Uncertainty > Risk: Lessons for Legal Thought from the Insurance Runoff Market

T. Baker
{"title":"Uncertainty > Risk: Lessons for Legal Thought from the Insurance Runoff Market","authors":"T. Baker","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3532449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Insurance ideas inform legal thought: from tort law, to health law, to theories of distributive justice. Within legal thought, insurance is often conceived as an ideal type in which insurers distribute determinable risks through contracts that fix the parties’ obligations in advance. This ideal type has normative appeal, among other reasons because it explains how tort law might achieve in practice the objectives of tort theory. Significantly for tort theory, this ideal type supports a restrictive vision of liability-based regulation, on the grounds that uncertainty poses an existential threat to insurance markets. \n \nPrior work has criticized this restrictive vision on normative grounds. This article criticizes that vision on empirical grounds. The article describes an emerging secondary insurance market – the insurance runoff market – that transfers liabilities under insurance policies issued many years in the past. Having started with old asbestos and hazardous waste liabilities, the market now extends to other liabilities that have not worked out well for the companies that insured them, including workers compensation, savings-linked life insurance, pension and annuity guarantees, and long term care insurance. \n \nRunoff specialists reprice these legacy insurance liabilities with hindsight, consolidate them, and take calculated risks that encourage capital to enter the runoff market. That market transforms the uncertainties of the past into today’s tradeable risks, bringing into the open a dynamic that pervades insurance markets: namely, the promises that are made in all insurance policies get bundled and reconceptualized into sets of liabilities that are valued and revalued, further combined and redefined over time. \n \nThrough the lens of the runoff market we can see many ways that insurance organizations manage uncertainty, revealing the resilience in insurance markets and the flexibility and innovation that produce that resilience. The runoff market counsels us to give much less weight to arguments that expanding liability will undermine insurance markets. Insurance already involves so much uncertainty, and insurers have so many ways to manage it, that the most likely result will always be that they will continue to muddle through.","PeriodicalId":20999,"journal":{"name":"Regulation of Financial Institutions eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation of Financial Institutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3532449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Insurance ideas inform legal thought: from tort law, to health law, to theories of distributive justice. Within legal thought, insurance is often conceived as an ideal type in which insurers distribute determinable risks through contracts that fix the parties’ obligations in advance. This ideal type has normative appeal, among other reasons because it explains how tort law might achieve in practice the objectives of tort theory. Significantly for tort theory, this ideal type supports a restrictive vision of liability-based regulation, on the grounds that uncertainty poses an existential threat to insurance markets. Prior work has criticized this restrictive vision on normative grounds. This article criticizes that vision on empirical grounds. The article describes an emerging secondary insurance market – the insurance runoff market – that transfers liabilities under insurance policies issued many years in the past. Having started with old asbestos and hazardous waste liabilities, the market now extends to other liabilities that have not worked out well for the companies that insured them, including workers compensation, savings-linked life insurance, pension and annuity guarantees, and long term care insurance. Runoff specialists reprice these legacy insurance liabilities with hindsight, consolidate them, and take calculated risks that encourage capital to enter the runoff market. That market transforms the uncertainties of the past into today’s tradeable risks, bringing into the open a dynamic that pervades insurance markets: namely, the promises that are made in all insurance policies get bundled and reconceptualized into sets of liabilities that are valued and revalued, further combined and redefined over time. Through the lens of the runoff market we can see many ways that insurance organizations manage uncertainty, revealing the resilience in insurance markets and the flexibility and innovation that produce that resilience. The runoff market counsels us to give much less weight to arguments that expanding liability will undermine insurance markets. Insurance already involves so much uncertainty, and insurers have so many ways to manage it, that the most likely result will always be that they will continue to muddle through.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不确定性>风险:保险径流市场对法律思想的启示
保险理念影响着法律思想:从侵权法到健康法,再到分配正义理论。在法律思想中,保险通常被认为是一种理想的类型,在这种类型中,保险公司通过事先确定当事人义务的合同来分配可确定的风险。这种理想类型具有规范性吸引力,其中一个原因是它解释了侵权法如何在实践中实现侵权理论的目标。对于侵权理论来说,重要的是,这种理想类型支持基于责任的监管的限制性观点,理由是不确定性对保险市场构成了生存威胁。先前的工作在规范的基础上批评了这种限制性的观点。本文从经验的角度对这一观点进行了批判。这篇文章描述了一个新兴的二级保险市场——保险径流市场——它转移了多年前签发的保险单下的责任。从老的石棉和危险废物责任开始,这个市场现在扩展到其他对投保这些责任的公司来说不太好的责任,包括工人赔偿、与储蓄挂钩的人寿保险、养老金和年金保障,以及长期护理保险。径流专家事后对这些遗留保险责任进行重新定价,整合它们,并承担可计算的风险,以鼓励资本进入径流市场。这个市场将过去的不确定性转化为今天的可交易风险,使保险市场普遍存在的动态公开化:即,所有保单中的承诺被捆绑并重新概念化为一系列负债,这些负债被估值和重新估值,随着时间的推移进一步组合和重新定义。通过径流市场的镜头,我们可以看到保险组织管理不确定性的许多方式,揭示了保险市场的弹性以及产生这种弹性的灵活性和创新。决选市场建议我们对扩大责任将破坏保险市场的观点不要给予太多重视。保险已经包含了如此多的不确定性,保险公司有如此多的方法来管理它,最有可能的结果永远是他们将继续蒙混过关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Did FinTech Lenders Facilitate PPP Fraud? Financial Reform and Public Good Provision: Municipal Bankruptcy Law and the Financing of Hospitals How Do Acquisitions Affect the Mental Health of Employees? Anti-Discrimination Insurance Pricing: Regulations, Fairness Criteria, and Models The Unintended Benefits of Increased Disclosure Frequency: Evidence from the Brokerage House Industry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1