1 / 30

PwC

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool Banking versus Pooling. May 28, 2009. Presented by: Kevin Wick, FCAS, MAAA. PwC. Equity allocation worksheet Insurance industry events risk transfer Bank versus Pool Implications if Bank Rating System Considerations Illustration Losses by Member.

kalli
Download Presentation

PwC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Washington State Transit Insurance Pool Banking versus Pooling May 28, 2009 Presented by: Kevin Wick, FCAS, MAAA PwC

  2. Equity allocation worksheet Insurance industry events risk transfer Bank versus Pool Implications if Bank Rating System Considerations Illustration Losses by Member Background/Agenda

  3. Effective financial decisions regarding a program require clarity on the goals and purpose of the program Banking Each member is responsible for their own claims Separate accounts Pooling Each member is collectively responsible for all claims Share risk and provides stability Banking versus Pooling

  4. Compare each members’ contribution to their costs Claim costs are a direct charge Other costs require some sort of allocation Equity allocated based on how each member “contributed” to it If member has $1 million claim, their equity is reduced by $1 million No risk transfer (protection from catastrophic events) Each member is effectively self-insured up to the WSTIP retention Pool is basically a bank with a line of credit Rating system becomes minimum account requirements Implications if Bank

  5. Members’ contribute funds in proportion to their level of risk Rating system measures risk Funds available to any member who has a claim No “pay-back” provision Individual risks transferred to pool Not complete transfer as members own the pool Over the long-term, the proportion of contributions and losses should be similar Equity allocated based on operating year results in proportion of contribution Pooling System

  6. Prospective (Pooling) Use historical information to set future rates Contribution/rate paid for a year not impacted directly by member loss experience in that year Indirectly as it impacts overall dividend/reassessment Risk transfer Retrospective (Hybrid) Contribution/rate paid is partially a function of member experience in that year Pay deposit that is adjusted subject to set parameters Paid loss retro Incurred loss retro Deductible Limited risk transfer Types of Rating Systems

  7. Ben FranklinNet Incurred Loss by Year

  8. ClallamNet Incurred Loss by Year

  9. ColumbiaNet Incurred Loss by Year

  10. CommunityNet Incurred Loss by Year

  11. CowlitzNet Incurred Loss by Year

  12. EverettNet Incurred Loss by Year

  13. GrantNet Incurred Loss by Year

  14. Grays HarborNet Incurred Loss by Year

  15. IntercityNet Incurred Loss by Year

  16. IslandNet Incurred Loss by Year

  17. JeffersonNet Incurred Loss by Year

  18. KitsapNet Incurred Loss by Year

  19. LinkNet Incurred Loss by Year

  20. MasonNet Incurred Loss by Year

  21. PacificNet Incurred Loss by Year

  22. PullmanNet Incurred Loss by Year

  23. SkagitNet Incurred Loss by Year

  24. SpokaneNet Incurred Loss by Year

  25. TwinNet Incurred Loss by Year

  26. ValleyNet Incurred Loss by Year

  27. WhatcomNet Incurred Loss by Year

  28. WSTIPNet Incurred Loss by Year

  29. YakimaNet Incurred Loss by Year

  30. TotalNet Incurred Loss by Year

More Related