[HN Gopher] How insurance risk is transformed into investable as...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How insurance risk is transformed into investable assets
        
       Author : rrjjww
       Score  : 135 points
       Date   : 2025-09-26 20:46 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (riskvest.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (riskvest.io)
        
       | blakepelton wrote:
       | I've asked two financial advisors about CAT bonds. One had never
       | heard of them and the other said were about as risky as crypto. I
       | guess this is such a niche product that there isn't widespread
       | knowledge about it.
       | 
       | I wonder how much more diversified $ILS could be if it were
       | larger. Would a 10x increase in assets under management give it
       | significantly less volatility because it could do a better job
       | spreading risk around the globe?
        
         | rrjjww wrote:
         | The lack of information was my inspiration for building
         | Riskvest. I called my own broker and when I said catastrophic
         | bonds they asked if I meant buying bonds already in default.
         | 
         | On the risk side - your comments here are part of the myth I'm
         | trying to dispel and will have lots more to say in future
         | posts.
         | 
         | Yes for a single CAT bond you are exposed to potential 100%
         | principle losses. But if you buy a bundle of CAT bonds that
         | focus on say California Earthquake, Florida Hurricane, Japanese
         | Typhoon, and a Cyber Event, you can imagine the diversification
         | benefit you get there.
         | 
         | I've already created a very very simple model for people to
         | play around with and learn the intuition for CAT bond return
         | patterns. A default means 100% loss and this is unique vs.
         | other bonds. I plan in the future to build a much more robust
         | model.
         | 
         | https://www.riskvest.io/data-lab/cat-bond-portfolio-simulato...
        
           | bawolff wrote:
           | > But if you buy a bundle of CAT bonds that focus on say
           | California Earthquake, Florida Hurricane, Japanese Typhoon,
           | and a Cyber Event, you can imagine the diversification
           | benefit you get there.
           | 
           | Yeah, but imagine how bad a day you're having if all of those
           | disasters happen at once, and then as a cherry on top you
           | lose all your money.
        
             | itake wrote:
             | Yeah, it seems like you'd want to buy bonds that covers
             | areas that you're not personally in...
        
               | richardfey wrote:
               | Why? It's not like you can influence the trigger of any
               | such catastrophe
        
               | pm215 wrote:
               | Same principle as why many people prefer not to own
               | shares in the company that employs them -- you're already
               | heavily exposed to that specific risk and don't want to
               | add more. If you live in Florida then a hurricane in
               | Florida already might mean financial loss for you if it
               | damages your house, so buying a CAT bond that covers a
               | different thing is more diversified risk: you might get
               | "house is trashed" or "bond is total loss" but at least
               | you probably will not get both at once.
        
         | olooney wrote:
         | CAT bonds are typically restricted to institutional investors.
         | I would be very surprised if you could even buy one without
         | being a QIB.
        
           | rrjjww wrote:
           | New opportunities for retail investors have been popping up
           | lately! That's a big part of what Riskvest is meant to
           | document.
        
           | anjel wrote:
           | https://riskvest.io/market-watch/ils-nyse-offering
        
         | bvan wrote:
         | It has been growing slowly for the past 25 years. The limited
         | market size is a reflection of the demand by traditional
         | insurers and reinsurers, for alternative sources of capital.
         | This is as it should be.. when traditional players start
         | transferring risk to the capital markets motivated by the fees
         | involved, or cheaper rates (premium), then you really start
         | worrying about moral hazard i.e. 'bad risks' getting
         | transferred to investors.
        
         | jbs789 wrote:
         | There are institutional funds but generally it's a small market
         | with very limited retail presence. Schroders has one. (Artemis
         | is a great source of info in the space - niche trade
         | publication.)
         | 
         | https://www.artemis.bm/ils-fund-managers/schroder-investment...
        
       | antasvara wrote:
       | There are a lot of interesting dynamics in this market.
       | 
       | For example, CAT bonds are generally tied to the specific natural
       | hazard ("this bond triggers if a hurricane of Category 3 or
       | higher land falls in this segment of Florida") or to industry
       | losses, as estimated by an agreed upon source.
       | 
       | This means that a CAT bond is correlated with, but not directly
       | informed by an insurer's actual loss experience. Traditional
       | reinsurance (so an insurer themselves getting insurance) will
       | usually be tied to specific policies, so their experienced loss
       | is what determines payout.
       | 
       | However, depending on the insurer's policies, traditional
       | reinsurance may be unavailable or much too expensive (either due
       | to the large limit needed, the risk level of the policies, or any
       | number of other reasons). Depending on the trigger, a CAT bond
       | can also pay out faster because you don't have to wait to see the
       | claims from 100k home insurance policies.
       | 
       | From the technical side, most large reinsurers license CAT
       | modeling software from one or both of the same two vendors:
       | Moody's RMS or Verisk. The biggest reinsurers will develop their
       | own models, and there are other modeling vendors that they may
       | license for particular perils (EQEcat for earthquake and KatRisk
       | for flood come to mind), but the big two are pretty widely
       | accepted in reinsurance markets.
       | 
       | That means if your policies are "odd" in some way (uncommon
       | construction type, power facility, etc.), depending on how a
       | reinsurers chooses to model them (or how the model specifically
       | handles them) can have a big impact on your reinsurance pricing.
       | If you know something about your policies that can't be
       | incorporated into a vendor model very well, you may get better
       | pricing on a CAT bond.
       | 
       | These are just some of the considerations! There are so many more
       | things that go into it. But I think it's super interesting to
       | think about.
       | 
       | Source: I work in this side of the industry, specifically in
       | natural catastrophe modeling.
        
         | rrjjww wrote:
         | Correct on every point and great insight, hello fellow
         | insurance person.
         | 
         | I will clarify that CAT bonds can have industry loss triggers
         | OR actual indemnity triggers. If an indemnity trigger then the
         | insurer has to prove the actual loss. But you're right on ILWs
         | (Industry Loss Warranty) in that there is additional
         | model/basis risk considerations.
         | 
         | Insurance companies try to minimize this basis risk. Because
         | while sure it's great to be in the situation where your CAT
         | bond recovers when you didn't have large losses, it's NOT good
         | to be in the position where you had big losses and you don't
         | recover. Certainty of recover can affect things like how much
         | regulatory credit you get for your reinsurance.
        
         | rogerrogerr wrote:
         | Curious what major trends you're seeing in your line of work.
         | Guessing global warming induced increase in weather related
         | hazards in some places - anything that would be surprising to
         | people outside the industry?
        
         | NoboruWataya wrote:
         | > CAT bonds are generally tied to the specific natural hazard
         | ("this bond triggers if a hurricane of Category 3 or higher
         | land falls in this segment of Florida") or to industry losses,
         | as estimated by an agreed upon source.
         | 
         | A big part of the reason for this is that if payout is tied to
         | actual loss, it starts to look a lot like actual insurance,
         | which is specifically not what you want. Because while anyone*
         | can buy a bond, only insurers or reinsurers can write
         | insurance. This is something that needs to be considered
         | whenever an insurer (or anyone, really) tries to transfer risk
         | to a non-insurer.
        
         | Zenst wrote:
         | Having worked on reinsurance software in the 90s, one question
         | that springs to mind, which came to light from the asbestos
         | claims era, was brokers commission. What did happen was brokers
         | would package up risks and sell those off (taking commission)
         | which would see other brokers bundle those up and again package
         | them and others up into a bundle and sell those off. So when a
         | claim came down the line, that was huge, like the asbestos
         | claim in period
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London which saw
         | such a diluted risk and brokers commission leaching all profit,
         | brought many down financially due to exposure.
         | 
         | So interested how things are today regarding brokers endlessly
         | packaging up risks they sell on, rinse repeat. I'm aware of
         | certain changes that came about to reinsurance brokers in both
         | the Lloyds and London Markets on the back of the asbestos claim
         | era, but not sure of the the CAT model risks/insurance
         | regarding brokers endlessly packaging up to offset risk
         | exposure vs regulations limiting how much they can do that -
         | more so the USA market.
         | 
         | So curious - is there a risk from brokers diluting risks for
         | commission profits in this market or is that saftly covered
         | against and regulated?
        
       | rrjjww wrote:
       | Blown away by the traffic from this post!
       | 
       | For the web designers here please let me know if you noticed
       | anything amiss. Ive had particular issues getting captchas
       | working so please comment if you run into that issue.
        
         | bradly wrote:
         | > For the web designers here please let me know if you noticed
         | anything amiss.
         | 
         | The images some of the visuals do not show in reader view in
         | Safari and Firefox. Other than that, the content is well laid
         | out and very readable.
        
         | trevithick wrote:
         | Very minor nit: "It's clear that we this structure,..."
         | 
         | Cool article, it's a clear explanation of something I never
         | knew about.
        
         | rkagerer wrote:
         | Thanks for sharing your insight. Wouldn't hurt from a
         | proofread. There are some typos / wrong words, that detract
         | from the sense of authority lent by the article. Eg:
         | 
         |  _" It's clear that we this structure"_ --> with
         | 
         |  _" with out those protections in place"_ --> without
         | 
         |  _" Investors would be best to limit their exposer to losses
         | beyond their investment"_ --> exposure
         | 
         | There might have been others, I had to go back and skim to
         | summarize for you.
        
           | rrjjww wrote:
           | Thank you! No matter how many times I read things over I
           | managed to leave a few behind. I will make those edits
           | shortly.
        
       | OgsyedIE wrote:
       | Would you consider a followup post about reinsurance assets
       | targeted to derisk potential systemic or liquidity risks in the
       | entire CAT bond market?
        
         | rrjjww wrote:
         | I'm not aware that these currently exist but the concept of
         | reinsurance on reinsurance is not new (it's called
         | retrocession). I will do some digging and see what I can find -
         | thanks for the suggestion.
        
       | rubyfan wrote:
       | Great site, very well written and great explanations of insurance
       | industry dynamics.
        
       | cosmic_quanta wrote:
       | What a wonderful read! This is why I come to HN: technical, yet
       | approachable, discussions on topics I didn't even know existed.
       | Thank you for sharing!
        
       | Mistletoe wrote:
       | This feels like when Selena Gomez explained CDOs in The Big
       | Short.
        
         | fragmede wrote:
         | (Margot Robbie)
        
           | WrongAssumption wrote:
           | Different scene. Margo Robbie explained sub-prime mortgages.
           | Selena Gomez explained synthetic CDOs.
        
             | fragmede wrote:
             | TIL, thank you!
        
         | nenenejej wrote:
         | This topic feels closely related to GFC.
        
       | nilirl wrote:
       | So, did the Covid 19 pandemic force multiple insurance companies
       | into insolvency?
       | 
       | Also, what does new product development look like for industries
       | like this? How does one search for new financial products? Is it
       | possible for a non-expert to come up with new products in this
       | space?
       | 
       | Are there any books you can recommend for a novice?
        
         | quantum2022 wrote:
         | I don't think so. I'm pretty sure it was considered an 'act of
         | G-d', not an act of China :)
         | 
         | I think you could also have specific pandemic insurance, and
         | that paid out, but those were rare before Covid.
        
         | dan-robertson wrote:
         | Why would it? I don't think that much pandemic insurance is
         | written and obviously you model all the contracts as being very
         | highly correlated.
        
         | ascorbic wrote:
         | In the end there's always someone left holding the can. Lloyd's
         | of London has underwriters with unlimited liability.
         | Incredibly, a lot of these Names have historically been private
         | individuals. In the 90s a lot of these lost their shirts (and
         | their homes) when they dicovered that it wasn;t just an easy
         | source of passive income.
         | https://www.theguardian.com/money/2000/nov/04/business.perso...
        
         | jbs789 wrote:
         | The impact was nuanced, and depended on the specific policies
         | in place.
         | 
         | Some businesses had business interruption insurance which paid
         | out. Many policies exclude highly correlated events such as
         | pandemics.
         | 
         | And then think about specific events which were cancelled,
         | which may have bought policies protecting them if cancelled.
         | 
         | And of course life insurance and health care would have been
         | affected.
         | 
         | SwissRe often produces public reports in the space if of
         | interest:
         | 
         | https://www.swissre.com/risk-knowledge/building-societal-res...
        
         | rrjjww wrote:
         | While Covid 19 was certainly a "Catastrophe", the market for
         | pandemic insurance in 2020 was minuscule and to my knowledge
         | did not cause any insurer solvency issues. There were a few
         | cases of insurers being instructed to pay out significant
         | claims by the courts on Business Interruption losses which the
         | insurers argued were not covered due to existing policy
         | exclusion.
         | 
         | Product development is usually highly specialized as there are
         | a lot of nuances and frictions within the insurance industry
         | that outsiders may not fully understand. It helps also to be in
         | the industry and have the network with insurers, reinsurers,
         | brokers, etc. This is not at all to suggest there isn't room
         | for clever people to bring innovation to the market though!
         | 
         | Book recs are hard to specify for CAT bonds but for insurance
         | in general:
         | 
         | Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk - Peter L.
         | Bernstein
         | 
         | The Black Swan - Nassim Nicholas Taleb
         | 
         | On the Brink: How a Crisis Transformed Lloyd's of London -
         | Andrew Duguid
         | 
         | The last one is a personal favourite of mine
        
       | quantdev1 wrote:
       | Big fan of your content design :)
        
         | rrjjww wrote:
         | Thank you! As an Actuary I'm not exactly known for my design
         | skills so it was a lot of effort to get things looking the way
         | I wanted.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-09-27 23:01 UTC)