1. 1
Insurance Linked Securities: Optimal Diversification of Catastrophe Bond and
Collateralized Reinsurance Portfolios Under Issuance Constraints
Seminar Paper at the Institute for Risk Management and Insurance LMU Munich
(Pro-)Seminar
“Catastrophe Risk Management”
Winter Term 12/15
Instructor: Patricia Born, Ph. D.
First/Last Name Sean Stephens
Telephone Number 1-757-814-3946
Address 1806 Westridge Drive
Country/State United States, Florida
Postal Code/City 32304 Tallahassee
Degree Bachelor
Number of Semesters 08
Submission Date 11/23/2015

2. 2
Contents
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
2. Accessing External Capital
2a. Types of ILS
3. Catastrophe Bonds
3a. CAT Bond Triggers
4. CAT Bond Market Overview
4a. CAT Bond Market History
4b. CAT Bond Market Size
4c. CAT Bond Issuances: Regions and Perils
5. Investor Perspective
5a. Investors in the ILS Market
5b. Investor Motivation for Purchasing ILS Products
5c. Returns and Price of CAT Bonds
5d. Liquidity
5e. Diversifying CAT Bond Portfolios
6. An Optimal Strategy For an ILS Portfolio
7. Summary
References

3. 3
List of Abbreviations
CAT bond Catastrophe bond
ILS Insurance Linked Securities
ILW Industry Loss Warranty
LIBOR London Interbank Offer Rate
SPR Special Purpose Reinsurer

4. 4
1. Introduction
The global insurance industry has become increasingly aware of the affect
that catastrophes can have on the insurance market and is constantly facing
increased exposure to natural catastrophes (Snyder & Horvarth, 1999). This
increased exposure is due to increases in property values and increases in the
number of properties in disaster prone areas (Wattman & Jones, 2007).
Catastrophes can have an undesirable level of predictability with respect to
frequency and severity, thus presenting the problem of insurers and reinsurers not
knowing how much capital to have in reserve to pay claims resulting from
catastrophes. Even if catastrophic loss events could be predicted, would the
insurance market have enough capital to finance a mega-catastrophe?
Past catastrophic loss events have demonstrated that traditional methods of
financing catastrophe risks do not cover the costs involved any more. As evidence
from the United States insurance market, ten record expensive catastrophes
occurred within quick succession between 1991 and 1995 decimating the bottom
line of insurers and causing the government to use tax dollars for disaster relief. To
further this claim, the Florida market following hurricane Andrew saw nine
insurance companies fail resulting in an estimated $500 million in unpaid losses
(Cashin, 1995). Even if these disasters were foreseeable it would prompt dramatic
increases in premiums, effectively rendering parts of the world uninsurable
(Mutenga & Staikouras, 2007).
From a paper written by Piccione in 1996, experts believed that reinsurance
capacity was grossly inadequate to cover large United States catastrophe losses. It
was estimated at the time that the amount of catastrophe reinsurance being
provided only accounted for 10% to 15% of the worst-case scenario.
An issue exists in providing coverage to serve the inadequate capacity;
insurers cannot always just buy more coverage because reinsurers often do not
have an appetite for large amounts of these catastrophic risks (Wattman & Jones,

5. 5
2007). This led to the realization that there is a need for new mechanisms to fill this
reinsurance capacity-gap (Piccione, 1996). As a result the insurance industry turned
to the capital markets for solutions.
2 Accessing External Capital
How can the insurance market access external capital? An innovative
solution to this problem has gained popularity in the past decade. Insurance-Linked-
Securities (ILS) are financial instruments that allow large investors the ability to buy
high layers of insurable risks in exchange for a return on investment. These financial
instruments include catastrophe equity puts, sidecars, catastrophe risk swaps,
industry loss warranties, and catastrophe bonds.
2a Types of ILS
Catastrophe equity puts provide the option to the insurer the ability to raise
emergency capital in the event of a catastrophic loss event. This financial device is
an option as opposed to an asset-backed security. In return for premiums paid to the
writer of the option, the insurer receives the option to sell preferred stock at a pre-
agreed upon price. The benefit to the insurer is they can issue the stock at a
favorable price when their stock price is likely to be depressed. However this
method can dilute the value of existing shares and is not common in the ILS market
(Cummins, 2011).
Sidecars more closely resemble traditional reinsurance. This method of
accessing the capital markets includes forming a special purpose vehicle that serves
to accept retrocessions from insurers and reinsurers. The sidecar is capitalized by
large private investors who subsequently receive premiums and pay claims based
on the contract. Sidecars allow insurers and reinsurers to move risks off balance
sheet, increase leverage, and increase capacity to write new business (Cummins,
2011).

6. 6
Catastrophe risk swaps are unique in the ILS market. Instead of having
investors provide capital, this risk-financing device is typically an agreement
between reinsures where they agree to ‘swap’ risks in the event of a loss. Reinsurers
try and find an agreement that achieves parity, meaning expected losses of the
swapped risks are equivalent. The benefit of this device is that reinsurers can access
more diversification through uncorrelated risks of the counterparty in the
transaction (Cummins, 2011).
Industry loss warranties (ILWs) do not traditionally provide liquidity in the
capital markets; however, they can be securitized and sold in the capital markets.
Reinsurers issue ILWs and payment of the warranty is based off of a dual trigger. In
order for the insurer buying the contract to get paid, the insurer’s losses most
exceed a certain threshold as well as an industry loss index exceeding a certain
threshold. One benefit includes being treated as traditional reinsurance for
regulatory purposes (Cummins, 2011).
Catastrophe bonds are the most successful alternative financing solution
compared to the previous methods. They are modeled after other asset-backed-
security transactions and provide event-linked coverage for high layers of
reinsurance protection (Cummins, 2011).
This paper seeks to provide a description of catastrophe bonds, an overview
of the catastrophe bond market, and an examination of catastrophe bonds from the
perspective of an investor; these topics have the goal of offering a basis to finally
suggest an approach for investors to optimally diversify a portfolio of catastrophe
bonds given the constraints in the catastrophe bond market.
3 Catastrophe Bonds
Catastrophe bonds (CAT bonds) are a security whose value is based on an
underlying insurable loss event and are issued primarily for high layers of
reinsurance protection covering catastrophic losses. High layer protection means
probability of occurrence is 0.01 or less. At this layer of protection insurers are
concerned with the credit risk of the reinsurers, CAT bonds are fully collateralized

7. 7
which effectively eliminates credit risk involved in the transaction. The protection
period for a CAT bond is typically three years compared to a standard reinsurance
transaction, which has a one-year policy. Insurers benefit from the multi-year
protection due to the ability to spread the fixed cost of issuing the bond over several
years as well as insulate themselves from fluctuating reinsurance costs (Cummins,
2011).
3a Catastrophe Bond Structure
The CAT bond begins by forming a special purpose reinsurer, or SPR. The
SPR is an entity separate from the insurer and the investor involved in the bond
transaction. Proceeds from the bond are invested into a collateral account, with
assets limited to the contractual constraints, but usually the assets are safe, short-
term securities such as government or AAA rated corporate bonds. The CAT bond,
which is held in trust with the SPR, is embedded with a call option that is triggered
by a specified catastrophic event. Investors are paid a premium spread in exchange
for holding the catastrophic risk exposure and the proceeds from the investments
are swapped for the floating London Interbank Offer Rate, or LIBOR, in order to
protect the investor and insurer from interest-rate risk. The principal in the CAT
bond is usually fully at risk, meaning that in the event of a sufficiently large defined
catastrophe, the investor could loss the entire investment (Cummins, 2011).
CAT bonds can be structured to pay out to insurers in several different ways
by having different types of triggers. A trigger, in the context of a CAT bond, is the
pre-defined criteria embedded in the bond that states under what conditions the
CAT bond begins payments to the insurer. Deciding on which trigger to use is
essentially a trade-off between moral hazard and basis risk (Cummins, 2011).
Although the market is continually evolving and new types and combinations of
triggers have been used, we will discuss the three most common triggers in the
market.
3b CAT Bond Triggers

8. 8
The first and most popular type of trigger, with $15.1 billion in CAT bonds
outstanding or 61% of CAT bonds outstanding (Artemis, 2015), is the indemnity
trigger. A CAT bond using this type of trigger will begin payment once the
sponsoring (re-)insurer’s losses exceed a certain level, from a specified event, in a
specified region, and a specified line. (Re-)Insurers prefer this method because it
reduces their basis risk, or the risk that their expected recovery from a risk transfer
method differs from the actual recovery (Willis, 2015, 2015). However, investors do
not favor this type of trigger due to the lack of transparency because they have
limited access to the insurer’s detailed book of business, as well as the existence of
moral hazard. With an indemnity trigger the insurer has no incentive to take care in
underwriting (MacMinn & Richter, 2007), and should a loss event occur and losses
come close to the defined threshold for payment by the bond, the insurer has an
incentive to overpay claims to reach the payment threshold (Cummins, 2011). Most
bonds do contain a copayment provision to control moral hazard but it is still a
residual concern for investors.
Coming in second place, at $4.6 billion in outstanding CAT bonds or 18.7% of
CAT bonds outstanding (Artemis, 2015), is the industry loss index trigger. CAT
bonds using this trigger payout based on losses exceeding a pre-determined
attachment point in an industry-wide loss index (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015). Sponsors
tend to dislike this type of trigger because it exposes them to basis risk if their losses
exceed that of the market. Investors on the other hand prefer this method for its
ability to reduce adverse selection because insurers cannot selectively cede its most
problematic risks and its ability to increase transparency because investors can
better predict losses for the industry compared to an individual insurer’s book of
business.
Lastly, with $1.95 billion in outstanding CAT bonds or 7.9% of CAT bonds
outstanding (Artemis, 2015), is the parametric trigger. CAT bonds using this trigger
payout based on the physical characteristics of a catastrophe, including severity and
location (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015); an example could be the CAT bond pays out if a
category-3 hurricane makes landfall in Florida. This type of trigger usually has the

9. 9
most basis risk and least moral hazard (Cummins, 2011). Basis risk can be reduced
by carefully defining geographic regions and catastrophic event severity that
corresponds to the sponsor’s book of business.
There are other types of triggers; examples include modeled loss indices and
hybrid triggers. Also variations of the triggers mentioned above exist, examples
include pure parametric triggers, parametric index triggers, and weighted industry
loss index triggers. Currently there is no consensus on which trigger type is optimal;
the amount of each trigger issued varies year-to-year depending on whether
investor demand or issuer supply is the key market driver (Risk Management
Solutions, 2012, 2015).
4 CAT Bond Market Overview
This section of the paper will provide an overview of the CAT bond market. It
will tell the story of the CAT bond market from a time series perspective, showing
its evolution from its inception to the current market conditions in mid-year 2015.
The overview will track the CAT bond market’s evolution by examining the early
history and motivation for its inception, CAT bond market size overtime, and
issuance trends overtime.
4a CAT Bond Market History
Interest in accessing securities markets for financing future catastrophic
events grew after the devastating impact of hurricane Andrew in 1992. Several
attempts to securitize insurable risk were met with little success. Eventually the
first successful CAT bond was issued, it was an $85 million issue by Hanover Re in
1994 (Cummins, 2011).
Several years later the 2005 hurricane season saw the first publicly
announced total loss of principal. A US$190 million bond issued in July 2005 by
Kamp Re apparently paid out its entire principal as a result of hurricane Katrina
claims. The bond was an indemnity trigger and the short-term affects of this

10. 10
wipeout caused investors to be increasingly wary of indemnity based transactions.
However, the long-term affects resulted in overall increased demand by both
sponsors and investors because the smooth settlement of the CAT bond reduced
uncertainty in the marketplace (Cummins, 2011).
Since its inception CAT bonds have seen robust growth (Risk Management
Solutions, 2012, 2015). In the initial years of the CAT bond market it was critiqued
for having low investor interest (Cummins, 2011). As the market matured investor
interest increased dramatically, in 2014 significant investor inflows resulted in the
highest issuance in market history, $9.4 billion, which is a 41% increase over the
previous year (Aon Thought Leadership, 2014, 2015).
4b CAT Bond Market Size
The market size of outstanding CAT bonds and issuances has shown
promising growth since its beginning. This section examines the size of the market
over time in order to provide investors with information pertaining to their ability
to assume the CAT bond market will still be available as an investment in the future.
Total volume of on-risk CAT bonds reached an all time high of $23.5 billion
at month end June 2015. This represents an increase of almost $1 billion compared
to last year. The total volume has increased every year since 2011 where total
volume was $11.5 billion (Aon Thought Leadership, 2015, 2015).
Issuances of CAT bonds during the 12-month period ending in June 2015 saw
the third largest annual issuance in market history totaling $7 billion dollars. The
issuance is ultimately down 26% from the previous year however due in part to
increased competition from traditional reinsurers and collateralized reinsurance
players reacting to the competition of the CAT bond market (Aon Thought
Leadership, 2015, 2015). Overall the CAT bond market is showing signs of maturity
and has proven to be stable over the course of its history.
4c CAT Bond Issuances: Regions and Perils

11. 11
Over time the CAT bond market has grown to cover various perils in various
regions. However CAT bond issuances have been limited in terms of the locations
and perils covered to so called ‘peak perils and regions.’ This section examines CAT
bond issuances over the past several years as it relates to trends in issuances, with
the purpose of providing investors with a basis to understand how they can
structure their portfolio of CAT bonds.
CAT bond coverage for United States perils continues to be a substantial
portion of the CAT bond market; US perils are considered to be the core of the CAT
bond market. A majority of all CAT bonds issued cover US perils, in fact 87% of total
new issuances in the 12-month period ending in June 2015 were US perils (Aon
Thought Leadership, 2015, 2015). Perils covered in the United States include
earthquakes in various regions, named storm and hurricane, winter storms,
windstorms, severe thunderstorms, wildfire, volcanic eruption, and even meteorite
impact.
Next we will look at CAT bonds issued for US perils from July 2011 to June
2015.
During the period of July 2011 to June 2012 the number of sponsors for CAT
bonds more than doubled from the previous year. 22 CAT bond transactions took
place during this period. Perils covered in these issuances include: two bonds for
California earthquake and one bond covering all United States earthquake, five
bonds covering a combination of United States hurricane and European wind, three
bonds covering United States multi-peril, four bonds covering United States
hurricane and earthquake as well as one bond covering United States hurricane and
earthquake in combination with European wind, other bonds were issued for
covering United States hurricane, Louisiana hurricane, Florida hurricane, Northeast
hurricane, North American hurricane and earthquake, and southeast hurricane and
severe thunderstorm (Aon Thought Leadership, 2012, 2015).
During the period of July 2012 to June 2013 many new and repeat sponsors
brought new issuances to market. 22 CAT bond transactions occurred during this
period. Perils covered in these issuances include: two bonds covering United states

12. 12
hurricane and European wind, three bonds covering United States, California,
and/or Canada earthquake, five bonds covering United States hurricane and
earthquake, three bonds covering United States multi-peril, six bonds covering
United States hurricane with two covering only Florida, one covering only Louisiana,
one covering all of the Northeast, and one covering the entire United states. There
were also some interesting combinations of perils, one bond covered United States
hurricane and Australian cyclone and one bond covered United States hurricane and
United Kingdom mortality (Aon Thought Leadership, 2013, 2015).
The period of July 2013 to June 2014 saw low pricing conditions led to strong
demand from investors and sponsors, with 75% of new property issuances
including United States exposures. 24 CAT bond transactions took place during this
period. Perils covered in these issuances include: seven bonds covering United
States hurricane including three only covering Florida and one only covering Texas,
eight bonds covering United States hurricane and earthquake, four bonds covering
United States multi-peril, two bonds covering United States earthquake or hurricane
and Australian earthquake or cyclone, one bond covering United States hurricane,
earthquake, and European wind, one bond covering New York storm surge, and one
bond covering New Madrid earthquake (Aon Thought Leadership, 2014, 2015).
Finally during the period of July 2014 to June 2015 pricing conditions have
stabilized around the lows of last year and demand from sponsors and investors
remained strong. 20 CAT bond transactions took place during this time period.
Perils covered in these issuances include: three bonds covering United States
earthquake, six bonds covering United States hurricane including three only
covering Florida, one only covering Louisiana, and one only covering Texas, two
bonds covering United States hurricane and earthquake, five bonds covering United
States multi-peril, two bonds covering United States hurricane, earthquake, and
European wind, one bond covering United States hurricane and Australian cyclone,
and one bond covering New Madrid earthquake (Aon Thought Leadership, 2015,
2015).
Next we will examine CAT bonds issued for Europe during the same time
period of July 2011 to June 2015.

13. 13
During the period of July 2011 to June 2012 four CAT bonds were issued
exclusively covering European wind, with one covering only France wind. Six bonds
were also issued that cover United States exposures in combination with European
wind (Aon Thought Leadership, 2012, 2015).
During the period of July 2012 to June 2013 only two CAT bonds were issued
for European wind exclusively and two bonds were issued covering United States
exposures as well as European wind. There was also one bond issued that covered
Turkey earthquake (Aon Thought Leadership, 2013, 2015).
During the period of July 2013 to June 2014 four CAT bonds were issued
covering European wind exclusively and one bond was issued covering United
States exposures in combination with European wind (Aon Thought Leadership,
2014, 2015).
During the period of July 2014 to June 2015 only three CAT bonds were
issued to cover European perils. Two bonds issued cover United States exposures in
combination with European wind while just one bond was issued covering
European earthquake (Aon Thought Leadership, 2015, 2015).
Next we will examine ILS transactions in the Asia Pacific region over the
same time period of July 2011 to June 2015.
During the period of July 2011 to June 2012, no CAT bond transactions
occurred in the Asia Pacific region. However, costly floods took a toll on Japanese
insurers who were having difficulty getting acceptable terms in their pro-rata
reinsurance treaties. Some Japanese insurers did broaden their capacity by
purchasing collateralized reinsurance coverage (Aon Thought Leadership, 2012,
2015).
During the period of July 2012 to June 2013 no new issuance of CAT bonds
took place in the Asia Pacific region despite increased sponsor interest (Aon
Thought Leadership, 2013, 2015).
During the period of July 2013 to June 2014 four CAT bonds were issued,
three of which cover Japan earthquake and one covers Japan typhoon (Aon Thought
Leadership, 2014, 2015).

14. 14
During the period of July 2014 to June 2015 two CAT bonds were issued
covering Japan earthquake. The issues resulted from repeat sponsors returning to
the CAT bond market (Aon Thought Leadership, 2015, 2015).
In addition to natural disasters, limited CAT bond issuances exist covering
life and health perils. These types of bonds typically cover extreme mortality risk
from events such as pandemics or health risks from a rise in healthcare utilization
or cost (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015). Currently there is $1.5 billion in outstanding risk
across the extreme mortality and longevity risks. ILS investors continue to show
strong demand for these investments due to their ability to act as a diversifying tool.
As the aforementioned data on issuances confirms, CAT bonds are
predominately issued to cover United States perils. Within the United States market,
CAT bonds are issued for both countrywide coverage and for more specific
geographic regions. United States CAT bonds also cover a wide variety of perils.
European CAT bond issuance accounts for a significantly smaller portion of the
market compared to United States issuances and generally covers either wind or
earthquake perils. Asia Pacific region CAT bond issuances are relatively new and are
very limited; however, Japanese sponsors are showing an increased interest in the
CAT bond market. In that region the CAT bond market faces increased competition
with other forms of alternative capital that more closely resemble traditional
reinsurance like collateralized reinsurance contracts (Aon Thought Leadership,
2015, 2015). It is also important to note that individual CAT bonds can be structured
to cover multiple perils in multiple regions or one peril in one specific region.
5 Investor Perspective
The increase in market size as previously discussed in this paper shows that
investor demand for CAT bonds have been increasing since the inception of this
product. This section will discuss what type of investor plays in the CAT bond
market and the broader insurance linked securities market, why they decide to buy

15. 15
CAT bonds, returns and price of CAT bonds, liquidity of CAT bonds, and
diversification of CAT bond portfolios.
5a Investors in the ILS Market
CAT bonds and other insurance linked securities typically require an investor
to invest large sums of money since a large portion of CAT bonds have a face value
of well over $100 million. Because of the large investment needed, investors in this
space are very sophisticated and capitalized organizations.
From the largest share of the ILS market to the smallest, the following types
of investors participate in the ILS market: catastrophe funds make up 47% of the
market, institutional investors make up 32% of the market, reinsurers make up 10%
of the market, mutual funds make up 9% of the market, and finally hedge funds
make up 2% of the market (Aon Thought Leadership, 2015, 2015). Now that we
know who the players are in this market, we can better understand their
motivations for buying CAT bonds and other ILS products.
5b Investor Motivation for Purchasing ILS Products
As we pointed out previously large, sophisticated, and highly capitalized
firms participate in the ILS market. With the exception of Catastrophe funds and ILS
funds that solely invest in ILS products, these investors have an already well-
diversified portfolio of capital market assets. Typically the goal of this type of large
investor is to maximize return on investment while keeping their investment risk
within an acceptable level. They accomplish this goal by maintaining a diversified
portfolio of investments; however, in the past diversification was limited to
spreading assets across different industries with the hope that should one industry
experience a downturn other assets will be unaffected. One problem with this is the
amount of systematic risk, which affects most asset classes, an investor experiences
cannot be completely diversified away (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015). An asset that does
not experience this systematic risk is very valuable to large investors.

16. 16
CAT bonds are largely uncorrelated with other asset classes, which reduces
their systematic risk (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015). This should make sense because a CAT
bonds’ value is based off of the occurrence or non-occurrence ofa catastrophic loss
event. An inference we can make from this is that macroeconomic factors will have
little to no affect on the value of a CAT bond where as other asset classes will be
affected. For proof of this concept we can look at the performance of CAT bonds
during the 2008 financial crisis; during the financial crisis CAT bonds exhibited
stability and high returns relative to comparable investments due to the nature and
integrity of their structures. As a result of the CAT bonds’ power to be immunized
from economic distress, investors have been attracted to the asset class to improve
the overall risk profile of their portfolio (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015). According to
Romulo Braga, New York-based CEO of BMS Capital, “Despite the influx of capital to
the sector and falling yields and multiples, the yields remain higher than many other
fixed-income instruments and offer exposure to a different set of risks (i.e. natural
catastrophe risk) with low correlation to general market risks, so many investors
still find it attractive” (Lerner, 2015).
5c Returns and Price of CAT Bonds
Spreads on a CAT bond are used to measure relative price and
returns. The spread is the portion of the regular coupon payment that is over the
LIBOR and is expressed as a percent, the spread is meant to compensate the
investor for bearing the risk (Braun, 2014). Embedded in the spread is the expected
loss; the spread, or return, has to exceed the amount investors expect to lose or else
they would not buy.
Historically spreads have been relatively high compared to equivalently
rated corporate bonds (Risk Management Solutions, 2012, 2015). In theory the CAT
bond spread should be less than an equivalently rated bond because investors are
willingly to pay a premium for the diversification benefit (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015).
However, it appears investors are paid a novelty premium for investing in the new
type of product. Recently the CAT bond market has seen spreads narrow due in part

17. 17
to increased investor interest until mid-year 2015 where the spreads ceased to
narrow indicating a price floor in the market (Swiss Re, 2015, 2015).
Several factors affect the issuance spread. Spreads for peak perils, perils that
are likely to cause the most loss such as US hurricane bonds, tend to have the
highest spreads. CAT bonds covering peak perils are located in a select few
geographic regions and have the highest issuance volume. The high spreads reflect
the lower demand due to investors’ desire to diversify their CAT bond portfolio with
non-peak risks, which usually have lower spreads because investors are willing to
accept lower returns in exchange for the added benefit of having risk spread over
more geographic regions and perils (Risk Management Solutions, 2012, 2015).
Spreads also tend to follow the reinsurance pricing cycle, spreads tend to be
higher during a hard market and lower during a soft market (Risk Management
Solutions, 2012, 2015). Spreads following the reinsurance cycle may be an indicator
that CAT bonds are attempting to be competitive with the reinsurance market.
Another factor affecting spread is the type of trigger embedded in the bond;
indemnity triggers have been shown to have higher spreads due to the existence of
moral hazard causing investors to demand being compensated for the additional
risk (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015).
5d Liquidity
CAT bonds are designed to allow trading on a secondary market which lets
investors readjust their portfolio to reflect a change in risk appetite or free up
capital to purchase new issuances (Swiss Re, 2011, 2015). Bonds covering seasonal
storms display a seasonal price on the bond market. Prior to the US hurricane
season, bond prices often fall to reflect the risk of loss (Risk Management Solutions,
2012, 2015), investors seeking to increase the risk of their portfolio can buy these
bonds at discounted prices. After the hurricane season comes to a close prices
rebound to normal levels.
Liquidity is not always available on the secondary market. Investors have
shown a trend lately of desiring higher-yielding higher-risk bonds. Lower yield

18. 18
bonds are less attractive and more likely to be illiquid (Artemis, 2015, May 18,
2015). Conversely, an investor looking to purchase higher-yield bonds on the
secondary market might not be able to find a seller, as investors holding these
higher-yield bonds want to keep them for the higher returns.
5e Diversifying CAT Bond Portfolios
The majority of CAT bond issuances are concentrated in US hurricane and US
earthquake exposures with relatively few issuances in EU wind and Japanese perils.
Concentration of CAT bonds results in increasing correlation between individual
assets in an ILS portfolio, this is called tail risk and managing it is a key success
factor in ILS portfolios. Thus, over-exposure in a certain area is a threat for ILS fund
managers (Lohmann). Access to non-peak perils allows for more diversification but
their issuance in the form of CAT bonds are quite limited.
One method to limit tail risk would be to simply restrict allocation to the
asset class or to certain perils and regions (Lohmann). This method essentially
accepts the level of diversification present in the market and only allows risk to
accumulate to a certain level.
A better method involves tapping the wider universe of ILS and utilizing
private reinsurance contracts. Collateralized reinsurance contracts are methods of
providing reinsurance with the contract limit being fully collateralized and allowing
coverage without the investor having to get rated by a regulator. The collateralized
reinsurance coverage functions much the same as traditional reinsurance and can
be customized to fit a large variety coverage needs. To complete the transaction a
regulated reinsurer must issue the policy and the product must allow the investor to
pay in the collateral and receive the collateral back plus the premium at the end of
the reinsurance term (Sodium Partners, 2015). Due to this product’s flexibility it can
be used to selectively target non-peak perils such as life and health risks, which are
largely uncorrelated with catastrophic risks, and perils in non-peak regions that
have limited CAT bond issuance.

19. 19
Using collateralized reinsurance contracts to broaden the options of
investments available in combination with a CAT bond portfolio can provide
significant diversification benefits. A portfolio consisting of CAT bonds and
collateralized reinsurance has a higher expected return and a lower probability of
negative return (Lohmann).
6 An Optimal Strategy For an ILS portfolio
Before we can discuss a strategy for an ILS portfolio we must state the
hypothetical investor. The investor in the ILS portfolio is a large multi-strategy
hedge fund. For the example we assume the investor has little to no capital
constraints, in other words they have enough excess capital to invest in any asset
they desire. In addition the investor has the desire to take on additional risk in
exchange for a return on investment. The investor also has the ability to deploy
capital through a regulated reinsurer in the form of collateralized reinsurance. We
also assume that desired CAT bonds are available on the primary or secondary
market. The investor’s goal is to add assets to its portfolio that will reduce its
overall systematic risk while providing returns that exceed that of a similarly rated
capital market asset.
In order to achieve this goal the investor decides to enter the ILS market.
After examining the market the investor is attracted to the relatively high returns of
CAT bonds compared to equivalently rated corporate bonds but is concerned about
seeing a total loss of principal.
In order to mitigate the risk of losing the entire principal in the event of a
covered catastrophic loss, the investor buys various CAT bonds that are diversified
by different regions and perils.
The CAT bond portfolio consists of bonds that cover United States
earthquake perils in combination with Australian cyclone and earthquake perils; the
purpose of the combination is to reduce the relative cost of the bond because multi-
peril CAT bonds tend to have higher spreads. CAT bonds for United states hurricane
perils are bought in combination with European wind perils for the same reason as

20. 20
previously stated but the investor limits this type of bond and diversifies United
States hurricane perils by buying CAT bonds that separately cover different states,
the purpose for this is to limit the likelihood that the bond sponsor is affected if a
catastrophic hurricane does occur. To further elaborate on that diversification
method, if a hurricane does occur it is unlikely to cause losses in every state that
issues a hurricane CAT bond. In addition CAT bonds covering Japanese typhoon and
earthquake are purchased. Non-peak peril CAT bonds in other geographic regions
are also purchased in limitation, these assets will further diversify the portfolio but
the amount purchased will be limited due to the low spreads. Now that the investor
has diversified the portfolio of CAT bonds while still allowing for relatively high
returns, the investor now moves to tap the broader ILS market.
More non-peak perils are invested in through collateralized reinsurance
contracts. The collateralized reinsurance will be provided to life and health perils in
order hedge against the risk of a catastrophic event. The addition of these non-peak
perils will reduce the overall risk of the portfolio and increase expected returns.
Should the investor want to increase the risk of the portfolio while maximizing the
returns, the investor could buy ‘on-risk’ United States hurricane bonds while they
are at their seasonal low price. By purchasing the discounted bonds and holding
them, the investor can realize larger gains all while the collateralized reinsurance
contracts balance out the increased risk exposure.
6 Summary
In summary we have discussed ILS products, the structure and market for
CAT Bonds, an investors’ perspective, and an optimal strategy for an ILS portfolio.
To reiterate, ILS products and more specifically CAT bonds attract large investors
for their ability to add an uncorrelated asset class to their portfolio, which achieves
relatively high returns. CAT bonds are primarily issued in the United States meaning
diversifying a portfolio of only CAT bonds is limited. In order to increase the
diversification, an investor may choose to invest in collateralized reinsurance that
covers non-peak perils. Adding non-peak perils reduces the overall risk of the

21. 21
portfolio, to compensate for the lowered risk an investor may buy ‘on-risk’ US
hurricane CAT bonds at a discounted price.

22. 22
References
Braun, A. (2014). Pricing in the Primary Market for Cat Bonds: New Empirical
Evidence. WORKING PAPERS ON RISK MANAGEMENT AND INSURANCE, NO. 116.
Cashin, J. R. (1995, 08). It's time to prepare for a mega-catastrophe. Best's Review, 96,
56. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203451369?accountid=4840
Cat Bonds Demystified RMS Guide to the Asset Class. (2012). Risk Management
Solutions. Retrieved November 1, 2015.
Catastrophe bonds & ILS outstanding by trigger type. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1,
2015, from http://www.artemis.bm/deal_directory/cat_bonds_ils_by_trigger.html
Collateralized Reinsurance. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2015, from
http://www.solidumpartners.ch/content/collateralized-reinsurance
Cummins, J. (2011). Cat Bonds and Other Risk-Linked Securities: Product Design and
Evolution of the Market. The Geneva Reports Risk and Insurance Research Extreme
Events and Insurance, 39-61. Retrieved November 1, 2015.
ILS Glossary. (2015, October 15). Retrieved November 1, 2015, from
http://www.willis.com/Client_Solutions/Services/WCMA/ILS_Glossary/ILS_Glossar
y.pdf
Insurance Linked Securities Update, July 2015. (2015, July 1). Retrieved November
1, 2015, from
http://media.swissre.com/documents/2015_07_ils_market_update.pdf
Insurance-Linked Securities Alternative Markets Adapt to Competitive Landscape.
(2015). Aon Thought Leadership.
Insurance-Linked Securities Capital Markets-ILS Markets Expand to New Heights
2013. (2013). Aon Thought Leadership.
Insurance-Linked Securities Capital Revolution-Alternative Markets Fuel Dynamic
Environment. (2014). Aon Thought Leadership.
Insurance-Linked Securities Evolving Strength 2012. (2012). Aon Thought
Leadership.
Lerner, M. (2015, April 5). Investors undeterred by lower catastrophe bond yields.
Retrieved November 1, 2015, from
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20150405/NEWS06/304129993

23. 23
Lohmann, D. (n.d.). The Benefits of Diversification in ILS Investing. CLEAR PATH
ANALYSIS: INSURANCE LINKED SECURITIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS.
MacMinn, R., & Richter, A. (2007). The Choice of Trigger in an Insurance Linked
Security: The Brevity Risk Case. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from
http://www.uibk.ac.at/fakultaeten/volkswirtschaft_und_statistik/forschung/natcat
risk/natcatrisk_richter1.pdf
Mutenga, S., & Staikouras, S. K. (2007). The theory of catastrophe risk financing: A
look at the instruments that might transform the insurance industry. Geneva Papers
on Risk & Insurance, 32(2), 222.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510127
Pricing pressure persists in secondary cat bond market during April. (2015, May
18). Retrieved November 1, 2015, from
http://www.artemis.bm/blog/2015/05/18/pricing-pressure-persists-in-
secondary-cat-bond-market-during-april/
Piccione, T. P. (1996). Capital markets making inroads with cat risks. National
Underwriter, 100(29), 2. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/228554284?accountid=4840
Snyder, J. H., Albanese, R. B., & Horvarth, K. A. (1999, 06). Exposing catastrophe
risk. Best's Review, 100, 47-52. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203465596?accountid=4840
The Fundamentals of Insurance Linked Securities. (2011). Swiss Re Report.
Retrieved November 1, 2015, from www.swissre.com
Wattman, M. P., & Jones, K. (2007). Insurance risk securitization. Journal of
Structured Finance, 12(4), 49-54,6. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/221024642?accountid=4840