424B3
|
|
|
PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT NO. 5
(To Prospectus dated July 21, 2006)
|
|
Filed Pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)
Registration No. 333-135464 |
$500,000,000
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd
7.50% Senior Notes due 2016
This Prospectus Supplement No. 5 supplements the Market-Making Prospectus, dated July 21,
2006, as supplemented, relating to the public offering of the issuers 7.50% senior notes due 2016,
which closed on July 26, 2006. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is continuing to make a market in the senior
notes pursuant to the Market-Making Prospectus.
This Prospectus Supplement No. 5 is comprised of a quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed
with the SEC on November 14, 2006.
You should read this Prospectus Supplement No. 5 in conjunction with the Market-Making
Prospectus, as supplemented. This Prospectus Supplement No. 5 updates information in the
Market-Making Prospectus, as supplemented, and, accordingly, to the extent inconsistent, the
information in this Prospectus Supplement No. 5 supersedes the information contained in the
Market-Making Prospectus, as supplemented.
Before you invest in the issuers senior notes, you should read the Market-Making
Prospectus, as supplemented, and other documents the issuer has filed with the SEC for more
complete information about the issuer and an investment in its senior notes. You may get these
documents for free by visiting EDGAR on the SEC Website at www.sec.gov. Alternatively, you may
obtain a copy of the Market-Making Prospectus by calling Goldman, Sachs & Co. toll-free at
1-866-471-2526.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has
approved or disapproved of these securities or determined if this prospectus supplement is truthful
and complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
The date of this Prospectus Supplement No. 5 is November 14, 2006.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-Q
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the quarterly period ended:
September 30, 2006
|
|
OR
|
|
|
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the transition period
from
to
|
Commission file number:
001-32938
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
(Exact Name of Registrant as
Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
98-0481737
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
|
Incorporation or
Organization)
|
|
Identification
No.)
|
43 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM 12, Bermuda
(Address of Principal Executive
Offices and Zip Code)
(Registrants Telephone
Number, Including Area Code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has
filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No
o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated
Filer o Accelerated
Filer o Non-Accelerated
Filer þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
The number of outstanding common shares, par value
$0.03 per share, of Allied World Assurance Company
Holdings, Ltd as of November 8, 2006 was 60,283,164.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
|
|
Item 1.
|
Financial
Statements.
|
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
UNAUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
as of September 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
ASSETS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturity investments
available for sale, at fair value (amortized cost: 2006:
$5,289,411, 2005: $4,442,040)
|
|
$
|
5,283,799
|
|
|
$
|
4,390,457
|
|
Other invested assets available for
sale, at fair value (cost: 2006: $246,854; 2005: $270,138)
|
|
|
256,997
|
|
|
|
296,990
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
270,848
|
|
|
|
172,379
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
50,871
|
|
|
|
41,788
|
|
Securities lending collateral
|
|
|
700,804
|
|
|
|
456,792
|
|
Insurance balances receivable
|
|
|
306,084
|
|
|
|
218,044
|
|
Prepaid reinsurance
|
|
|
176,355
|
|
|
|
140,599
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable
|
|
|
688,066
|
|
|
|
716,333
|
|
Accrued investment income
|
|
|
43,498
|
|
|
|
48,983
|
|
Deferred acquisition costs
|
|
|
119,845
|
|
|
|
94,557
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
3,920
|
|
|
|
3,920
|
|
Balances receivable on sale of
investments
|
|
|
70,174
|
|
|
|
3,633
|
|
Income tax assets
|
|
|
5,540
|
|
|
|
8,516
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
36,092
|
|
|
|
17,501
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
8,012,893
|
|
|
$
|
6,610,492
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
3,586,964
|
|
|
$
|
3,405,353
|
|
Unearned premiums
|
|
|
939,485
|
|
|
|
740,091
|
|
Unearned ceding commissions
|
|
|
25,537
|
|
|
|
27,465
|
|
Reinsurance balances payable
|
|
|
68,446
|
|
|
|
28,567
|
|
Securities lending payable
|
|
|
700,804
|
|
|
|
456,792
|
|
Balances due on purchase of
investments
|
|
|
66,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior notes
|
|
|
498,543
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
31,368
|
|
|
|
31,958
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
$
|
5,918,021
|
|
|
$
|
5,190,226
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common shares, par value
$0.03 per share, issued and outstanding 2006:
60,283,040 shares and 2005: 50,162,842 shares
|
|
|
1,809
|
|
|
|
1,505
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
1,819,730
|
|
|
|
1,488,860
|
|
Retained earnings (accumulated
deficit)
|
|
|
269,886
|
|
|
|
(44,591
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
net unrealized gains (losses) on
investments, net of tax
|
|
|
3,447
|
|
|
|
(25,508
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
2,094,872
|
|
|
|
1,420,266
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
8,012,893
|
|
|
$
|
6,610,492
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements.
1
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
UNAUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 and
2005
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
REVENUES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
362,478
|
|
|
$
|
329,930
|
|
|
$
|
1,378,914
|
|
|
$
|
1,276,933
|
|
Premiums ceded
|
|
|
(64,462
|
)
|
|
|
(80,210
|
)
|
|
|
(283,057
|
)
|
|
|
(268,553
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
298,016
|
|
|
|
249,720
|
|
|
|
1,095,857
|
|
|
|
1,008,380
|
|
Change in unearned premiums
|
|
|
19,743
|
|
|
|
63,556
|
|
|
|
(163,638
|
)
|
|
|
(38,901
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
317,759
|
|
|
|
313,276
|
|
|
|
932,219
|
|
|
|
969,479
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
61,407
|
|
|
|
47,592
|
|
|
|
178,351
|
|
|
|
127,737
|
|
Net realized investment (losses)
gains
|
|
|
(9,080
|
)
|
|
|
4,152
|
|
|
|
(24,488
|
)
|
|
|
(4,937
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
370,086
|
|
|
|
365,020
|
|
|
|
1,086,082
|
|
|
|
1,092,279
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
180,934
|
|
|
|
593,276
|
|
|
|
566,738
|
|
|
|
1,055,931
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
37,785
|
|
|
|
35,871
|
|
|
|
106,920
|
|
|
|
109,823
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
25,640
|
|
|
|
20,795
|
|
|
|
72,218
|
|
|
|
66,676
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
9,529
|
|
|
|
5,146
|
|
|
|
23,056
|
|
|
|
9,783
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
(561
|
)
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
|
|
(491
|
)
|
|
|
486
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
253,327
|
|
|
|
655,042
|
|
|
|
768,441
|
|
|
|
1,242,699
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
116,759
|
|
|
|
(290,022
|
)
|
|
|
317,641
|
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
Income tax expense (recovery)
|
|
|
2,774
|
|
|
|
(6,617
|
)
|
|
|
3,164
|
|
|
|
(2,922
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
113,985
|
|
|
|
(283,405
|
)
|
|
|
314,477
|
|
|
|
(147,498
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gains (losses) on
investments arising during the period net of applicable deferred
income tax recovery (expense) for three months 2006: ($1,004);
2005: ($101); and nine months 2006: ($348); 2005: $575
|
|
|
77,511
|
|
|
|
(27,296
|
)
|
|
|
4,467
|
|
|
|
(54,203
|
)
|
Reclassification adjustment for
net realized losses (gains) included in net income
|
|
|
9,080
|
|
|
|
(4,152
|
)
|
|
|
24,488
|
|
|
|
4,937
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
86,591
|
|
|
|
(31,448
|
)
|
|
|
28,955
|
|
|
|
(49,266
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
$
|
200,576
|
|
|
$
|
(314,853
|
)
|
|
$
|
343,432
|
|
|
$
|
(196,764
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PER SHARE DATA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
1.95
|
|
|
$
|
(5.65
|
)
|
|
$
|
5.94
|
|
|
$
|
(2.94
|
)
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
1.89
|
|
|
$
|
(5.65
|
)
|
|
$
|
5.76
|
|
|
$
|
(2.94
|
)
|
Weighted average common shares
outstanding
|
|
|
58,376,307
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
52,900,664
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
Weighted average common shares and
common share equivalents outstanding
|
|
|
60,451,643
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
54,577,445
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
See accompanying notes to the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements.
2
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
UNAUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS
EQUITY
for the nine months ended September 30, 2006, and for the
year ended December 31, 2005
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
(Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Deficit)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
1,505
|
|
|
|
1,488,860
|
|
|
|
33,171
|
|
|
|
614,985
|
|
|
|
2,138,521
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(159,776
|
)
|
|
|
(159,776
|
)
|
Dividends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(499,800
|
)
|
|
|
(499,800
|
)
|
Other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(58,679
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(58,679
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
1,505
|
|
|
|
1,488,860
|
|
|
|
(25,508
|
)
|
|
|
(44,591
|
)
|
|
|
1,420,266
|
|
Stock issuance in initial public
offering
|
|
|
304
|
|
|
|
315,475
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
315,779
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
314,477
|
|
|
|
314,477
|
|
Stock compensation plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,395
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,395
|
|
Other comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006
|
|
$
|
1,809
|
|
|
$
|
1,819,730
|
|
|
$
|
3,447
|
|
|
$
|
269,886
|
|
|
$
|
2,094,872
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements.
3
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
UNAUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING
ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
314,477
|
|
|
$
|
(147,498
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income
to cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized losses on sales of
investments
|
|
|
11,205
|
|
|
|
4,937
|
|
Net realized losses for
other-than-temporary
impairment charges on investments
|
|
|
13,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of premiums net of
accrual of discounts on fixed maturities
|
|
|
9,224
|
|
|
|
28,800
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
433
|
|
|
|
1,224
|
|
Warrant compensation expense
|
|
|
2,643
|
|
|
|
2,373
|
|
Restricted stock unit expense
|
|
|
2,384
|
|
|
|
537
|
|
Long-term incentive plan expense
|
|
|
2,911
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt issuance expense
|
|
|
724
|
|
|
|
283
|
|
Amortization of discount and
expenses on senior notes
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash settlements on interest rate
swaps
|
|
|
7,340
|
|
|
|
(1,897
|
)
|
Mark to market on interest rate
swaps
|
|
|
(6,896
|
)
|
|
|
4,120
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance balances receivable
|
|
|
(88,040
|
)
|
|
|
(73,120
|
)
|
Prepaid reinsurance
|
|
|
(35,756
|
)
|
|
|
(5,858
|
)
|
Reinsurance recoverable
|
|
|
28,267
|
|
|
|
(401,103
|
)
|
Accrued investment income
|
|
|
5,485
|
|
|
|
(809
|
)
|
Deferred acquisition costs
|
|
|
(25,288
|
)
|
|
|
(12,250
|
)
|
Income tax assets
|
|
|
2,543
|
|
|
|
(9,229
|
)
|
Other assets
|
|
|
(19,790
|
)
|
|
|
7,332
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
181,611
|
|
|
|
1,177,198
|
|
Unearned premiums
|
|
|
199,394
|
|
|
|
43,546
|
|
Unearned ceding commissions
|
|
|
(1,928
|
)
|
|
|
(351
|
)
|
Reinsurance balances payable
|
|
|
39,879
|
|
|
|
(30,701
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
6,868
|
|
|
|
2,371
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating
activities
|
|
|
651,005
|
|
|
|
589,905
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING
ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of fixed maturity
investments
|
|
|
(4,381,570
|
)
|
|
|
(2,899,008
|
)
|
Purchases of other invested assets
|
|
|
(132,002
|
)
|
|
|
(113,708
|
)
|
Sales of fixed maturity investments
|
|
|
3,489,192
|
|
|
|
2,452,929
|
|
Sales of other invested assets
|
|
|
164,787
|
|
|
|
2,154
|
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
(9,083
|
)
|
|
|
(47,512
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
|
|
(868,676
|
)
|
|
|
(605,145
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING
ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(498,544
|
)
|
Gross proceeds from initial public
offering
|
|
|
344,080
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance costs paid on initial
public offering
|
|
|
(23,225
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of senior
notes
|
|
|
498,535
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of / proceeds from long
term debt
|
|
|
(500,000
|
)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
Debt issuance costs paid
|
|
|
(3,250
|
)
|
|
|
(1,021
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing
activities
|
|
|
316,140
|
|
|
|
435
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND
CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
|
|
98,469
|
|
|
|
(14,805
|
)
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS,
BEGINNING OF PERIOD
|
|
|
172,379
|
|
|
|
190,738
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF
PERIOD
|
|
$
|
270,848
|
|
|
$
|
175,933
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash
flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for income
taxes
|
|
$
|
497
|
|
|
$
|
272
|
|
Cash paid for interest
expense
|
|
|
15,495
|
|
|
|
9,686
|
|
Change in balance
receivable on sale of investments
|
|
|
(66,541
|
)
|
|
|
(300
|
)
|
Change in balance
payable on purchase of investments
|
|
|
66,874
|
|
|
|
86,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements.
4
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
(Expressed
in thousands of United States dollars, except share and per
share amounts)
Allied World Assurance Holdings, Ltd was incorporated in Bermuda
on November 13, 2001. On June 9, 2006, Allied World
Assurance Holdings, Ltd changed its name to Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd (Holdings).
Holdings, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively,
the Company), provides property and casualty
insurance and reinsurance on a worldwide basis.
On July 11, 2006, the Company sold 8,800,000 common shares
in its initial public offering (IPO) at a public
offering price of $34.00 per share. On July 19, 2006,
the Company sold an additional 1,320,000 common shares at
$34.00 per share in connection with the exercise in full by
the underwriters of their over-allotment option. In connection
with the IPO, a
1-for-3
reverse stock split of the Companys common shares was
consummated on July 7, 2006. All share and per share
amounts related to common shares, warrants, options and
restricted stock units (RSUs) included in these
consolidated financial statements and footnotes have been
restated to reflect the reverse stock split. The reverse stock
split has been retroactively applied to the Companys
consolidated financial statements.
|
|
2.
|
BASIS OF
PREPARATION AND CONSOLIDATION
|
These consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Holdings and its subsidiaries and have been prepared in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America (U.S. GAAP) for
interim financial information and with Article 10 of
Regulation S-X
as promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). Accordingly, they do not include
all of the information and footnotes required by U.S. GAAP
for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management,
these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements
reflect all adjustments that are normal and recurring in nature
and necessary for a fair presentation of financial position and
results of operations as of the end of and for the periods
presented. The results of operations for any interim period are
not necessarily indicative of the results for a full year.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates. The significant
estimates reflected in the Companys financial statements
include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
The premium estimates for certain reinsurance agreements,
|
|
|
|
Recoverability of deferred acquisition costs,
|
|
|
|
The reserve for losses and loss expenses,
|
|
|
|
Valuation of ceded reinsurance recoverables, and
|
|
|
|
Determination of
other-than-temporary
impairment of investments.
|
Intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated on
consolidation, and all entities meeting consolidation
requirements have been included in the consolidation.
These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements
should be read in conjunction with the Companys audited
consolidated financials statements for the three years ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the SEC on March 17,
2006 in the Companys registration statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-132507),
as amended.
5
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
|
|
3.
|
NEW
ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
|
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued FASB Interpretation No. 48
(FIN 48), Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes. FIN 48 prescribes detailed guidance for
the financial statement recognition, measurement and disclosure
of uncertain tax positions recognized in an enterprises
financial statements in accordance with FASB Statement
No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. Tax
positions must meet a more-likely-than-not recognition threshold
at the effective date to be recognized upon the adoption of
FIN 48 and in subsequent periods. FIN 48 will be
effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2006 and the provisions of FIN 48 will be applied to all
tax positions upon initial adoption of the interpretation. The
cumulative effect of applying the provisions of this
interpretation will be reported as an adjustment to the opening
balance of retained earnings for that fiscal year. The Company
is currently evaluating the potential impact of FIN 48 on
its financial statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (FAS) No. 157 Fair
Value Measurements (FAS 157). This
statement defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value under U.S. GAAP, and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements. FAS 157 applies
under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit
fair value measurements. FAS 157 is effective for financial
statements issued for fiscal years beginning after
November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal
years. FAS 157 does not require any change in fair value
measurements for the Company.
In September 2006, the FASB also issued FAS No. 158
Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and
Other Postretirement Plans an amendment of FASB
Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)
(FAS 158). This statement improves financial
reporting by requiring an employer to recognize the overfunded
or underfunded status of a defined benefit postretirement plan
(other than a multiemployer plan) as an asset or a liability in
its statement of financial position and to recognize changes in
that funded status in the year in which the changes occur
through comprehensive income of a business entity or changes in
unrestricted net assets of a
not-for-profit
organization. FAS 158 also improves financial reporting by
requiring an employer to measure the funded status of a plan as
of the date of its year-end statement of financial position,
with limited exceptions. The required date of adoption of the
recognition and disclosure provisions of FAS 158 for an
employer with publicly traded equity securities is for the
fiscal year ending after December 15, 2006. The Company has
defined contribution retirement plans and as such, FAS 158
has no impact on the Companys financial position or
disclosure.
The Company regularly reviews the carrying value of its
investments to determine if a decline in value is considered to
be other than temporary. This review involves consideration of
several factors including: (i) the significance of the
decline in value and the resulting unrealized loss position,
(ii) the time period for which there has been a significant
decline in value, (iii) an analysis of the issuer of the
investment, including its liquidity, business prospects and
overall financial position and (iv) the Companys
intent and ability to hold the investment for a sufficient
period of time for the value to recover. The identification of
potentially impaired investments involves significant management
judgment which includes the determination of their fair value
and the assessment of whether any decline in value is other than
temporary. If the decline in value is determined to be other
than temporary, then the Company records a realized loss in the
statement of operations in the period that it is determined.
As of September 30, 2006, the unrealized losses from the
securities held in the Companys investment portfolio were
primarily the result of rising interest rates. Following the
Companys review of the securities in its investment
portfolio, 21 securities and 27 securities were considered to be
other-than-temporarily
impaired for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2006, respectively. Consequently, the Company recorded
6
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
4. INVESTMENTS (contd)
an
other-than-temporary
impairment charge, within net realized investment losses on the
consolidated statement of operations, of $8,351 and $13,283 for
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006,
respectively. There were no similar charges recognized in 2005.
The following table summarizes the market value of those
investments in an unrealized loss position for periods less than
and greater than 12 months:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006
|
|
|
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Less than 12 months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Government and
Government agencies
|
|
$
|
517,739
|
|
|
$
|
(3,829
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,667,847
|
|
|
$
|
(28,283
|
)
|
Non U.S. Government and
Government agencies
|
|
|
21,566
|
|
|
|
(168
|
)
|
|
|
54,235
|
|
|
|
(1,954
|
)
|
Corporate
|
|
|
202,963
|
|
|
|
(1,504
|
)
|
|
|
488,175
|
|
|
|
(5,593
|
)
|
Mortgage backed
|
|
|
586,714
|
|
|
|
(3,433
|
)
|
|
|
609,000
|
|
|
|
(4,415
|
)
|
Asset backed
|
|
|
59,178
|
|
|
|
(296
|
)
|
|
|
102,103
|
|
|
|
(392
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,388,160
|
|
|
$
|
(9,230
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,921,360
|
|
|
$
|
(40,637
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More than 12 months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Government and
Government agencies
|
|
$
|
756,853
|
|
|
$
|
(16,990
|
)
|
|
$
|
533,204
|
|
|
$
|
(14,561
|
)
|
Non U.S. Government and
Government agencies
|
|
|
676
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
357,620
|
|
|
|
(5,058
|
)
|
|
|
209,944
|
|
|
|
(5,081
|
)
|
Mortgage backed
|
|
|
339,333
|
|
|
|
(3,659
|
)
|
|
|
28,274
|
|
|
|
(553
|
)
|
Asset backed
|
|
|
53,948
|
|
|
|
(409
|
)
|
|
|
73,346
|
|
|
|
(848
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,508,430
|
|
|
$
|
(26,124
|
)
|
|
$
|
844,768
|
|
|
$
|
(21,043
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,896,590
|
|
|
$
|
(35,354
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,766,128
|
|
|
$
|
(61,680
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
DEBT AND
FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS
|
On March 30, 2005, the Company entered into a seven-year
credit agreement with the Bank of America, N.A. and a syndicate
of commercial banks. The total borrowing under this facility was
$500,000 at a floating rate of the appropriate LIBOR rate as
periodically agreed to by the Company and the Lenders, plus an
applicable margin based on the Companys financial strength
rating from A.M. Best Company, Inc.
In July 2006, in accordance with the terms of this credit
agreement, $157,925 of the net proceeds from the IPO and the
exercise in full by the underwriters of their over-allotment
option were used to pre-pay a portion of the outstanding
principal.
On July 21, 2006, the Company issued $500,000 aggregate
principal amount of 7.50% Senior Notes due August 1,
2016 (Senior Notes), with interest on the Senior
Notes payable on August 1 and February 1 of each year,
commencing on February 1, 2007. The Senior Notes were
offered by the underwriters at a price of 99.707% of their
principal amount, providing an effective yield to investors of
7.542%. The Company used a portion of the proceeds from the
Senior Notes to repay the remaining amount of the credit
agreement
7
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
5. DEBT AND FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS
(contd)
described above as well as to provide additional capital to its
subsidiaries and for other general corporate purposes. As of
September 30, 2006, the fair value of the Senior Notes as
published by Bloomberg was 106.185% of their principal amount,
providing an effective yield of 6.631%.
The Senior Notes can be redeemed by the Company prior to
maturity subject to payment of a make-whole premium.
The Company has no current expectations of calling the Senior
Notes prior to maturity. The Senior Notes contain certain
covenants that include: (i) limitations on liens on stock
of designated subsidiaries; (ii) limitation as to the
disposition of stock of designated subsidiaries; and
(iii) limitations on mergers, amalgamations, consolidations
or sale of assets.
Events of default include: (i) the default in the payment
of any interest or principal on any outstanding notes, and the
continuance of such default for a period of 30 days;
(ii) the default in the performance, or breach, of any of
the covenants in the indenture (other than a covenant added
solely for the benefit of another series of debt securities) and
continuance of such default or breach for a period of
60 days after the Company has received written notice
specifying such default or breach; and (iii) certain events
of bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization. Where an event of
default occurs and is continuing, either the trustee of the
Senior Notes or the holders of not less than 25% in principal
amount of the Senior Notes may have the right to declare that
all unpaid principal amounts and accrued interest then
outstanding be due and payable immediately.
The authorized share capital of the Company as at
September 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005 was $10,000.
On July 11, 2006, the Company sold 8,800,000 common shares
in the IPO at a public offering price of $34.00 per share.
On July 19, 2006, the Company sold an additional 1,320,000
common shares at $34.00 per share in connection with the
exercise in full by the underwriters of their over-allotment
option. In connection with the IPO, a
1-for-3
reverse stock split of the Companys common shares was
consummated on July 7, 2006.
The issued share capital consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Common shares issued and fully
paid, par value $0.03 per share
|
|
|
60,283,040
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share capital at end of period
|
|
$
|
1,809
|
|
|
$
|
1,505
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of September 30, 2006, there were outstanding 26,585,079
voting common shares and 33,697,961 non-voting common shares.
|
|
7.
|
EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT PLANS
|
a) Employee
option plan
In 2001, the Company implemented the Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd 2001 Employee Warrant Plan, which, after
Holdings special general meeting of shareholders on
June 9, 2006 and the IPO, was amended and restated and
renamed the Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd Amended
and Restated 2001 Employee Stock Option Plan (the
Plan). The Plan provides certain employees with
additional incentive to continue their efforts on behalf of the
Company and assists the Company in attracting people of
experience and ability. The Plan was converted into a stock
option plan as part of the IPO and the warrants
8
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
7. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS (contd)
a) Employee option plan (contd)
that were previously granted thereunder were converted to
options and remain outstanding with the same exercise price and
vesting period. Under the Plan, up to 2,000,000 common shares of
Holdings may be issued. These options are exercisable in certain
limited conditions, expire after 10 years, and generally
vest pro-rata over four years from the date of grant. During the
period from November 13, 2001 to December 31, 2002,
the exercise price of the options issued was $24.26 per
share, after giving effect to the extraordinary dividend
described below. The exercise prices of options issued
subsequent to December 31, 2002 and prior to the IPO were
based on the per share book value of the Company. In accordance
with the Plan, the exercise prices of the options issued prior
to the declaration of the extraordinary dividend in March 2005
were reduced by the per share value of the dividend declared.
The exercise price of options issued subsequent to the IPO are
determined by the Board of Directors but shall not be less than
100% of the fair market value of the common shares of Holdings
on the date the option award is granted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006
|
|
|
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
Outstanding at beginning of period
|
|
|
1,036,322
|
|
|
|
788,162
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
173,328
|
|
|
|
255,993
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(1,041
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(6,416
|
)
|
|
|
(7,833
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at end of period
|
|
|
1,202,193
|
|
|
|
1,036,322
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average exercise price
per option
|
|
$
|
27.53
|
|
|
$
|
27.26
|
|
9
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
7. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS (contd)
a) Employee option plan (contd)
The following table summarizes the exercise prices for
outstanding employee stock options as of September 30, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Options
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Contractual Life
|
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
$23.61
|
|
|
98,498
|
|
|
|
6.26 years
|
|
|
|
78,525
|
|
$24.27
|
|
|
438,334
|
|
|
|
5.50 years
|
|
|
|
438,334
|
|
$26.94
|
|
|
22,542
|
|
|
|
5.78 years
|
|
|
|
17,373
|
|
$28.08
|
|
|
14,167
|
|
|
|
6.92 years
|
|
|
|
10,624
|
|
$28.32
|
|
|
233,162
|
|
|
|
9.25 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
$29.52
|
|
|
114,912
|
|
|
|
7.14 years
|
|
|
|
67,556
|
|
$29.85
|
|
|
1,667
|
|
|
|
8.84 years
|
|
|
|
416
|
|
$30.99
|
|
|
12,333
|
|
|
|
7.81 years
|
|
|
|
6,166
|
|
$31.47
|
|
|
57,501
|
|
|
|
7.66 years
|
|
|
|
28,743
|
|
$31.77
|
|
|
21,834
|
|
|
|
7.72 years
|
|
|
|
10,914
|
|
$32.70
|
|
|
139,992
|
|
|
|
8.17 years
|
|
|
|
35,094
|
|
$32.85
|
|
|
3,583
|
|
|
|
4.30 years
|
|
|
|
1,083
|
|
$34.00
|
|
|
25,334
|
|
|
|
9.65 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
$34.51
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
9.84 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
$35.01
|
|
|
17,334
|
|
|
|
8.67 years
|
|
|
|
4,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,202,193
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
699,158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to the second quarter of 2006, the calculation of the
compensation expense associated with the options had been made
by reference to the book value per share of the Company as of
the end of each period, and was deemed to be the difference
between such book value per share and the exercise price of the
individual options. The book value of the Company approximated
its fair value. The use of a fair value other than the book
value was first implemented for the period ended June 30,
2006. The fair value of each option granted was determined at
June 30, 2006 using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model.
Although the IPO was subsequent to June 30, 2006, the best
estimate of the fair value of the common shares at that time was
the IPO price of $34.00 per share. This amount was used in
the model for June 30, 2006, and the Plan was accounted for
as a liability plan in accordance with
FAS No. 123(R) Share Based Payment
(FAS 123(R)). The compensation expense recorded
for the period ending June 30, 2006 included a one-time
expense of $2,582, which was the difference between the fair
value of the options on June 30, 2006 using the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model and the amount previously
expensed.
The combined amendment to the Plan and the IPO constituted a
modification to the Plan in accordance with
FAS 123(R). Accordingly, the options outstanding at the
time of the IPO were revalued using the Black-Scholes
option-pricing model. The amendment to the Plan qualifies it as
an equity plan in accordance with FAS 123(R)
and as such, current liabilities have been, and future
compensation expenses will be, included in additional paid-in
capital on the consolidated balance sheets.
10
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
7. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS (contd)
a) Employee option plan (contd)
Assumptions used in the option-pricing model for the options
revalued at the time of the IPO, and for those issued subsequent
to the IPO are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Revalued
|
|
|
Options Granted
|
|
|
|
as part of the IPO
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
July 11, 2006
|
|
|
September 30, 2006
|
|
|
Expected term of option
|
|
|
6.25 years
|
|
|
|
6.25 years
|
|
Weighted average risk-free
interest rate
|
|
|
5.11
|
%
|
|
|
4.914
|
%
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
23.44
|
%
|
|
|
24.02
|
%
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As there is limited historical data available for the Company to
base the expected term of the options, the Company has used the
simplified method to determine the expected life as set forth in
the SECs Staff Accounting Bulletin 107
(SAB 107). Likewise, as the Company recently
became a public company in July 2006, there is limited
historical data available to it on which to base the volatility
of its stock. As such, the Company used the average of five
volatility statistics from comparable companies in order to
derive the volatility values above.
Compensation costs of $62 and $nil relating to the options have
been included in general and administrative expenses in the
Companys consolidated statement of operations for the
three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005,
respectively. Also, compensation costs of $2,643 and $2,373
relating to the options have been included in general and
administrative expenses in the Companys consolidated
statement of operations for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. As of
September 30, 2006, the Company recorded in additional
paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheets an amount of
$8,828 in connection with all options granted. This amount
includes a one-time adjustment of $6,185 taken this quarter to
re-class the Plan as an equity plan in accordance
with FAS 123(R). As of December 31, 2005, the Company
had recorded in accounts payable and accrued liabilities on the
consolidated balance sheets an amount of $6,185 in connection
with all options granted to its employees.
As of September 30, 2006, there was remaining $4,540 of
total unrecognized compensation costs related to non-vested
options granted under the Plan. These costs are expected to be
recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.2 years.
b) Stock
incentive plan
On February 19, 2004, the Company implemented the Allied
World Assurance Holdings, Ltd 2004 Stock Incentive Plan which,
after Holdings special general meeting of shareholders on
June 9, 2006 and the IPO, was amended and restated and
renamed the Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd Amended
and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the Stock
Incentive Plan). The Stock Incentive Plan provides for
grants of restricted stock, RSUs, dividend equivalent rights and
other equity-based awards. A total of 2,000,000 common shares
may be issued under the Stock Incentive Plan. To date only RSUs
have been granted. These RSUs generally vest in the fourth or
fifth year from the original grant date, or pro-rata over four
years from the date of the grant.
11
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
7. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS (contd)
b) Stock incentive plan (contd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006
|
|
|
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
Outstanding RSUs at beginning of
period
|
|
|
127,163
|
|
|
|
90,833
|
|
RSUs granted
|
|
|
584,208
|
|
|
|
36,330
|
|
RSUs forfeited
|
|
|
(6,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding RSUs at end of period
|
|
|
705,371
|
|
|
|
127,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those RSUs outstanding at the time of the amendment, the
modification to the Stock Incentive Plan required a revaluation
of the RSUs based on the fair market value of the common shares
at the time of the IPO. The vesting period remained the same.
The compensation expense for the RSUs on a going-forward basis
is based on the fair market value per common share of the
Company as of the respective grant dates and is recognized over
the vesting period. The modification of the Stock Incentive Plan
changed the accounting from a liability plan to an equity plan
in accordance with FAS 123(R). As such, all accumulated
amounts due under the Stock Incentive Plan were transferred to
additional paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheet.
Compensation costs of $1,230 and $86 relating to the issuance of
the RSUs have been recognized in the Companys consolidated
statements of operations for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Likewise,
compensation costs of $2,384 and $537 relating to the issuance
of the RSUs have been recognized in the Companys
consolidated statements of operations for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The
determination of the RSU expense for 2005 was based on the
Companys book value per share at September 30, 2005,
which approximated fair value.
As of September 30, 2006, the Company recorded $3,656 in
additional paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheets in
connection with the RSUs awarded. As of December 31, 2005,
the Company had recorded in accounts payable and accrued
liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets an amount of
$1,273 in connection with the RSUs awarded. As of
September 30, 2006, there was remaining $20,548 of total
unrecognized compensation costs related to non-vested RSUs
awarded. These costs are expected to be recognized over a
weighted-average period of 3.7 years.
c) Long-term
incentive plan
On May 22, 2006, the Company implemented the Long-Term
Incentive Plan (LTIP), which provides for
performance based equity awards to key employees in order to
promote the long-term growth and profitability of the Company.
Each award represents the right to receive a number of common
shares in the future, based upon the achievement of established
performance criteria during the applicable three-year
performance period. A total of 2,000,000 common shares may be
issued under the LTIP. To date, 228,334 of these performance
based equity awards have been granted, which will vest after the
fiscal year ending December 31, 2008 in accordance with the
terms and performance conditions of the LTIP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006
|
|
|
Outstanding LTIP awards at
beginning of period
|
|
|
|
|
LTIP awards granted
|
|
|
228,334
|
|
LTIP awards forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding LTIP awards at end of
period
|
|
|
228,334
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
7. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS (contd)
c) Long-term incentive plan
(contd)
Compensation expense of $970 and $2,911 has been recognized in
the Companys consolidated financial statements for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2006. The
compensation expense for the LTIP is based on the Companys
IPO price per share of $34.00. The LTIP is deemed to be an
equity plan and as such, $2,911 has been included in additional
paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheets. As of
September 30, 2006, there was remaining $8,734 of total
unrecognized compensation costs related to non-vested LTIP
awards. These costs are expected to be recognized over a
weighted-average period of 2.3 years.
In calculating the compensation expense, it is estimated that
the maximum performance goals as set by the LTIP are likely to
be achieved over the performance period. The performance period
for the LTIP awards issued to date is defined as the three
consecutive fiscal-year period beginning January 1, 2006.
The expense is recognized over the performance period.
The following table sets forth the comparison of basic and
diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Basic earnings (loss) per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
113,985
|
|
|
$
|
(283,405
|
)
|
|
$
|
314,477
|
|
|
$
|
(147,498
|
)
|
Weighted average common shares
outstanding
|
|
|
58,376,307
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
52,900,664
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
1.95
|
|
|
$
|
(5.65
|
)
|
|
$
|
5.94
|
|
|
$
|
(2.94
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
113,985
|
|
|
$
|
(283,405
|
)
|
|
$
|
314,477
|
|
|
$
|
(147,498
|
)
|
Weighted average common shares
outstanding
|
|
|
58,376,307
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
52,900,664
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
Share equivalents:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrants and options
|
|
|
1,227,768
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,225,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock units
|
|
|
619,234
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
349,554
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTIP awards
|
|
|
228,334
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101,482
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares and
common share equivalents outstanding diluted
|
|
|
60,451,643
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
54,577,445
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
1.89
|
|
|
$
|
(5.65
|
)
|
|
$
|
5.76
|
|
|
$
|
(2.94
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three and nine-month periods ended September 30,
2006, all common share equivalents, consisting of warrants
issued to certain of the Companys founding shareholders
and stock option, RSU and LTIP awards, were considered dilutive
and have been included in the calculation of the diluted
earnings per share. No common share equivalents were included in
calculating the diluted earnings per share for the three and
nine-month periods ended September 30, 2005 as there was a
net loss for these periods, and any additional shares were
antidilutive. As a result, 5,500,000 founder warrants, 952,833
stock options, and 127,163 RSUs
13
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
8. EARNINGS PER SHARE (contd)
that were anti-dilutive have been excluded from the calculation
of the diluted earnings per share for these periods.
|
|
9.
|
RELATED
PARTY TRANSACTIONS
|
Since November 21, 2001, the Company has entered into
administrative services agreements with various subsidiaries of
American International Group, Inc. (AIG), a
principal shareholder of the Company. Until December 31,
2005, the Company was provided with administrative services
under these agreements for a fee based on the gross premiums
written of the Company. Effective December 31, 2005, the
administrative services agreement covering Holdings and its
Bermuda domiciled companies was terminated with an anticipated
termination fee of $5,000. A final termination fee of $3,000 was
agreed to and paid on April 25, 2006, and recorded in the
second quarter of 2006. The amount was less than the $5,000
accrued and expensed for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Accordingly, a reduction in the estimated expense in the amount
of $2,000 is included in general and administrative expenses for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006.
Effective January 1, 2006, the Company entered into
short-duration administrative service agreements with these AIG
subsidiaries that provided for a more limited range of services
on either a cost-plus or a flat fee basis, depending on the
agreement. Expenses of $805 and $3,422 were incurred for
services under these agreements for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Likewise,
expenses of $2,469 and $20,642 were incurred for services under
these agreements for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 and 2005, respectively. The services no longer included as
part of these agreements are provided internally through
additional Company staff and infrastructure.
On or about November 8, 2005, the Company received a Civil
Investigative Demand (CID) from the Antitrust and
Civil Medicaid Fraud Division of the Office of the Attorney
General of Texas, which relates to the investigation into
(1) the possibility of restraint of trade in one or more
markets within the State of Texas arising out of the
Companys business relationships with companies of AIG and
The Chubb Corporation (Chubb), and (2) certain
insurance and insurance brokerage practices, including those
relating to contingent commissions and false quotes, which are
also the subject of industry-wide investigations and class
action litigation. Specifically, the CID seeks information
concerning the Companys relationship with its investors,
and in particular, AIG and Chubb, including their role in the
Companys business, sharing of business information and any
agreements not to compete. The CID also seeks information
regarding (i) contingent commission, placement service or
other agreements that the Company may have had with brokers or
producers, and (ii) the possibility of the provision of any
non-competitive bids by the Company in connection with the
placement of insurance. The Company is cooperating with this
ongoing investigation, and has produced documents and other
information in response to the CID. At this stage, the Company
cannot estimate, for purposes of reserving or otherwise, the
severity of an adverse result or settlement on the
Companys results of operations, financial condition,
growth prospects or financial strength ratings.
On April 4, 2006, a complaint was filed in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta Division) by a group of several corporations and
certain of their related entities in an action entitled New
Cingular Wireless Headquarters, LLC et al, as plaintiffs,
against certain defendants, including Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., Marsh Inc. and Aon Corporation, in their
capacities as insurance brokers, and 78 insurers, including
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd, Holdings insurance
subsidiary in Bermuda.
14
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
10. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (contd)
The action generally relates to broker defendants
placement of insurance contracts for plaintiffs with the 78
insurer defendants. Plaintiffs maintain that the defendants used
a variety of illegal schemes and practices designed to, among
other things, allocate customers, rig bids for insurance
products and raise the prices of insurance products paid by the
plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs allege that the broker
defendants steered policyholders business to preferred
insurer defendants. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of these
practices, policyholders either paid more for insurance products
or received less beneficial terms than the competitive market
would have charged. The eight counts in the complaint allege,
among other things, (i) unreasonable restraints of trade
and conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act,
(ii) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, (iii) that broker defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, (iv) that
insurer defendants participated in and induced this alleged
breach of fiduciary duty, (v) unjust enrichment,
(vi) common law fraud by broker defendants and
(vii) statutory and consumer fraud under the laws of
certain U.S. states. Plaintiffs seek equitable and legal
remedies, including injunctive relief, unquantified
consequential and punitive damages, and treble damages under the
Sherman Act and RICO. On October 16, 2006, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that the litigation be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings occurring in that court. Neither Allied
World Assurance Company, Ltd nor any of the other defendants
have responded to the complaint. Because this matter is in an
early stage, the Company cannot estimate the possible range of
loss, if any.
The determination of reportable segments is based on how senior
management monitors the Companys underwriting operations.
The Company measures the results of its underwriting operations
under three major business categories, namely property
insurance, casualty insurance and reinsurance. All product lines
fall within these classifications.
The property segment includes the insurance of physical property
and energy-related risks. These risks generally relate to
tangible assets and are considered short-tail in
that the time from a claim being advised to the date when the
claim is settled is relatively short. The casualty segment
includes the insurance of general liability risks, professional
liability risks and healthcare risks. Such risks are
long-tail in nature since the emergence and
settlement of a claim can take place many years after the policy
period has expired. The reinsurance segment of the
Companys business includes any reinsurance of other
companies in the insurance and reinsurance industries. The
Company writes reinsurance on both a treaty and facultative
basis.
Responsibility and accountability for the results of
underwriting operations are assigned by major line of business
on a worldwide basis. Because the Company does not manage its
assets by segment, investment income, interest expense and total
assets are not allocated to individual reportable segments.
Management measures results for each segment on the basis of the
loss and loss expense ratio, acquisition cost
ratio, general and administrative expense
ratio and the combined ratio. The loss
and loss expense ratio is derived by dividing net losses
and loss expenses by net premiums earned. The acquisition
cost ratio is derived by dividing acquisition costs by net
premiums earned. The general and administrative expense
ratio is derived by dividing general and administrative
expenses by net premiums earned. The combined ratio
is the sum of the loss and loss expense ratio, the acquisition
cost ratio and the general and administrative expense ratio.
15
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
11. SEGMENT INFORMATION (contd)
The following table provides a summary of the segment results
for the three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30, 2006
|
|
Property
|
|
|
Casualty
|
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
88,150
|
|
|
$
|
144,576
|
|
|
$
|
129,752
|
|
|
$
|
362,478
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
40,855
|
|
|
|
127,893
|
|
|
|
129,268
|
|
|
|
298,016
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
46,576
|
|
|
|
135,186
|
|
|
|
135,997
|
|
|
|
317,759
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
(28,917
|
)
|
|
|
(78,979
|
)
|
|
|
(73,038
|
)
|
|
|
(180,934
|
)
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
(7,301
|
)
|
|
|
(30,857
|
)
|
|
|
(37,785
|
)
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
(6,273
|
)
|
|
|
(12,894
|
)
|
|
|
(6,473
|
)
|
|
|
(25,640
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriting income
|
|
|
11,759
|
|
|
|
36,012
|
|
|
|
25,629
|
|
|
|
73,400
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,407
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,080
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,529
|
)
|
Foreign exchange gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
116,759
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
62.1
|
%
|
|
|
58.4
|
%
|
|
|
53.7
|
%
|
|
|
56.9
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)%
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
|
|
22.7
|
%
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
General and administrative expense
ratio
|
|
|
13.5
|
%
|
|
|
9.6
|
%
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
|
8.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
74.8
|
%
|
|
|
73.4
|
%
|
|
|
81.2
|
%
|
|
|
76.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30, 2005
|
|
Property
|
|
|
Casualty
|
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
85,048
|
|
|
$
|
153,267
|
|
|
$
|
91,615
|
|
|
$
|
329,930
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
25,304
|
|
|
|
138,589
|
|
|
|
85,827
|
|
|
|
249,720
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
40,047
|
|
|
|
146,556
|
|
|
|
126,673
|
|
|
|
313,276
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
(252,679
|
)
|
|
|
(101,928
|
)
|
|
|
(238,669
|
)
|
|
|
(593,276
|
)
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
1,771
|
|
|
|
(7,950
|
)
|
|
|
(29,692
|
)
|
|
|
(35,871
|
)
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
(4,871
|
)
|
|
|
(10,314
|
)
|
|
|
(5,610
|
)
|
|
|
(20,795
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriting (loss) income
|
|
|
(215,732
|
)
|
|
|
26,364
|
|
|
|
(147,298
|
)
|
|
|
(336,666
|
)
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,592
|
|
Net realized investment gains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,152
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,146
|
)
|
Foreign exchange gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(290,022
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
630.9
|
%
|
|
|
69.6
|
%
|
|
|
188.4
|
%
|
|
|
189.4
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
(4.4
|
)%
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
|
|
23.5
|
%
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
General and administrative expense
ratio
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
638.7
|
%
|
|
|
82.0
|
%
|
|
|
216.3
|
%
|
|
|
207.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
11. SEGMENT INFORMATION (contd)
The following table provides a summary of the segment results
for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2006
|
|
Property
|
|
|
Casualty
|
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
374,830
|
|
|
$
|
475,074
|
|
|
$
|
529,010
|
|
|
$
|
1,378,914
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
152,808
|
|
|
|
414,812
|
|
|
|
528,237
|
|
|
|
1,095,857
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
141,633
|
|
|
|
400,488
|
|
|
|
390,098
|
|
|
|
932,219
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
(86,965
|
)
|
|
|
(258,993
|
)
|
|
|
(220,780
|
)
|
|
|
(566,738
|
)
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
2,631
|
|
|
|
(23,575
|
)
|
|
|
(85,976
|
)
|
|
|
(106,920
|
)
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
(18,233
|
)
|
|
|
(35,873
|
)
|
|
|
(18,112
|
)
|
|
|
(72,218
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriting income
|
|
|
39,066
|
|
|
|
82,047
|
|
|
|
65,230
|
|
|
|
186,343
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178,351
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24,488
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,056
|
)
|
Foreign exchange gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
491
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
317,641
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
61.4
|
%
|
|
|
64.7
|
%
|
|
|
56.6
|
%
|
|
|
60.8
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)%
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
|
|
22.0
|
%
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
General and administrative expense
ratio
|
|
|
12.9
|
%
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
72.4
|
%
|
|
|
79.5
|
%
|
|
|
83.3
|
%
|
|
|
80.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005
|
|
Property
|
|
|
Casualty
|
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
316,459
|
|
|
$
|
478,511
|
|
|
$
|
481,963
|
|
|
$
|
1,276,933
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
123,276
|
|
|
|
423,852
|
|
|
|
461,252
|
|
|
|
1,008,380
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
178,552
|
|
|
|
447,849
|
|
|
|
343,078
|
|
|
|
969,479
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
(345,339
|
)
|
|
|
(322,608
|
)
|
|
|
(387,984
|
)
|
|
|
(1,055,931
|
)
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
(7,720
|
)
|
|
|
(24,876
|
)
|
|
|
(77,227
|
)
|
|
|
(109,823
|
)
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
(14,194
|
)
|
|
|
(30,675
|
)
|
|
|
(21,807
|
)
|
|
|
(66,676
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriting (loss) income
|
|
|
(188,701
|
)
|
|
|
69,690
|
|
|
|
(143,940
|
)
|
|
|
(262,951
|
)
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127,737
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,937
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,783
|
)
|
Foreign exchange loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(486
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
193.4
|
%
|
|
|
72.0
|
%
|
|
|
113.1
|
%
|
|
|
108.9
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
4.3
|
%
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
22.5
|
%
|
|
|
11.3
|
%
|
General and administrative expense
ratio
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.8
|
%
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
205.7
|
%
|
|
|
84.4
|
%
|
|
|
142.0
|
%
|
|
|
127.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
NOTES TO
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except share
and per share amounts)
11. SEGMENT INFORMATION (contd)
The following table shows an analysis of the Companys net
premiums written by geographic location of the Companys
subsidiaries for the three months ended September 30, 2006
and 2005, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2006
and 2005. All inter-company premiums have been eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
$
|
217,657
|
|
|
$
|
189,300
|
|
|
$
|
841,782
|
|
|
$
|
778,740
|
|
United States
|
|
|
41,341
|
|
|
|
30,431
|
|
|
|
112,981
|
|
|
|
99,848
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
39,018
|
|
|
|
29,989
|
|
|
|
141,094
|
|
|
|
129,792
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net premium written
|
|
$
|
298,016
|
|
|
$
|
249,720
|
|
|
$
|
1,095,857
|
|
|
$
|
1,008,380
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On November 8, 2006, the Company declared a quarterly
dividend of $0.15 per common share payable on December 21,
2006 to the shareholders of record on December 5, 2006.
18
|
|
Item 2.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations.
|
The following discussion and analysis of our financial
condition and results of operations should be read in
conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and
related notes included elsewhere in this
Form 10-Q.
Some of the information contained in this discussion and
analysis or included elsewhere in this
Form 10-Q,
including information with respect to our plans and strategy for
our business, includes forward-looking statements that involve
risks and uncertainties. Please see the Note on
Forward-Looking Statements for more information. You
should review the risk factors included in our most recent
documents on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). References in this
Form 10-Q
to the terms we, us, our,
our company, the company or other
similar terms mean the consolidated operations of Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and its subsidiaries, unless the
context requires otherwise. References in this
Form 10-Q
to the term Holdings means Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd only.
Overview
Our
Business
We write a diversified portfolio of property and casualty
insurance and reinsurance lines of business internationally
through our insurance subsidiaries or branches based in Bermuda,
the United States, Ireland and the United Kingdom. We manage our
business through three operating segments: property, casualty
and reinsurance. As of September 30, 2006, we had
$8,012.9 million of total assets, $2,094.9 million of
shareholders equity and $2,593.4 million of total
capital.
During 2006, market conditions for property lines of business
improved substantially as a result of the windstorms that
occurred during 2004 and 2005. We have taken advantage of
selected opportunities and, as such, our property segment grew
to 27.2% of our business mix on a gross premiums written basis
for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared to
24.8% for the nine months ended September 30, 2005. We are
beginning to see modest declines in casualty insurance pricing
but are taking advantage of opportunities where pricing, terms
and conditions still meet our targets. Our casualty and
reinsurance segments made up 34.4% and 38.4%, respectively, of
gross premiums written for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 compared to 37.5% and 37.7%,
respectively, for the nine months ended September 30, 2005.
During July 2006, we completed an initial public offering of
10,120,000 common shares at $34.00 per share for total net
proceeds of approximately $315.8 million, including the
underwriters over-allotment option. We also issued
$500.0 million aggregate principal amount of senior notes
bearing 7.50% annual interest and repaid our $500.0 million
term loan using proceeds from the issuance of the senior notes
and our IPO, including the exercise in full by the underwriters
of their over-allotment option.
Relevant
Factors
Revenues
We derive our revenues primarily from premiums on our insurance
policies and reinsurance contracts, net of any reinsurance or
retrocessional coverage purchased. Insurance and reinsurance
premiums are a function of the amounts and types of policies and
contracts we write, as well as prevailing market prices. Our
prices are determined before our ultimate costs, which may
extend far into the future, are known. In addition, our revenues
include income generated from our investment portfolio,
consisting of net investment income and net realized gains or
losses. Our investment portfolio is currently comprised
primarily of fixed maturity investments, the income from which
is a function of the amount of invested assets and relevant
interest rates.
Expenses
Our expenses consist largely of net losses and loss expenses,
acquisition costs and general and administrative expenses. Net
losses and loss expenses are comprised of paid losses and
reserves for losses less
19
recoveries from reinsurers. Losses and loss expense reserves are
estimated by management and reflect our best estimate of
ultimate losses and costs arising during the reporting period
and revisions of prior period estimates. In accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America, we reserve for catastrophic losses as soon as the loss
event is known to have occurred. Acquisition costs consist
principally of commissions and brokerage fees that are typically
a percentage of the premiums on insurance policies or
reinsurance contracts written, net of any commissions received
by us on risks ceded to reinsurers. General and administrative
expenses include personnel expenses, professional fees, rent and
other general operating expenses. General and administrative
expenses also include fees paid to subsidiaries of AIG in return
for the provision of certain administrative services. Prior to
January 1, 2006, these fees were based on a percentage of
our gross premiums written. Effective January 1, 2006, our
administrative services agreements with AIG subsidiaries were
amended and now contain both cost-plus and flat-fee arrangements
for a more limited range of services. The services no longer
included within the agreements are now provided through
additional staff and infrastructure of the company. As a result
of our IPO, we are experiencing increases in general and
administrative expenses as we add personnel and become subject
to reporting regulations applicable to publicly-held companies.
We expect this to continue in 2007.
Critical
Accounting Policies
It is important to understand our accounting policies in order
to understand our financial position and results of operations.
Our consolidated financial statements reflect determinations
that are inherently subjective in nature and require management
to make assumptions and best estimates to determine the reported
values. If events or other factors cause actual results to
differ materially from managements underlying assumptions
or estimates, there could be a material adverse effect on our
financial condition or results of operations. The following are
the accounting policies that, in managements judgment, are
critical due to the judgments, assumptions and uncertainties
underlying the application of those policies and the potential
for results to differ from managements assumptions.
Reserve
for Losses and Loss Expenses
The reserve for losses and loss expenses is comprised of two
main elements: outstanding loss reserves, also known as
case reserves, and reserves for losses incurred but
not reported, also known as IBNR. Outstanding loss
reserves relate to known claims and represent managements
best estimate of the likely loss settlement. Thus, there is a
significant amount of estimation involved in determining the
likely loss payment. IBNR reserves require substantial judgment
because they relate to unreported events that, based on industry
information, managements experience and actuarial
evaluation, can reasonably be expected to have occurred and are
reasonably likely to result in a loss to our company.
Reserves for losses and loss expenses as of September 30,
2006 and December 31, 2005 were comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Case reserves
|
|
$
|
892.5
|
|
|
$
|
921.2
|
|
IBNR
|
|
|
2,694.5
|
|
|
|
2,484.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses
|
|
|
3,587.0
|
|
|
|
3,405.4
|
|
Reinsurance recoverables
|
|
|
(688.1
|
)
|
|
|
(716.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses
|
|
$
|
2,898.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,689.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IBNR reserves are estimated for each business segment based on
various factors, including underwriters expectations about
loss experience, actuarial analysis, comparisons with industry
benchmarks and loss experience to date. Our actuaries employ
generally accepted actuarial methodologies to determine
estimated ultimate expected losses and loss expenses. The IBNR
reserve is calculated by reducing these estimated ultimate
losses and loss expenses by the cumulative paid amount of losses
and loss expenses and the current
20
carried outstanding loss reserves for losses and loss expenses.
The adequacy of our reserves is re-evaluated quarterly by our
actuaries. At the completion of each quarterly review of the
reserves, a reserve analysis and memorandum are written and
reviewed with our loss reserve committee. This committee
determines managements best estimate for loss and loss
expense reserves based upon the reserve analysis and memorandum.
A loss reserve study is prepared by an independent actuary
annually in order to provide additional insight into the
reasonableness of our reserves for losses and loss expenses.
Estimating reserves for our property segment relies primarily on
traditional loss reserving methodologies, utilizing selected
paid and reported loss development factors. In property lines of
business, claims are generally reported and paid within a
relatively short period of time (shorter tail lines)
during and following the policy coverage period. This enables us
to determine with greater certainty our estimate of ultimate
losses and loss expenses.
Our casualty segment includes general liability risks,
healthcare and professional liability risks, such as directors
and officers and errors and omissions risks. Our average
attachment points for these lines are high, making reserving for
these lines of business more difficult. Claims may be reported
several years after the coverage period has terminated
(longer tail lines). We establish a case reserve
when sufficient information is gathered to make a reasonable
estimate of the liability, which often requires a significant
amount of information and time. Due to the lengthy reporting
pattern of these casualty lines, reliance is placed on industry
benchmarks of expected loss ratios and reporting patterns in
addition to our own experience.
Our reinsurance segment is a composition of shorter tail lines
similar to our property segment and longer tail lines similar to
our casualty segment. Our reinsurance treaties are reviewed
individually, based upon individual characteristics and loss
experience emergence.
Loss reserves on assumed reinsurance have unique features that
make them more difficult to estimate. Reinsurers have to rely
upon the cedents and reinsurance intermediaries to report losses
in a timely fashion. Reinsurers must rely upon cedents to price
the underlying business appropriately. Reinsurers have less
predictable loss emergence patterns than direct insurers,
particularly when writing excess of loss treaties.
For excess of loss treaties, cedents generally are required to
report losses that either exceed 50% of the retention, have a
reasonable probability of exceeding the retention or meet
serious injury reporting criteria in a timely fashion. All
reinsurance claims that are reserved are reviewed at least every
six months. For proportional treaties, cedents are required to
give a periodic statement of account, generally monthly or
quarterly. These periodic statements typically include
information regarding written premiums, earned premiums,
unearned premiums, ceding commissions, brokerage amounts,
applicable taxes, paid losses and outstanding losses. They can
be submitted 60 to 90 days after the close of the reporting
period. Some proportional treaties have specific language
regarding earlier notice of serious claims. Generally our
reinsurance treaties contain an arbitration clause to resolve
disputes. Since our inception, there has been only one dispute,
which was resolved through arbitration. Currently there are no
material disputes outstanding.
Reinsurance generally has a greater time lag than direct
insurance in the reporting of claims. There is the lag caused by
the claim first being reported to the cedent, then the
intermediary (such as a broker) and finally the reinsurer. This
lag can be three to six months. There is also a lag because the
insurer may not be required to report claims to the reinsurer
until certain reporting criteria are met. In some instances this
could be several years, while a claim is being litigated. We use
reporting factors from the Reinsurance Association of America to
adjust for this time lag. We also use historical treaty-specific
reporting factors when applicable. Loss and premium information
are entered into our reinsurance system by our claims department
and our accounting department on a timely basis.
We record the individual case reserves sent to us by the cedents
through the reinsurance intermediaries. Individual claims are
reviewed by our reinsurance claims department and adjusted as
deemed appropriate. The loss data received from the
intermediaries is checked for reasonability and also for known
events. The loss listings are reviewed when performing regular
claim audits.
The expected loss ratios that we assign to each treaty are based
upon analysis and modeling performed by a team of actuaries. The
historical data reviewed by the team of pricing actuaries is
considered in setting the
21
reserves for all treaty years with each cedent. The historical
data in the submissions is matched against our carried reserves
for our historical treaty years.
Loss reserves do not represent an exact calculation of
liability. Rather, loss reserves are estimates of what we expect
the ultimate resolution and administration of claims will cost.
These estimates are based on actuarial and statistical
projections and on our assessment of currently available data,
as well as estimates of future trends in claims severity and
frequency, judicial theories of liability and other factors.
Loss reserve estimates are refined as experience develops and as
claims are reported and resolved. In addition, the relatively
long periods between when a loss occurs and when it may be
reported to our claims department for our casualty lines of
business also increase the uncertainties of our reserve
estimates in such lines.
The following tables provide our ranges of loss and loss expense
reserve estimates by business segment as of September 30,
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for Losses and Loss Expenses
|
|
|
|
Gross of Reinsurance Recoverable
|
|
|
|
Carried Reserves
|
|
|
Low Estimate
|
|
|
High Estimate
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Property
|
|
$
|
933.4
|
|
|
$
|
756.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,069.0
|
|
Casualty
|
|
|
1,801.0
|
|
|
|
1,321.0
|
|
|
|
2,062.4
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
852.6
|
|
|
|
584.8
|
|
|
|
971.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated reserves and
estimates(1)
|
|
$
|
3,587.0
|
|
|
$
|
2,873.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,891.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for Losses and Loss Expenses
|
|
|
|
Net of Reinsurance Recoverable
|
|
|
|
Carried Reserves
|
|
|
Low Estimate
|
|
|
High Estimate
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Property
|
|
$
|
459.4
|
|
|
$
|
341.2
|
|
|
$
|
514.1
|
|
Casualty
|
|
|
1,632.8
|
|
|
|
1,188.0
|
|
|
|
1,875.9
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
806.7
|
|
|
|
546.8
|
|
|
|
931.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated reserves and
estimates(1)
|
|
$
|
2,898.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,258.4
|
|
|
$
|
3,139.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For statistical reasons, it is not appropriate to add together
the ranges of each business segment in an effort to determine
the low and high range around the consolidated loss reserves. |
Our range for each business segment was determined by utilizing
multiple actuarial loss reserving methods along with varying
assumptions of reporting patterns and expected loss ratios by
loss year. In addition, for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma,
we have reviewed our insured risks in the exposed areas and the
potential losses to each risk. These hurricanes have caused us
to have relatively wide ranges for the property lines reflecting
the uncertainty of the ultimate losses from these storms. The
various outcomes of these techniques were combined to determine
a reasonable range of required loss and loss expense reserves.
We utilize a variety of standard actuarial methods in our
analysis. The selections from these various methods are based on
the loss development characteristics of the specific line of
business. For lines of business with extremely long reporting
periods such as casualty reinsurance, we may rely more on an
expected loss ratio method (as described below) until losses
begin to develop. The actuarial methods we utilize include:
Paid Loss Development Method. We estimate
ultimate losses by calculating past paid loss development
factors and applying them to exposure periods with further
expected paid loss development. The paid loss development method
assumes that losses are paid at a consistent rate. It provides
an objective test of reported loss projections because paid
losses contain no reserve estimates. In some circumstances, paid
losses for recent periods may be too varied for accurate
predictions. For many coverages, claim payments are made very
slowly and it may take years for claims to be fully reported and
settled. These payments may be unreliable for determining future
loss projections because of shifts in settlement patterns or
because of large settlements in the early stages of development.
Choosing an appropriate tail factor to determine the
amount of payments
22
from the latest development period to the ultimate development
period may also require considerable judgment, especially for
coverages that have long payment patterns. As we have limited
payment history, we have had to supplement our loss development
patterns with other methods.
Reported Loss Development Method. We estimate
ultimate losses by calculating past reported loss development
factors and applying them to exposure periods with further
expected reported loss development. Since reported losses
include payments and case reserves, changes in both of these
amounts are incorporated in this method. This approach provides
a larger volume of data to estimate ultimate losses than the
paid loss development method. Thus, reported loss patterns may
be less varied than paid loss patterns, especially for coverages
that have historically been paid out over a long period of time
but for which claims are reported relatively early and case loss
reserve estimates established. This method assumes that reserves
have been established using consistent practices over the
historical period that is reviewed. Changes in claims handling
procedures, large claims or significant numbers of claims of an
unusual nature may cause results to be too varied for accurate
forecasting. Also, choosing an appropriate tail
factor to determine the change in reported loss from that
latest development period to the ultimate development period may
require considerable judgment. As we have limited reported
history, we have had to supplement our loss development patterns
with appropriate benchmarks.
Expected Loss Ratio Method. To estimate
ultimate losses under the expected loss ratio method, we
multiply earned premiums by an expected loss ratio. The expected
loss ratio is selected utilizing industry data, historical
company data and professional judgment. This method is
particularly useful for new insurance companies or new lines of
business where there are no historical losses or where past loss
experience is not credible.
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Paid Loss Method. The
Bornhuetter-Ferguson paid loss method is a combination of the
paid loss development method and the expected loss ratio method.
The amount of losses yet to be paid is based upon the expected
loss ratios. These expected loss ratios are modified to the
extent paid losses to date differ from what would have been
expected to have been paid based upon the selected paid loss
development pattern. This method avoids some of the distortions
that could result from a large development factor being applied
to a small base of paid losses to calculate ultimate losses.
This method will react slowly if actual loss ratios develop
differently because of major changes in rate levels, retentions
or deductibles, the forms and conditions of reinsurance
coverage, the types of risks covered or a variety of other
changes.
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Reported Loss Method. The
Bornhuetter-Ferguson reported loss method is similar to the
Bornhuetter-Ferguson paid loss method with the exception that it
uses reported losses and reported loss development factors.
Our selection of the actual carried reserves has typically been
above the midpoint of the range. We believe that we should be
conservative in our reserving practices due to the lengthy
reporting patterns and relatively large limits of net liability
for any one risk of our direct excess casualty business and of
our casualty reinsurance business. Thus, due to this uncertainty
regarding estimates for reserve for losses and loss expenses, we
have historically carried our reserve for losses and loss
expenses 4% to 11% above the mid-point of the low and high
estimates. A provision for uncertainty is embedded in our
reserves through our selection of the high estimate for
long-tail lines of business. We believe that relying on the most
conservative actuarial indications for these lines of business
is prudent for a relatively new company.
The key assumptions used to arrive at our best estimate of loss
reserves are the expected loss ratios, rate of loss cost
inflation, selection of benchmarks and reported and paid loss
emergence patterns. Our reporting patterns and expected loss
ratios were based on either benchmarks for longer-tail business
or historical reporting patterns for shorter-tail business. The
benchmarks selected were those that we believe are most similar
to our underwriting business.
The key assumptions that have changed historically are the
expected loss ratios. Our expected loss ratios for property
lines change from year to year. As our losses from property
lines are reported relatively quickly, we select our expected
loss ratios for the most recent years based upon our actual loss
ratios for our older years adjusted for rate changes, inflation,
cost of reinsurance and average storm activity. For the property
lines,
23
we initially used benchmarks for reported and paid loss
emergence patterns. As we mature as a company, we have begun
supplementing those benchmark patterns with our actual patterns
as appropriate. For the casualty lines, we continue to use
benchmark patterns, though we update the benchmark patterns as
additional information is published regarding the benchmark data.
The selection of the expected loss ratios for the casualty lines
of business is our most significant assumption. If our final
casualty insurance and casualty reinsurance loss ratios vary by
ten percentage points from the expected loss ratios in
aggregate, our required net reserves after reinsurance
recoverable would need to change by approximately
$321 million. As we commonly write net lines of casualty
insurance exceeding $25 million, we expect that ultimate
loss ratios could vary substantially from our initial loss
ratios. Because we expect a small volume of large claims, we
believe the variance of our loss ratio selection could be
relatively wide. Thus, a ten percentage point change in loss
ratios is reasonably likely to occur. This would result in
either an increase or decrease to net income and
shareholders equity of approximately $321 million. As
of September 30, 2006, this represented approximately 15%
of shareholders equity. In terms of liquidity, our
contractual obligations for reserve for losses and loss expenses
would decrease or increase by $321 million after
reinsurance recoverable. If our obligations were to increase by
$321 million, we believe we currently have sufficient cash
and investments to meet those obligations.
While management believes that our case reserves and IBNR
reserves are sufficient to cover losses assumed by us, ultimate
losses and loss expenses may deviate from our reserves, possibly
by material amounts. It is possible that our estimates of the
2005 hurricane losses may be adjusted as we receive new
information from clients, loss adjusters or ceding companies. To
the extent actual reported losses exceed estimated losses, the
carried estimate of the ultimate losses will be increased (i.e.,
negative reserve development), and to the extent actual reported
losses are less than our expectations, the carried estimate of
ultimate losses will be reduced (i.e., positive reserve
development). In addition, the methodology of estimating loss
reserves is periodically reviewed to ensure that the assumptions
made continue to be appropriate. We record any changes in our
loss reserve estimates and the related reinsurance recoverables
in the periods in which they are determined regardless of the
accident year (i.e., the year in which a loss occurs).
Reinsurance
Recoverable
We determine what portion of the losses will be recoverable
under our reinsurance policies by reference to the terms of the
reinsurance protection purchased. This determination is
necessarily based on the underlying loss estimates and,
accordingly, is subject to the same uncertainties as the
estimate of case reserves and IBNR reserves. We remain liable to
the extent that our reinsurers do not meet their obligations
under the reinsurance agreements, and we therefore regularly
evaluate the financial condition of our reinsurers and monitor
concentration of credit risk. No provision has been made for
unrecoverable reinsurance as of September 30, 2006 and
December 31, 2005, as we believe that all reinsurance
balances will be recovered.
Premiums
and Acquisition Costs
Premiums are recognized as written on the inception date of a
policy. For proportional types of reinsurance written by us,
premiums may not be known with certainty at the policy inception
date. In the case of proportional treaties assumed by us, the
underwriter makes an estimate of premiums at inception. The
underwriters estimate is based on statistical data
provided by reinsureds and the underwriters judgment and
experience. Those estimates are refined over the reporting
period of each treaty as actual written premium information is
reported by ceding companies and intermediaries. Management
reviews estimated premiums at least quarterly, and any
adjustments are recorded in the period in which they become
known. As of September 30, 2006, our changes in premium
estimates have been upward adjustments ranging from
approximately 11% for the 2004 treaty year to 20% for the 2002
treaty year. Applying this range, hypothetically, to our 2005
proportional treaties, our gross premiums written in the
reinsurance segment could increase by approximately
$20 million to $39 million over the next three years.
As of September 30, 2006, gross premiums written for 2005
proportional treaties have been adjusted upward by approximately
16%. Total premiums estimated on proportional contracts for the
three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 represented
approximately 17% and 14%, respectively, of total gross premiums
written. Total premiums
24
estimated on proportional contracts for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005 represented approximately 18%
and 17%, respectively, of total gross premiums written.
Other insurance and reinsurance policies can require that the
premium be adjusted at the expiry of a policy to reflect the
risk assumed by us. Premiums resulting from those adjustments
are estimated and accrued based on available information.
Premiums are earned over the period of policy coverage in
proportion to the risks to which they relate. Premiums relating
to unexpired periods of coverage are carried on the balance
sheet as unearned premiums.
Acquisition costs, comprised of commissions, brokerage fees and
insurance taxes, are incurred in the acquisition of new and
renewal business and are expensed as the premiums to which they
relate are earned. Acquisition costs relating to the reserve for
unearned premiums are deferred and carried on the balance sheet
as an asset. Anticipated losses and loss expenses, other costs
and investment income related to these unearned premiums are
considered in determining the recoverability or deficiency of
deferred acquisition costs. If it is determined that deferred
acquisition costs are not recoverable, they are expensed.
Further analysis is performed to determine if a liability is
required to provide for losses, which may exceed the related
unearned premiums.
Stock
Compensation
In 2001, we implemented the Allied World Assurance Holdings, Ltd
2001 Employee Warrant Plan. After our special general meeting of
shareholders on June 9, 2006 and our IPO, we amended and
restated the 2001 employee warrant plan and renamed it the
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd Amended and
Restated 2001 Employee Stock Option Plan (the Plan).
Under the Plan, up to 2,000,000 common shares may be issued.
Among other things, the amendment and restatement extends the
term of the Plan from November 21, 2011 to a date that is
ten years from the date of approval of the amendment and
restatement and requires that any repricing of awards under the
Plan be approved by our shareholders. It also provides the
compensation committee of our board of directors additional
flexibility with respect to awards in certain corporate events
and in connection with compliance with Section 409A of the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(Section 409A). The warrants that were granted
under the Plan prior to the amendment and restatement remain
outstanding, were converted to options as part of our IPO, are
exercisable in certain limited conditions, expire after ten
years and generally vest ratably over four years from the date
of grant.
In 2004, we implemented the Allied World Assurance Holdings, Ltd
2004 Stock Incentive Plan, under which up to 1,000,000 common
shares could be issued. After our special general meeting of
shareholders on June 9, 2006 and our IPO, we amended and
restated the 2004 stock incentive plan and renamed it the Allied
World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd Amended and Restated 2004
Stock Incentive Plan (the Stock Incentive Plan).
Among other things, the amendment and restatement increases to
2,000,000 the number of common shares available for issuance
under the Stock Incentive Plan and provides the compensation
committee of our board of directors additional flexibility with
respect to awards in certain corporate events and in connection
with compliance with Section 409A. Awards under the Stock
Incentive Plan prior to amendment and restatement remain
outstanding and generally vest either four years from the date
of grant or ratably over four years from the date of grant.
Prior to our IPO, valuations under each of the above plans was
based on our book value per share, which approximated fair
value. We calculated expenses related to grants of warrants
(later converted to options) by subtracting from our book value
as at the end of each applicable period (either quarter end or
year end) the exercise price of the individual warrants at the
date of grant. The compensation expense for the restricted stock
units (RSUs) was based on our book value per share,
which approximated fair value, and was recognized over the
four-year vesting period.
Subsequent to our IPO, for those warrants issued prior to and
converting to options as part of our IPO, the exercise price and
the vesting period of each option granted under the Plan will
remain the same as under the former plan. However, for valuation
purposes, the new grant date is July 11, 2006. In
accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Boards
issuance of the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123(R) Share Based Payment, the fair value
of these options was revalued as of this new grant date and will
be
25
expensed over the remaining vesting period. During the three
months ended June 30, 2006, we incurred a one-time expense
of approximately $2.6 million to recognize the increase in
our fair value as a publicly-traded company. For those warrants
that were fully vested at the time of conversion to options, the
full amount of the fair value of the options was recognized as
an expense. Any future options granted under the Plan will be
valued on the date of grant and expensed over the vesting period.
The RSUs issued prior to our IPO will remain essentially
unchanged due to the amendment and restatement. The vesting
period of these RSUs will remain the same. However, the fair
value of the RSUs was reassessed and converted to the fair
market value of our common shares as of our IPO. The total
expenses to date under the Stock Incentive Plan were adjusted to
the revised fair value. As such, a one-time expense of
approximately $0.2 million was incurred during the three
months ended June 30, 2006. In the future, newly issued
RSUs will be valued as of the grant date based on the average
market value of the common shares on the grant date. The total
expense will be recognized over the vesting period on a
straight-line basis.
On May 22, 2006, we implemented the Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd Long-Term Incentive Plan
(LTIP), which provides for performance based equity
awards to our key employees in order to promote our long-term
growth and profitability. Each award represents the right to
receive a number of our common shares in the future, based upon
the achievement of established performance criteria during the
applicable three-year performance period. A total of 2,000,000
of our common shares may be issued under the LTIP. To date,
228,334 of these performance based equity awards have been
granted, which will vest after the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2008 in accordance with the terms and
performance conditions of the LTIP.
Similar to the RSUs under the Stock Incentive Plan, the
compensation expense for the LTIP will be based on the fair
market value of our common shares. Any newly granted awards
under the LTIP will be valued as of the grant date based on the
average market value of the common shares on the grant date. The
total expense will be recognized over the performance period on
a straight-line basis.
In calculating the expense related to the LTIP, it is estimated
that the maximum performance goals as set by the LTIP are likely
to be achieved over the performance period. The performance
period for the LTIP awards issued to date is defined as the
three consecutive fiscal year period beginning January 1,
2006. As such, expenses of $2.9 million were recognized in
the financial statements for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006.
Other-than-Temporary
Impairment of Investments
We regularly evaluate the carrying value of our investments to
determine if a decline in value is considered to be other than
temporary. This review involves consideration of several factors
including: (i) the significance of the decline in value and
the resulting unrealized loss position; (ii) the time
period for which there has been a significant decline in value;
(iii) an analysis of the issuer of the investment,
including its liquidity, business prospects and overall
financial position; and (iv) our intent and ability to hold
the investment for a sufficient period of time for the value to
recover. If the decline in value is determined to be other than
temporary, we record a realized loss in the statement of
operations in the period that it is determined.
During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006,
we identified fixed maturity securities which were considered to
be
other-than-temporarily-impaired
as a result of changes in interest rates. Consequently, the cost
of these securities was written down to fair value and we
recognized a realized loss of approximately $8.4 million
and $13.3 million during the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2006, respectively.
26
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth our selected consolidated
statement of operations data for each of the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
362.5
|
|
|
$
|
329.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,378.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,276.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
$
|
298.0
|
|
|
$
|
249.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,095.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,008.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
317.8
|
|
|
|
313.3
|
|
|
|
932.2
|
|
|
|
969.5
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
61.4
|
|
|
|
47.6
|
|
|
|
178.4
|
|
|
|
127.7
|
|
Net realized investment (losses)
gains
|
|
|
(9.1
|
)
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
(24.5
|
)
|
|
|
(4.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
370.1
|
|
|
$
|
365.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,086.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,092.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
180.9
|
|
|
$
|
593.3
|
|
|
$
|
566.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,055.9
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
37.8
|
|
|
|
35.9
|
|
|
|
106.9
|
|
|
|
109.8
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
25.7
|
|
|
|
20.8
|
|
|
|
72.2
|
|
|
|
66.7
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
23.1
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses
|
|
$
|
253.3
|
|
|
$
|
655.0
|
|
|
$
|
768.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,242.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
$
|
116.8
|
|
|
$
|
(290.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
317.7
|
|
|
$
|
(150.4
|
)
|
Income tax expense (recovery)
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
(6.6
|
)
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
(2.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
114.0
|
|
|
$
|
(283.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
314.5
|
|
|
$
|
(147.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
56.9
|
%
|
|
|
189.4
|
%
|
|
|
60.8
|
%
|
|
|
108.9
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
General and administrative expense
ratio
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
Expense ratio
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
18.1
|
|
|
|
19.2
|
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
76.9
|
|
|
|
207.5
|
|
|
|
80.0
|
|
|
|
127.1
|
|
Comparison
of Three Months Ended September 30, 2006 and 2005
Premiums
Gross premiums written increased by $32.6 million, or 9.9%,
for the three months ended September 30, 2006 compared to
the three months ended September 30, 2005. The increase was
primarily the result of two factors:
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of business written by our U.S. underwriters
increased. We expanded our U.S. distribution platform
during the second half of 2005 and our offices have been fully
operational during 2006. Gross premiums written by our
underwriters in our U.S. offices were $48.2 million
for the three months ended September 30, 2006, compared to
$28.2 million for the three months ended September 30,
2005; and
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written in our reinsurance segment increased by
approximately $38.2 million, as a result of new business,
which included three industry loss warranty (ILW)
contracts, and changes in treaty renewal dates.
|
27
Partially offsetting these increases were the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written by our casualty underwriters in Bermuda
declined, primarily as the result of some non-recurring business
recognized in the prior year, as well as a slight decrease in
market rates. Increased competition in the casualty market may
cause continued pricing pressure in future quarters.
|
|
|
|
During the three months ended September 30, 2005,
approximately $17.5 million in non-recurring reinstatement
premiums were due to us following the 2005 windstorms.
|
|
|
|
General property gross premiums written in our Bermuda office
declined from the prior period as we managed accumulated
catastrophe exposure limits.
|
|
|
|
We did not renew certain onshore energy-related business that no
longer met our underwriting requirements.
|
The table below illustrates our gross premiums written by
geographic location. Gross premiums written by our
U.S. operating subsidiaries increased by 58.3% as our
U.S. distribution platform became fully operational.
European gross premiums written increased primarily as a result
of new business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
$
|
248.9
|
|
|
$
|
249.0
|
|
|
$
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
62.0
|
|
|
|
48.3
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
28.4
|
|
United States
|
|
|
51.6
|
|
|
|
32.6
|
|
|
|
19.0
|
|
|
|
58.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
362.5
|
|
|
$
|
329.9
|
|
|
$
|
32.6
|
|
|
|
9.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written increased by $48.3 million, or 19.3%,
for the three months ended September 30, 2006 compared to
the three months ended September 30, 2005, a higher
percentage increase than that of gross premiums written. The
difference between gross and net premiums written is the cost to
us of purchasing reinsurance, both on a proportional and a
non-proportional basis, including the cost of property
catastrophe reinsurance coverage. We ceded 17.8% of gross
premiums written for the three months ended September 30,
2006 compared to 24.3% for the same period in 2005. The
reduction in the percentage of business ceded relates primarily
to our property catastrophe reinsurance protection. Although we
typically obtain annual coverage under this program in May,
during the three months ended September 30, 2005 we
incurred costs of approximately $20.5 million to reinstate
our coverage following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As we were
not exposed to any significant catastrophes in the three months
ended September 30, 2006, no such reinstatement premiums
were incurred. Also contributing to the increase in net premiums
written was a decline in the portion of business ceded on our
energy treaty; the cession percentage decreased from 66% to
58.5% when the treaty renewed on June 1, 2006.
Net premiums earned increased by $4.5 million, or 1.4%, for
the three months ended September 30, 2006. The percentage
increase was lower than that of net premiums written due to a
decrease in gross premiums written in 2005. This decrease
resulted primarily from the cancellation of the surplus lines
program administrator agreements and a reinsurance agreement
with subsidiaries of AIG.
28
We evaluate our business by segment, distinguishing between
property insurance, casualty insurance and reinsurance. The
following chart illustrates the mix of our business on a gross
premiums written basis and net premiums earned basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
|
Written
|
|
|
Earned
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
24.3
|
%
|
|
|
25.8
|
%
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
|
12.8
|
%
|
Casualty
|
|
|
39.9
|
|
|
|
46.4
|
|
|
|
42.5
|
|
|
|
46.8
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
35.8
|
|
|
|
27.8
|
|
|
|
42.8
|
|
|
|
40.4
|
|
The increase in the percentage of reinsurance gross premiums
written primarily reflects new business written and changes in
treaty renewal dates. On a net premiums earned basis, the
percentage of reinsurance has increased for the three months
ended September 30, 2006 compared to the same period in
2005 due to the continued earning of increased premiums written
over the past two years. The percentage of property net premiums
earned was considerably less than for gross premiums written
because we cede a larger portion of our property business
compared to casualty and reinsurance.
Net
Investment Income and Realized Gains/Losses
Our primary investment objective is the preservation of capital.
A secondary objective is obtaining returns commensurate with a
benchmark, primarily defined as 35% of the Lehman
U.S. Government Intermediate Index, 40% of the Lehman Corp.
1-5 year A3/A- or Higher Index and 25% of the Lehman
Securitized Index.
We adopted this benchmark effective January 1, 2006. Prior
to this date, the benchmark was defined as 80% of a
1-5 year AAA/ AA- rated index (as determined by
Standard & Poors and Moodys Investors
Service) and 20% of a 1-5 year A rated index
(as determined by Standard & Poors and
Moodys Investors Service).
Investment income is principally derived from interest and
dividends earned on investments, partially offset by investment
management fees and fees paid to our custodian bank. Net
investment income earned during the three months ended
September 30, 2006 was $61.4 million, compared to
$47.6 million during the three months ended
September 30, 2005. The $13.8 million increase was
primarily the result of an approximate 17.9% increase in average
aggregate invested assets. Our aggregate invested assets grew
with the receipt of net proceeds from our IPO, including the
exercise in full by the underwriters of their over-allotment
option, and the senior notes issuance, after repayment of our
long-term debt, as well as increased operating cash flows.
Offsetting this increase was a reduction in income from our
hedge funds. In the three months ended September 30, 2005,
we received distributions of approximately $5.3 million in
dividends-in-kind
from three of our hedge funds. For 2006 and thereafter, we
elected not to receive dividends from these three hedge funds.
Investment management fees of $1.3 million and
$1.2 million were incurred during the three months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The annualized period book yield of the investment portfolio for
the three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 was 4.4%
and 3.7%, respectively. The increase in yield was primarily the
result of increases in prevailing market interest rates over the
past year. We continue to maintain a conservative investment
posture. At September 30, 2006, approximately 99% of our
fixed income investments (which included individually held
securities and securities held in a high-yield bond fund)
consisted of investment grade securities. The average credit
rating of our fixed income portfolio was AA as rated by
Standard & Poors and Aa1 as rated by Moodys
Investors Service, with an average duration of approximately
3.0 years as of September 30, 2006.
29
The following table shows the components of net realized
investment (losses) gains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net loss on fixed income
investments
|
|
$
|
(9.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2.8
|
)
|
Net gain on interest rate swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized investment (losses)
gains
|
|
$
|
(9.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The recognition of realized gains and losses is considered to be
a typical consequence of ongoing investment management. A large
proportion of our portfolio is invested in fixed income
securities and, therefore, our unrealized gains and losses are
correlated with fluctuations in interest rates. During the three
months ended September 30, 2006, the net loss on fixed
income investments included a write-down of approximately
$8.4 million related to declines in the market value of
securities in our available for sale portfolio which were
considered to be other than temporary. The declines in market
value on these securities were primarily due to changes in
interest rates. During the three months ended September 30,
2005, no declines in the market value of investments were
considered to be other than temporary.
We analyze gains or losses on sales of securities separately
from gains or losses on interest rate swaps. On April 21,
2005, we entered into certain interest rate swaps in order to
fix the interest cost of our $500.0 million floating rate
term loan, which was repaid fully on July 26, 2006.
Net
Losses and Loss Expenses
Net losses and loss expenses incurred comprise three main
components:
|
|
|
|
|
losses paid, which are actual cash payments to insureds, net of
recoveries from reinsurers;
|
|
|
|
outstanding loss or case reserves, which represent
managements best estimate of the likely settlement amount
for known claims, less the portion that can be recovered from
reinsurers; and
|
|
|
|
IBNR reserves, which are reserves established by us for claims
that are not yet reported but can reasonably be expected to have
occurred based on industry information, managements
experience and actuarial evaluation. The portion recoverable
from reinsurers is deducted from the gross estimated loss.
|
Net losses and loss expenses decreased by $412.4 million,
or 69.5%, to $180.9 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 from $593.3 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2005. The primary reason for the
reduction in these expenses was the absence of significant
catastrophic events during the current period. The net losses
and loss expenses for the three months ended September 30,
2005 included the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Approximately $370.8 million accrued in relation to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which occurred in August and
September 2005, respectively;
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable development of approximately $56.8 million
related to the windstorms of 2004; and
|
|
|
|
Net favorable development related to prior years of
approximately $94.8 million, which partially offset the
windstorm losses recorded in the period. This net favorable
development was primarily due to lower than expected loss
emergence on 2003 and 2004 property insurance and reinsurance
business and 2002 and 2003 casualty insurance business.
|
In comparison, we were not exposed to any significant
catastrophes during the three months ended September 30,
2006. In addition, net favorable development relating to prior
years of approximately $38.7 million was recognized during
the period, including approximately $4.6 million in
anticipated recoveries under our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection related to Hurricane Frances. The
remainder of the net favorable development related primarily to
2002 and 2003 accident year business written in our casualty
30
segment and 2004 and 2005 accident year business written in our
property segment, resulting from continued low loss emergence
during the period.
We have estimated our net losses from catastrophes based on
actuarial analysis of claims information received to date,
industry modeling and discussions with individual insureds and
reinsureds. Accordingly, actual losses may vary from those
estimated and will be adjusted in the period in which further
information becomes available.
The loss and loss expense ratio for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 was 56.9%, compared to 189.4% for the
three months ended September 30, 2005. Net favorable
development recognized in the three months ended
September 30, 2006 reduced the loss and loss expense ratio
by 12.2 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to the current periods business was 69.1%.
Comparatively, the net losses and loss expenses recognized in
relation to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms, net of the favorable
reserve development related to prior periods, increased the loss
and loss expense ratio for the three months ended
September 30, 2005 by 106.3 percentage points. Thus,
the loss and loss expense ratio related to that periods
business was 83.1%. The lower ratio in 2006 was a function of
two factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Higher loss and loss expense ratios for our property lines in
2005, which reflected the impact of rate decreases and increases
in reported loss activity; and
|
|
|
|
Costs incurred in relation to our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection were approximately $13.9 million
greater in the three months ended September 30, 2005 than
for the same period in 2006, primarily due to charges incurred
to reinstate our coverage after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The
higher charge in 2005 resulted in lower net premiums earned and,
thus, increased the loss and loss expense ratio.
|
The following table shows the components of the decrease in net
losses and loss expenses of $412.4 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2006 from the three months ended
September 30, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net losses paid
|
|
$
|
100.1
|
|
|
$
|
85.9
|
|
|
$
|
14.2
|
|
Net change in reported case
reserves
|
|
|
(41.0
|
)
|
|
|
112.3
|
|
|
|
(153.3
|
)
|
Net change in IBNR
|
|
|
121.8
|
|
|
|
395.1
|
|
|
|
(273.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
180.9
|
|
|
$
|
593.3
|
|
|
$
|
(412.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses paid have increased $14.2 million, or 16.5%, to
$100.1 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 primarily due to claim payments relating
to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms. During the three months ended
September 30, 2006, approximately $44.8 million of net
losses were paid in relation to the 2004 and 2005 catastrophic
windstorms compared to approximately $36.4 million during
the three months ended September 30, 2005. During the three
months ended September 30, 2006, we recovered approximately
$11.6 million on our property catastrophe reinsurance
protection in relation to losses paid as a result of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
The decrease in case reserves during the period ended
September 30, 2006 was primarily due to the increase in net
losses paid. The net change in reported case reserves for the
three months ended September 30, 2006 included a
$49.3 million net decrease relating to the 2004 and 2005
windstorms compared to a net $69.1 million increase in case
reserves for the 2004 and 2005 windstorms during the three
months ended September 30, 2005.
The net change in IBNR for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 was lower than that for the three months
ended September 30, 2005 primarily due to the absence of
significant catastrophic activity during the current period.
31
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss
expenses, July 1
|
|
$
|
2,818.3
|
|
|
$
|
2,046.8
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
219.6
|
|
|
|
260.5
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
370.8
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(34.1
|
)
|
|
|
(94.8
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
|
56.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
180.9
|
|
|
$
|
593.3
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
50.4
|
|
|
|
35.4
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
44.8
|
|
|
|
28.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
100.1
|
|
|
$
|
85.9
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
|
2,898.9
|
|
|
|
2,554.0
|
|
Losses and loss expenses
recoverable
|
|
|
688.1
|
|
|
|
660.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
$
|
3,587.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,214.3
|
|
Acquisition
Costs
Acquisition costs are comprised of commissions, brokerage fees
and insurance taxes. Commissions and brokerage fees are usually
calculated as a percentage of premiums and depend on the market
and line of business. Acquisition costs are reported after
(1) deducting commissions received on ceded reinsurance,
(2) deducting the part of acquisition costs relating to
unearned premiums and (3) including the amortization of
previously deferred acquisition costs.
Acquisition costs were $37.8 million for the three months
ended September 30, 2006 as compared to $35.9 million
for the three months ended September 30, 2005. Acquisition
costs as a percentage of net premiums earned were 11.9% for the
three months ended September 30, 2006, compared to 11.5%
for the same period in 2005. The slight increase in this rate is
primarily due to reduced ceding commissions on our general
property and energy treaties on the renewals at October 1,
2005 and June 1, 2006, respectively.
AIG, one of our principal shareholders, was also a principal
shareholder of IPC Holdings, Ltd., the parent company of IPCRe
Underwriting Services Limited, (IPCUSL), until
August 2006. Pursuant to our agreement with IPCUSL, we paid an
agency commission of 6.5% of gross premiums written by IPCUSL on
our behalf plus original commissions to producers. Total
acquisition costs incurred by us related to this agreement for
the three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 were
$2.6 million and $4.7 million, respectively.
General
and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses represent overhead costs
such as salaries and related costs, rent, travel and
professional fees. They also include fees paid to subsidiaries
of AIG in return for the provision of administrative services.
32
General and administrative expenses increased by
$4.9 million, or 23.6%, for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The
increase was primarily the result of two factors: approximately
$2.2 million increased stock based compensation costs and
approximately $1.8 million in costs associated with our
Chicago and San Francisco offices that opened in the fourth
quarter of 2005. The remaining increase in general and
administrative expenses was a result of increases in the number
of employees, as well as increased salary and employee welfare
costs for existing employees. Additional expenses associated
with becoming a public company include additional legal, audit
and rating agency fees. Our general and administrative expense
ratio was 8.1% for the three months ended September 30,
2006, which was higher than 6.6% for the three months ended
September 30, 2005, primarily as a result of general and
administrative expenses rising at a faster rate than net
premiums earned.
Our expense ratio was 20.0% for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 compared to 18.1% for the three months
ended September 30, 2005. The increase resulted primarily
from increased general and administrative expenses, combined
with a small increase in our acquisition cost ratio.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased $4.4 million, or 86.3%, to
$9.5 million for the three months ended September 30,
2006 from $5.1 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2005.
Interest expense for the three months ended September 30,
2005 related to our $500.0 million seven-year term loan
secured in March 2005. This loan was repaid in full during the
three months ended September 30, 2006, using a portion of
the proceeds from both our IPO, including the exercise in full
by the underwriters of their over-allotment option, and the
issuance of $500.0 million aggregate principal amount of
senior notes. Interest on the term loan was based on LIBOR plus
an applicable margin, while the senior notes bear interest at an
annual rate of 7.50%. The average applicable LIBOR rate for the
three months ended September 30, 2005 was approximately
3.4%, resulting in a lower expense in 2005.
Net
Income
Net income for the three months ended September 30, 2006
was $114.0 million compared to a net loss of
$283.4 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2005. The increase was primarily the result
of us benefiting from the absence of significant catastrophic
events in the three months ended September 30, 2006,
compared to the same period in 2005, as well as increased net
investment income. Net income for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 included a net foreign exchange gain of
$0.6 million and income tax expense of $2.8 million.
Net income for the three months ended September 30, 2005
included a net foreign exchange gain of $0.1 million and an
income tax benefit of $6.6 million. Our effective tax rates
for the income tax expense and income tax benefit were
approximately 2.4% and 2.3% for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Comparison
of Nine Months Ended September 30, 2006 and 2005
Premiums
Gross premiums written increased by $102.0 million, or
8.0%, for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared
to the nine months ended September 30, 2005. The increase
was primarily the result of increased gross premiums written in
our reinsurance segment, where we wrote approximately
$57.8 million in new business during the nine months ended
September 30, 2006, including $14.7 million related to
four ILW contracts. Net upward revisions to premium estimates on
prior period business and differences in treaty participations
and rates also served to increase gross premiums written for the
segment. In addition, we benefited from the significant market
rate increases on certain catastrophe exposed North American
general property business resulting from record industry losses
following the hurricanes which occurred in the second half of
2005. The amount of business written by our underwriters in our
U.S. offices also increased. During the second half of
2005, we added staff members to our New York and Boston offices
and opened offices in Chicago and San Francisco in order to
expand our U.S. distribution platform. Gross premiums
written by our
33
underwriters in U.S. offices were $125.6 million for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006, compared to
$68.9 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005.
Offsetting these increases was a reduction in gross premiums
written due to the cancellation of surplus lines program
administrator agreements and a reinsurance agreement with
subsidiaries of AIG. Gross premiums written under these
agreements in the nine months ended September 30, 2005 were
approximately $22.1 million, compared to approximately
$0.5 million in the nine months ended September 30,
2006. Although the agreements were cancelled, we continued to
receive premium adjustments during the nine months ended
September 30, 2006. We also had a reduction in the volume
of property catastrophe business written on our behalf by IPCUSL
under an underwriting agency agreement. During the nine months
ended September 30, 2005, we received approximately
$17.5 million in non-recurring reinstatement premium
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In addition, we reduced
our exposure limits on this business, which resulted in
approximately $9.2 million less gross premiums written. We
also did not renew one large professional lines reinsurance
treaty, which resulted in approximately $27.3 million in
gross premiums written in the nine months ended
September 30, 2005, due to unfavorable changes in terms at
renewal.
The table below illustrates our gross premiums written by
geographic location. Gross premiums written by our Bermuda
operating subsidiary increased by 6.2% primarily due to new
business in our reinsurance segment, as well as increases in
certain property rates. Gross premiums written by our
U.S. operating subsidiaries increased by 28.6% due to the
expansion of our U.S. distribution platform since the prior
period, as discussed above. We employ a regional distribution
strategy in the United States via wholesalers and brokers
targeting middle-market clients. We believe this business will
be complementary to our current casualty and property direct
insurance business produced through Bermuda and European
markets, which primarily focus on underwriting risks for large
multi-national and Fortune 1000 clients with complex insurance
needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
$
|
1,026.7
|
|
|
$
|
966.9
|
|
|
$
|
59.8
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
216.9
|
|
|
|
204.8
|
|
|
|
12.1
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
United States
|
|
|
135.3
|
|
|
|
105.2
|
|
|
|
30.1
|
|
|
|
28.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,378.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,276.9
|
|
|
$
|
102.0
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written increased by $87.5 million, or 8.7%,
for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared to
the nine months ended September 30, 2005. The difference
between gross and net premiums written is the cost to us of
purchasing reinsurance, both on a proportional and a
non-proportional basis, including the cost of property
catastrophe reinsurance coverage. We ceded 20.5% of premiums
written for the nine months ended September 30, 2006
compared to 21.0% for the same period in 2005. Although the
annual cost of our property catastrophe reinsurance protection
increased in 2006 as a result of market rate increases and
changes in the levels of coverage obtained, total premiums ceded
under this program were approximately $0.3 million greater
in 2005 due to costs incurred to reinstate our coverage after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Net premiums earned decreased by $37.3 million, or 3.8%,
for the nine months ended September 30, 2006, which
reflected a decrease in gross premiums written in 2005,
resulting primarily from the cancellation of the surplus lines
program administrator agreements and a reinsurance agreement
with subsidiaries of AIG.
34
The following chart illustrates the mix of our business on a
gross premiums written basis and net premiums earned basis by
business segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
|
Written
|
|
|
Earned
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
27.2
|
%
|
|
|
24.8
|
%
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
|
|
18.4
|
%
|
Casualty
|
|
|
34.4
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
43.0
|
|
|
|
46.2
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
38.4
|
|
|
|
37.7
|
|
|
|
41.8
|
|
|
|
35.4
|
|
The increase in the percentage of property segment gross
premiums written reflects the increase in rates and
opportunities on certain catastrophe exposed North American
property risks. The proportion of gross premiums written by our
reinsurance segment increased in part due to net upward
adjustments on premium estimates of prior years. On a net
premiums earned basis, the percentage of reinsurance has
increased for the nine months ended September 30, 2006
compared to the same period in 2005 due to the continued earning
of increased premiums written over the past two years. The
percentage of property net premiums earned was considerably less
than for gross premiums written because we cede a larger portion
of our property business compared to casualty and reinsurance.
Net
Investment Income and Realized Gains/Losses
Net investment income earned during the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 was $178.4 million compared to
$127.7 million during the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. The $50.7 million, or 39.7%,
increase related primarily to increased earnings on our fixed
maturity portfolio; net investment income related to this
portfolio increased by approximately $45.6 million, or
39.6%, in the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared
to the nine months ended September 30, 2005. This increase
was the result of both increases in prevailing market interest
rates and an approximate 18.6% increase in average aggregate
invested assets. Our aggregate invested assets grew with the
receipt of the net proceeds of our IPO, including the exercise
in full by the underwriters of their over-allotment option, and
the senior notes issuance, after repayment of our long-term
debt, as well as increased operating cash flows. We also
received an annual dividend of $8.4 million from an
investment in a high-yield bond fund during the nine-month
period ended September 30, 2006, which was
$6.3 million greater than the amount received in the
nine-month period ended September 30, 2005. Offsetting this
increase was a reduction in income from our hedge funds. In the
nine months ended September 30, 2006, we received
distributions of $3.9 million in
dividends-in-kind
from three of our hedge funds based on the final 2005 asset
values, which was included in net investment income.
Comparatively, we received approximately $9.7 million in
dividends during the nine-month period ended September 30,
2005. For 2006 and thereafter, we have elected not to receive
dividends from these three hedge funds. Investment management
fees of $3.5 million and $3.2 million were incurred
during the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
The annualized period book yield of the investment portfolio for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 was 4.3%
and 3.7%, respectively. The increase in yield was primarily the
result of increases in prevailing market interest rates over the
past year.
As of September 30, 2006, we had investments in four hedge
funds, three funds that are managed by our investment managers,
and one fund managed by a subsidiary of AIG. The market value of
our investments in these hedge funds as of September 30,
2006 totaled $225.3 million compared to $215.1 million
as of December 31, 2005. These investments generally impose
restrictions on redemption, which may limit our ability to
withdraw funds for some period of time after our initial
investment. We also had an investment in a high-yield bond fund
included within other invested assets on our balance sheet, the
market value of which was $31.7 million as of
September 30, 2006 compared to $81.9 million as of
December 31, 2005. During the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2006, we reduced our investment in this fund
by approximately
35
$50 million. As our reserves and capital build, we may also
consider other alternative investments in the future.
The following table shows the components of net realized
investment losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net loss on fixed income
investments
|
|
$
|
(24.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.1
|
)
|
Net gain on interest rate swaps
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
$
|
(24.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The recognition of realized gains and losses is considered to be
a typical consequence of ongoing investment management. A large
proportion of our portfolio is invested in fixed income
securities and, therefore, our unrealized gains and losses are
correlated with fluctuations in interest rates. We also sold a
higher than average volume of securities during the three-month
period ended March 31, 2006 as we realigned our portfolio
with the new investment benchmark.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the net
loss on fixed income investments included a write-down of
approximately $13.3 million related to declines in the
market value of securities in our available for sale portfolio
which were considered to be other than temporary. The declines
in market value on such securities were due to changes in
interest rates. During the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2005, no declines in the market value of
investments were considered to be other than temporary.
We analyze gains or losses on sales of securities separately
from gains or losses on interest rate swaps. On April 21,
2005, we entered into certain interest rate swaps in order to
fix the interest cost of our $500 million floating rate
term loan. These swaps were terminated with an effective date of
June 30, 2006, resulting in cash proceeds of approximately
$5.9 million.
Net
Losses and Loss Expenses
Net losses and loss expenses decreased by $489.2 million,
or 46.3%, to $566.7 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 from $1,055.9 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005. The primary reason for the
reduction in these expenses was the absence of significant
catastrophic events during the current period. The net losses
and loss expenses for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 included the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Approximately $370.8 million accrued in relation to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita;
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expenses of approximately $13.4 million
related to windstorm Erwin, which occurred in the first quarter
of 2005;
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable development of approximately $62.5 million
related to the windstorms of 2004; and
|
|
|
|
Net favorable development related to prior years of
approximately $94.8 million. This net favorable development
was primarily due to lower than expected loss emergence on 2003
and 2004 property insurance and reinsurance business and 2002
and 2003 casualty insurance business.
|
In comparison, we were not exposed to any significant
catastrophes during the nine months ended September 30,
2006. In addition, net favorable development related to prior
years of approximately $67.7 million was recognized during
the period, including approximately $4.6 million in
anticipated recoveries under our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection related to Hurricane Frances. The
remainder of the net favorable development related primarily to
2002 and 2003 accident year business written in our casualty
segment, resulting from continued low loss emergence during the
period. Net favorable reserve development related to prior years
was also recognized in both of our property and reinsurance
segments.
36
We have estimated our net losses from catastrophes based on
actuarial analysis of claims information received to date,
industry modeling and discussions with individual insureds and
reinsureds. Accordingly, actual losses may vary from those
estimated and will be adjusted in the period in which further
information becomes available. Based on our current estimate of
losses related to Hurricane Katrina, we believe we have
exhausted our $135 million of property catastrophe
reinsurance protection with respect to this event, leaving us
with more limited reinsurance coverage available pursuant to our
two remaining property quota share treaties should our Hurricane
Katrina losses prove to be greater than currently estimated.
Under the two remaining quota share treaties, we ceded 45% of
our general property policies and 66% of our energy-related
property policies. As of September 30, 2006, we had
estimated gross losses related to Hurricane Katrina of
$554 million. Losses ceded related to Hurricane Katrina
were $135 million under the property catastrophe
reinsurance protection and approximately $149 million under
the property quota share treaties.
The loss and loss expense ratio for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 was 60.8% compared to 108.9% for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005. Net favorable
development recognized in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 reduced the loss and loss expense ratio
by 7.3 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to the current periods business was 68.1%.
Comparatively, the net loss and loss expenses recognized in
relation to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms, net of the favorable
reserve development related to prior periods, increased the loss
and loss expense ratio by 36.3 percentage points. Thus, the
loss and loss expense ratio related to that periods
business was 72.6%. The lower ratio in 2006 was primarily a
function of two factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Higher loss and loss expense ratios for our property lines in
2005, which reflected the impact of certain rate decreases and
increases in reported loss activity; and
|
|
|
|
Costs incurred in relation to our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection were approximately $14.6 million
greater in the nine months ended September 30, 2005 than
for the same period in 2006, primarily due to charges incurred
to reinstate our coverage after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The
higher charge in 2005 resulted in lower net premiums earned and,
thus, increased the loss and loss expense ratio.
|
The following table shows the components of the decrease of net
losses and loss expenses of $489.2 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 from the nine months ended
September 30, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net losses paid
|
|
$
|
357.7
|
|
|
$
|
276.9
|
|
|
$
|
80.8
|
|
Net change in reported case
reserves
|
|
|
(67.7
|
)
|
|
|
201.2
|
|
|
|
(268.9
|
)
|
Net change in IBNR
|
|
|
276.7
|
|
|
|
577.8
|
|
|
|
(301.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
566.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,055.9
|
|
|
$
|
(489.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses paid have increased $80.8 million, or 29.2%, to
$357.7 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 primarily due to claim payments made in relation to the
2004 and 2005 windstorms. During the nine months ended
September 30, 2006, $197.2 million of net losses were
paid in relation to the 2004 and 2005 catastrophic windstorms
compared to $100.9 million during the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. Net paid losses for the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 included approximately
$45.2 million recovered from our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection as a result of losses paid due to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The decrease in case reserves during the period ended
September 30, 2006 was primarily due to the increase in net
losses paid reducing the case reserves established. The net
change in reported case reserves for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 included a $105.3 million reduction
relating to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms compared to an increase
in case reserves of $96.3 million for 2004 and 2005
windstorms during the nine months ended September 30, 2005.
37
The net change in IBNR for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 was lower than that for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005, primarily due to the absence of
significant catastrophic activity in the period.
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss
expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
2,689.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,777.9
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
634.4
|
|
|
|
704.0
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
384.2
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(63.1
|
)
|
|
|
(94.8
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
|
62.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
566.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,055.9
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
148.5
|
|
|
|
148.0
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
197.2
|
|
|
|
90.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
357.7
|
|
|
$
|
276.9
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
(2.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
|
2,898.9
|
|
|
|
2,554.0
|
|
Losses and loss expenses
recoverable
|
|
|
688.1
|
|
|
|
660.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
$
|
3,587.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,214.3
|
|
Acquisition
Costs
Acquisition costs were $106.9 million for the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 compared to $109.8 million
for the nine months ended September 30, 2005. Acquisition
costs as a percentage of net premiums earned were 11.5% for the
nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared to 11.3% for
the same period in 2005. Ceding commissions, which are deducted
from gross acquisition costs, decreased slightly in the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 compared to the nine months
ended September 30, 2005 due to reductions in rates on both
our general property and energy treaties upon renewal. We expect
ceding commissions to decline through the remainder of 2006, as
the higher ceding commissions on business written in the prior
year become fully earned.
Pursuant to our agreement with IPCUSL, we paid an agency
commission of 6.5% of gross premiums written by IPCUSL on our
behalf plus original commissions to producers. Total acquisition
costs incurred by us related to this agreement for the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 were
$6.6 million and $10.1 million, respectively.
General
and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses increased by
$5.5 million, or 8.2%, for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The
increase was primarily the result of four factors:
(1) increased stock based compensation costs; (2) an
accrual for a
gross-up for
U.S. taxes to be paid to our Bermuda-based employees who
are U.S. citizens; (3) increased costs of
approximately $3.9 million
38
associated with our Chicago and San Francisco offices that
opened in the fourth quarter of 2005; and (4) additional
expenses required of a public company, including increases in
legal, audit and rating agency fees. Stock based compensation
charges increased by approximately $5.0 million, primarily
as a result of a $2.8 million one-time charge incurred to
adjust the value of our outstanding options and RSUs based on a
change in fair value. Further contributing to the increase were
expenses related to the adoption of a long-term incentive plan.
We have also accrued additional compensation expense for our
Bermuda-based U.S. citizen employees in light of recent
changes in U.S. tax legislation. Offsetting these increases
was a $2.0 million reduction in the estimated early
termination fee associated with the termination of an
administrative service agreement with a subsidiary of AIG. The
final termination fee of $3.0 million, which was less than
the $5.0 million accrued and expensed during the year ended
December 31, 2005, was agreed to and paid on April 25,
2006. Starting in 2006, cost-plus and flat fee arrangements
replaced the fees previously paid under our administrative
services agreements with AIG subsidiaries, which were based on
gross premiums written. The salary and infrastructure costs
related to those services expensed in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 were approximately $2.0 million
less than the cost of the administrative services fees based on
gross premiums written in the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. We do not expect this trend to continue
because we anticipate adding staff and resources through the
remainder of 2006 and into 2007. We also expect information
technology costs to increase as our own infrastructure is put in
place. Our general and administrative expense ratio was 7.7% for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared to 6.9%
for the nine months ended September 30, 2005; the increase
was primarily due to general and administrative expenses rising,
while net premiums earned declined, as described.
Our expense ratio increased to 19.2% for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 from 18.2% for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 as the result of our higher general and
administrative expense ratio.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased $13.3 million, or 135.7%, to
$23.1 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 from $9.8 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. Our seven-year term loan incepted on
March 30, 2005. In July 2006 we repaid this loan with a
combination of a portion of both the proceeds from our IPO,
including the exercise in full by the underwriters of their
over-allotment option, and the issuance of $500.0 million
aggregate principal amount of senior notes. The senior notes
bear interest at an annual rate of 7.50%, whereas the term loan
carried a floating rate based on LIBOR plus an applicable
margin. Interest expense increased during the current year for
two reasons: (1) we had long-term debt outstanding for the
entire period in 2006 compared to only six months in 2005 and
(2) the applicable interest rates in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 were higher than those for the same
period in 2005.
Net
Income
As a result of the above, net income for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 was $314.5 million compared to a
net loss of $147.5 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. The increase was primarily the result
of an absence of significant catastrophic events in the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 combined with an increase
in net investment income. Net income for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2005 included a
net foreign exchange gain of $0.5 million and a net foreign
exchange loss of $0.5 million, respectively. We recognized
an income tax recovery of $2.9 million during the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 due to our loss before
income taxes. We recognized an income tax expense of
$3.2 million during the current period.
Underwriting
Results by Operating Segments
Our company is organized into three operating segments:
Property Segment. Our property segment
includes the insurance of physical property and business
interruption coverage for commercial property and energy-related
risks. We write solely commercial coverages and focus on the
insurance of primary risk layers. This means that we are
typically part of the first group of insurers that cover a loss
up to a specified limit.
39
Casualty Segment. Our direct casualty
underwriters provide a variety of specialty insurance casualty
products to large and complex organizations around the world.
Our casualty segment specializes in insurance products providing
coverage for general and product liability, professional
liability and healthcare liability risks. We focus primarily on
insurance of excess layers, where we insure the second
and/or
subsequent layers of a policy above the primary layer.
Reinsurance Segment. Our reinsurance segment
includes the reinsurance of property, general casualty,
professional lines, specialty lines and catastrophe coverages
written by other insurance companies. We presently write
reinsurance on both a treaty and a facultative basis, targeting
several niche reinsurance markets including professional lines,
specialty casualty, property for U.S. regional insurers,
and accident and health.
Management measures results for each segment on the basis of the
loss and loss expense ratio, acquisition cost
ratio, general and administrative expense
ratio and the combined ratio. Because we do
not manage our assets by segment, investment income, interest
expense and total assets are not allocated to individual
reportable segments. General and administrative expenses are
allocated to segments based on various factors, including staff
count and each segments proportional share of gross
premiums written.
Property
Segment
The following table summarizes the underwriting results and
associated ratios for the property segment for the three months
and nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
88.2
|
|
|
$
|
85.0
|
|
|
$
|
374.8
|
|
|
$
|
316.5
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
40.9
|
|
|
|
25.3
|
|
|
|
152.8
|
|
|
|
123.3
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
46.6
|
|
|
|
40.0
|
|
|
|
141.6
|
|
|
|
178.5
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
28.9
|
|
|
$
|
252.7
|
|
|
$
|
86.9
|
|
|
$
|
345.3
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(1.8
|
)
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
Underwriting income
(loss)
|
|
|
11.8
|
|
|
|
(215.7
|
)
|
|
|
39.1
|
|
|
|
(188.7
|
)
|
Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
62.1
|
%
|
|
|
630.9
|
%
|
|
|
61.4
|
%
|
|
|
193.4
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
(4.4
|
)
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
General and administrative expense
ratio
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
Expense ratio
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
74.8
|
|
|
|
638.7
|
|
|
|
72.4
|
|
|
|
205.7
|
|
Comparison
of Three Months Ended September 30, 2006 and
2005
Premiums. Gross premiums written were
$88.2 million for the three months ended September 30,
2006 compared to $85.0 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2005, an increase of $3.2 million, or
3.8%. The increase in gross premiums written was primarily the
result of an increase in the amount of business written by our
U.S. offices, which were in the
start-up
phase during 2005. Gross premiums written by our underwriters in
these offices were $16.1 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2006, compared to $4.6 million for the
same period in 2005. This increase was largely offset by a
reduction in general property business written in our Bermuda
office; gross premiums written relating to this business for the
three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005,
respectively, were $17.1 million and $26.7 million.
Although significant market rate increases on certain
catastrophe exposed North American general property business
were noted,
40
we tempered our writings during the period in order to manage
our accumulated catastrophe exposure limits. In addition, the
volume of energy business written in our Bermuda office declined
approximately $6.1 million from the prior period primarily
because we did not renew certain onshore energy-related business
that no longer met our underwriting requirements.
Net premiums written increased by $15.6 million, or 61.7%,
a higher percentage increase than that of gross premiums
written. This was primarily the result of additional premiums of
approximately $13.3 million ceded in the three months ended
September 30, 2005 in order to reinstate our property
catastrophe reinsurance protection following Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. Net premiums earned increased by $6.6 million, or
16.5%. Net premiums earned were reduced by the cost of our
property catastrophe reinsurance protection in both periods. The
corresponding negative impact on net premiums earned was
approximately $17.2 million in the three months ended
September 30, 2005, compared to approximately
$12.3 million for the same period in 2006. Although the
cost of this coverage rose in 2006, the premiums paid to
reinstate coverage in 2005 affected net premiums earned more
significantly. The cost of property catastrophe reinsurance rose
in 2006 due to both rate increases and increases in coverage
levels, as well as a change in the internal structure of the
program.
The percentage of gross premiums written ceded on our general
property treaty increased from 45% to 55% when the treaty
renewed on November 1, 2006.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased by 88.6% to $28.9 million for the
three months ended September 30, 2006 from
$252.7 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2005. Net losses and loss expenses for the
three-month period ended September 30, 2005 were impacted
by the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expenses of approximately $194.3 million
accrued in relation to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which
occurred in August and September 2005, respectively;
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable development of approximately $49.0 million
related to the windstorms of 2004; and
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development relating to prior years of
approximately $61.4 million. This net favorable development
was primarily due to low loss emergence on our 2003 and 2004
accident year general property and energy business, exclusive of
the 2004 windstorms.
|
In comparison, we were not exposed to any significant
catastrophes during the three months ended September 30,
2006. In addition, net favorable development relating to prior
years of approximately $14.2 million was recognized during
this period. This net development was attributable to several
factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
Excluding the losses related to the 2005 windstorms, lighter
than expected loss emergence on 2005 accident year general
property business;
|
|
|
|
Favorable loss emergence on 2004 accident year energy
business; and
|
|
|
|
Anticipated recoveries of approximately $3.4 million
recognized under our property catastrophe reinsurance protection
related to Hurricane Frances, as we surpassed our applicable
level of loss retention.
|
The loss and loss expense ratio for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 was 62.1% compared to 630.9% for the
three months ended September 30, 2005. Net favorable
development recognized in the three months ended
September 30, 2006 reduced the loss and loss expense ratio
by 30.5 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to the current periods business was 92.6%.
The results for our energy line of business during 2006 have
been adversely affected by dramatic increases in commodity
prices, which have led to higher loss costs. As commodity prices
rise, so does the severity of business interruption claims,
along with the frequency of mechanical breakdown as our insureds
step up production to take advantage of the higher prices. We
expect to reduce our exposures on energy business in future
quarters due to the current market conditions. In comparison,
the net losses and loss expenses recognized in relation to the
2004 and 2005 windstorms, net of the favorable reserve
development related to prior periods, increased the loss and
loss
41
expense ratio for the three months ended September 30, 2005
by 454.3 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to that periods business was 176.6%. The
lower ratio in 2006 was a function of two factors:
|
|
|
|
|
The impact of certain rate decreases and increases in reported
loss activity in 2005; and
|
|
|
|
Costs incurred in relation to our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection were approximately $5.0 million
greater in the three months ended September 30, 2005 than
for the same period in 2006, due to charges incurred to
reinstate our coverage after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The
higher charge in 2005 resulted in lower net premiums earned and,
thus, increased the loss and loss expense ratio.
|
Net paid losses for the three months ended September 30,
2006 and 2005 were $52.1 million and $55.5 million,
respectively. Net paid losses for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 included $7.0 million recovered
from our property catastrophe reinsurance coverage as a result
of losses paid due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss
expenses, July 1
|
|
$
|
482.8
|
|
|
$
|
364.8
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
43.1
|
|
|
|
70.8
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194.3
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(10.8
|
)
|
|
|
(61.4
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(3.4
|
)
|
|
|
49.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
28.9
|
|
|
$
|
252.7
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
33.7
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
17.0
|
|
|
|
17.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
52.1
|
|
|
$
|
55.5
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
|
459.4
|
|
|
|
561.8
|
|
Losses and loss expenses
recoverable
|
|
|
474.0
|
|
|
|
480.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
$
|
933.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,042.1
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs increased
to negative $0.4 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 from negative $1.8 million for the
three months ended September 30, 2005. The negative cost
represents ceding commissions received on ceded premiums in
excess of the brokerage fees and commissions paid on gross
premiums written. The acquisition cost ratio increased to
negative 0.8% for the three months ended September 30, 2006
from negative 4.4% for the same period in 2005 primarily as a
result of lower ceding commissions earned on reinsurance we
purchase. When the treaty renewed on October 1, 2005, the
ceding commission rate on our general property treaty was
reduced from a 26% flat rate to a proportionate share of
acquisition costs incurred by us plus a 7.5% fee. This has
resulted in lower ceding commissions due to us over the past
year, meaning that acquisition costs have increased. The factors
that will determine the amount of acquisition costs going
forward are the amount of brokerage fees and commissions
incurred on policies we write less ceding commissions earned on
reinsurance we purchase. We normally
42
negotiate our reinsurance treaties on an annual basis, so the
rates will vary from renewal period to renewal period. If the
amount of ceding commissions earned exceeds the brokerage fees
and commissions incurred, the overall acquisition costs will be
negative. When our energy treaty renewed on June 1, 2006,
the ceding commission rate declined from 26% to 20%. The ceding
commission rate on our general property treaty increased to a
21% flat rate when it renewed on November 1, 2006.
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses increased to $6.3 million for
the three months ended September 30, 2006 from
$4.8 million for the three months ended September 30,
2005. The increase in general and administrative expenses was
attributable to increased stock based compensation expenses and
additional staff and administrative expenses incurred in
conjunction with the continued expansion of our
U.S. property distribution platform. The cost of salaries
and employee welfare expenses also increased for existing staff.
The increase in the general and administrative expense ratio
from 12.2% for the three months ended September 30, 2005 to
13.5% for the same period in 2006 was the result of
start-up
costs in the United States rising at a faster rate than net
premiums earned and increased compensation expenses.
Comparison
of Nine Months Ended September 30, 2006 and
2005
Premiums. Gross premiums written were
$374.8 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 compared to $316.5 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005, an increase of $58.3 million, or
18.4%. The increase in gross premiums written was primarily due
to significant market rate increases on certain catastrophe
exposed North American general property business, resulting from
record industry losses following the hurricanes that occurred in
the second half of 2005. We also had an increase in the amount
of business written due to increased opportunities in the
property insurance market. In addition to this increase, gross
premiums written also rose in the current period due to
continued expansion of our U.S distribution platform. During the
second half of 2005, we added staff members to our New York and
Boston offices and opened offices in Chicago and
San Francisco. Gross premiums written by our underwriters
in these offices were $42.8 million for the period compared
to $6.4 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. Offsetting these increases was a
reduction in gross premiums written resulting from the
cancellation of surplus lines program administrator agreements
and a reinsurance agreement with subsidiaries of AIG. Gross
premiums written under these agreements in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 were approximately $0.1 compared to
$11.4 million written in the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. Gross premiums written also declined by
approximately $11.0 million due to the non-renewal of a
fronted program whereby we ceded 100% of the gross premiums
written.
Net premiums written increased by $29.5 million, or 23.9%,
a larger increase than that of gross premiums written as the
consequence of several factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Effective October 1, 2005, the quota share percentage on
our general property treaty declined from 45% to 35%; as of
April 1, 2006, this percentage returned to 45%. As a
result, the higher rate was in effect for the whole nine months
ended September 30, 2005 but only six months for the same
period in 2006, with the gross premiums written in the remaining
three months ceded at a lower rate.
|
|
|
|
The percentage of premiums ceded on our energy treaty fell
7.5 percentage points, from 66% to 58.5%, when it renewed
on June 1, 2006.
|
|
|
|
The non-renewal of a fronted program, which was ceded at 100%.
|
Offsetting these factors was an increase in the cost of our
property catastrophe reinsurance protection. Premiums ceded in
relation to this protection for the property segment were
$42.3 million in the nine months ended September 30,
2006, which was a $14.7 million increase over the same
period in the prior year. The increase in cost was due to market
rate increases resulting from the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes and
changes in the level of coverage obtained, as well as internal
changes in the structure of the program. These increases were
partially offset by additional premiums ceded in 2005 to
reinstate our coverage following losses incurred from Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita; no such reinstatement premiums were necessary
in the same period of 2006.
43
Net premiums earned decreased by $36.9 million, or 20.7%,
primarily due to the cancellation of the surplus lines program
administrator agreements and a reinsurance agreement with
subsidiaries of AIG. Net premiums earned for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005 included approximately
$74.8 million related to the AIG agreements, exclusive of
the cost of property catastrophe reinsurance protection. The
corresponding net premiums earned for the nine-month period
ended September 30, 2006 were approximately
$1.0 million. This decline was partially offset by
increased net premiums earned resulting from the higher gross
premiums written.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased by 74.8% to $86.9 million for the
nine months ended September 30, 2006 from
$345.3 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005. Net losses and loss expenses for the nine-month period
ended September 30, 2005 were impacted by three significant
factors, namely:
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expenses of approximately $194.3 million
accrued in relation to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which
occurred in August and September 2005, respectively;
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable development of approximately $49.0 million
related to the windstorms of 2004; and
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development related to prior years of
approximately $61.4 million. This net favorable development
was primarily due to low loss emergence on our 2003 and 2004
accident year general property and energy business, exclusive of
the 2004 windstorms.
|
In comparison, we were not exposed to any significant
catastrophes during the nine months ended September 30,
2006. In addition, net favorable development relating to prior
years of approximately $20.2 million was recognized during
this period. This net development was attributable to several
factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
Excluding the losses related to the 2005 windstorms, lighter
than expected loss emergence on 2005 accident year general
property business, offset partially by unfavorable development
on our energy business for that accident year;
|
|
|
|
Favorable loss emergence on 2004 accident year general property
and energy business;
|
|
|
|
Anticipated recoveries of approximately $3.4 million
recognized under our property catastrophe reinsurance protection
related to Hurricane Frances, as we surpassed our applicable
level of loss retention; and
|
|
|
|
Unfavorable development of approximately $2.5 million
relating to the 2005 windstorms.
|
The loss and loss expense ratio for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 was 61.4%, compared to 193.4% for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005. Net favorable
development recognized in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 reduced the loss and loss expense ratio
by 14.2 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to the current periods business was 75.6%,
reflecting both increases in the cost of our property
catastrophe reinsurance as well as increased losses and loss
expenses on our energy business due to rising claims costs as a
result of significantly elevated commodity prices. In
comparison, the net losses and loss expenses recognized in
relation to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms, net of the favorable
reserve development related to prior periods, increased the loss
and loss expense ratio for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 by 101.9 percentage points. Thus,
the loss and loss expense ratio related to that periods
business was 91.5%. The lower ratio in 2006 was primarily a
function of two factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Higher loss and loss expense ratios in 2005, which reflected the
impact of certain rate decreases and increases in reported loss
activity; and
|
|
|
|
Costs incurred in relation to our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection on an earned basis were approximately
$5.3 million greater in the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 than for the same period in 2006,
primarily due to charges incurred to reinstate our coverage
after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The higher charge in 2005
resulted in lower net premiums earned and, thus, increased the
loss and loss expense ratio.
|
44
Net paid losses for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 and 2005 were $172.0 million and $184.8 million,
respectively. Net paid losses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 included $26.9 million recovered
from our property catastrophe reinsurance coverage as a result
of losses paid due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss
expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
543.7
|
|
|
$
|
404.2
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
107.0
|
|
|
|
163.4
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194.3
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(19.2
|
)
|
|
|
(61.4
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
49.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
86.9
|
|
|
$
|
345.3
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
20.2
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
89.4
|
|
|
|
105.6
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
78.2
|
|
|
|
56.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
172.0
|
|
|
$
|
184.8
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
(2.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
|
459.4
|
|
|
|
561.8
|
|
Losses and loss expenses
recoverable
|
|
|
474.0
|
|
|
|
480.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
$
|
933.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,042.1
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs decreased
to negative $2.6 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 from $7.7 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005. The negative cost
represents ceding commissions received on ceded premiums in
excess of the brokerage fees and commissions paid on gross
premiums written. The acquisition cost ratio decreased to
negative 1.9% for the nine months ended September 30, 2006
from 4.3% for the same period in 2005 primarily as a result of
changes in our U.S. distribution platform. Historically,
our U.S. business was generated via surplus lines program
administrator agreements and a reinsurance agreement with
subsidiaries of AIG. Under these agreements, we paid additional
commissions to the program administrators and cedent equal to
7.5% of the gross premiums written. These agreements were
cancelled and the related gross premiums written were
substantially earned by December 31, 2005. Gross premiums
written from our U.S. offices are now underwritten by our
own staff and, as a result, we do not incur the 7.5% override
commission historically paid to subsidiaries of AIG. In
addition, we now cede a portion of our U.S. business on a
quota share basis under our property treaties. These cessions
generate additional ceding commissions and have helped to
further reduce acquisition costs on our U.S. business.
This reduction was offset slightly by reduced ceding commissions
on our general property treaty; the ceding commission rate
declined from a 26% flat rate to a proportionate share of
acquisition costs incurred by us plus a 7.5% fee when the treaty
was renewed on October 1, 2005. This has resulted in lower
ceding commissions due to us over the past year, which has meant
that acquisition costs have increased. The factors that will
determine the amount of acquisition costs going forward are the
amount of brokerage fees and commissions incurred on policies we
write, less ceding commissions earned on reinsurance we
purchase.
45
When our energy treaty renewed on June 1, 2006, the ceding
commission rate declined from 26% to 20%. The ceding commission
rate on our general property treaty increased to a 21% flat rate
when it renewed on November 1, 2006.
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses increased to $18.2 million for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 from
$14.2 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005. General and administrative expenses included fees paid to
subsidiaries of AIG in return for the provision of certain
administrative services. Prior to January 1, 2006, these
fees were based on a percentage of our gross premiums written.
Effective January 1, 2006, our administrative agreements
with AIG subsidiaries were amended and now contain both
cost-plus and flat-fee arrangements for a more limited range of
services. The services no longer included within the agreements
are now provided through additional staff and infrastructure of
the company. The increase in general and administrative expenses
was primarily attributable to increased stock compensation
expenses due to changes in the fair value of our options and
RSUs and the adoption of a long-term incentive plan, as well as
additional staff and administrative expenses incurred in
conjunction with the expansion of our U.S. property
distribution platform. The cost of salaries and employee welfare
also increased for existing staff. The increase in the general
and administrative expense ratio from 8.0% for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005 to 12.9% for the same period in
2006 was the result of the reduction in net premiums earned, as
described, combined with
start-up
costs in the United States rising at a faster rate than net
premiums earned.
Casualty
Segment
The following table summarizes the underwriting results and
associated ratios for the casualty segment for the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
144.6
|
|
|
$
|
153.3
|
|
|
$
|
475.1
|
|
|
$
|
478.5
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
127.9
|
|
|
|
138.6
|
|
|
|
414.8
|
|
|
|
423.9
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
135.2
|
|
|
|
146.6
|
|
|
|
400.5
|
|
|
|
447.9
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
79.0
|
|
|
$
|
101.9
|
|
|
$
|
259.0
|
|
|
$
|
322.6
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
24.9
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
|
35.9
|
|
|
|
30.7
|
|
Underwriting income
(loss)
|
|
|
36.0
|
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
82.0
|
|
|
|
69.7
|
|
Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
58.4
|
%
|
|
|
69.6
|
%
|
|
|
64.7
|
%
|
|
|
72.0
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
General and administrative expense
ratio
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
Expense ratio
|
|
|
15.0
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
73.4
|
|
|
|
82.0
|
|
|
|
79.5
|
|
|
|
84.4
|
|
Comparison
of Three Months Ended September 30, 2006 and
2005
Premiums. Gross premiums written decreased
$8.7 million, or 5.7%, for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 compared to the same period in 2005.
This decrease was primarily the result of a reduction in
premiums written in our Bermuda office, due to some
non-recurring business written during 2005, as well as slight
decreases in market rates. This reduction was largely offset by
an increase in the amount of business written through our
U.S. offices as a result of continued expansion of our New
York and Boston underwriting capabilities, combined with the
opening of our new offices in Chicago and San Francisco in
the
46
fourth quarter of 2005. During the three-month period ended
September 30, 2006, gross premiums written in our four
U.S. offices totaled approximately $32.1 million
compared to $23.5 million in the prior period.
Net premiums written decreased consistently with gross premiums
written. The $11.4 million, or 7.8%, decline in net
premiums earned was consistent with the decline in net premiums
written.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased to $79.0 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2006 from $101.9 million
for the three months ended September 30, 2005 due both to
the reduction in net premiums earned as well as higher levels of
net favorable reserve development recognized in comparison to
the prior period. During the three months ended
September 30, 2006, net favorable development of
approximately $21.0 million was recognized, primarily in
light of continued low loss emergence on the 2002 and 2003
accident year general casualty and professional lines business.
Comparatively, during the three months ended September 30,
2005, net favorable development of approximately
$11.9 million was recognized on the 2002 and 2003 accident
year general casualty and professional lines business. The net
favorable development recognized reduced the loss and loss
expense ratio by 15.6 and 8.1 percentage points for the
three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005,
respectively. Thus, the loss and loss expense ratio related to
the current periods business was 74.0% for the three
months ended September 30, 2006 and 77.7% for the three
months ended September 30, 2005. The higher rate in 2005
reflected an increase in reported losses for
U.S. healthcare and European general casualty business. Net
paid losses for the three months ended September 30, 2006
and 2005 were $3.4 million and $2.2 million,
respectively.
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss
expenses, July 1
|
|
$
|
1,557.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,223.9
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
113.8
|
|
Current period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(21.0
|
)
|
|
|
(11.9
|
)
|
Prior period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
79.0
|
|
|
$
|
101.9
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
Prior period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
$
|
2.2
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
|
1,632.8
|
|
|
|
1,323.6
|
|
Losses and loss expenses
recoverable
|
|
|
168.2
|
|
|
|
113.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
$
|
1,801.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,437.1
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs decreased
$0.7 million, or 8.8%, to $7.3 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2006 from $8.0 million for
the three months ended September 30, 2005. The decrease was
directly related to the reduction in net premiums earned and, as
a result, the acquisition cost ratio was stable at 5.4% for both
the three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005.
47
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses increased from $10.3 million to
$12.9 million for the three months ended September 30,
2005 and 2006, respectively. The 2.6 percentage point
increase in the general and administrative expense ratio from
7.0% for the three months ended September 30, 2005 to 9.6%
for the same period in 2006 was primarily a function of rising
levels of general and administrative costs due to increased
stock based compensation expense and increased costs due to the
continued expansion of our U.S. distribution platform,
while net premiums earned declined.
Comparison
of Nine Months Ended September 30, 2006 and
2005
Premiums. Gross premiums written for the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 were consistent with the
prior period, declining only 0.7%, or $3.4 million.
Although gross premiums written declined by approximately
$10.3 million as a result of the cancellation of surplus
lines program administrator agreements and a reinsurance
agreement with subsidiaries of AIG, this reduction was more than
offset by an increase in the level of business written in our
U.S. offices. During the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2006, gross premiums written in these offices
totaled approximately $82.9 million compared to
$62.5 million in the prior period. Offsetting this increase
was a reduction in gross premiums written in our Bermuda office,
primarily due to certain non-recurring business written in 2005,
as well as slight reductions in market rates.
Net premiums written decreased in-line with the increase in
gross premiums written. The $47.4 million, or 10.6%,
decline in net premiums earned was the result of the decline in
gross premiums written during 2005 as a result of the
cancellation of the surplus lines program administrator
agreements and a reinsurance agreement with subsidiaries of AIG.
These reduced premiums continued to be earned during the current
period.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased $63.6 million, or 19.7%, to
$259.0 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 from $322.6 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. During the nine months ended
September 30, 2006, approximately $37.2 million in net
favorable reserve development relating to prior periods was
recorded, primarily due to favorable loss emergence on the 2002
and 2003 accident years. This favorable development, however,
was partially offset by some unfavorable development on certain
claims relating to our U.S. casualty business.
Comparatively, during the nine months ended September 30,
2005, net favorable reserve development relating to prior years
of approximately $11.9 million was recognized. The net
favorable development recognized reduced the loss and loss
expense ratio by 9.3 and 2.7 percentage points for the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Thus, the loss and loss expense ratio related to the current
periods business was 74.0% for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 74.7% for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. Net paid losses for the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 were $45.3 million
and $18.6 million, respectively. Net paid losses for the
nine months ended September 30, 2006 included
$25.0 million for a general liability loss that occurred
during Hurricane Katrina.
48
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss
expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
1,419.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,019.6
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
296.2
|
|
|
|
334.5
|
|
Current period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(37.2
|
)
|
|
|
(11.9
|
)
|
Prior period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
259.0
|
|
|
$
|
322.6
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
Prior period catastrophe
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
45.3
|
|
|
$
|
18.6
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
|
1,632.8
|
|
|
|
1,323.6
|
|
Losses and loss expenses
recoverable
|
|
|
168.2
|
|
|
|
113.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
$
|
1,801.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,437.1
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs were
$23.6 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 compared to $24.9 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. The acquisition cost ratio increased
from 5.6% for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 to
5.9% for the same period in 2006. The increase was primarily the
result of an increase in brokerage fees and commissions on
premiums earned.
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses increased to $35.9 million for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 from
$30.7 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005. General and administrative expenses included fees paid to
subsidiaries of AIG in return for the provision of certain
administrative services. Prior to January 1, 2006, these
fees were based on a percentage of our gross premiums written.
Effective January 1, 2006, our administrative agreements
with AIG subsidiaries were amended and now contain both
cost-plus and flat-fee arrangements for a more limited range of
services. The services no longer included within the agreements
are now provided through additional staff and infrastructure of
the company. The increase in general and administrative expenses
was primarily attributable to salary and employee welfare and
stock based compensation increases, as well as costs associated
with additional staff and infrastructure associated with the
expansion of our U.S distribution platform. The increase in the
general and administrative expense ratio from 6.8% for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 to 8.9% for the same period
in 2006 was the result of the reduction in net premiums earned,
as described, combined with higher compensation expense and
start-up
costs in the United States.
49
Reinsurance
Segment
The following table summarizes the underwriting results and
associated ratios for the reinsurance segment for the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
129.8
|
|
|
$
|
91.6
|
|
|
$
|
529.0
|
|
|
$
|
482.0
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
129.3
|
|
|
|
85.8
|
|
|
|
528.2
|
|
|
|
461.3
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
136.0
|
|
|
|
126.7
|
|
|
|
390.1
|
|
|
|
343.1
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
73.0
|
|
|
$
|
238.7
|
|
|
$
|
220.8
|
|
|
$
|
388.0
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
30.9
|
|
|
|
29.7
|
|
|
|
86.0
|
|
|
|
77.2
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
18.1
|
|
|
|
21.8
|
|
Underwriting income
(loss)
|
|
|
25.6
|
|
|
|
(147.3
|
)
|
|
|
65.2
|
|
|
|
(143.9
|
)
|
Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
53.7
|
%
|
|
|
188.4
|
%
|
|
|
56.6
|
%
|
|
|
113.1
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
|
23.5
|
|
|
|
22.0
|
|
|
|
22.5
|
|
General and administrative expense
ratio
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
Expense ratio
|
|
|
27.5
|
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
|
|
26.7
|
|
|
|
28.9
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
81.2
|
|
|
|
216.3
|
|
|
|
83.3
|
|
|
|
142.0
|
|
Comparison
of Three Months Ended September 30, 2006 and
2005
Premiums. Gross premiums written were
$129.8 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 compared to $91.6 million for the
three months ended September 30, 2005, an increase of
$38.2 million, or 41.7%. Gross premiums written increased
primarily as a result of new business. We added approximately
$32.4 million in gross premiums written related to new
business during the three months ended September 30, 2006.
Included in this figure was gross premiums written of
approximately $9.4 million related to three industry loss
warranty contracts. Gross premiums written also increased as the
result of changes in treaty renewal dates. Offsetting these
increases was a reduction in business written under our
underwriting agency agreement with IPCUSL; the volume of
business was significantly higher in 2005 as a result of
approximately $17.5 million in gross premiums written
pertaining to coverage reinstatements after Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.
Net premiums written increased by $43.5 million, or 50.7%.
This was primarily the result of non-recurring premiums of
approximately $7.2 million ceded in the three months ended
September 30, 2005 in order to reinstate our property
catastrophe reinsurance protection following Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. Net premiums earned increased $9.3 million, or
7.3%. Premiums related to our reinsurance business earn at a
slower rate than those related to our direct insurance business.
Direct insurance premiums typically earn ratably over the term
of a policy. Reinsurance premiums under a proportional contract
are typically earned over the same period as the underlying
policies, or risks, covered by the contract. As a result, the
earning pattern of a proportional contract may extend up to
24 months, reflecting the inception dates of the underlying
policies. Property catastrophe premiums earn ratably over the
term of the reinsurance contract.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased from $238.7 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2005 to $73.0 million for
the three months ended September 30, 2006. Net losses and
loss expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2005
were impacted by three significant factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Losses and loss expenses of approximately $176.5 million
accrued in relation to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which
occurred in August and September 2005, respectively;
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable development of approximately $7.8 million
related to the windstorms of 2004; and
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development related to prior years of
approximately $21.5 million. This net favorable development
was primarily due to low loss emergence on our 2003 and 2004
property reinsurance business, exclusive of the 2004 windstorms.
|
In comparison, we were not exposed to any significant
catastrophes during the three months ended September 30,
2006. In addition, net favorable development relating to prior
years of approximately $3.4 million was recognized during
the period. This included approximately $1.2 million in
anticipated recoveries under our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection related to Hurricane Frances. The
remainder of the net favorable development related to the 2002
and 2003 accident year business written on our behalf by IPCUSL,
as loss activity has slowed.
The loss and loss expense ratio for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 was 53.7%, compared to 188.4% for the
three months ended September 30, 2005. Net favorable
development recognized in the three months ended
September 30, 2006 reduced the loss and loss expense ratio
by 2.5 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to the current periods business was 56.2%.
In comparison, the net losses and loss expenses recognized in
relation to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms, net of the favorable
reserve development related to prior periods, increased the loss
and loss expense ratio for the three months ended
September 30, 2005 by 128.5 percentage points. Thus,
the loss and loss expense ratio related to that periods
business was 59.9%. The lower ratio in 2006 was primarily a
function of costs incurred in relation to our property
catastrophe reinsurance protection, which were approximately
$8.9 million greater in the three months ended
September 30, 2005 than for the same period in 2006 due to
charges incurred to reinstate our coverage after the 2005
windstorms. The higher charge in 2005 resulted in lower net
premiums earned and, therefore, a higher 2005 loss and loss
expense ratio.
Net paid losses were $44.6 million for the three months
ended September 30, 2006 compared to $28.2 million for
the three months ended September 30, 2005. The increase
primarily related to losses paid as a result of the 2005
windstorms. Net paid losses for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 included $4.6 million recovered
from our property catastrophe reinsurance coverage as a result
of losses paid due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
51
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the three-month
periods ended September 30, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred
and paid are reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss
expenses, July 1
|
|
$
|
778.3
|
|
|
$
|
458.1
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
76.5
|
|
|
|
75.9
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
176.5
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(2.3
|
)
|
|
|
(21.5
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
73.0
|
|
|
$
|
238.7
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
13.3
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
27.8
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
44.6
|
|
|
$
|
28.2
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
|
806.7
|
|
|
|
668.6
|
|
Losses and loss expenses
recoverable
|
|
|
45.9
|
|
|
|
66.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
$
|
852.6
|
|
|
$
|
735.1
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs increased
$1.2 million to $30.9 million for the three months
ended September 30, 2006 from $29.7 million for the
three months ended September 30, 2005 primarily as a result
of the increase in net premiums earned. The acquisition cost
ratio of 22.7% for the three-month period ended
September 30, 2006 was lower than the 23.5% acquisition
cost ratio for the three-month period ended September 30,
2005 primarily due to the ILW contracts, which carried lower
acquisition costs.
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses increased to $6.5 million for
the three months ended September 30, 2006 from
$5.6 million for the three months ended September 30,
2005. The increase was primarily the result of increased stock
based compensation expenses, including the adoption of a
long-term incentive plan.
Comparison
of Nine Months Ended September 30, 2006 and
2005
Premiums. Gross premiums written were
$529.0 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 compared to $482.0 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005, an increase of $47.0 million, or
9.8%. The increase in gross premiums written was primarily due
to new business of approximately $57.8 million, including
four ILW contracts that contributed $14.7 million to gross
premiums written. In addition, net upward premium adjustments on
prior year business totaling approximately $68.8 million
further increased gross premiums written, as the comparable
figure for 2005 was approximately $31.4 million. Partially
offsetting these increases were several treaties that were not
renewed in the current year; this included one treaty that
contributed approximately $27.3 million to gross premiums
written in the prior period which was not renewed due to
unfavorable changes in contract terms. In addition,
approximately $17.5 million of the gross premiums written
during the nine months ended September 30, 2005 related to
non-recurring amounts pertaining to coverage reinstatements
after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on business written under our
underwriting agency agreement with IPCUSL. Although rates on
property catastrophe business have increased, we reduced our
exposure limits on the IPCUSL business, which reduced gross
premiums written. IPCUSL
52
wrote $50.1 million of property catastrophe business on our
behalf in the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared
to $76.9 million in the same period in 2005.
Net premiums written increased by $66.9 million, or 14.5%,
a higher percentage than that for gross premiums written. The
higher percentage was primarily a result of changes in the
internal structure of our property catastrophe reinsurance
protection. This resulted in a reduction of $15.0 million
in ceded premium in the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The
$47.0 million, or 13.7%, increase in net premiums earned
was the result of a continued increase in net premiums written
over the past two years. In addition, net upward increases in
premium estimates on business written in prior periods have
contributed to increases in net premiums earned, as has the
reduction in premiums ceded in relation to the property
catastrophe reinsurance protection.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased to $220.8 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 from $388.0 million
for the nine months ended September 30, 2005. Net losses
and loss expenses for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 were impacted by four significant factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Losses and loss expenses of approximately $13.4 million as
a result of windstorm Erwin, which occurred early in 2005;
|
|
|
|
Losses and loss expenses of approximately $176.5 million
accrued in relation to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita;
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable development of approximately $13.4 million
related to the windstorms of 2004; and
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development related to prior years of
approximately $21.5 million. This net favorable development
was primarily due to low loss emergence on our 2003 and 2004
property reinsurance business, exclusive of the 2004 windstorms.
|
In comparison, we were not exposed to any significant
catastrophes during the nine months ended September 30,
2006. However, 2006 losses and loss expenses were impacted by
several factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Recognition of approximately $6.7 million of favorable
reserve development. The majority of this development related to
2002 and 2003 accident year business written on our behalf by
IPCUSL.
|
|
|
|
Net favorable development related to the 2005 windstorms totaled
approximately $2.5 million; and
|
|
|
|
Anticipated recoveries of approximately $1.2 million on our
property catastrophe reinsurance protection related to Hurricane
Frances.
|
The loss and loss expense ratio for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 was 56.6%, compared to 113.1% for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005. Net favorable
development recognized in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 reduced the loss and loss expense ratio
by 2.6 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to the current periods business was 59.2%.
Comparatively, the net losses and loss expenses recognized in
relation to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms, net of the favorable
reserve development related to prior periods, increased the loss
and loss expense ratio for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 by 53.0 percentage points. Thus,
the loss and loss expense ratio related to that periods
business was 60.1%, which was comparable to the same measure in
2006.
Net paid losses were $140.4 million for the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 compared to $73.5 million for
the nine months ended September 30, 2005. The increase
primarily related to losses paid as a result of the 2005
windstorms. Net paid losses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 included $18.3 million recovered
from our property catastrophe reinsurance coverage as a result
of losses paid due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
53
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss
expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
726.3
|
|
|
$
|
354.1
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
231.2
|
|
|
|
206.1
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189.9
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(6.7
|
)
|
|
|
(21.5
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(3.7
|
)
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
220.8
|
|
|
$
|
388.0
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
38.7
|
|
|
|
23.8
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
94.0
|
|
|
|
34.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
140.4
|
|
|
$
|
73.5
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
|
806.7
|
|
|
|
668.6
|
|
Losses and loss expenses
recoverable
|
|
|
45.9
|
|
|
|
66.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses, September 30
|
|
$
|
852.6
|
|
|
$
|
735.1
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs increased
$8.8 million to $86.0 million for the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 from $77.2 million for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005 primarily as a result
of the increase in net premiums earned. The acquisition cost
ratio of 22.0% for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2006 was comparable with the 22.5%
acquisition cost ratio for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2005.
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses decreased to $18.1 million for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 from
$21.8 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005. The decrease in general and administrative expenses was
primarily a result of changes in the cost structure for our
administrative functions. General and administrative expenses
included fees paid to subsidiaries of AIG in return for the
provision of certain administrative services. Prior to
January 1, 2006, these fees were based on a percentage of
our gross premiums written. Effective January 1, 2006, our
administrative agreements with AIG subsidiaries were amended and
now contain both cost-plus and flat-fee arrangements for a more
limited range of services. The services no longer included
within the agreements are now provided through additional staff
and infrastructure of the company. Prior to January 1,
2006, fees paid to subsidiaries of AIG were allocated to the
reinsurance segment based on the segments proportionate
share of gross premiums written. The reinsurance segment
constituted 37.7% of consolidated gross premiums written for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005 and, therefore, was
allocated a significant portion of the fees paid to AIG. As a
result of the change in the cost structure related to our
administrative functions, these expenses are now relatively
fixed in nature, and do not vary according to the level of gross
premiums written. This has resulted in a decreased allocation of
expenses to the reinsurance segment. Partially offsetting this
reduction were increased stock based compensation charges as a
result of a newly adopted long-term incentive plan and changes
in the fair value of our options and RSUs.
54
Reserves
for Losses and Loss Expenses
Reserves for losses and loss expenses as of September 30,
2006 and December 31, 2005 were comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
Casualty
|
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Sep. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
Sep. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
Sep. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
Sep. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Case reserves
|
|
$
|
609.6
|
|
|
$
|
602.8
|
|
|
$
|
69.1
|
|
|
$
|
77.6
|
|
|
$
|
213.8
|
|
|
$
|
240.8
|
|
|
$
|
892.5
|
|
|
$
|
921.2
|
|
IBNR
|
|
|
323.8
|
|
|
|
456.0
|
|
|
|
1,731.9
|
|
|
|
1,470.1
|
|
|
|
638.8
|
|
|
|
558.1
|
|
|
|
2,694.5
|
|
|
|
2,484.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses
|
|
|
933.4
|
|
|
|
1,058.8
|
|
|
|
1,801.0
|
|
|
|
1,547.7
|
|
|
|
852.6
|
|
|
|
798.9
|
|
|
|
3,587.0
|
|
|
|
3,405.4
|
|
Reinsurance recoverables
|
|
|
(474.0
|
)
|
|
|
(515.1
|
)
|
|
|
(168.2
|
)
|
|
|
(128.6
|
)
|
|
|
(45.9
|
)
|
|
|
(72.6
|
)
|
|
|
(688.1
|
)
|
|
|
(716.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss
expenses
|
|
$
|
459.4
|
|
|
$
|
543.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,632.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,419.1
|
|
|
$
|
806.7
|
|
|
$
|
726.3
|
|
|
$
|
2,898.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,689.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We participate in certain lines of business where claims may not
be reported for many years. Accordingly, management does not
believe that reported claims on these lines are necessarily a
valid means for estimating ultimate liabilities. We use
statistical and actuarial methods to estimate ultimate expected
losses and loss expenses. Loss reserves do not represent an
exact calculation of liability. Rather, loss reserves are
estimates of what we expect the ultimate resolution and
administration of claims will cost. These estimates are based on
actuarial and statistical projections and on our assessment of
currently available data, as well as estimates of future trends
in claims severity and frequency, judicial theories of liability
and other factors. Loss reserve estimates are refined as
experience develops and as claims are reported and resolved.
Establishing an appropriate level of loss reserves is an
inherently uncertain process. Ultimate losses and loss expenses
may differ from our reserves, possibly by material amounts.
Reinsurance
Recoverable
The following table illustrates our reinsurance recoverable as
of September 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reinsurance Recoverable
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
Sep. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Ceded case reserves
|
|
$
|
294.6
|
|
|
$
|
256.4
|
|
Ceded IBNR reserves
|
|
|
393.5
|
|
|
|
459.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable
|
|
$
|
688.1
|
|
|
$
|
716.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We remain obligated for amounts ceded in the event our
reinsurers do not meet their obligations. Accordingly, we have
evaluated the reinsurers that are providing reinsurance
protection to us and will continue to monitor their credit
ratings and financial stability. Approximately 93% of ceded case
reserves as of September 30, 2006 were recoverable from
reinsurers who had an A.M. Best rating of A or
higher. We generally have the right to terminate our treaty
reinsurance contracts at any time, upon prior written notice to
the reinsurer, under specified circumstances, including the
assignment to the reinsurer by A.M. Best of a financial
strength rating of less than A-.
55
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
General
As of September 30, 2006, our shareholders equity was
$2.1 billion, a 47.5% increase compared to
$1.4 billion as of December 31, 2005. The increase was
a result of net income for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2006 of $314.5 million, net proceeds
from our IPO, including net proceeds from the exercise in full
by the underwriters of their over-allotment option, of
approximately $315.8 million and an unrealized net increase
of $29.0 million in the market value of our investments,
net of deferred taxes, recorded in equity. The increase in the
market value of our securities was primarily the result of the
declining interest rate environment at September 30, 2006.
Holdings is a holding company and transacts no business of its
own. Cash flows to Holdings may comprise dividends, advances and
loans from its subsidiary companies.
Restrictions
and Specific Requirements
The jurisdictions in which our insurance subsidiaries are
licensed to write business impose regulations requiring
companies to maintain or meet various defined statutory ratios,
including solvency and liquidity requirements. Some
jurisdictions also place restrictions on the declaration and
payment of dividends and other distributions.
Holdings is a holding company, and it is therefore reliant on
receiving dividends and other permitted distributions from its
subsidiaries to make principal, interest and dividend payments
on its senior notes and common shares.
The payment of dividends from Holdings Bermuda domiciled
subsidiaries is, under certain circumstances, limited under
Bermuda law, which requires these Bermuda subsidiaries of
Holdings to maintain certain measures of solvency and liquidity.
Holdings U.S. domiciled subsidiaries are subject to
significant regulatory restrictions limiting their ability to
declare and pay dividends. In particular, payments of dividends
by Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. and Newmarket
Underwriters Insurance Company are subject to restrictions on
statutory surplus pursuant to Delaware law and New Hampshire
law, respectively. Both states require prior regulatory approval
of any payment of extraordinary dividends. The inability of the
subsidiaries of Holdings to pay dividends and other permitted
distributions could have a material adverse effect on its cash
requirements and ability to make principal, interest and
dividend payments on its senior notes and common shares.
Holdings insurance subsidiary in Bermuda, Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd, is neither licensed nor admitted as an
insurer, nor is it accredited as a reinsurer, in any
jurisdiction in the United States. As a result, it is required
to post collateral security with respect to any reinsurance
liabilities it assumes from ceding insurers domiciled in the
United States in order for U.S. ceding companies to obtain
credit on their U.S. statutory financial statements with
respect to insurance liabilities ceded to them. Under applicable
statutory provisions, the security arrangements may be in the
form of letters of credit, reinsurance trusts maintained by
trustees or funds-withheld arrangements where assets are held by
the ceding company.
At this time, Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd uses trust
accounts primarily to meet security requirements for
inter-company and certain related-party reinsurance
transactions. We also have cash and cash equivalents and
investments on deposit with various state or government
insurance departments or pledged in favor of ceding companies in
order to comply with relevant insurance regulations. As of
September 30, 2006, total trust account deposits were
$736.6 million compared to $683.7 million as of
December 31, 2005. In addition, Allied World Assurance
Company, Ltd has access to up to $900 million in letters of
credit under secured letter of credit facilities with Citibank,
N.A. and Barclays Bank, PLC. These facilities are used to
provide security to reinsureds and are collateralized by us, at
least to the extent of letters of credit outstanding at any
given time. As of September 30, 2006 and December 31,
2005, there were outstanding letters of credit totaling
$761.4 million and $740.7 million, respectively, under
the two facilities. Collateral committed to
56
support the letter of credit facilities was $910.5 million
as of September 30, 2006, compared to $852.1 million
as of December 31, 2005.
Security arrangements with ceding insurers may subject our
assets to security interests or require that a portion of our
assets be pledged to, or otherwise held by, third parties. Both
of our letter of credit facilities are fully collateralized by
assets held in custodial accounts at Mellon Bank held for the
benefit of Barclays Bank, PLC and Citibank, N.A. Although the
investment income derived from our assets while held in trust
accrues to our benefit, the investment of these assets is
governed by the terms of the letter of credit facilities or the
investment regulations of the state or territory of domicile of
the ceding insurer, which may be more restrictive than the
investment regulations applicable to us under Bermuda law. The
restrictions may result in lower investment yields on these
assets, which may adversely affect our profitability.
In January 2005, we initiated a securities lending program
whereby the securities we own that are included in fixed
maturity investments available for sale are loaned to third
parties, primarily brokerage firms, for a short period of time
through a lending agent. We maintain control over the securities
we lend and can recall them at any time for any reason. We
receive amounts equal to all interest and dividends associated
with the loaned securities and receive a fee from the borrower
for the temporary use of the securities. Collateral in the form
of cash is required initially at a minimum rate of 102% of the
market value of the loaned securities and may not decrease below
100% of the market value of the loaned securities before
additional collateral is required. We had $691.2 million
and $449.0 in securities on loan as of September 30, 2006
and December 31, 2005, respectively, with collateral held
against such loaned securities amounting to $700.8 million
and $456.8 million, respectively.
We believe that restrictions on liquidity resulting from
restrictions on the payments of dividends by our subsidiary
companies or from assets committed in trust accounts or to
collateralize the letter of credit facilities or by our
securities lending program will not have a material impact on
our ability to carry out our normal business activities,
including interest and dividend payments on our senior notes and
common shares.
Sources
and Uses of Funds
Our sources of funds primarily consist of premium receipts net
of commissions, investment income, net proceeds from the
issuance of common shares and senior notes, proceeds from our
term loan and proceeds from sales and redemption of investments.
Cash is used primarily to pay losses and loss expenses, purchase
reinsurance, pay general and administrative expenses and taxes,
with the remainder made available to our investment manager for
investment in accordance with our investment policy.
Cash flows from operations for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 were $651.0 million compared to
$589.9 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005. Although net loss payments made in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 increased to approximately
$357.7 million from $276.9 million for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005, the resulting reduction in cash
flows from operations was largely offset by increased investment
income received.
Investing cash flows consist primarily of proceeds on the sale
of investments and payments for investments acquired. We used
$868.7 million in net cash for investing activities during
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared to
$605.1 million during the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. Net cash used in investing activities
increased in 2006 primarily as a result of the investment of
$215.0 million of the net proceeds from our initial public
offering and senior notes issuance. The remainder of the net
proceeds, after repayment of our long term debt, was invested in
short-term securities, which are included in cash and cash
equivalents.
Financing cash flows during the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 consisted of proceeds from borrowing
$500 million through a term loan. This was offset by a
distribution to our shareholders in the form of a one-time,
special cash dividend equal to $499.8 million in the
aggregate, of which approximately $1.3 million was paid
during the fourth quarter of 2005. During the nine months ended
September 30, 2006, we completed an IPO, including the
exercise in full by the underwriters of their over-allotment
option, and a senior notes offering, which resulted in gross
proceeds received of $344.1 million and
$498.5 million,
57
respectively. To date, we have paid issuance costs of
approximately $26.5 million in association with these offerings.
We utilized $500.0 million of the net funds received to
repay our term loan.
Over the next year, we currently expect to pay approximately
$265 million in claims related to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita
and Wilma and approximately $35 million in claims relating
to the 2004 hurricanes and typhoons net of reinsurance
recoverable. On November 8, 2006, our Board of Directors
declared a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per common share, or
approximately $9.0 million in aggregate, payable on
December 21, 2006 to the shareholders of record as of
December 5, 2006. We anticipate that, through the end of
2007, expenditures of approximately $11 million and
$5 million will be required for leasehold improvements and
furniture and fixtures for our newly rented premises in Bermuda
and information technology infrastructure and systems
enhancements, respectively. We expect our operating cash flows,
together with our existing capital base, to be sufficient to
meet these requirements and to operate our business. Our funds
are primarily invested in liquid high-grade fixed income
securities. As of September 30, 2006, including a
high-yield bond fund, 99% of our fixed income portfolio
consisted of investment grade securities compared to 98% as of
December 31, 2005. As of September 30, 2006, net
accumulated unrealized gains, net of income taxes, were
$3.4 million compared to net accumulated unrealized losses,
net of income taxes, of $25.5 million as of
December 31, 2005. This change reflected both movements in
interest rates and the recognition of approximately
$13.3 million of realized losses on securities that were
considered to be impaired on an other than temporary basis
because of the change in interest rates. The maturity
distribution of our fixed income portfolio (on a market value
basis) as of September 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005
was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Due in one year or less
|
|
$
|
178.8
|
|
|
$
|
381.5
|
|
Due after one year through five
years
|
|
|
2,707.9
|
|
|
|
2,716.0
|
|
Due after five years through ten
years
|
|
|
569.5
|
|
|
|
228.6
|
|
Due after ten years
|
|
|
112.8
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
Mortgage-backed
|
|
|
1,456.8
|
|
|
|
846.1
|
|
Asset-backed
|
|
|
258.0
|
|
|
|
216.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,283.8
|
|
|
$
|
4,390.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We do not believe that inflation has had a material effect on
our consolidated results of operations. The potential exists,
after a catastrophe loss, for the development of inflationary
pressures in a local economy. The effects of inflation are
considered implicitly in pricing. Loss reserves are established
to recognize likely loss settlements at the date payment is
made. Those reserves inherently recognize the effects of
inflation. The actual effects of inflation on our results cannot
be accurately known, however, until claims are ultimately
resolved.
Financial
Strength Ratings
Financial strength ratings and senior unsecured debt ratings
represent the opinions of rating agencies on our capacity to
meet our obligations. Some of our reinsurance treaties contain
special funding and termination clauses that are triggered in
the event that we or one of our subsidiaries is downgraded by
one of the major rating agencies to levels specified in the
treaties, or our capital is significantly reduced. If such an
event were to happen, we would be required, in certain
instances, to post collateral in the form of letters of credit
and/or trust
accounts against existing outstanding losses, if any, related to
the treaty. In a limited number of instances, the subject
treaties could be cancelled retroactively or commuted by the
cedant and might affect our ability to write business.
58
The following were our financial strength ratings as of
November 10, 2006:
|
|
|
A.M. Best
|
|
A/stable
|
Moodys
|
|
A2/stable*
|
Standard & Poors
|
|
A-/stable
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Moodys financial strength ratings are for the
companys Bermuda and U.S. operating subsidiaries. |
The following were our senior unsecured debt ratings as of
November 10, 2006:
|
|
|
A.M. Best
|
|
bbb/stable
|
Moodys
|
|
Baa1/stable
|
Standard & Poors
|
|
BBB/stable
|
Long-Term
Debt
On March 30, 2005, we borrowed $500.0 million under a
credit agreement, dated as of that date, by and among the
company, Bank of America, N. A., as administrative agent,
Wachovia Bank, National Association, as syndication agent, and a
syndicate of other banks. The loan carried a floating rate of
interest, which was based on the Federal Funds Rate, prime rate
or LIBOR plus an applicable margin, and had a final maturity on
March 30, 2012. On April 21, 2005, we entered into
certain interest rate swaps in order to fix the interest cost of
the floating rate borrowing. These swaps were terminated with an
effective date of June 30, 2006, resulting in cash proceeds
of approximately $5.9 million. As of July 26, 2006,
this debt was fully repaid using a portion of the net proceeds
from both our IPO, including the exercise in full by the
underwriters of their over-allotment option, and our senior
notes offering.
On July 21, 2006, we issued $500.0 aggregate principal
amount of 7.50% senior notes due August 1, 2016, with
interest payable August 1 and February 1 each year,
commencing February 1, 2007. We can redeem the senior notes
prior to maturity, subject to payment of a
make-whole premium, however, we currently have no
intention of redeeming the notes. The senior notes include
certain covenants that include:
|
|
|
|
|
Limitation on liens on stock of designated subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
Limitation as to the disposition of stock of designated
subsidiaries; and
|
|
|
|
Limitations on mergers, amalgamations, consolidations or sale of
assets.
|
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
As of September 30, 2006, we did not have any off-balance
sheet arrangements.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
|
We believe that we are principally exposed to three types of
market risk: interest rate risk, credit risk and currency risk.
59
The fixed income securities in our investment portfolio are
subject to interest rate risk. Any change in interest rates has
a direct effect on the market values of fixed income securities.
As interest rates rise, the market values fall, and vice versa.
We estimate that an immediate adverse parallel shift in the
U.S. Treasury yield curve of 200 basis points would
cause an aggregate decrease in the market value of our
investment portfolio (excluding cash and cash equivalents) of
approximately $326.0 million, or 5.9%, on our portfolio
valued at approximately $5.5 billion as of
September 30, 2006, as set forth in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate Shift in Basis Points
|
|
|
|
−200
|
|
|
−100
|
|
|
−50
|
|
|
−0
|
|
|
+50
|
|
|
+100
|
|
|
+200
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Total market value
|
|
$
|
5,875.4
|
|
|
$
|
5,708.1
|
|
|
$
|
5,623.9
|
|
|
$
|
5,540.8
|
|
|
$
|
5,458.8
|
|
|
$
|
5,377.8
|
|
|
$
|
5,214.8
|
|
Market value change from base
|
|
|
334.6
|
|
|
|
167.3
|
|
|
|
83.1
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
(82.0
|
)
|
|
|
(163.0
|
)
|
|
|
(326.0
|
)
|
Change in unrealized appreciation
|
|
|
334.6
|
|
|
|
167.3
|
|
|
|
83.1
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
(82.0
|
)
|
|
|
(163.0
|
)
|
|
|
(326.0
|
)
|
As a holder of fixed income securities, we also have exposure to
credit risk. In an effort to minimize this risk, our investment
guidelines have been defined to ensure that the assets held are
well diversified and are primarily high-quality securities. As
of September 30, 2006, approximately 99% of our fixed
income investments (which includes individually held securities
and securities held in a high-yield bond fund) consisted of
investment grade securities. We were not exposed to any
significant concentrations of credit risk.
As of September 30, 2006, we held $1,456.8 million, or
24.8%, of our aggregate invested assets in mortgage-backed
securities. These assets are exposed to prepayment risk, which
occurs when holders of individual mortgages increase the
frequency with which they prepay the outstanding principal
before the maturity date to refinance at a lower interest rate
cost. Given the proportion that these securities comprise of the
overall portfolio, and the current interest rate environment,
prepayment risk is not considered significant at this time.
As of September 30, 2006, we have invested
$200 million in four hedge funds, the market value of which
was $225.3 million. Investments in hedge funds involve
certain risks related to, among other things, the illiquid
nature of the fund shares, the limited operating history of the
fund, as well as risks associated with the strategies employed
by the managers of the funds. The funds objectives are
generally to seek attractive long-term returns with lower
volatility by investing in a range of diversified investment
strategies. As our reserves and capital continue to build, we
may consider additional investments in these or other
alternative investments.
The U.S. dollar is our reporting currency and the
functional currency of all of our operating subsidiaries. We
enter into insurance and reinsurance contracts where the
premiums receivable and losses payable are denominated in
currencies other than the U.S. dollar. In addition, we
maintain a portion of our investments and liabilities in
currencies other than the U.S. dollar, primarily Euro,
British Sterling and the Canadian dollar. Assets in
non-U.S. currencies
are generally converted into U.S. dollars at the time of
receipt. When we incur a liability in a
non-U.S. currency,
we carry such liability on our books in the original currency.
These liabilities are converted from the
non-U.S. currency
to U.S. dollars at the time of payment. As a result, we
have an exposure to foreign currency risk resulting from
fluctuations in exchange rates.
As of September 30, 2006, 1.8% of our aggregate invested
assets were denominated in currencies other than the
U.S. dollar compared to 1.7% as of December 31, 2005.
Of our business written in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006, approximately 14% was written in
currencies other than the U.S. dollar compared to
approximately 15% for the nine months ended September 30,
2005. Of our business written in the year ended
December 31, 2005, approximately 15% was written in
currencies other than the U.S. dollar. With the increasing
exposure from our expansion in Europe, we developed a hedging
strategy during 2004 in order to minimize the potential loss of
value caused by currency fluctuations. Thus, a hedging program
was implemented in the second quarter of 2004 using foreign
currency forward contract derivatives that expire in
90 days.
60
Our foreign exchange gains (losses) for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2005 are set forth in the chart below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Realized exchange gains (losses)
|
|
$
|
1.4
|
|
|
$
|
(4.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.2
|
)
|
Unrealized exchange (losses) gains
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange gains (losses)
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 4.
|
Controls
and Procedures.
|
In connection with the preparation of this quarterly report, our
management has performed an evaluation, with the participation
of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of
the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in
Rule 13a-15(e)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act)) as of September 30, 2006. Disclosure controls
and procedures are designed to ensure that information required
to be disclosed in reports filed or submitted under the Exchange
Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the
time periods specified by SEC rules and forms and that such
information is accumulated and communicated to management,
including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, to allow for timely decisions regarding required
disclosures. Based on their evaluation, our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of
September 30, 2006, our companys disclosure controls
and procedures were effective. We are a non-accelerated filer
and will not be subject to the internal control reporting and
disclosure requirements of Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 until our annual report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year 2007. As such, we are not required to
disclose any material changes in our companys internal
control over financial reporting until we are subject to these
requirements, in accordance with the guidance from the Division
of Corporation Finance and Office of the Chief Accountant of the
SEC contained in Question 9 of the release captioned Frequently
Asked Questions (revised October 6, 2004).
Note on
Forward-Looking Statements
This report may contain forward-looking statements within the
meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
that involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Statements that
are not historical facts, including statements that use terms
such as believes, anticipates,
intends or expects and that relate to
our plans and objectives for future operations, are
forward-looking statements. In light of the risks and
uncertainties inherent in all forward-looking statements, the
inclusion of such statements in this report should not be
considered as a representation by us or any other person that
our objectives or plans will be achieved. These statements are
based on current plans, estimates and expectations. Actual
results may differ materially from those projected in such
forward-looking statements and therefore you should not place
undue reliance on them. A non-exclusive list of the important
factors that could cause actual results to differ materially
from those in such forward-looking statements includes the
following: (a) the effects of competitors pricing
policies, and of changes in laws and regulations on competition,
including industry consolidation and development of competing
financial products; (b) the effects of investigations into
market practices, in particular insurance brokerage practices,
together with any legal or regulatory proceedings, related
settlements and industry reform or other changes arising
therefrom; (c) the impact of acts of terrorism and acts of
war; (d) greater frequency or severity of claims and loss
activity, including as a result of natural or man-made
catastrophic events, than our underwriting, reserving or
investment practices have anticipated; (e) increased
competition due to an increase in capacity of property and
casualty insurers or reinsurers; (f) the inability to
obtain or maintain financial strength ratings by one or more of
the companys subsidiaries; (g) the adequacy of our
loss reserves and the need to adjust such reserves as claims
develop over time; (h) the company or one of its
subsidiaries becoming subject to significant income taxes in the
United States or elsewhere; (i) changes in regulations or
tax laws applicable to the company, its subsidiaries, brokers or
customers; (j) changes in the
61
availability, cost or quality of reinsurance or retrocessional
coverage; (k) loss of key personnel; (l) changes in
general economic conditions, including inflation, foreign
currency exchange rates, interest rates and other factors that
could affect the companys investment portfolio; and
(m) such other risk factors as may be discussed in our most
recent documents on file with the SEC. We are under no
obligation (and expressly disclaim any such obligation) to
update or revise any forward-looking statement that may be made
from time to time, whether as a result of new information,
future developments or otherwise.
PART II
OTHER INFORMATION
|
|
Item 1.
|
Legal
Proceedings.
|
On or about November 8, 2005, we received a Civil
Investigative Demand (CID) from the Antitrust and
Civil Medicaid Fraud Division of the Office of the Attorney
General of Texas, which relates to an investigation into
(1) the possibility of restraint of trade in one or more
markets within the State of Texas arising out of our business
relationships with AIG and Chubb, and (2) certain insurance
and insurance brokerage practices, including those relating to
contingent commissions and false quotes, which are also the
subject of industry-wide investigations and class action
litigation. Specifically, the CID seeks information concerning
our relationship with our investors, and in particular, AIG and
Chubb, including their role in our business, sharing of business
information and any agreements not to compete. The CID also
seeks information regarding (i) contingent commission,
placement service or other agreements that we may have had with
brokers or producers, and (ii) the possibility of the
provision of any non-competitive bids by us in connection with
the placement of insurance. We are cooperating in this ongoing
investigation, and we have produced documents and other
information in response to the CID. While the full scope and
outcome of the investigation by the Attorney General of Texas
cannot currently be predicted, based on our discussions with
representatives of the Attorney General of Texas on May 26,
2006, the investigation is expected to proceed to litigation,
enforcement proceedings or a voluntary settlement. This is
likely to result in civil penalties, restitution to
policyholders or other remedial efforts that would be adverse to
us. In connection with the investigation and our review relating
to certain insurance brokerage practices, our Chief Underwriting
Officer was suspended indefinitely. The outcome of the
investigation is also likely to form a basis for investigations,
civil litigation or enforcement proceedings by other state
regulators, by policyholders or by other private parties, or
other voluntary settlements that could have material adverse
effects on us. At this stage in this matter, we cannot estimate,
for purposes of reserving or otherwise, the severity of an
adverse result or settlement on our results of operations,
financial condition, growth prospects and financial strength
ratings but the impact could be material.
On April 4, 2006, a complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta Division) by a group of several corporations and
certain of their related entities in an action entitled New
Cingular Wireless Headquarters, LLC et al, as plaintiffs,
against certain defendants, including Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., Marsh Inc. and Aon Corporation, in their
capacities as insurance brokers, and 78 insurers, including our
insurance subsidiary in Bermuda, Allied World Assurance Company,
Ltd.
The action generally relates to broker defendants
placement of insurance contracts for plaintiffs with the 78
insurer defendants. Plaintiffs maintain that the defendants used
a variety of illegal schemes and practices designed to, among
other things, allocate customers, rig bids for insurance
products and raise the prices of insurance products paid by the
plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs allege that the broker
defendants steered policyholders business to preferred
insurer defendants. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of these
practices, policyholders either paid more for insurance products
or received less beneficial terms than the competitive market
would have charged. The eight counts in the complaint allege,
among other things, (i) unreasonable restraints of trade
and conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act,
(ii) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, (iii) that broker defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, (iv) that
insurer defendants participated in and induced this alleged
breach of fiduciary duty, (v) unjust enrichment,
(vi) common law fraud by broker defendants and
(vii) statutory and consumer fraud under the laws of
certain U.S. states. Plaintiffs seek equitable and legal
remedies, including injunctive relief, unquantified
consequential and punitive damages, and treble damages under the
Sherman Act and RICO. On
62
October 16, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that the litigation be transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings occurring in that court. Neither Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd nor any of the other defendants have
responded to the complaint. Because this matter is in an early
stage, the company cannot estimate the possible range of loss,
if any.
We may become involved in various claims and legal proceedings
that arise in the normal course of our business, which are not
likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations.
This item requires disclosure of any material changes to the
risk factors previously disclosed in a registrants most
recent annual report on
Form 10-K.
We became subject to SEC reporting requirements on July 11,
2006 and have not filed an annual report on
Form 10-K
with the SEC. There have been no material changes from the risk
factors disclosed in the Risk Factors section of our
Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A
(File
No. 333-132507),
filed with the SEC on July 7, 2006.
|
|
Item 2.
|
Unregistered
Sale of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.
|
On July 7, 2006, we consummated a
1-for-3
reverse stock split of our common shares prior to and in
connection with the completion of our IPO. In connection with
this 1-for-3
reverse stock split, we repurchased an aggregate of 24.59 common
shares, in lieu of issuing any fractional shares, from certain
of our pre-IPO shareholders at a price of $34.00 per share
(the equivalent of our IPO price per share), for an aggregate
consideration of approximately $836.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Defaults
Upon Senior Securities.
|
None.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
|
None.
|
|
Item 5.
|
Other
Information.
|
None.
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.1(1)
|
|
Form of Termination Consent among
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and its current
shareholders
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Amendment to Warrants to Purchase
Common Shares of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd,
dated as of August 1, 2006, by and among Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and GS Capital Partners 2000,
L.P.; GS Capital Partners 2000 Offshore, L.P.; GS Capital
Partners 2000, GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG; GS Capital
Partners 2000 Employee Fund, L.P.; Stone Street Fund 2000,
L.P.; and Bridge Street Special Opportunities Fund 2000,
L.P.
|
|
10
|
.3(2)
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Addendum to Schedule B,
effective as of September 25, 2006, to the Master Services
Agreement by and between Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd and
AIG Technologies, Inc.
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification by Chief Executive
Officer, as required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification by Chief Financial
Officer, as required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.1*
|
|
Certification by Chief Executive
Officer, as required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.2*
|
|
Certification by Chief Financial
Officer, as required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
63
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the
registration statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-132507)
of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd, filed with the
SEC on March 17, 2006, as amended. |
|
(2) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the current
report on
Form 8-K
of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd, filed with the
SEC on August 7, 2006. |
|
* |
|
These certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of
title 18 United States Code) and are not being filed as
part of this report. |
64
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
|
|
|
Dated: November 14, 2006
|
|
/s/ Scott
A.
Carmilani
Name: Scott
A. Carmilani
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
Dated: November 14, 2006
|
|
/s/ Joan
H. Dillard
Name: Joan
H. Dillard
Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
65
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.1(1)
|
|
Form of Termination Consent among
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and its current
shareholders
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Amendment to Warrants to Purchase
Common Shares of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd,
dated as of August 1, 2006, by and among Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and GS Capital Partners 2000,
L.P.; GS Capital Partners 2000 Offshore, L.P.; GS Capital
Partners 2000, GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG; GS Capital
Partners 2000 Employee Fund, L.P.; Stone Street Fund 2000,
L.P.; and Bridge Street Special Opportunities Fund 2000,
L.P.
|
|
10
|
.3(2)
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Addendum to Schedule B,
effective as of September 25, 2006, to the Master Services
Agreement by and between Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd and
AIG Technologies, Inc.
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification by Chief Executive
Officer, as required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification by Chief Financial
Officer, as required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.1*
|
|
Certification by Chief Executive
Officer, as required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.2*
|
|
Certification by Chief Financial
Officer, as required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the
registration statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-132507)
of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd, filed with the
SEC on March 17, 2006, as amended. |
|
(2) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the current
report on
Form 8-K
of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd, filed with the
SEC on August 7, 2006. |
|
* |
|
These certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of
title 18 United States Code) and are not being filed as
part of this report. |
66
Exhibit
10.2
Amendment
to
Warrants to Purchase Common Shares of
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd
This Amendment to Warrants to Purchase Common Shares of Allied World Assurance Company
Holdings, Ltd (f/k/a Allied World Assurance Holdings, Ltd (the
Company)), dated as of August 1,
2006, is entered into by and among the Company and GS Capital Partners 2000, L.P.; GS Capital
Partners 2000 Offshore, L.P.; GS Capital Partners 2000, GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG; GS
Capital Partners 2000 Employee Fund, L.P.; Stone Street Fund 2000, L.P.; and Bridge
Street Special Opportunities Fund 2000, L.P. (collectively, the GS Funds), and shall be deemed
effective as of the closing date of the IPO (as defined below).
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2001 the Company issued warrants (the Warrants) to purchase common
shares, par value U.S. $0.01 per share, of the Company (Common Stock), which included
shares of voting common stock, par value U.S. $0.01 per share, of the Company (Voting Common
Stock), non-voting common stock, par value U.S. $0.01 per share, of the Company (Non-Voting
Common Stock) or both, upon the terms and conditions contained therein, to the GS
Funds;
WHEREAS,
pursuant to a Registration Statement on Form S-1, dated March 17, 2006, as amended, on
July 17, 2006, the Company completed an initial public offering of its common shares, and listed
such common shares (the IPO), and immediately prior to the completion of the IPO, the
Shareholders Agreement, dated as of November 21, 2001, between the Company and shareholders of the
Company named therein (including the GS Funds), as amended (the Shareholders Agreement), was
terminated and became of no further force and effect;
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2006, the Company effectuated a 1-for-3 reverse stock split that reduced
the number of shares underlying the Warrants from an aggregate of 16,500,000 to 5,500,000
(including, in both instances, the shares underlying Warrants issued to GS Funds and the other
Industry Founders), and changed the par value of the Common Stock, Voting Common Stock and
Non-Voting Common Stock from $0.01 per share to $0.03 per share;
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the completion of the IPO, the Bye-Laws of the Company were
amended and restated; and
WHEREAS, the Company and the GS Funds wish to amend the GS Funds Warrants as provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
|
1. |
|
Amendment to Section l(d)(i). The words Section 5.1 of the Shareholders
Agreement in clause (C) of Section 1(d)(i) of each GS Funds Warrant is hereby
replaced with the words Section 64 of the Bye-laws as in effect on
July 17, 2006 immediately after the amendment and restatement thereof on such date
(as amended and restated, the Amended Bye-Laws); and
|
|
2. |
|
Amendment to Section 1(e). Section 1(e) of each GS Funds Warrant is hereby
amended and restated to read as follows: |
The Common Stock issued upon each exercise of this Warrant that is owned within the meaning
of Sections 958(a) or 958(b) of the Code by a Founder (other than an Industry Founder) or any of
such Founders Affiliates as defined in the Amended Bye-Laws shall be Non-Voting Common Stock,
provided that, subject to the Ownership Limits set forth in Section 64 of the Amended Bye-laws,
such shares shall convert to Voting Common Stock after the date such Common Stock is no longer so
owned. For issuances not governed by the preceding sentence, the Common Stock issued upon each
exercise of this Warrant shall be Voting Common Stock to the maximum extent possible without such
exercise causing any Person to exceed the Ownership Limits set forth in Section 64 of the Amended
Bye-laws, and all other Common Stock (if any) issued on such exercise shall be Non-Voting Common
Stock unless the Holder requests Non-Voting Common Stock in the Notice of Exercise, in which case
the Common Stock issued upon such exercise shall be Non-Voting Common Stock at least to the extent
so requested. In determining the maximum amount of Voting Common Stock to be issued
upon any exercise of this Warrant, effect shall be given to any Offsetting Transaction.
The GS Funds Warrants, as amended by this amendment (and giving effect to the termination of
the Shareholders Agreement), shall remain in fill force and effect. This amendment
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.
This amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, and all of which shall be deemed to constitute a single document.
[Remainder of this Page Intentionally Left Blank]
-2-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this amendment as of the date first
written above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE
COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Wesley D. Dupont |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: Wesley D. Dupont |
|
|
|
|
Title: SVP & General Counsel |
|
|
|
GS CAPITAL PARTNERS 2000, L.P. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
GS Advisors 2000, L.L.C., its general partner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
Title: Vice President |
|
|
|
GS CAPITAL PARTNERS 2000 OFFSHORE, L.P. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By: GS Advisors 2000, L.L.C., its general partner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
Title: Vice President |
|
|
|
GS CAPITAL PARTNERS
2000 GMBH & CO.
BETEILIGUNGS KG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
Goldman Sachs Management GP GmbH, its
general partner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
Title: Attorney-in-Fact |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRIDGE STREET SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES
FUND 2000, L.P. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
Bridge Street Special Opportunities 2000,
L.L.C., its general partner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
Title: Vice President |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GS CAPITAL PARTNERS 2000 EMPLOYEE
FUND, L.P. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
GS Employee Funds 2000, L.L.C., its
general partner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
Title: Vice President |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STONE STREET FUND 2000, L.P. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
Stone Street 2000, L.L.C., its general partner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: Christine Serfin |
|
|
|
|
Title: Vice President |
Exhibit
10.4
ADDENDUM TO SCHEDULE B
This
Addendum (this Addendum) is effective as of
September 25, 2006 (the Effective
Date) by and between AIG Technologies, Inc. (AIGT) and Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd and
its Affiliates (Customer) and is hereby made part of and incorporated into that certain Master
Services Agreement (the Agreement) between AIGT and Customer dated as of May 9, 2006.
The parties have entered into the Agreement for the provision of certain rights, services,
resources, and deliverables to Customer by AIGT. Schedule E of the Agreement contemplates that the
parties hereto may enter into an addendum to Schedule B (Fees and Services) in connection with
optional products, services, resources or deliverables being provided
by AIGT to Customer.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, and the agreements of the
parties set forth below, Customer and AIGT agree as follows:
1
Service Overview
AIGT will oversee design, engineer and implement:
|
|
|
A dedicated Customer NT4 Domain. |
|
|
|
User permissions to be maintained to AIGT standards. |
|
|
|
|
Current group policies to be maintained. |
|
|
|
Three regional data centers (Customer facilities) located in London, New York
and Bermuda, each consisting of the following components as deemed necessary: |
|
|
|
An exchange 5.5 Messaging server. |
|
|
|
To support ~235 Customers users; 40 European, 45 US, 150 Bermuda. |
|
|
|
|
Customer to procure all necessary hardware/software based on AIGT standards. |
|
|
|
|
The Customer equipment will be setup by AIGT personnel mutually agreed upon by AIGT
and Customer, which setup shall conform to AIGTs standards at the Customers data centers
on the Customer side of the firewalls currently in place. |
|
|
|
|
A temporary two way domain trust will be implemented between Customer and AIGT during
the transition period and administered by AIGT personnel. |
|
|
|
|
The Customer-AIGT domain trust will be removed by mutual agreement of AIGT and
Customer. |
The following diagram provides a logical representation of the Customers data centers with AIGT
connectivity.
1
2 |
|
Customer Responsibilities: |
|
|
|
In connection solely with the products and services described in this Addendum,
Customer shall order, purchase and procure equipment, software, licenses and perform
on-going maintenance of the procured equipment and software, reasonably in accordance with
communicated guidelines of AIGT, in a timely fashion conforming to AIGTs engineering,
operations and OCIO requirements and standards. |
|
|
|
|
Provide all Customer related application and desktop related user remediation. |
|
|
|
|
Provide tape cycling and backup tapes as required. |
3 |
|
Product, Services and Pricing: |
|
|
3.1 |
|
BlackBerry |
|
|
|
|
Customer to provide all hardware, software, handheld devices and carrier service contracts,
as mutually agreed upon by AIGT and Customer. |
|
|
|
|
Pricing |
|
|
|
|
Valid with AIGT email contract only. |
|
|
|
|
Unit of charge: BlackBerry users |
|
|
|
|
One-time professional services charge: Forty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Dollars
($46,920.00) payable upon execution of this Addendum. |
|
|
|
|
Current Volume: 114 |
|
|
3.2 |
|
Wintel Field Server |
|
|
|
|
Customer to provide all hardware and software, as mutually agreed upon by AIGT and
Customer. |
|
|
|
|
Included in this product: |
|
|
|
Incident management |
|
|
|
|
Security management |
|
|
|
|
Hardware management |
|
|
|
|
Networking |
|
|
|
Service Levels: |
|
|
|
|
All Service Level objectives that are relevant to this product are the responsibility of
AIGT. |
|
|
|
Operational window - 7 X 24 X 365; Must include maintenance window for four (4)
hours weekly. |
|
|
|
|
Availability best effort |
|
|
|
Pricing |
|
|
|
|
Unit of charge: Image |
|
|
|
|
Monthly Maintenance Charge: $1,346.40 per image |
|
|
|
|
Per actual volume: billed at usage |
|
|
3.3 |
|
Public Folders |
|
|
|
|
Pricing |
|
|
|
|
Unit of Charge: Per folder |
|
|
|
|
Monthly Charge: $4.68 per Folder |
|
|
|
|
Per actual volume: billed at usage |
3
3.4 |
|
Help Desk & Dispatch Services |
|
Service Levels: |
|
|
|
AIGT to provide helpdesk services and packaging and distribution of
security-related patches and fixes, service pack upgrades and antivirus software
components. |
|
|
|
|
Hardware break/fix maintenance, desk side software support. |
|
|
Pricing |
|
|
|
Unit of Charge: Per Customer US user |
|
|
|
Monthly Charge: $120 per User |
|
|
|
Per actual volume: billed at usage |
|
4. |
|
Travel and Living Expenses |
|
|
|
Pricing |
|
|
|
Any travel and reasonable expenses related thereto incurred
by AIGT shall be billed to
Customer at actual cost. Travel requests and an accounting of anticipated related expenses
and costs must be agreed to in advance in writing by both parties. |
5. Except as expressly modified herein in connection with the additional products,
services, resources or deliverables to be provided hereunder, all terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as set forth in the Agreement. All capitalized
terms used in this Addendum but not defined herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to such
terms as set forth in the Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other party that
this Addendum has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by it and constitutes a valid and
legally binding agreement with respect to the subject matter contained herein. Each party agrees
that the Agreement, as amended by this Addendum, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement
of the agreement between the parties, and supersedes all prior proposals and understandings, oral
and written, relating to the subject matter contained herein. This Addendum is to be construed in
accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York (as permitted by Section
5-1401 of the New York General Obligations Law or any similar successor provision) without giving
effect to any choice of law rule that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction
other than the internal laws of the State of New York to the rights and duties of the parties. Any
legal suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Addendum shall be commenced in
a federal court in the Southern District of New York or in state court in the County of New York,
New York, and each party hereto irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of any
such court in any such suit, action or proceeding. Except for actions
for nonpayment, neither AIGT
nor Customer may bring a claim or action more than two (2) years after the cause of
action arose. This Addendum shall not be modified or rescinded except in a writing signed by the
parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Addendum to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AIG Technologies,
Inc. |
|
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Mark S. Popolano
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Scott Carmilani |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
|
Mark S. Popolano
|
|
Name:
|
|
Scott Carmilani |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
|
|
President
|
|
Title:
|
|
President |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Scott A. Carmilani, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q
of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e))
for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;
(b) [Omitted in accordance with the guidance of SEC Release
No. 33-8238];
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
|
|
|
Dated: November 14, 2006
|
|
/s/ Scott
A.
Carmilani
Name: Scott
A. Carmilani
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
|
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Joan H. Dillard, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q
of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e))
for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;
(b) [Omitted in accordance with the guidance of SEC Release
No. 33-8238];
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
|
|
|
Dated: November 14, 2006
|
|
/s/ Joan
H. Dillard
Name: Joan
H. Dillard
Title: Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|