTF. That means policyholders will not be paid in full.  If the storm is bad enough, they won’t be paid even half of their legitimate claims.

Reinsurance — assuming that TWIA can get it — will not help a lot. The reinsurance will not kick in until losses exceed the “reinsurance attachment point.”  But the reinsurance attachment point is likely to be set on the false assumption that the post-event securities will succeed.  So, for losses less than the reinsurance attachment point, the reinsurance won’t pay at all.  TWIA will be just as bankrupt as if it did not have reinsurance at all.  Actually, it will be more bankrupt because  it will have paid $100 million in premiums.  And even if the storm is so bad that the reinsurance kicks in, there is still a gap between the top of the CRTF plus any post-event bonds and the reinsurance attachment point.  So, TWIA won’t have enough money to pay claims fully.

Why would Commissioner Kitzman do such a thing?

I’m not privy to her reasoning or all the facts, but there are concerns we have outlined before about pre-event borrowing such as a Bond Anticipation Note.  The problem with loans is that you have to pay them back — and at interest.  Thus, in the long run, particularly if interest rates rise or if TWIA is deemed high risk and thus charged high rates even now, borrowing perpetuates your insufficient capitalization.  Whatever the benefits in the short run — and there may have been many here that incoming Commissioner Julia Rathgeber will want to examine — it is not the ideal long run solution for insurance risk. It may well be that Commissioner Kitzman refused as her final act to be complicit in the bandaiding of TWIA in the hopes that a sufficiently obvious problem would spur the Governor to call a special session and the legislature to develop a sustainable fix.  If so, let us hope that gamble proves correct.


TWIA validates risk of insolvency and threat of small weather events

A letter from TWIA in response to a public information request validates the methodology used on this blog to assess alternative legislative proposals to fund catastrophic risk in Texas. This response to a public information request also shows that, given TWIA’s thin capitalization and growing exposure, even small weather events can have a serious effect. A redacted copy of that response is provided in the link below. The redaction is to protect the identity of the requestor (not me) who fears retaliation for having submitted it.

[Copy of letter temporarily deleted until redaction can be improved]

May 8, 2013 letter from TWIA

May 8, 2013 letter from TWIA

Insolvency Risk

Here is TWIA’s risk of insolvency based on what it apparently believes it can achieve in pre-event funding, post-event bonding and reinsurance.  For reasons I have set forth elsewhere, I believe these estimates of how much funding TWIA can receive are financially and legally unrealistic.

Source of FundingAmountCumulative AmountProbability Exceedance
Source of FundingAmountCumulative AmountProbability Exceedance
Premiums and CRTF$200 million$200 million17.4%
Class 1 Bonds$500 million$700 million7.7%
Class 2 Bonds$1 billion$1.7 billion3.2%
Class 3 Bonds$500 million$2.2 billion2.5%
Reinsurance$1.15 billion$3.35 billion1.5%

Regular readers of this blog — actually an impressively growing number — will note two things.  First, these estimates are close to estimates I have made of the risk to TWIA.  I have not been crying “wolf” or (needlessly) imitating Chicken Little on this topic for these many months. There is a very serious problem on the coast of Texas and, derivatively, a very serious problem for the rest of Texas. Also, since my estimates of the burden on various constituencies posed by various legislative proposals are based on these same models (see here, here and here for examples), the TWIA data tends to validate my estimates.  Bills such as SB 1700 indeed force non-TWIA policyholders to pay a stunningly large portion of the claims of TWIA policyholders.

Second, these estimates are one year values.  If one looks at the risk of insolvency over longer period of time, the risk increases significantly.  So, for example, if TWIA is not substantially fixed until the 84th legislative session and its catastrophe reserve trust fund does not grow, there is about a 32% probability that TWIA will have to go beyond its catastrophe reserve fund in order to pay claims.


TWIA confirms in its response that it is trying to obtain $1.15 billion in reinsurance. Its hope is to spend $106 million and get an attachment point atop Class 3 bonds of $2.2 billion. It confirms that it may be able to get between $900 million and $1.1 billion of insurance coverage for this money.

There is, however, a troubling paragraph in the public information request response. The one contingency mentioned in the response is that TWIA might not be possible to sell the Bond Anticipation Notes (BAN) and thus might need an attachment point on the reinsurance of $1.7 billion. Fair enough. But the problem is actually considerably more serious. If the BAN does not sell — indeed if any of the authorized $1 billion in Class 1 Securities can not fully be issued — then TWIA can not issue $1 billion in regular Class 2 Securities.  It has to issue what I have called Class 2 Alternative Securities.  But the Class 2 Securities depend on the same dubious funding source as the Class 1 Securities, so the market might not buy those either.  And, if the Class 2 Alternative Securities don’t sell the Class 3 Securities can not be sold.

TWIA actually noticed at least part of this problem back in December when it made its recommendations to the Texas legislature.  Read pp. 30-32 of this TWIA document. Six months later, however, TWIA appears to be ignoring that major problem even though the law under which it operates remains unchanged.   If TWIA and/or its reinsurance broker is not paying attention to this point, it could be about to make dubious use of $106 million in TWIA policyholder money.  Because if TWIA buys reinsurance with an attachment point of $1.7 billion or $2.2 billion and it has only, say, $900 million in actual cash available to pay claims, TWIA will have no money to pay losses between $900 million and the attachment point. There’s a gap. It’s like buying catastrophic health insurance with a big deductible when you don’t even have enough money to pay for modest claims. The reinsurance will not kick in and it will not “drop down.” And so, TWIA will be able to pay only a small fraction (perhaps as little as 50%) of its losses with unusable reinsurance just sitting there.

For what it’s worth,  I’ve talked about all this before (here and here, for example, and here too).  And its a bug that many of the proposals now floating about the legislature fix.  But who knows if any of these proposals will actually become law.


TWIA confirms that at the end of March it stood at $180 million. At least it has not gone down more since the beginning of the year.

Recent Hailstorms

A friend has stated that “TWIA doesn’t even have enough to pay for a thunderstorm.” I had always taken this to be an exaggeration.  But the Public Information Request confirms that a thunderstorm in Santa Fe and Hitchcock on April 2, 2013 — a localized non-catastrophic weather event —  generated about $50 million in losses (what would be 28% of its CRTF). Fortunately, this storm did not get beyond the budgeted amount for 2013 non-catastrophe losses and did not require a dip into the CRTF. But think about it.  This moderate weather event cost TWIA more than 10% of its premiums.  What if there’s another severe thunderstorm or two this year?  What does this say about premiums?  What does it say about the needed capitalization of a bulked up TWIA?

The problem is one of exposure.  TWIA now insures so much property and the coast — thanks partly to TWIA subsidized insurance rates — has become sufficiently developed  that even moderate or localized weather events can potentially wipe out TWIA’s Ike-depleted catastrophe reserve trust fund and force TWIA onto the uncharted waters of post-event financing.


Maybe TWIA isn’t this helpful all the time to everybody, but in my experience TWIA has made an effort to provide timely and reasonable responses to reasonable public information requests.  So, a thanks to Jennifer Armstrong and the staff there on this point.


It might be worth repeating that the views expressed on this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Houston.

Also, the views expressed in this posts do not necessarily reflect those of the recipient of the public information request at issue.

S.B. 1700 in stark pictures

According to newspaper accounts here and here, S.B. 1700 is heading for a vote in the Texas Senate this week.  Before the Senate votes on the bill or the House Insurance Committee considers the matter, I hope they have some understanding of how radically it transfers wealth to TWIA/TRIP policyholders from people who do not have TWIA policies. I also hope legislators understand that although a $4 billion funding stack is definitely an improvement over the status quo, there is still a significant risk to the coast.  And I also hope they understand the TWIA/TRIP depopulation plan, which would in theory be a good idea, has about as much a chance of success without giant changes to TWIA and TRIP that will greatly anger coastal residents as a plan to depopulate Texas itself.

Here are some pictures that I hope aid understanding.

The Funding Stack

Here’s a picture of the TWIA funding stack for 2013 under S.B. 1700. For each element of the stack, I’ve shown who actually pays for that layer of responsibility.

SB 1700; Labeled[BarChart[{180, 500, 500, 500, 500, 1000, 800},    ChartLayout -> "Stacked",    ChartLabels ->     Placed[{"Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund (TWIA premiums)",       "Class 1 Assessments (Texas insureds)",       "Class 1 Securities (Coastal insured surchanges)",       "Class 2 Assessments (Texas insureds)",       "Class 2 Securities (Coastal insured surcharges)",       "Baseline Reinsurance (TWIA premiums)",       "Insurer Purchased Reinsurance (Texas insureds)"}, Center],    BaseStyle -> {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss",      LineIndent -> 0},    ChartStyle -> Map[Lighter@ColorData[61][#] &, Range[8]]],   Style["TWIA Funding Stack for 2013\n(Numbers in Millions)", \ {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss", LineIndent -> 0}]]

TWIA Funding Stack for 2013 under SB 1700

Distribution of expected responsibility

Here’s a pie chart based on a 10,000 year storm simulation showing how much each layer of responsibility would expect to pay under S.B. 1700. There are several features of this graph worth noting.  First, note that TWIA policyholders have paid only for the modest dark red wedge at the left and the orange baseline reinsurance at the bottom left.  That is less than half of the expected payments.  (Yes, they pay a modest portion of the coastal insured surcharges too, but we don’t know how much).  Also notice the large cherry red wedge of unfunded losses.  Although the stack goes up to $4 billion or so under this bill for 2013, and although insolvency now occurs in perhaps 1.5% of the years (26% over 20 years), when insolvency occurs, it is a huge amount of money that is unfunded.

By Layer

SB1700; Framed@Labeled[PieChart[Mean /@ Through[funcs[rv]],    ChartLabels ->      Placed[Map[       Pane[#, 144] &, {"Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund and operating \ funds (TWIA premiums)", "Class 1 Assessments (Texas insureds)",         "Class 1 Securities (Coastal insured surchanges)",         "Class 2 Assessments (Texas insureds)",         "Class 2 Securities (Coastal insured surcharges)",         "Baseline Reinsurance (TWIA premiums)",         "Insurer Purchased Reinsurance (Texas insureds)",         "Unfunded losses"}], "RadialCallout"],     ChartLegends ->      Placed[{"Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund and operating funds (TWIA \ premiums)", "Class 1 Assessments (Texas insureds)",        "Class 1 Securities (Coastal insured surchanges)",        "Class 2 Assessments (Texas insureds)",        "Class 2 Securities (Coastal insured surcharges)",        "Baseline Reinsurance (TWIA premiums)",        "Insurer Purchased Reinsurance (Texas insureds)",        "Unfunded losses"}, Bottom],     ChartStyle -> Map[ColorData[61][#] &, Range[8]], ImageSize -> 580,     ImagePadding -> {{90, 100}, {20, 20}},     BaseStyle -> {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss"}    ], Style[    "Distribution of expected loss payments by layer", {FontSize -> 14,      FontFamily -> "Swiss", FontWeight -> Bold}]   ]

Expected loss payments by layer based on 2013 stack

 By source

We can group the expected payments shown above so that we simply have expected payments by source.  Here is that graph.  Notice again that TWIA policyholders pay little more under this scheme than either Texas insurers (who will surely pass the cost on to non-coastal Texas insureds) and coastal insureds, many of whom have already paid for non-TWIA wind policies. And, again, notice the large chunk of unfunded losses that exists under S.B. 1700.

With[{wedges = With[{t = {#[[1]] + #[[6]], #[[2]] + #[[4]] + #[[7]], #[[3]] + \ #[[5]], #[[8]]} &[Mean /@ Through[funcs[rv]]]}, t/Total[t]]}, Framed@Labeled[ PieChart[wedges, ChartLabels -> Placed[Map[ Pane[#, 144] &, {"TWIA premiums", "Texas insurers (insureds)", "Coastal insureds", "Unfunded losses"}], "RadialCallout"], ChartStyle -> Map[ColorData[61][#] &, Range[4]], ImageSize -> 580, ImagePadding -> {{90, 100}, {20, 20}}, BaseStyle -> {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss"} ], Style[ "Distribution of expected loss payments by layer responsibility", \ {FontSize -> 14, FontFamily -> "Swiss", FontWeight -> Bold}]] ]

Distribution of expected loss payments by layer responsibility under SB 1700

 By Cash Payments

There’s another way to look at S.B. 1700.  Don’t focus on the source of expected loss payments. Focus instead on source of expected cash flow.  The two are not the same because large chunks of cash flow get lost in TWIA/TRIP overhead and in paying reinsurers enormous amounts to bear risk (a subject discussed elsewhere). Here’s that pie chart.  Notice that TWIA policyholders now shoulder a considerably larger share of the load (about 2/3rds). There is still, however, a large chunk of the load picked up by Texas insurers/insureds (14%), coastal insureds (8%) and unfunded losses (9%).  The unfunded losses are a smaller chunk because the denominator for the pie chart is now larger.

SB 1700; Framed@Labeled[   With[{wedges =       With[{t = {#[[1]], #[[2]] + #[[4]] + #[[7]], #[[3]] + #[[5]], \ #[[8]]} &[ReplacePart[Mean /@ Through[funcs[rv]], 1 -> 460000000]]},        t/Total[t]]},     PieChart[wedges,      ChartLabels ->       Placed[Map[        Pane[#, 144] &, {"TWIA premiums", "Texas insurers (insureds)",          "Coastal insureds", "Unfunded losses"}], "RadialCallout"],      ChartStyle -> Map[ColorData[61][#] &, Range[4]], ImageSize -> 580,      ImagePadding -> {{110, 60}, {20, 20}},      BaseStyle -> {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss"}]],    Style["Distribution of expected cash payments by source", {FontSize \ -> 14, FontFamily -> "Swiss", FontWeight -> Bold}]]

Distribution of expected cash payments for 2013 under SB 1700 by source

Political Power in TRIP

TRIP will be run by a Board of Directors appointed by the Texas Governor.  The graphic below shows the statutory composition of that board under new section 12 of S.B. 1700 (2210.102). Notice the little wedge representing non-seacoast interests.  Hopes, therefore, that the board will take steps to protect non-coastal Texans from having their wealth transfered to the coast would thus seem very optimistic.  Also notice how the southern areas of the Texas coast, which have less population and less insured property than the northern areas, have equal political power on the board.  This is not a one house (or one premium dollar) / one vote system.

Labeled[Framed@ Labeled[PieChart[{3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, ImageSize -> 200, ChartLegends -> Map[Pane[ Style[#, {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss", LineIndent -> 0}], 216] &, {"insurance industry representatives who write \ wind/hail in first tier coastal counties", "Cameron-Kenedy-Kleberg-Willacy representative", "Aransas-Calhoun-Nueces-Refugio-San Patricio representative", "Brazoria-Chambers-Galveston-Jefferson-Matagorda-Harris \ representative", "non seacoast member", "engineer from second tier coastal county", "financial industry second tier coastal county"}], BaseStyle -> {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss", LineIndent -> 0}], Map[Style[#, {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss", LineIndent -> 0}] &, {"TRIP Board of Directors", "With ex-officio members: elected official from southern \ seacoast, elected official from northern seacost, elected official \ from non-seacoast"}], {Bottom, Top}], Style["Political Power in TRIP", {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss", LineIndent -> 0, FontWeight -> Bold}], Top]

Board of Director membership in TRIP

The Depopulation of TWIA/TRIP

One of the concepts in SB 1700 is that TWIA/TRIP should be “depopulated” by reducing its total insured exposure (currently over $75 billion).  Great. The bill does not, however, come with a magic wand with which to accomplish this task. The only tool it provides is a club that threatens the insurance industry with a collective $200 million assessment that goes into an “exposure reduction plan fund” if the 2016 target of a 20% reduction from 2013 levels is not met.  It places insurers in a bit of a prisoners dilemma and creates a lot of litigation-fomenting administrative discretion on this point by saying that the assessment will only be levied against insurers that “as determined by the [TRIP] board of directors, has not met the member’s proportionate responsiiblity for reduction of the association’s total insureds exposure.” So, if all other insurers have started selling insurance — presumably at a major loss — on the coast using TWIA or sub-TWIA rates, the insurer who is left and refusing to sell insurance on the coast might find themselves with a very hefty bill even if they just have a modest share of the Texas property-casualty market.  And this, I take it, is the whole point behind the clever section 2210.212 of the bill.

I suspect, however, that the $200 million assessment will be unlikely to lure many insurers back to the coast.  There is going to be a first mover problem.  If very few large insurers choose to avoid the 2210.212 club by selling on the coast, then no insurer ends up paying a very large 2210.212 assessment. Question for any other lawyers (or law students) reading this entry: would it violate federal antitrust laws, as modified by the McCarran Ferguson Act, for insurers collusively to refuse to sell; would it violate Texas law?

The other point — and this is the one to which the picture below relates — is that the reduction targets are ambitious.  Although they are stated as reductions from the 2013 status quo, they will in fact be larger.  That’s because TWIA/TRIP is likely to continue growing at significant rates.  Thus, to make a 20% cut from the 2013 status quo, one needs to make perhaps a 30% cut from the 2016 expected status quo. The graph below illustrates this point by comparing 3% TWIA growth to the depopulation targets stated in section 2210.212.


Labeled[Show[ DateListPlot[{{"January 1, 2013", 1}, {"January 1, 2016", 1.03^3}, {"January 1, 2018", 1.03^5}, {"January 1, 2020", 1.03^7}, {"January 1, 2022", 1.03^9}, {"January 1,2024", 1.03^11}}, PlotRange -> {0, 1.4}, PlotMarkers -> Automatic, PlotStyle -> Green, FrameLabel -> {"Time", "Total Insured Exposure As Fraction of 2013"}, BaseStyle -> {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss"}, Epilog -> {Arrow[{{3.6238320000000005*^9, 0.28615669133896926}, {3.6578745686249995*^9, 0.7181793832820529}}], Inset[TextCell["Assessment of $200\nmillion if not reached", GeneratedCell -> False, CellAutoOverwrite -> False, CellBaseline -> Baseline, TextAlignment -> Left], {3.588546672*^9, 0.19378500614472127}, {Left, Baseline}, Alignment -> {Left, Top}]}], DateListPlot[{{"January 1, 2013", 1}, {"January 1, 2016", 0.8}, {"January 1, 2018", 0.65}, {"January 1, 2020", 0.55}, {"January 1, 2022", 0.45}, {"January 1,2024", 0.4}}, PlotMarkers -> Automatic, PlotStyle -> Red]], Style["Natural Growth of TWIA/TRIP (green) compared to 2210.212 \ \"requirements\" (red)", {FontSize -> 11, FontFamily -> "Swiss"}] ]

Natural growth of TWIA/TRIP compared to 2210.212 requirements

My final picture is of Albus Dumbledore and the most powerful wand in the universe: the Elder Wand.  I show it because, I suspect, that is what it is going to take for TRIP to actually accomplish the targets set forth in the legislation without infuriating the very political constituencies that have, with SB 1700, again kicked the fundamental problems of catastrophic risk transfer down the road.

The Elder Wand

Perhaps the only thing that will actually be able to implement the SB 1700 targets without infuriating coastal Texans

TRIP could raise premiums drastically to market rates.  That would likely reduce total insured exposure, but somehow I don’t think that is the idea in the legislation. It could refuse to take on new customers. Imagine the squeals that will produce. It could do what I have suggested for years and refuse to insure beyond some basic amount and rely on market-provided excess insurance for the rest. To do so to the extent of the targets contained in SB 1700 will likely require that excess policies kick in at about $100,000.  Again, I have doubts that his what the proponents of this legislation have in mind. Or, finally, TRIP could just realize that its impossible to reduce total insured exposure without taking steps that are going to be extremely unpopular with the very constituencies that put forth this bill. They could, instead, giggle. They could recognize that the “must” language in the bill is basically a legislative joke — a pretext for extracting in disguise another $200 million out of Texas insureds throughout the state to subsidize, yet again, coastal property, owned by poor and wealthy alike.

TWIA Board to Consider 2013 Reinsurance, Bonds

With just 30 days to go before the start of hurricane season, the Board of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) will meet tomorrow, Friday, May 3, 2013, in Austin to discuss issues critical to its survival.  Among the items on the agenda are purchases of reinsurance and attempts to sell both pre-event and post-event bonds.  Both of these items are likely to prove extremely difficult for TWIA to manage.  Not on the public agenda is any further consideration of having TWIA placed into receivership.


Let’s look at the reinsurance issue first. TWIA will be receiving a presentation from its long time insurance broker, Guy Carpenter. You can get a copy of that presentation here. It’s a fascinating document. It rests on an awfully cheerful view of TWIA’s ability to sell post-event bonds.  That’s not a view shared by the Texas Insurance Commissioner or, for what it is worth, by me. It shows TWIA is considering a reinsurance purchase option that would help insurers but would hurt policyholders. And it exposes yet again the extent to which the never-ending need to purchase reinsurance created by the undercapitalization of TWIA, forces TWIA to pay extremely high rates for that protection. If one wanted Exhibit A for why TWIA should be substantially depopulated rather than propped up so it can expand, the material for this board meeting would not be a bad place to start.


The Guy Carpenter presentation proceeds on the dubious assumption that TWIA can sell post-event bonds and thus can attach as high as $2.3 billion in the funding stack.   Look at the following picture found on Slide 8. (You may need to click on it, which will cause it to zoom in).

Proposed reinsurance arrangement for 2013

Proposed reinsurance arrangement for 2013


Notice that it presupposes that TWIA will be able to sell $2 billion worth of Class 1, Class 2  bonds and thus explores attachment at the top of the Class 2 stack.  But this is a very strange assumption to make.  First, as the Texas Public Finance Authority and the Texas Insurance Commissioner have stated, and as seems clearly correct, TWIA will not be able to sell the full $1 billion of Class 1 bonds.  And has been discussed on this blog before, the Class 2 bonds can’t sell if the Class 1 bonds don’t sell out and the Class 2 Alternative bonds have difficulties as well. So, the whole discussion of reinsurance attaching no lower than about $2.3 billion rests on what sure looks like unwarranted optimism.

Now, to be sure, TWIA’s got a document in its packet for the meeting Friday that suggests it still thinks it can sell $500 in pre-event securities, $1 billion in Class 2 public securities and $500 million in Class 3 securities.  This document appears, however, to ignore section 2210.6136 of the Texas Insurance Code, which says that Class 2 Bonds can’t be issued unless the full $1 billion of Class 1 bonds sell out.  If the Class 1 bonds don’t fully sell, then one has to resort to the Class 2 Alternative bonds.  But as I’ve pointed out before, the Class 2 Alternative bonds may be almost as dubious as the Class 1 bonds. And the Class 3 bonds legally depend on all the Class 2 or Class 2 Alternative bonds selling out.  So, again it looks to me as if TWIA is still looking at this summer with very rosy glasses or has some interpretation of the Texas Insurance Code I don’t understand.

Note 1: There is an alternative presentation on slide 13 in which Guy Carpenter explores the possibility of the reinsurance attaching at $1.7 billion, but even this is an awfully optimistic perspective on TWIA’s ability to sell post-event bonds.

Note 2: In fairness to Guy Carpenter, there is a footnote attached to the graph stating “Actual amounts of bond tranches are subject to marketability.” Yes. But unless there’s been some miraculous turn around in TWIA’s bonding ability, this seems like the main point, rather than a footnote.

Why is Guy Carpenter not having the reinsurance attach at the top of the Class 3 bonds?

If you’ve ready my blog entry on The Curious Matter of Reinsurance Attachment, you’ll know that the TWIA board has to make a crucial tradeoff in determining where any reinsurance should attach.  Inserting the reinsurance between the Class 2 and Class 3 bonds protects insurers from assessments but buys, dollar for dollar, less protection for TWIA policyholders. Inserting the reinsurance on top of the Class 3 bonds gives policyholders more protection but increases the likelihood that insurers will have to pay.

Most of the bills pending in the legislature would prohibit TWIA from doing exactly what the Guy Carpenter presentation appears to suggest: protecting insurers from having to pay back Class 3 bonds rather than maximizing policyholder protection. Given the incredibly precarious situation facing TWIA policyholders this summer — sorry insurers — but the reinsurance should attach at the highest level possible, buying the most protection for policyholders with a provision for drop down in the event the post-event bonds can’t be sold.

The pricing of reinsurance continues to be incredibly high

The Guy Carpenter proposal suggests that TWIA is again going to have to pay through the nose for reinsurance partly as a result of it never having an adequate internal catastrophe reserve trust fund.  As I’ve spoken about on many occasions, this reinsurance trap — almost like borrowing from payday lenders to address financial vulnerability — basically insures that TWIA never escapes its poverty.

How can I say this?  Look at the models AIR and RMS provide both Guy Carpenter and TWIA.  Here’s slide 6 of the presentation.

AIR and RMS risk estimates

AIR and RMS risk estimates

If one assumes that the distribution of annual losses is a Compound Poisson distribution, with the Poisson parameter being 0.54 (as found in this scholarly article) and one assumes that the underlying distribution is a Weibull with parameters 0.42 and 177,000,000, you can generate data that matches up extremely well with that found by AIR and RMS.  If you then run, say, 10,000 years of simulations using that distribution, you find that the mean losses to an insurer who writes a maximum of  $850 million worth of coverage over a $2.3 billion retention is only about $20 million.  That is 4-5 times less than what the reinsurers are apparently proposing to charge.  And, thus, the cost of having to reinsure rather than internally finance is something like $65-$75 million per year, or about 1/6 of all TWIA’s premiums. You dont, by the way, get qualitatively different results using the three parameter Weibull distribution that I’ve used on this blog before to replicate the AIR/RMS models.

There’s a lot more that is odd about the reinsurance pricing. If we think of the price as being composed partly of expected losses and partly of having to withdraw the maximum exposure from illiquid high-earning investments and place it in low return, highly liquid investments — this is the Wharton School model — the pricing only makes sense if reinsurers lose about 7.8% on their capital by having to make it particularly liquid. ((-expectedLosses + premiums)/maxExposure). Given the market right now, that’s a pretty high number.

There are a couple of explanations between the actual pricing for reinsurance and the pricing that the models would suggest.  One, which is rather scary, is that the reinsurance market is not behaving as competitively as one would like.  The other, scary for different reasons, is that the reinsurance market doesn’t trust the AIR/RMS model and thinks the risk of a major hurricane is considerably greater.  If that’s true, however, then even the dire warnings that I  and others have been sounding about TWIA are understated.


The Bond Anticipation Note

The other main item on the agenda appears to be the issuance of bonds.  There is a a proposal from First Southwest that TWIA sell by June 27, 2013, a “Bond Anticipation Note” for $500 million that would basically be an advance on a hoped-for similar Class 1 post-event bond. First Southwest apparently believes these unrated bonds could be sold at between 4 and 6%. My own 2 cents is that if TWIA can get this loan, it should grab it.  Increasing the amount it has to pay claims from its CRTF funds of $180 million to something like $680 million will help.  And if all it has to pay is some interest, that’s a good deal. But there’s a lot to do before this money will be available to TWIA and it looks as if it is going to have go through at least the first month of the 2013 hurricane season without it.

Post-Event Bonds

There’s also apparently a resolution on the table authorizing TWIA to asks the Texas Public Finance Authority to issue post-event bonds. I’ll confess I don’t understand this one.  There haven’t been any tropical cyclones yet in Texas for 2013.  Maybe TWIA is getting this resolution done to see what can actually done for 2013?  Maybe it is an attempt to see if things are as bad as some people have been saying?


The TWIA board is in a very tough spot.  With fewer than 30 days to go in the legislative session and 30 days until the start of hurricane season, it doesn’t really know what its resources are to pay claims. It’s being (understandably) threatened with receivership by the Texas Insurance Commissioner. And its existing reinsurance expires on May 31, 2013, before the start of hurricane season.  If and until TWIA gets some legislative relief or is put partly out of its misery by a Texas shift to an assigned risk plan or other mechanism that deconcentrates risk, it doesn’t have many good options. My hope is that the board will have the courage to confront its moral and legal obligation to warn policyholders in the clearest possible terms of the risks that, unless powerful legislative relief swiftly occurs, their claims will not be paid fully should a significant hurricane hit this summer.

H.B. 3622: the hearing yesterday. And is it getting worse?

Here’s a link to the House Insurance Committee hearing of April 30, 2013. My extensive fan network can skip to minute 10 and watch until minute 26 as I take on the Bonnen Brothers and discuss H.B. 3622 with the rest of the committee. Actually, it’s worth watching the whole thing, particularly the dance around the issue of whether H.B. 3622 mandates “actuarially sound rates.”  Answer: it does not.

Dennis Bonnen

Dennis Bonnen

Greg Bonnen

Greg Bonnen







A few quick observations:

  • Unconfirmed, but there is apparently a major change in H.B. 3622 that makes the bill worse than I thought.  In fact, if what I am hearing is true, I might now answer the question posed to me by Representative Greg Bonnen yesterday somewhat differently about which was better, his bill, which I did not like, or the status quo, which I also do not like.  If it is true, as I heard after the meeting, and as Beamon Floyd, a lobbyist for major Texas insurers suggested during his testimony, that a modified version of the bill relieves TWIA policyholders from the obligation of actually paying for the reinsurance that protects them but foists that $100 millionish burden onto insurers statewide, that makes H.B. 3622 even more problematic. If that’s true — and I hope to find out later today — my better answer might then be: “I can’t say: they are both awful in different ways. The status quo is awful because it does not create a high enough stack to protect TWIA policyholders from insolvency. HB 3622 is awful because it makes non-coastal residents pay even more of the burden of insuring on the coast and thereby sends even worse signals about development patterns and hurts the poor off the coast even more.”
  • It is apparently very common practice in the Texas legislature for there to be proposed changes to a bill — a “Committee Substitute” that are not posted to the otherwise wonderful Texas legislative website.  As a result, “outsiders” such as me find themselves testifying about provisions that have either been replaced or supplemented.  Apparently, one can usually get the committee substitute by asking the bill proponent, but it might enhance democracy — and make testimony more relevant — if these substitutes were available electronically or in some regularized procedure.
  • I think I now understand Representative Craig Eiland’s ideas on trying to assess insurers for Hurricane Ike.  He doesn’t want to assess under the old law.  What he seems to suggest is a new law that would assess insurers for anything up to $600 million “for Ike” and to justify that assessment on grounds that the insurers “escaped” that responsibility under the old law when TWIA messed up and failed to assess adequately.  It’s an interesting idea and I too am troubled by the failure to assess under the old law. It is partly responsible for the current deficiency in the Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund. But it is not an idea without legal risks. Although the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution applies only to retroactive imposition of criminal liabilityHarisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 594 (1952), that rule has some qualifications (Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U.S. (7 Otto) 381, 384 (1878)). Moreover, although what Representative Eiland is proposing isn’t quite a classical taking, it is a little disturbing.  The idea of taking money, even if for the public good, not as a condition of continuing to have an insurance business in Texas but as punishment for having previously done business in Texas and legally escaping what some wanted you to pay, may come close to constitutional prohibitions.  Make that assessment heavy enough and its relation to prior conduct or past legislative advocacy for the repeal of the old assessment law clear enough, and it might inspire the insurance industry to go out and find a good lawyer.
  • The Bonnen Brothers are both clearly intelligent people.  The absence of bombast in their tone is refreshing.

There will be more later today or tomorrow on the whole TWIA situation. Stay tuned as we head into the homestretch.

A closer look at H.B. 3622


I have undertaken an analysis of H.B. 3622 that is going to be discussed in the House Insurance Committee at a hearing at 2 p.m. this Tuesday, April 30, 2013.  The one sentence summary is that, although it has some good features, H.B. 3622 is an economic disaster for the Texas coast and the rest of Texas because it does not create a high enough stack to protect against tropical cyclones. The probability of TWIA going bankrupt, even if it does not grow, over the next 20 years under this bill is about 22%. Here are the bullet points.

Baseline scenario

I conducted 1000 simulations of H.B. 3622 over its plausible shelf life of 20 years using models based on data provided to TWIA by AIR and RMS. TWIA policyholders end up paying via operating funds, reinsurance premiums and contributions to the catastrophe reserve fund for about 66% of the amount of TWIA losses.  There is thus about 34% subsidization in H.B. 3622.  The remaining losses are paid for approximately as follows: 9% by coastal insureds for paying off 70% of the Class 2 bonds, 12% by insurers (and, derivatively, their insureds) by low attachment Class1 Funding assessments, paying off 30% of Class 2 bonds, and high attachment Class 3 Funding assessments, 3% by the State of Texas via premium tax credits given to insurers that partly offset assessments, and, a disturbing 11% absorbed without insurance by TWIA policyholders when TWIA lacks funds with which to pay claims due to an inadequate stack. The pie chart below illustrates this distribution. For some caveats on this computation, see the note below.

Baseline distribution of payments under H.B. 3622

In 222 of those 1000 simulations, (22.2% of the time) TWIA became insolvent at some point during those 20 years. At first, I thought this had to be a mistake in my simulation. But, I did a back of the envelope computation that suggests it is an accurate result.  This high risk exists because, particularly over the next 5 years or so, the stack protecting TWIA policyholders is very low relative to potential losses.  Some depopulation of TWIA via, for example, lowering maximum policy limits or reducing moral hazard through higher deductibles and coinsurance would reduce this probability. My “envelope” containing the computation is set forth in the notes below.

Low reinsurance scenario

Reductions in the purchase of reinsurance produce yet worse results.  The 20-year risk of insolvency is now 29%. And TWIA policyholders pay for even less of the risk they create.  The pie chart below shows the distribution.


Higher Premium Scenario

Additional premiums paid in by TWIA policyholders could lower the risk of insolvency and increase their responsibility for losses. By increasing premiums 25%, the probability of insolvency is reduced to 21%, still far too high a number. The pie chart below shows, however, that TWIA policyholders now pay a larger proportion of losses suffered.


Higher Maximum CRTF Payment Scenario

The rate of subsidization and the risk of insolvency would decrease significantly, if H.B. 3622 liberated the CRTF to do its job.  H.B. 3622 would be improved if the $1 billion ceiling in its section 6 (amending section 2210.072) placed on CRTF payments were replaced with $3 billion, as the maximum amount of CRTF funds that could be used to pay for losses. A conforming amendment should also be made to proposed section 2210. 4522. Such an amendment, although it would do little for the next 5 to 8 years, at least reduces the risk of insolvency in years down the road provided no major hurricane has previously hit the Texas coast.  Insolvency risk over the 20 year period would decline to 18% — still way too high but smaller.  And the distribution pie chart shows that now 73% of the losses are born through insurance by TWIA policyholders, though 9% is still unfunded.


The failure to index the parameters to H.B. 3622, such as the maximum amount of the catastrophe reserve fund that can be used to pay a claim or the maximum assessments against insurers means that the insolvency risk grows if, as coastal interests desire, the value of property on coast continues to grow.


This bill, if were to be passed by a 2/3 majority, at least makes a dent in urgent crisis facing Texas for the 2013 hurricane season. It gets rid of the “bug” in current law that I have discussed in this blog recently. And it does away with the worst of post-event bonding as a funding mechanism. The bill, however, still suffers from several fundamental problems that threaten to destroy the Texas coast.  Unlike S.B. 18 that woud somewhat deconcentrate TWIA risk, it continues the concentration of correlated risk in a single entity. This placing of a lot of eggs in the single TWIA basket inevitably leads to extraordinarily high prices for reinsurance, which in turn prevents TWIA from building up adequate internal reserves in timely fashion. By insulating coastal Texas from market forces, the bill distorts development patterns and discourages risk mitigation. It perpetuates the economically unjustifiable large-scale subsidization from the poor in non-coastal Texas to the middle class and wealthy in coastal Texas. It continues to do so in an opaque manner by complexities such as insurer assessments and premium tax credits.  And it leaves the Texas coast and, derivatively, the rest of Texas extremely vulnerable over the reasonable lifespan of this bill to a devastating insolvency — a threat which itself is likely to retard coastal development.

Assumptions and Qualifications

I assume the AIR and RMS models are reasonable.  There is some evidence to suggest that the reinsurance industry believes these models are optimistic about the risk of severe tropical cyclones in Texas.  If that is true, the insolvency problem highlighted here becomes yet more serious.

My original analysis contained some errors; I attempt to fix them here. Most relate to my prior lack of complete recognition that the bill does away with Class 1 post-event bonds, the alternative Class 2 post-event bonds, and with Class 3 post-event bonds and substitutes assessment mechanisms for them.

I assume that insurers pay for about 20% of that portion of assessments for which a premium tax credit is available.  This percentage is a crude estimate of the time value of money.

I assume that insurers incur no costs in having to stockpile money to pay assessments.  This is an assumption made for purposes of simplicity and is obviously false.  Taking risk costs into account would mean that insurers bear even more of the costs of a system such as H.B. 3622.

I use a model of reinsurance pricing consistent with that in the literature under which reinsurance prices are based on the sum of the expected claims costs and a fraction of the maximum exposure. I have attempted to calibrate the model, particularly with respect to the fraction used to multiply maximum exposure, by looking at the amount TWIA has paid for reinsurance in recent years.  I continue my concern that TWIA is paying too much for reinsurance and substitute mechanisms for catastrophic risk transfer ought to be explored.

A copy of the Mathematica notebook underlying the assertions in this blog post is available here. I have not had the time to annotate it fully, but am happy to explain it and run different simulations should any legislator desire.

Three back of the envelope computations confirming a high probability that H.B. 3622 will leave TWIA insolvent over the next 20 years.

Method 1

If you have a stack like this one for 2013 that is likely to be at best only $2.98 billion high ($180 million CRTF, $800 million Class 1 Funding and $1 billion Class 2 Bonds plus an optimistic $1 billion in low attaching reinsurance) and you have roughly a 1.9% probability of a tropical cyclone losses that exceeds that sum, over 20 years, the cumulative probability of having at least one loss in excess of the stack is 31%.  (The survival function at 0 of a negative binomial distribution with 20 trials and a negative probability of 98.1% per trial).  It’s only because the stack can grow by perhaps $100 million per year on average (due to increases in the CRTF) and the fact that there the probability in the simulation drops to a still frightening 21.3%.

Method 2

I also performed a second simplified analysis in which one computed the height of the stack as a function of time under the optimistic assumption that TWIA suffered no major losses.  The height of the stack was set to increase as contributions to the CRTF increased.  I then computed the numeric probabilities for solvency each year.  I then multiplied these probabilities together.  By subtracting these values from 1, one obtains the probability at the end of each 20 year period that TWIA has become insolvent. I again see results between 15-25% depending on what assumptions are made.  These results are consistent with the findings made using the more elaborate methodology.

Method 3

I generated 10,000 storms from the AIR/RMS derived distribution.  I then partitioned these storms into groups of 20 and found the largest storm.  I then plotted the “Exceedance Curve” or “Survival Function” of this empirical order distribution.  I show the results below.  As one can see the probability of the largest storm being more than $3 billion is about 20%.  Even at $5 billion, the probability is above 15%.

Exceedance Curve for Largest Storm in 20 years

Exceedance Curve for Largest Storm in 20 years

An analysis of S.B. 1700 and H.B. 3622

Note: I’ve taken a second look at this bill and done a better job in analyzing it. Look here.

S.B. 1700 from Senator Larry Taylor of  Friendswood and its House cognate, H.B. 3622 from Representative Dennis Bonnen of Brazoria/Matagorda are the only bills among the major contenders in the legislature this session that addresses the short run problem with the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.  And H.B. 3622 is set for a hearing in the Texas House Insurance Committee this April 30, 2013, at 2 p.m.  As with H.B. 2352 from Representative Todd Hunter and its cognate S.B. 1089 from Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, however, the Taylor/Bonnen bills prop up TWIA largely with money from people other than TWIA policyholders. In this instance, the entities that pay for much of the windstorm risk on the Texas coast are (1) Texas taxpayers via a reduction in otherwise owing premium tax revenue and (2) owners of insured homes, autos and other insured property (or liability insurance) throughout Texas via an assessment on insurers likely to be passed on in higher premiums. Here’s a legislative analysis.

The key to S.B. 1700 and H.B. 3622 is to make sure that no storm that causes less than about $1 billion in losses to TWIA needs to try to use post-event Class 1 Bonds to pay claims — a good idea considering that these bonds have been found to be unrateable and probably could not be issued in a large amount. Right now, it only takes a storm causing more than $180 million before TWIA will first look to Class 1 Bonds in order to pay claims. The padding between storms and the tenuous Class 1 Bonds is, at least for the 2013 hurricane season, not additional money from TWIA policyholders but instead an assessment on property and casualty insurers statewide. This assessment could be up to $800 million.

The bill softens the blow of this $800 million exposure in two ways.  First, up to $300 million of such an assessment could be credited against premium taxes the insurers would otherwise owe to Texas.  This crediting would take place in installments, however, lasting a minimum of 5 years.  Thus, in essence, Texas insurers are compelled to fork over up to $500 million and to front an interest-free $300 million loan to the state in order to pay clams.  (And even if they never pay, they will have to stockpile some reserves to address this contingent liability.) I have suggested elsewhere that it would insult the insurance industry to suggest that they will not find a way to get this money back. An obvious target will be Texas policyholders. Second, for each dollar the insurers pay at the lower attachment point (just above the end of the Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund) they reduce the exposure they now have at a higher attachment point, one that lies above the top of the Class 2 Bonds or the Class 2 Alternative Bonds.  And the insurers no longer have to really pay fully for Class 3 assessments. Instead, up to $300 million, they just make an interest-free loan to the state that gets paid back over a minimum of 5 years via a reduction in otherwise owing premium taxes.

Here’s an interactive visualization of the effect of S.B. 1700. You’ll need to obtain and install the free CDF player to actually be interactive with this medium.

[WolframCDF source=”” CDFwidth=”560″ CDFheight=”800″ altimage=””]


So, if I had to guess at the realistic size of the TWIA stack today, I would say it was perhaps  $600 million: $180 million in CRTF, perhaps a sale of 25% of the amount authorized in Class 1 Bonds, and perhaps 25% of the amount authorized in Class 2 Alternative Bonds. If S.B. 1700 were to pass, the stack would grow to perhaps $1.5 million: $180 million in CRTF, $800 million in insurer assessments (some of which would just be an interest free loan), and, again, perhaps  sale of 25% of the amount authorized in Class 1 Bonds, and perhaps 25% of the amount authorized in Class 2 Alternative Bonds. Due to the bug in the existing statute — one that is not (yet) fixed in the Taylor bill — it’s my opinion that no Class 3 securities are likely to be issued. I also have doubts that useful reinsurance can currently be purchased by TWIA due to confusion about the appropriate attachment point.

A few additional comments.

1. I’d like to run analysis similar to that done on H.B. 2352 about how much of the expected risk of tropical cyclones is born by each group under S.B. 1700 and H.B. 3622. My suspicion is that a great deal will be borne by insureds statewide due to the low assessment attachment point. A great deal will be eaten by TWIA policyholders themselves in uninsured losses because, unless pieces of the statute are fixed, the realistic height of the stack is not the touted $4 billion but a number far lower than that.  In other words, S.B. 1700 and H.B. 3622, though they raise the height of the TWIA stack, still leaves a substantial risk of insolvency.

2. The bill has a provision I like: it prohibits TWIA from purchasing reinsurance with low attachment points.  This prohibition prevents TWIA from deciding to sacrifice policyholder interests in favor of insurance company interests.  How to trade these two interests off is a matter that should be resolved, as this bill does, by the legislature.

3. This bill does nothing to address major structural problems with TWIA.  These include:

  • low deductibles and no coinsurance that lead to problems of moral hazard
  • failure to warn TWIA policyholders about the risk of insolvency
  • continued subsidization by poor people throughout Texas of million dollar homes on the Texas coast
  • continued concentration of risk in a single entity that invariably leads to a difficult tradeoff between paying extremely high rates for reinsurance — and thereby preventing growth of an internal catastrophe reserve fund — or subjecting policyholders to a substantial risk of insolvency
  • fails to address the needless fragility of Class 3 Bonds. [This is not right, see my update]




Colorado State publishes 2013 tropical storm risk for Texas

Colorado State University (CSU) has published one of its predictions for tropical cyclones along the Gulf Coast. Historically, the April predictions of this group aren’t very good. The statistical correlation between April prediction and summer reality is only 0.09. This result is  only a little better than chance.  Still, CSU’s work does provide some information on the risk facing our Texas coast. Its method is better, for example, than basing the current year on the number of named storms in the previous 2 years. By June 30, the predictions of this group for the remainder of hurricane season get a lot better. Unfortunately, the prediction for this hurricane season is that it will be worse than normal. That’s particularly troubling given that the leading insurer of windstorm risk in Texas has been found insolvent by its auditors and there is no legislative proposal currently gaining a lot of traction that addresses 2013 risk.

The interactive widget below shows the probability of named storms, hurricanes and intense hurricanes for each of the Texas counties for 2013 based on the April predictions of CSU. You can get the data underlying the widget here. For techies and statisticians, I’m assuming, along with CSU and many others, that the distribution of tropical cyclone landfall comes from the “Poisson family.”

[WolframCDF source=”” CDFwidth=”600″ CDFheight=”540″ altimage=””]

A hat top to the Houston Chronicle’s Eric Berger for bringing this forecast to my attention.

A simulation of H.B. 2352 and S.B. 1089

H.B. 2352, a bill to reform the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) from Corpus Christi Representative Todd Hunter, is scheduled for hearing in the Insurance Committee of the Texas House this Tuesday afternoon at 2 p.m. I do not know yet if my teaching obligations will permit me to travel to Austin and testify, but if they do, here is about what I will say. It’s based on a Mathematica simulation of 100 sets of 100 years of storms and draws on work I’ve discussed here, herehere and here.

My name is Seth Chandler. I am a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center and author of the blog, which addresses the law and finance of catastrophic risk with a focus on Texas. The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Houston.

I have attempted to simulate the effects of H.B. 2352 and its companion bill S.B. 1089. The details of that simulation, including the source code, are available in the written submission made to the committee and available at Basically, I have run 100 100 year storm simulations using models calibrated to mimic those used by AIR and RMS, the two leading modeling companies on which TWIA has relied. Should members of the committee or staff have any questions on the technical details of the model or how variants of the law would affect the conclusons here, I am willing to try to assist.

Based on that research I find that over the initial 20 years of H.B. 2352 with a runoff, and assuming TWIA does not purchase reinsurance, TWIA policyholder premiums will cover about 68% of the losses suffered during that time period. The remaining losses will be paid 6% from replenishment of the catastrophe reserve fund, 8% from class A bonds, 5% from class B bonds, and 9% from class C bonds. Troublingly, 4% of the losses have no identified source of funding. If one assumes instead that TWIA purchases reinsurance at the top of the bonding stack in an amount equal to 1.4% of its direct exposure, as it has done in the past, TWIA policyholder premiums and reinsurance paid for by TWIA policyholder premiums cover a total of 61% of losses suffering during that time period. The remaining losses will be paid 8% from replenishment of the catastrophe reserve fund, 10% from class A bonds, 6% from Class B bonds, and 11% from class C bonds. The percent of losses that have no identified source of funding has decreased, but still rests at 3%. These numbers are, of necessity approximate, and they indeed vary based on a variety of assumptions that need to be made. I have not had the luxury of a large amount of time in which to refine the analysis. In general, however, I believe they accurately reflect the benefits and burdens of H.B. 2352 and S.B. 1089.

This simulation attempts to quantify the benefits and risks to TWIA policyholders created by H.B. 2352 as well as the burden it places on those not receiving direct benefit from TWIA policies. Personally, I do not like what occurs if H.B. 2352 were used to prop up a $72 billion TWIA. The concentration of correlated risk in that entity inevitably makes it an expensive proposition in which the organization either pays exorbitant prices to reinsurers or continues to run the risk of an inadequate stack of protection against larger storm. I believe there is much to the idea of significantly depopulating TWIA with an assigned risk plan or similar mechanism that decorrelates the risk by forced pooling with non-windstorm risk throughout Texas.

If, however, you want to persist with a large propped up TWIA but want to avoid otherwise inevitable biennial fights, it is crucial that the bonding limits contained in this bill with respect to Class A, B and C securities be stated not as absolute numbers, $1 billion, $900 million, $2.75 billion but, as you have wisely done in this bill with the CRTF, percentages of some measure of overall risk to the pool, perhaps direct exposure. Without this modification, the risk grows of storms overwhelming TWIA’s bonding capacity.

Finally, for reasons I have outlined elsewhere I persist in my view that wealthy people on the coast receive subsidized property insurance from poor people away from the coast. This bill continues that inequity although it masks the subsidization by terming what amounts to regional and statewide property taxes as premium surcharges or assessments on insurers. I would thus suggest that the bulking up of the CRTF that takes place in the early years of the HR 2352 plan be made less by non-TWIA policyholders on the coast and assessments on insurers, but more heavily by TWIA policyholders themselves, who will, notwithstanding the benefit that each part of Texas bestows on the other, be the primary beneficiaries of the CRTF protection.


I’m showing below a condensed version CDF on which this analysis depends.  You can get the full version here. If you don’t see anything substantive, you need to download the free CDF player so that you can interact within your browser with the model I have created.

[WolframCDF source=”” CDFwidth=”600″ CDFheight=”1600″ altimage=””]

Some further caveats and comments

  1. I am fully aware that this work done on short notice by an individual and not one certified as an actuary, though I do believe I have the skills to produce what I have done. As I have written elsewhere, the Texas legislature should seriously consider establishing an insurance think tank to help it with issues like this.
  2. The premiums in this model are static.  There is some possibility that as the size of the catastrophe reserve fund grows and TWIA is better able to handle storms without resort to post-event bonding, the premiums could decline.
  3. The basic problem with TWIA is that its risk is correlated.  If it were decorrelated, the premiums policyholders pay would likely be adequate to cover its losses and no cross subsidization would be needed.  The problem is that TWIA needs to build up its catastrophe reserve fund to the point where it is no longer dependent on the risks of post-event bonding or the expense of reinsurance.  Until it does this, a system that bundles up correlated risk is going to remain either really expensive or run a risk of insolvency.