Search results

The US insurance industry has long faced the spectrum of large unexpected losses from natural catastrophes such as hurricanes and earthquakes. However, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack clearly demonstrated a new form of catastrophic risk of man‐made origin. The damages in property and life are now well known as estimates of insured losses deriving from this event range from $40 to $54 billion. The 9/11 terrorist attacks renewed the capacity problem faced the insurance industry in the underwriting of large catastrophic risk. In that regard, this paper explores the feasibility of capital market alternatives to the conventional insurance mechanism, and analyses whether the capital market could provide extra capacity to absorb terrorism risk.

The recent trend of integrated risk management has resulted in corporations reassessing their risk management practices. Insurance derivatives and insurance‐linked securities are emerging as alternatives or complements to traditional resisurance capacity. Despite its theoretical benefits, the market for insurance‐linked transactions has not matured, due to problems of information asymmetry and lack of transparency. This article proposes a solution to resolve the conflicting interests preventing insurers/reinsurers and investors from more widely trading insurance risk.