OUTDATED
METHODOLOGY
RATING
METHODOLOGY
INSURANCE
OU
ME
RATING
METHODOLOG
Y
Table of Contents:
SEE PAGE 3
Analyst Contacts:
NEW YORK +1.212.553.1653
Sarah Hibler +1.212.553.4912
A
ssociate Mana
g
in
g
Director
[email protected]
Marc Pinto, +1.212.553.4352
Mana
g
in
g
Director - Financial Institutions
[email protected]
LONDON +44.20.7772.5454
Antonello A
q
uino +44.20.7772.1582
A
ssociate Mana
g
in
g
Director
antonello.aquino@moodys.com
Simon Ainsworth
+44.20.7772.5347
A
ssociate Mana
g
in
g
Director
simon.ainsworth@moodys.com
Simon Harris +44.20.7772.1576
Managing Director - Global Financial
Institutions
[email protected]
HONG KONG +852.3551.3077
Sall
y
Yim +852.3758.1450
Mana
g
in
g
Director - Financial Institutions
y
[email protected]
AUGUST 11, 2022
Property and Casualty Insurers Methodology
This rating methodology replaces the Property and Casualty Insurers methodology published
in September 2021. In this update, we have clarified the presentation of the scoring
thresholds in the Summary of Relevant Metrics table in the discussion of the Operating
Environment component. The updates do not change our methodological approach.
Introduction
In this rating methodology, we explain our general approach to assessing credit risk for issuers in
the property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry globally, including the qualitative and
quantitative factors that are likely to affect rating outcomes in this sector.
We discuss the scorecard used for this sector. The scorecard
1
is a relatively simple reference tool
that can be used in most cases to approximate credit profiles in this sector and to explain, in
summary form, many of the factors that are generally most important in assigning ratings to
companies in this sector. The scorecard factors may be evaluated using historical or forward-
looking data or both.
We also discuss other rating considerations, which are factors that may be important for ratings
but are not included in the scorecard, usually because they can be meaningful for differentiating
credit profiles, but only in some cases. In addition, some of the methodological considerations
described in one or more cross-sector rating methodologies may be relevant to ratings in this
sector.
2
Furthermore, since ratings are forward-looking, we often incorporate directional views of
risks and mitigants in a qualitative way.
As a result, the scorecard-indicated outcome is not expected to match the actual rating for each
company.
Our presentation of this rating methodology proceeds with (i) the scope of this methodology;
(ii) our general framework for rating P&C insurers; (iii) a discussion of the scorecard factors;
(iv) other scorecard considerations; (v) assessing support; (vi) other rating considerations;
(vii) assigning entity-level and instrument ratings; (viii) methodology assumptions; and
(ix) limitations. In the appendices, we describe (i) how we use the scorecard;
1
In our methodologies and research, the terms “scorecard” and “grid” are used interchangeably.
2
A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications”
section.
This methodology is no longer in effect. For
information on rating methodologies currently
in use by Moody’s Investors Service, visit
www.moodys.com/methodologies
2 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
(ii) our approach to rating Takaful insurers; (iii) how we analyze composite firms active in both P&C and life
insurance; (iv) how we incorporate stress testing in our analysis; and (v) a description of the mechanics of
the Moody’s Capital Tool.
This publication does not announce
a credit rating action. For any credit
ratings referenced in this
publication, please see the
issuer/deal page on
ratings.moodys.com for the most
updated credit rating action
information and rating history.
3 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
SCOPE OF THIS METHODOLOGY 4
OUR GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR RATING P&C INSURERS 4
DISCUSSION OF THE SCORECARD FACTORS - BUSINESS PROFILE 9
DISCUSSION OF THE SCORECARD FACTORS - FINANCIAL PROFILE 13
OPERATING ENVIRONMENT 24
INTERPRETING THE OPERATING ENVIRONMENT METRICS 25
OTHER SCORECARD CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING THE STANDALONE CREDIT PROFILE: NOTCHING FACTORS 28
MOVING FROM THE STANDALONE CREDIT PROFILE TO THE IFSR — ASSESSING SUPPORT 30
OTHER RATING CONSIDERATIONS 31
ASSIGNING INSURANCE FINANCIAL STRENGTH AND INSTRUMENT RATINGS 33
GLOBAL AND NATIONAL SCALE RATINGS 34
ASSUMPTIONS 34
LIMITATIONS 34
APPENDIX 1: USING THE SCORECARD 36
APPENDIX 2: TAKAFUL (ISLAMIC) INSURERS 39
APPENDIX 3: ANALYZING ‘COMPOSITE’ FIRMS ACTIVE IN BOTH P&C AND LIFE INSURANCE 41
USING THE SCORECARD FOR INSURERS THAT WRITE BOTH P&C AND LIFE BUSINESS 46
APPENDIX 4: INCORPORATING STRESS TESTING IN OUR ANALYSIS — THE PRE-DEFINED STRESS SCENARIO 47
ADDING UP STRESS FOR THE STRESS TEST SCENARIO 49
HOW RATINGS REFLECT THE STRESS SCENARIOS 50
APPENDIX 5: MOODY’S CAPITAL TOOL 51
MOODY’S RELATED PUBLICATIONS 56
4 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Scope of This Methodology
Long-term Insurance Financial Strength Ratings (IFSRs
3
) for P&C insurance companies are assigned at the
legal entity level to insurance operating companies.
In addition to long-term IFSRs, we may assign short-term IFSRs
4
to provide institutional investors and
financial intermediaries with opinions about an insurance company’s ability to pay punctually its short-term
senior policyholder claims and obligations. We use the same prime rating symbols for these ratings that we
use for other short-term instruments and obligations.
5
The methodology also applies to the P&C insurance business of composite insurers, which engage in other
insurance operations
6
in addition to P&C underwriting (please refer to Appendix 3). Other ratings that may
be assigned within the group (e.g., senior unsecured debt issued by the insurer or its parent company) are
typically determined in relationship to the IFSRs of the group’s main subsidiaries.
7
Our General Framework for Rating P&C Insurers
Our general approach to assessing the credit risk of the various obligations of P&C insurance organizations
is based on an assessment of the financial strength of the main operating units within that organization.
This methodology is, therefore, intended primarily to explain our approach to assigning IFSRs to operating
insurers. The methodology describes our general approach to assigning a financial strength rating of a
standalone entity before consideration of support. We also describe how we incorporate affiliate
8
support to
move from the standalone credit profile to the assignment of the IFSR.
9
» In rating P&C insurers on a standalone basis, we focus on qualitative and quantitative characteristics in
relation to the company’s business and financial profile, as well as on the operating environment in
which it conducts its business. Regulatory, accounting and product characteristics can vary widely from
country to country, as can a country’s non-life-insurance operating environment, and our rating
approach considers these differences.
3
IFSRs are opinions of the ability of insurance companies to pay punctually senior policyholder obligations and claims and also reflect the expected financial loss suffered
in the event of default. Please refer to Rating Symbols and Definitions for more details; a link can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
4
Please refer to our methodology that discusses global short-term ratings. A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the
“Moody’s Related Publications” section.
5
Please refer to Rating Symbols and Definitions for more details; a link can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
6
For firms that are active in both insurance and reinsurance, please refer to our methodology that discusses reinsurers. A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector
credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
7
Please see our cross-sector methodology that discusses how we assign instrument ratings for insurers. A link to an index our sector and cross-sector credit rating
methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
8
“Affiliate” includes parents, cooperative groups and significant investors.
9
The standalone credit profile is an opinion of an insurer’s standalone intrinsic strength, absent any extraordinary support from an affiliate or government. An analytic unit
generally comprises all the operating companies with common analytic and credit characteristics operating in a single country or geographic region. An analytic unit
could include a group of companies operating outside of a single geographic region if significant inter-company support arrangements exist, or if there is a high degree of
integration in the management, systems, distribution and operations of the group of companies.
5 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
EXHIBIT 1
Business Profile Financial Profile Operating Environment
Factor 1: Market Position, Brand and Distribution Factor 3: Asset Quality Insurance Systemic Risk Factor
Factor 2: Product Focus and Diversification Factor 4: Capital Adequacy
Insurance Market Development
Factor
Factor 5: Profitability
Factor 6: Reserve Adequacy
Factor 7: Financial Flexibility
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
In the following sections, we describe the seven key factors underlying an insurer’s business and financial
profiles, as well as factors that affect its operating environment. We explain our general approach for scoring
each scorecard factor and show the weights used in the scorecard. We also provide a rationale for why these
scorecard components are meaningful for an insurer’s standalone credit profile, what the relevant financial
metrics are in analyzing these factors, including regional/supplemental metrics, and how we interpret those
metrics. Overall country risk and characteristics of the local insurance operating environment also play an
important role in our rating analysis, as do other factors, such as management, governance, and accounting
policy and disclosures.
Given the inherent cyclicality of the P&C industry, a company’s financial profile may be somewhat stronger
than the scorecard-indicated outcome during cyclical peaks and somewhat weaker during cyclical troughs.
We employ the same analytic approach to evaluating P&C insurance companies worldwide, incorporating
the business, financial profile and operating environment dimensions discussed in this methodology.
However, each of the various regions has its own market nuances that reflect the local political, social and
economic climates. These include the regulatory environment, governance and capital structures,
10
taxation,
accounting rules and public reporting requirements, and laws and the litigation environment. If these
regional factors are not already captured in the Operating Environment component, we may incorporate
them qualitatively into our analysis.
P&C insurance groups often consist of subsidiaries operating in more than one geographic region. Where
this is the case, we typically consider the largest and most significant units of the group (in terms of
revenues and earnings, capital, assets or other key metrics), and, where relevant, apply the quantitative
metrics in the methodology to this group of key subsidiaries to arrive at weighted average ratios. In some
instances, this group of key subsidiaries may be less than 100% of the analytic unit. Also, in some instances,
more than one group of subsidiaries, called analytic units, exist within a P&C insurance group. Each analytic
unit is typically analyzed separately.
Our ratings are forward-looking and reflect our expectations for future financial and operating performance.
However, historical results are helpful in understanding patterns and trends of a company’s performance as
well as for peer comparisons. Many of the financial ratios are calculated based on a five-year average.
However, the factors in the scorecard can be assessed using various time periods. For example, rating
committees may find it analytically useful to examine both historical and expected future performance for
individual periods or periods of several years or more.
10
See Appendix 2 for a discussion of Takaful insurers.
6 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Scorecard Framework
This methodology includes a scorecard, which is used in our analysis and reflects our opinion and judgment
on each of the broad factors within the rating methodology. Information we use in the scorecard may
include proprietary, non-public data. Business Profile factors represent 35% of the overall fixed scorecard
weights, and the Financial Profile factors represent 65%; however, weights shown for each factor in the
scorecard represent an approximation of their importance for rating decisions, and actual importance may
vary substantially. The Operating Environment component, described later in more detail, has a variable
weight depending on the assigned score.
The scorecard calculates an unadjusted score for each factor, and analysts typically populate the scorecard
with an adjusted score, which can range from Aaa to C. The score is derived from the raw metrics
(see Appendix 1), and the adjusted score is based on analytical judgment. The scorecard also factors in the
operating environment. We also consider a pre-defined severe stress case scenario.
To arrive at the standalone credit profile for the analytic unit, we may assess the company’s management,
governance and risk management, accounting policy and disclosures, sovereign and regulatory environment
as well as any special rating situations. To move from the standalone credit profile to the rating, we consider
any explicit or implicit support from affiliates, as well as other rating considerations. Scorecard factors and
weights can be found below.
7 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
EXHIBIT 2
P&C Insurance Rating Methodology Scorecard Factors and Weights
11
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B
Caa and
lower Score
Adjusted
score
Business Profile
Market Position, Brand and Distribution (25%)
Relative Market Share Ratio
Underwriting Expense Ratio % Net Premiums
Product Focus and Diversification (10%)
Product Risk
P&C Insurance Product Diversification
Geographic Diversification
Financial Profile
Asset Quality (10%)
High Risk Assets (HRA) % Shareholders’ Equity
Reinsurance Recoverables % Shareholders’ Equity
(Goodwill + Intangibles) % Shareholders’ Equity
Capital Adequacy (15%)
Gross Underwriting Leverage
Profitability (15%)
Return on Capital (ROC-5 yr. avg.)
Sharpe Ratio of ROC (5 yr. avg.)
Reserve Adequacy (10%)
Adv./(Fav.) Loss Dev. % Beg. Reserves (5 yr. avg.)
Financial Flexibility (15%)
Adjusted Financial Leverage
Total Leverage
Earnings Coverage (5 yr. avg.)
Cash Flow Coverage (5 yr. avg.)
Operating Environment
Preliminary Standalone Outcome
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Notching Factors and Support Considerations:
» Management, Governance and Risk Management
» Accounting Policy and Disclosures
» Sovereign and Regulatory Environment
» Standalone Credit Profile
» Nature and Terms of Explicit Support
» Nature and Terms of Implicit Support
» Scorecard-Indicated Outcome
11
See Appendix 1 for sub-factor weight details.
8 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Standard Adjustments in the Analysis of Financial Statements
The financial statements we use in our analysis generally have a consistent basis of accounting depending
upon the region (e.g., Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or International Financial Reporting
Standards (IFRS)). Different accounting conventions can affect – sometimes materially – comparisons
among companies operating in different jurisdictions. Accordingly, we make standard and non-standard
adjustments, as described below. The qualitative analysis that we employ may also consider accounting
system differences, including when we do not have sufficient information to make specific adjustments. To
the extent that other accounting conventions are used by a company, we may also use that data for a more
direct comparison to global peers.
All of the quantitative credit metrics incorporate our standard adjustments to income statement, cash flow
statement and balance sheet amounts for items such as underfunded pension obligations and operating
leases. We may also make other analytical adjustments that are specific to a particular company.
For an explanation of our standard adjustments, please see the cross-sector methodology that describes our
financial statement adjustments in the analysis of financial institutions. A link to an index of our sector and
cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
In addition to the standard adjustments we may also make non-standard adjustments to financial
statements for other matters to better reflect underlying economics and improve comparability among
peers. For example, we may adjust financial statements in order to reflect estimates or assumptions that we
believe better reflect an issuer’s sustainable forward-looking credit profile. We may also make non-standard
adjustments where local GAAP or the interpretation of IFRS in a particular country or region differs from the
norm in an area that would affect our analysis.
12
Our adjustments may incorporate non-public information.
Incorporating Scenario Analysis and Stress Testing for P&C Insurers
Developing a forward-looking assessment of an insurer’s financial performance under an expected case and
stress case is usually important to our assessment of financial strength. Our expectations of an insurer’s
results over the medium term reflect our opinion of current and projected market conditions. The nature of
an insurer’s operating and business profile, as well as its product offerings, mean that we may have differing
levels of confidence in a particular expected case or stress case scenario.
In addition, our credit analysis includes an assessment of the downside risks faced by insurers and their
creditors. Because challenging economic and financial events, as well as natural and man-made
catastrophes, do occur – with potentially adverse effects on the financial and business profiles of P&C
insurers – we typically include an analysis of stress scenarios as part of our analysis.
Stress analysis can take different forms. To assess the impact of stress on an insurer, we may employ a
number of different approaches as each situation dictates, including assessing insurers’ own capital models
and performing pre-defined and ad hoc scenario analysis. Please refer to Appendix 4 for a discussion of the
pre-defined stress scenarios we use in our stress test. Our ratings reflect an expected scenario, but also take
into consideration the impact of the pre-defined stress scenarios on a company’s credit profile. We
generally expect an insurer to be able to withstand moderate stress while maintaining a credit profile
consistent with its assigned rating and that the application of the pre-defined stress scenarios (the stress
test) would result in a credit profile deterioration of no more than a few notches below the assigned rating.
12
See our cross-sector rating methodology on financial statement adjustments in the analysis of financial institutions for a discussion of our adjustments. A link to an index
of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
9 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Discussion of the Scorecard Factors - Business Profile
Factor 1: Market Position, Brand and Distribution
Why It Matters - Market Position and Brand:
Market position, brand and franchise strength are key factors that represent a company’s ability to develop
and sustain competitive advantages in its chosen markets. Market position incorporates the firm’s
sustainable advantages in its key lines of business and considers market share, barriers to entry, scale
advantages and their translation to expenses, control over pricing, and control of distribution. Additionally,
a firm’s brand encompasses a company’s image and reputation in the market, brand recognition and
perception by distributors and end-consumers, and customer loyalty as demonstrated by retention rates,
distribution costs, and customer purchases of multiple products.
A company’s sustainable competitive advantages – the strength of its competitive position and its prospects
for organic growth – can have a direct bearing on its future profitability and ability to generate capital
internally. In addition, an insurer with a strong market position, brand and competitive advantage is better
able to withstand prolonged difficult market conditions and to capitalize on new, potentially profitable
opportunities that may develop in the future. We believe such companies are more likely to meet their
obligations through varied economic periods. Conversely, a weak business franchise can indicate financial
stress for a company if it generates low or erratic core profitability, and may lead management to enter
unfamiliar businesses, take on new and unfamiliar risks, or leverage the company to a greater extent.
Relevant Metrics - Market Position and Brand:
Relative market share ratio (premiums written relative to the average industry premium written)
13
Interpreting the Metrics - Market Position and Brand:
We believe that an insurer’s relative and absolute size within a given insurance market is highly correlated
with its market position and brand, although we believe that absolute size becomes less meaningful the
more concentrated a marketplace is. The largest companies in terms of assets, premiums and capital within
a given local region tend to have higher scores for this factor. Conversely, smaller companies tend to have
lower scores for this factor. We note that premiums written are important to credit profiles as companies
with greater premium volume tend to have greater pricing power.
That said, the value of size may differ based upon the lines of business a company writes. Absolute
size/market share is important for companies focused on products with vast pools of similar customers, low
individual exposure limits and where economies of scale are most advantageous such as personal
automobile in the U.S. Offsetting the size issue is a company’s ability to exercise underwriting discipline and
effectively navigate the underwriting cycle on an opportunistic basis. Growth during favorable market cycles
can be a positive while growth during a soft market may be a negative. Further, significant market share
within a smaller niche segment may be a positive depending upon a company’s approach to the risks of the
business. Relative measures such as retention rates and product cross selling are also considerations. There
may be instances where a company’s ability to execute in a key market selling high value-added and low risk
products may be strong enough to offset a lower overall relative market share score.
In assessing market position and franchise strength, we typically consider a company’s position in its given
market(s) and its absolute size within a global context. An insurer may have a significant market share in a
given region, however, our assessment also considers that an insurer that operates solely in a country with a
13
Where available and when material, the average premium written is determined by dividing 90% of the industry’s premium written by the number of companies that
represent 90% of the industry’s premium written. For insurers that have substantial operations in more than one country, we calculate a weighted average based on the
result of each country in which the insurer operates. Estimates may be necessary in markets where data are less readily available.
10 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
relatively small and/or immature insurance industry, is exposed to a narrowly-focused set of legal, political,
and economic risks. Such insurers would write typically relatively small amounts of premium compared to
larger global companies, with relatively little global brand recognition and ability to meaningfully underwrite
outside of their immediate region; however, the stronger the barriers to entry in a company’s main
market(s), the greater the emphasis placed on market share. In contrast, another insurer may have a much
lower market share in comparison, but be twice as large and operate in a much larger, more diversified and
mature marketplace. Furthermore, there are groups in Europe, for example, whose nation-specific market
share metrics are rendered somewhat less relevant by virtue of their ability to operate in multiple countries
within the European Union. Groups that are major players in a number of mature markets are typically also
large in absolute size, and their considerable financial resources and strong brands provide greater flexibility
to exit markets and underwrite new products in different regions should a particular operating environment
become difficult.
Why It Matters - Distribution:
The methods and mechanisms by which an insurance company delivers its products are another
fundamental aspect of the company’s business and credit profile. A company’s access to distribution
channels and its ability to control those channels and its relationship with its producers relates directly to a
company’s creditworthiness and standing in the market, as well as its ability to grow revenues, retain
business, align its distribution with specific product/customer segments and control its costs.
Relevant Metrics - Distribution:
Underwriting Expenses as a % of Net Premiums Written
Interpreting the Metrics - Distribution:
In general, efficient cost structures indicate overall management discipline. A below-peer expense ratio is
likely to reflect tight control over underwriting discipline, a high level of management focus, and may reflect
superior technology systems that allow for greater automation. Companies that have more opportunities to
take advantage of economies of scale to differentiate themselves from smaller competitors typically have
higher scores for this factor. Nevertheless, this metric can be highly influenced by the insurer’s chosen lines
of business, and we believe a relative comparison to peers is also typically appropriate.
Beyond the metrics, we may also consider the diversity in a company’s distribution channels, which can
mitigate its dependence on specific channels and its vulnerability to sales disruption, though we recognize
not all distribution channels are equal. In assessing a company’s distribution effectiveness, we typically
consider the various distribution channels and the suitability of each to the products being sold in specific
customer segments. The costs involved in developing and maintaining a specific distribution channel, as well
as the retention and productivity of distributors, and - by extension - its ultimate customers (particularly in
times of stress), are often key considerations in the evaluation of the channel’s success. Distribution
management is typically assessed as well.
In addition, the exclusive or non-exclusive nature of various distribution relationships may pose specific
opportunities or challenges for an individual company. In some regions and for certain product lines,
distribution may actually be controlled by third-party insurance brokers, which could limit an insurers’
ability to conduct business on its own terms. For other insurers, particularly those using exclusive agents,
the distribution system may be the group’s defining competitive advantage. For still others, their
distribution strategy may provide flexibility in terms of cost and business volume management.
11 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
EXHIBIT 3
Summary of Relevant Metrics - Market Position Brand and Distribution
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Relative Market Share Ratio
(relative to industry
average)
≥ 3x
3x > x
> 1.5x
1.5x ≥ x
> 0.5x
0.5x ≥ x
> 0.25x
0.25x ≥ x
> 0.15x
0.15x ≥ x >
0.05x
≤.05x
Underwriting Expenses as
% of Net Premiums Written
< 20%
20% ≤ x
< 24%
24% ≤ x
< 28%
28% ≤ x
< 34%
34% ≤ x
< 40%
40% ≤ x
< 46%
≥ 46%
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Factor 2: Product Focus and Diversification
Why It Matters
A company’s chosen lines of business are a major influence on its risk profile and creditworthiness because
individual product segments and classes of business exhibit different volatility and competitive attributes.
14
The extent of a product’s risk is often not fully known and understood at the time the product is first
introduced and marketed and under-pricing can be an unintended outcome. Product risk appears in many
forms and can have significant adverse effects on a company’s earnings and capital adequacy.
Diversification, both by product and by region, generally leads to higher scores for this factor. Diversification
in earnings, product and geography can reduce the volatility of a firm’s earnings, capital, and cash flow,
promoting more efficient use of capital resources. Diversification outside of P&C insurance, assuming
appropriately managed and within reasonable limits, can further this benefit by countering the historically
cyclical nature of P&C operating performance. That said, if a company enters a new line of business without
the appropriate underwriting expertise, such diversification would typically be viewed as a credit negative.
During a soft market, some companies diversify, only to subsequently shed those lines of business as poor
results become apparent over time.
How We Assess It:
Product Risk
We typically analyze the risk inherent in the company’s particular business mix. We consider the type of
business written and note that certain lines exhibit lower volatility and risk than others. We also typically
consider whether the risks in specific products can be mitigated or exacerbated by a particular company’s
risk management practices, as well as its market position, distribution, underwriting and pricing practices.
However, a concentration in more volatile lines of business/products would be viewed as a risk to
policyholders/creditors, irrespective of the overall quality of the firm’s risk management and underwriting
function. A company’s response to macroeconomic changes, industry/market conditions, regulatory issues,
and competitive pressures with respect to its chosen products and markets is also likely to influence its
credit profile. Volatility is generally associated more with longer tail business (e.g., casualty) than with short
tail business (e.g., private passenger auto), excluding catastrophe-exposed business.
14
We recognize that the definition of a line of business varies by company and country. For our analysis of P&C insurers, we have grouped various lines together, because
we have determined that, in general, only a limited number of materially different lines of business exist. Those lines are distinct by region.
12 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Relevant Metrics:
P&C Insurance Product Diversification - absolute number of material distinct product lines
Geographic diversification - absolute number of individual regulated regions without meaningful concentrations
in which the analytic unit transacts business
Interpreting the Metrics:
The evaluation of product and market diversity considers the breadth and depth of markets and products
the company targets. The evaluation of product/market diversity (within a geographic region
15
or across
different geographic regions or industries) includes an assessment of the concentration and competition in
the product/market, correlation of revenues and earnings of different markets and products, and whether
the product is viewed as a commodity or a value-added offering. An assessment of diversification within
product lines is typically important, given that the types of product offerings can vary significantly across
the globe.
Geographic diversification tries to capture the extent of regulatory-risk faced by a company, as well as the
extent to which any natural and man-made catastrophe exposures are concentrated.
Diversification of revenues in and of itself is not a positive factor if profits are also not diversified or if
geographic diversification comes from regions that are overly restrictive in terms of pricing controls or
capital measures. We separately may consider the underwriting risk associated with geographic
concentrations in the evaluation of risk management.
Beyond the metrics, we may also consider the risks associated with a company’s underwriting controls,
pricing sophistication, staff and technology in the context of the company’s chosen lines of business.
We also consider whether the analytic unit has operations outside of property & casualty insurance that
may enhance diversification. As such, we also typically consider the quality of diversification, the company’s
ability to manage diverse businesses unrelated to the core business, the synergies or lack thereof among
diversified businesses, and the degree to which diversified businesses detract from a focus on the core
business or add value to the enterprise as a whole.
Given consideration of a specific analytic unit, we may also consider whether the unit has operations
outside of P&C insurance, thereby enhancing diversification. As such, we also typically consider the quality
of diversification, the company’s ability to manage diverse businesses unrelated to the core business, the
synergies or lack thereof among diversified businesses, and the degree to which diversified businesses
detract from a focus on the core business or add value to the enterprise as a whole.
15
For our analysis of P&C insurers, a geographic region is generally considered to be any market with a single regulator.
13 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
EXHIBIT 4
Summary of Relevant Metrics - Product Risk and Diversification
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B & LOWER
P
Product Risk
Very granular
exposures; short-tail
lines; very low risk of
estimating ultimate
claim costs.
Granular exposures;
short and medium-
tailed lines represent
more than 2/3rd of
premiums; generally
moderate risk of
estimating ultimate
claim costs; modest
property catastrophe
risk.
Policies may have
high
gross limits relative to
equity; risk of
estimating ultimate
claim costs is
meaningful; longer-
tailed lines may
represent more than
1/3 of premiums;
moderate catastrophe
risk may be present in
either casualty or
property exposures
Longer-tail lines are
majority of premiums
and/or policies have
high gross limits
relative to equity; risk
of estimating
ultimate claim costs
may be significant;
significant
catastrophe risk may
be present in either
casualty or property
exposures
Combination of size
of in-force portfolio
and size of individual
policies limits
application of "law of
large numbers"; claim
cost estimation risk is
high; catastrophe risk
is substantial
Extremely volatile in-
force portfolio, the
size of which and the
size of individual
policies significantly
limits application of
"law of large
numbers"; claim cost
estimation risk is very
high; catastrophe risk
is substantial
P
P&C Insurance
P
Product
D
Diversification
5 or more distinct
lines of business each
produce at least 10%
of total net P&C
premiums written
4 distinct lines of
business each
produce at least 10%
of total net P&C
premiums written
3 distinct lines of
business each
produce at least 10%
of total net P&C
premiums written
1 or 2 distinct lines of
business produce at
least 10% of total net
P&C premiums
written
1 distinct line of
business produces
more than 80% of
total net P&C
premiums written
1 distinct line of
business produces all
of total net P&C
premiums written
G
Geographic
D
Diversification
No single regulated
region generates
more than 10% of
total net P&C
premiums written
No single regulated
region generates
more than 20% of
total net P&C
premiums written
No single regulated
region generates
more than 30%
of total net P&C
premiums written
No single regulated
region generates
more than 40% of
total net P&C
premiums written
No single regulated
region generates
more than 80% of
total net P&C
premiums written
One regulated region
generates more than
80% of total net P&C
premiums written
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Discussion of the Scorecard Factors - Financial Profile
Factor 3: Asset Quality
Why It Matters - High Risk Assets:
P&C insurance companies’ core assets are typically concentrated in high quality liquid assets in recognition
of the uncertainty of their liability payout stream, both as to timing and amount. In many cases, however,
companies will allocate a portion of their investment portfolios to higher risk assets. Assessing the history
and trends in risky asset exposures is important, because changes in the market environment, especially
during periods of stress, can depress asset values, earnings, and ultimately the company’s capital base.
Relevant Metric - High Risk Assets:
High risk assets as % of Shareholders’ Equity
16
Interpreting the Metric – High Risk Assets:
High-risk assets broadly comprise all investments other than investment-grade bonds and mortgage loans
and include below-investment-grade and unrated bonds/loans, common and preferred stock equities,
alternative investments, such as private equity and hedge fund holdings, real estate assets, and other
investments that are not classified on the balance sheet.
Companies with higher scores for this sub-factor generally have lower exposure to high-risk assets.
However, companies that have strong and stable operational performance are typically able to tolerate a
higher proportion of these assets in their investment portfolios. Solid capital positions and a stable earnings
16
Where applicable, we supplement shareholders’ equity with other forms of capital, which, although not reported as equity, are nevertheless loss-absorbing. Examples of
this would be equalization reserves.
14 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
profile, as well as a strong track record and proven expertise in managing more risky asset classes, are also
credit strengths.
Beyond this single high-risk asset metric, we also consider investment portfolio composition including the
proportion of high risk assets in relation to total invested assets, and investment concentration risk.
Excessive concentrations in a single name or sector can amplify market and credit risk, and can affect
liquidity and the sustainability of investment returns. We may also consider the liquidity and volatility of the
investment portfolio and the strategy employed by the company, as well as assets that are higher-risk or
less liquid due to features specific to a particular market (e.g., commercial mortgage loans in the US).
As part of our analysis, we typically consider an insurer’s investment risk. Our investment stress tests, which
vary by asset type, are typically conducted on holdings in equities, alternative investments, real estate,
mortgage loans, sovereign/sub-sovereign bonds, corporate bonds, and structured securities.
Why It Matters – Reinsurance Recoverables:
A significant asset of uncertain value on the balance sheet of P&C insurers is recoverables/receivables from
reinsurers. The extent to which P&C insurers use reinsurance and are dependent on it varies significantly by
region and by line of business. Some insurers are "gross line" underwriters, placing little reliance on
reinsurance parties; while others manage their risk exposure through the extensive use of reinsurance. The
analysis of the amount of a company’s reinsurance recoverables, its concentrated reliance on a few
reinsurers, and the credit quality of the individual reinsurers is important because write-offs of the
recoverables as uncollectible could impact the insurer’s income and capital, and because the loss of
reinsurance capacity could require the insurer to modify its market/product focus.
Relevant Metric – Reinsurance Recoverables:
Reinsurance recoverables as % of shareholders’ equity
Interpreting the Metric – Reinsurance Recoverables:
Companies with higher scores for this sub-factor tend to have lower amounts due from reinsurers, although
the company’s market/product focus significantly influences a company’s use of reinsurance. For example,
due to different exposure profiles, personal lines carriers generally use significantly less reinsurance
(except for their catastrophe covers) than do commercial lines carriers. In addition to evaluating a
company’s reinsurance exposure ratio, we also assess a company’s reinsurance program, including coverage
placed, terms and conditions, and the credit quality and collateral of its reinsurance counterparties.
Typically, our analysis focuses on the most significant reinsurance collectibles, and we qualitatively assess
the level of potential future collectibles based on the insurer’s reliance on (and potential utilization of)
reinsurance protection, and the creditworthiness of its reinsurers. We typically evaluate the creditworthiness
of reinsurers by: 1) considering their IFSRs and credit profiles; 2) evaluating the ceding company’s
reinsurance surveillance practices; 3) considering prior payment experience; and 4) evaluating offsets, letters
of credit, trust funds, and other features that improve the ceding insurer’s position.
Why It Matters – Goodwill and Intangibles:
Goodwill and intangible assets are derived primarily from acquisitions and new business production.
The economic value of these assets is often uncertain and may not be realizable to the extent expected at
time of acquisition. Within the P&C markets, acquisitions of commercial insurance and reinsurance firms
have generally met with limited success.
Write-downs of intangible assets are typically an indication that the potential profits of a book of business
or a subsidiary are lower than what had originally been contemplated by management. Furthermore,
15 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
although charges related to intangible assets are non-cash, they signal reduced future earnings and capital
generation, potentially hurting investor confidence and reducing financial flexibility.
Relevant Metric – Goodwill and Intangibles:
(Goodwill + Deferred Acquisition Costs + Value Of Business Acquired / Present Value of Future Profits + Other
Intangibles
17
) as % of shareholders’ equity
18
Interpreting the Metric – Goodwill and Intangibles:
This measure provides an indication of the strength and quality of a company’s equity capital base.
Companies with higher scores for this sub-factor tend to have lower amounts of goodwill and intangible
assets relative to their equity base compared to companies with lower scores for this sub-factor. Extensive
growth through acquisitions usually elevates the credit risk of a group because of the integration challenges
and the uncertainty about the ultimate costs and benefits, as well as incremental earnings, to be realized
from the acquisition in the context of the purchase price and financing.
We consider the implications of acquisitions to the company’s market position and overall diversification.
However, in the P&C sector, acquisitions have often been problematic for issuers, and we tend to have a
negative view given that a number of failures have been caused by acquisitions.
Although we believe that DAC (Deferred Acquisition Costs), PVFP (Present Value of Future Profits) and
VOBA (Value of Business Acquired) have less measurement uncertainty and more economic value than
goodwill, we believe that equity associated with any intangible asset is less leverageable than tangible
equity. Non-life insurers do report DAC, although the amounts are usually smaller than those reported by
life insurers in light of the nature of the policies issued. PVFP and VOBA asset reporting is typically confined
to life or composite insurers.
We also typically analyze other assets such as fixed assets and deferred tax assets for reasonableness. As
such assets have less liquidity than investments and other financial assets, significant levels of these assets
relative to total assets may be discounted when assessing asset quality.
EXHIBIT 5
Summary of Relevant Metrics - Asset Quality
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
High Risk Assets
as % of Shareholders’ Equity
≤ 25% 25% < x
< 50%
50% ≤ x
< 100%
100% ≤ x
< 175%
175%≤ x
< 250%
250%≤ x
< 325%
≥ 325%
Reinsurance Recoverables
as % of Shareholders’ Equity
< 35%
35% ≤ x
< 70%
70% ≤ x
< 100%
100% ≤ x
< 150%
150% ≤ x
< 200%
200% ≤ x
< 250%
≥ 250%
Goodwill & Intangibles
as % of Shareholders’ Equity
≤ 20% 20% < x
< 30%
30% ≤ x
< 40%
40% ≤ x
< 55%
55% ≤ x
< 75%
75% ≤ x
< 95%
≥ 95%
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Factor 4: Capital Adequacy
Why It Matters
Our opinion about an insurer’s capital adequacy is a core element of our assessment of its credit profile. An
insurer’s available capital provides the economic cushion available for the company to absorb unfavorable
changes in its results. An insurer’s capital adequacy is important because it provides critical information to
customers, regulators and other stakeholders about the extent to which the company’s available capital
17
We use gross intangible assets, instead of net of applicable deferred taxes, to simplify this ratio.
18
This metric is typically calculated on a consolidated basis if the analytic unit being considered is part of a larger group because goodwill due to acquisitions is not typically
pushed down to the analytic unit for financial statement reporting purposes.
16 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
would cover losses stemming from the business and financial risks it faces, including from remote loss
scenarios. A company with weak capital adequacy may find it difficult to grow its business because, in many
markets, customers may consider an insurer’s capital adequacy as a signal of its financial capacity. Insurance
regulators often require that companies maintain minimum capital levels to operate.
Relevant Metrics:
Gross Underwriting Leverage: [gross written premiums (property & casualty) plus 0.25 x gross written premiums
(non P&C) plus gross reserves (property & casualty) plus 0.25 x gross reserves (non P&C)] divided by
[shareholders’ equity minus 10% of High Risk Assets]
Interpreting the Metric – Gross Underwriting Leverage:
In general, the higher a company’s gross underwriting leverage (GUL), the more risk it is assuming and the
greater the impact on its capital position from variations in actual performance. The concept of gross
underwriting leverage is sufficiently broad to allow us to evaluate an insurer’s use of reinsurance to assess
the extent to which the company relies on it for leverage. Companies with higher scores for this factor tend
to have lower gross underwriting leverage than companies with lower scores for this factor. In calculating or
estimating this ratio, we subtract from the denominator a percentage (i.e., 10%) of high-risk assets which, in
a stress scenario, are likely to be illiquid, impaired or sold for a loss.
GUL is a relatively simple metric that is typically considered with further bottom-up analysis of a company’s
mix of business and rate-driven changes in premium volume, or in conjunction with other capital adequacy
ratios; as a result, GUL results are more comparable for companies that have a similar business mix. An
important consideration is assessing the level of reliance on, and the quality of, a company’s reinsurance
protection. The GUL metric — which does not recognize potential risk reductions associated with
reinsurance — is often used in tandem with underwriting leverage calculated on a net basis (i.e., with full
credit for reinsurance purchases). Other meaningful influences on gross underwriting leverage include the
duration of liabilities and an assessment of a company’s claims-payout patterns.
Our GUL metric is oriented to an insurer’s underwriting risk.
19
In assessing the capital adequacy of an
insurer, we typically also consider the other risks embedded in both the company’s operations and balance
sheet, including asset and catastrophe exposures, in relation to capital held.
We use GUL because it can be calculated consistently for all insurers globally. However, in most regions,
additional capital metrics are available to complement our analysis and often reflect a risk-adjusted
capitalization framework. Therefore, our analysis may incorporate information from a number of sources
including Moody’s Capital Tool (MCT), capital-adequacy metrics under existing regulatory models, and
outputs derived from insurers’ capital models.
Moody’s Capital Tool
Moody’s Capital Tool (MCT) is a stochastic simulation tool that uses information about an insurer’s business
and financial profile to generate a large number of loss scenarios based on the typical sources of risk that
insurers face. The tool uses these losses to estimate the distribution of changes in the insurer’s net asset
value (NAV)
20
for a single year, thereby providing a basis for analyzing the capital required to fully absorb
losses at a specified probability in the distribution (e.g., at the 99.5% quantile).
19
The GUL metric’s orientation to underwriting risk reflects its focus on premiums and reserves for policyholder claims (i.e., in the numerator).
20
An insurer’s NAV is the estimated difference between the economic value of its assets and economic value of its liabilities.
17 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
MCT produces a capital adequacy metric that compares an insurer’s available economic resources to absorb
losses (i.e., its available capital) to user-selected quantiles for required capital.
21
For example, MCT calculates
the ratio of an insurer’s available capital to the tool’s estimates of required capital at the 99.5% quantile.
Such capital ratios provide a basis for comparison across companies, and we may incorporate them in our
assessment of an insurer’s adjusted score for capital adequacy. The extent to which we consider this ratio
depends on the risk profile of the company (e.g., how well the insurer’s business profile matches the tool’s
parameters), the capacity of the tool to model a large portion of the company’s business, or the granularity
of data available to run the model.
In comparing insurers with significantly different loss-reserve durations, we usually consider that the capital
ratios of insurers with shorter-duration claim liabilities are more stable indicators of capital adequacy (over
time) compared to insurers with long-duration claim liabilities.
MCT provides a common risk-based framework for analyzing the capital adequacy of insurers and provides
the flexibility to analyze a range of scenarios including pro forma scenarios (e.g., acquisitions, divestitures, or
catastrophe scenarios) as well as quantifying the risk drivers that insurers typically face. The tool’s output
may also provide indicators that augment our analysis. For example, for a given quantile, the tool estimates
the breakdown of the required capital by risk driver.
For additional information about the MCT tool, please see
Appendix 5.
Regulatory Metrics
We typically also consider metrics calculated under existing regulatory frameworks. In most regions,
insurance regulators, to varying degrees, have developed more refined measures of capital
adequacy/solvency by evaluating the available capital relative to the risk-adjusted exposures of the
company. Capital adequacy frameworks used by regulators to assess solvency are very important to our
analysis of capital adequacy. The level of sophistication of a risk-based capital (RBC) regime, the scale on
which it is measured and its usefulness in our assessments vary considerably among regulatory jurisdictions.
Of particular importance are solvency frameworks in the European Union (under Solvency II), Asia and
globally with the development of the International Capital Standard. Below, we provide an indicative
mapping between ratios derived from economic capital frameworks that correspond to the Value at Risk at
the 99.5% quantile for economic losses in alignment with principles underlying Solvency II. While not our
only consideration, this indicative mapping helps provide an analyst with an additional perspective to assess
capital adequacy. For example, for a given indicative capitalization score, we would typically expect a higher
ratio for a company with higher volatility of capital requirements than shown in the table below.
21
To estimate an insurer’s available capital, MCT makes economic valuation adjustments to certain asset and liability accounts based on user inputs related to the
company’s accounting regime. These accounts also typically include the standard adjustments that apply based on our cross-sector methodology on financial statement
adjustments for financial institutions (a link to a list of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications”
section). Thus, the tool’s estimate of a company’s available capital reflects the combined effect of these adjustments on its reported shareholders’ equity.
18 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
EXHIBIT 6
Capitalization score Aa A Baa and below
European Union Solvency II ratio
> 200% 130% - 200% < 130%
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Insurer Models
We may also incorporate in our assessment of capital adequacy the output from an insurer’s internal capital
model, if available. We consider the relevance of the company’s own model to our assessment of capital
adequacy based on (i) our understanding of its scope and operation; (ii) the extent of its incorporation into
the company’s day-to-day decision-making processes; and (iii) regulatory review and approval, where
relevant. We may also consider comparisons of capital positions using the proprietary economic capital
models of companies within a peer group or in conjunction with output from MCT. In making such
comparisons we would typically consider how assumptions made in one company’s model may be different
from assumptions used in another model.
In assessing capital adequacy, the potential impacts of stress environments are evaluated. These include
pre-defined stress scenarios incorporating potential losses from investment volatility, catastrophes and
deterioration in reserves for unpaid losses, and investments. (See the “Incorporating Scenario Analysis and
Stress Testing for P&C Insurers” section above). Also, emerging risk areas are considered in our assessment
of prospective capital generation and adequacy.
EXHIBIT 7
Summary of Relevant Metric - Capital Adequacy
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Gross Underwriting
Leverage
< 2x 2x ≤ x < 3x 3x ≤ x < 5x 5x ≤ x < 7x 7x ≤ x < 9x 9x ≤ x < 11x ≥ 11x
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Factor 5: Profitability
Why It Matters
An insurer’s earnings capacity – both quality and sustainability – is a critical component of its
creditworthiness because earnings are a primary determinant of the insurer’s ability to meet its policy and
financial obligations, the primary source of internal capital generation to assure capital adequacy, and a key
determinant of access to the capital markets on favorable terms. Diversification across multiple product
lines and markets can result in more stable levels of earnings, increasing the predictability of internal capital
growth and strengthening claims/debt paying ability.
19 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Relevant Metrics:
(ROC): Net income before non-controlling interest expense as a % of average financial debt + shareholders’
equity
22
+ non-controlling interest (5-year average)
Sharpe Ratio of Return on Capital: the mean of the company’s annual return on capital (5-year average) divided
by the standard deviation of return on capital (5-year period)
23
Interpreting Return on Capital the Metrics:
In general, companies with higher scores for this factor tend to have higher profitability as measured by
return on capital (ROC) and have lower earnings volatility as indicated by the Sharpe ratio.
ROC
The ROC ratio is a good measure of how well the insurer is utilizing its capital funds. ROC also equalizes any
benefits to earnings from leverage, because the ratio considers both financial debt and equity in its
denominator. For this reason, ROC is viewed in concert with a company’s financial leverage, since this
indicates the level of borrowed funds (if any) required to generate the corresponding ROC, as well as the
sustainability and volatility of its profits over time. A company’s legal structure can also provide information
about its likely use of debt and its ROC risk profile over time. For example, mutually owned companies tend
to be less focused on short-term profitability and are less reliant on debt than shareholder-owned
companies.
In addition to the above scorecard metrics, we also typically consider other measures. For example, return
on equity (ROE) is also a good measure of profitability and may provide insights into the impact of
shareholder pressure on management to generate sufficient returns on capital. It is important to consider
ROE in concert with both a company’s financial leverage and organizational/legal structure. The relationship
to financial leverage is important because companies using higher amounts of leverage may exhibit more
favorable ROE, since a smaller equity base tends to improve this measure, all else being equal. We also may
consider an adjusted ROC metric including total debt (not just financial debt) in the denominator to assess
the impact of operating debt deployed on profitability. Return on revenue (ROR) can be another useful
comparative measure of profitability, as it is less influenced by a company’s financial leverage policy or its
capital adequacy. The ROR metric over time is generally a good indicator of an insurer’s underwriting skill
and pricing discipline relative to its peers while also capturing investment performance.
We also consider that net income can be meaningfully influenced by non-recurring favorable/unfavorable
items, most notably realized gains/losses. For analytic units with meaningful investment-related
gains/losses, we also may consider these metrics excluding such gains/losses. We also typically consider the
impact on these ratios for entities that record all investments at fair value through the income statement
when comparing against insurers that recognize the change in value of investments directly to equity. The
effects of hedging may also significantly impact the net income metric and, as such, may be considered in
interpreting profitability metrics.
Sharpe Ratio of Return on Capital
The Sharpe ratio calculated on return on capital gauges the inherent volatility in a company’s returns in
relation to average profitability and helps us to formulate an opinion about the predictability and
sustainability of a company’s earnings. The ratio considers net income since a company’s capital generation
22
Note that while many accounting regimes include non-controlling interest in shareholders’ equity, Moody’s does not.
23
If the average ROC of the analytic unit is 0 or negative, this ratio is not meaningful, and the weight of this sub-factor is reallocated to the ROC sub-factor.
20 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
is driven by its net income, but we recognize that some capital gains/losses and taxes can at times be
somewhat volatile and unpredictable or at other times be used to reduce underlying operational volatility.
This ratio’s analytic value has little meaning if the numerator is zero or negative, in which case the
sub-factor weighting for the Sharpe ratio is allocated to the ROC metric, and within the overall profitability
factor, the ROC reverts to 100%. However, the volatility metric is useful in comparing companies’ earnings
volatility to each other and in identifying trends relative to business mix.
We use five years of data in these ratios to attempt to capture the business cycles.
EXHIBIT 8
Summary of Relevant Metrics – Profitability
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Return on Capital
(5-year average)
≥ 12%
12% > x
> 8%
8% ≥ x
> 4%
4% ≥ x
> 0%
0% ≥ x
> -4%
-4%% ≥ x
> -8%
≤ -8%
Sharpe Ratio of Return on
Capital (5-year average)
≥ 400%
400% > x
> 300%
300% ≥ x
> 200%
200% ≥ x
> 100%
100% ≥ x
> 0%
n/a n/a
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Factor 6: Reserve Adequacy
Why It Matters:
Inadequate loss reserves have been a contributing, if not the primary, cause of most P&C insurance
company failures since the 1990s. Given the still broad accounting latitude endemic to the insurance
business, the importance of credible loss reserves cannot be over-emphasized. The evaluation of redundancy
or deficiency in an insurer’s loss and loss adjustment reserves impacts the analysis of its reported earnings
as well as the assessment of capital adequacy. When P&C insurers’ loss reserves develop unfavorably, the
impact on the company’s financial profile and flexibility can be material as seen by the decrease in capital,
the increased operating and financial leverage ratios, and reduced dividend-paying capacity to the holding
company.
Relevant Metric:
Loss Reserve Development: 1-year loss reserve development as % of reserves (5 year weighted average)
Interpreting the Metric:
Given that insurers do not know the cost of their product until after it has been sold – often long after it has
been sold – strong underwriting skills and a stable track record are significant differentiators for highly rated
and lower rated companies. Consequently, the premium-rate monitoring, underwriting and claims-handling
processes are critical areas of our assessment. We typically review past underwriting results (usually in
connection with reserve adequacy analysis) and current underwriting practices that will impact future
profitability levels.
Many of the reserve analysis techniques we use are necessarily complex and at times involve our own
actuarial analysis, a review of third-party reserve analysis and consideration of disclosures regarding carried
reserves within an actuarially determined range of reasonable estimates. However, we also find that a
simple review of prior-year reserve development – defined as the past year’s loss reserve development as a
percentage of prior-year reserves, shareholders’ equity or premiums – usually provides broad corroboration
of the more detailed analysis. For trend purposes, the metric is based on an average of reserve development
over the last five years with greater weight given to the most recent years in the calculation (a weighted
average where the most recent year has a weight of 5/15, the preceding year a weight of 4/15, etc.).
Highly rated companies tend to have less adverse reserve development than lower-rated companies.
21 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
That said, we also typically consider the cause of adverse development and attempt to consider past
development in light of our current assessment of reserve adequacy.
Where applicable, we also may assess adequacy of core reserves separate from reserves associated with
latent liabilities (primarily asbestos and environmental, or A&E, liabilities); such liabilities, which are typically
more relevant for North American insurers, tend to represent a small proportion of overall reserves and do
not lend themselves to traditional actuarial analysis. A variety of techniques may be used to assess reserve
adequacy in this area, including a funding ratio which we consider is typically a good measure to gauge the
relative sufficiency of A&E reserves, although we generally also consider the impact a company’s claims
practices, historical market share and product mix, and single large payments may have had on this rather
simple measure.
EXHIBIT 9
Summary of Relevant Metric - Reserve Adequacy
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Loss Reserve Development
as % % of Reserves
≤ -5%
-5% < x
< -2%
-2% ≤ x
< 2%
2% ≤ x
< 5%
5% ≤ x
< 7%
7% ≤ x
< 9%
≥ 9%
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Factor 7: Financial Flexibility
Why It Matters
It is important that a company be able not only to fund its business growth via internal capital generation
but also to demonstrate the ability to service its obligations without stress. Insurers benefit from having the
capacity to raise capital externally for additional growth or acquisitions and to meet unexpected financial
demands whether those come from an unusually negative credit/market environment, earnings volatility, or
other planned or unplanned capital needs. Financial flexibility - as indicated by adjusted and total leverage,
double leverage, earnings coverage, dividend coverage, holding company liquidity and access to capital
markets - is a key determinant of the insurer’s credit profile. We also consider, as discussed at the end of
this section, the depth of the capital markets of a company’s domicile, which if thin, can lead to limited
financial flexibility despite what may appear to be strong capital and income metrics.
Relevant Metrics:
Adjusted Financial Leverage: Adjusted debt (Financial debt (including preferred stock) + Moody’s pension,
hybrid, and operating lease adjustments) divided by (adjusted debt + shareholders’ equity)
Total Leverage: [Financial debt (including preferred stock) + operating debt + Moody’s pension and operating
lease adjustments] divided by [financial debt + operating debt + Moody’s pension and operating lease
adjustments + shareholders’ equity (adjusted for any non-debt items)]
Earnings Coverage: Adjusted Earnings before interest and taxes divided by interest expense and preferred
dividends (5 year average)
Cash Flow Coverage: Dividend capacity from subsidiaries divided by interest expense and preferred dividends
(5 year average)
Interpreting the Metrics:
Financial leverage measures the amount of a company’s capital base that is financed through borrowed
money, typically short- and long-term debt and hybrid capital securities, which can be issued at an
operating company or holding company. Our adjusted financial leverage calculation considers all forms of
22 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
debt (including surplus notes and hybrid securities – adjusted for Moody’s Debt/Equity Continuum
24
– plus
unfunded and underfunded pension obligations and operating leases, and uncollateralized letters of credit
for Lloyd’s of London underwriting purposes) used to fund the company’s operations as leverage.
Shareholders’ equity in the adjusted financial leverage calculation includes accumulated other
comprehensive income (AOCI) as we believe reported equity and the impact of changes in AOCI, primarily
from changes in value of investment securities, impact the markets’ perception of P&C insurers’ ability to
access capital markets at attractive funding costs. Consideration is also given to leverage metrics calculated
using shareholders’ equity without AOCI, especially during periods of volatile interest rate changes or where
assets are reported at fair value but liabilities are reported at book value. In general, companies with higher
scores for this factor tend to have lower levels of financial leverage.
The typical starting point for our leverage metrics – whether it be adjusted financial leverage or total
leverage (discussed below) – is consolidated leverage, rather than the leverage ratio of individual entities or
analytic units. Our attribution of an insurance group’s consolidated financial leverage ratio to all members
or analytic units of the group is based on our assumption that each subsidiary/analytic unit benefits from, as
well as contributes to, the group’s debt service coverage to a greater or lesser degree (in some cases, capped
at the domestic sovereign rating, discussed below). Analysts may then make adjustments for subsidiaries
or units that are not core to the group, and are unlikely to benefit from parent company debt or equity
capital support.
In addition to our standard adjustments to financial leverage and earnings coverage, additional adjustments
to these metrics are sometimes necessary for individual companies. For example, an adjustment may
include adding back as debt an off-balance-sheet obligation, because we believe the company will support
the debt obligation, if necessary, because of reputation or economic incentives. In contrast, match-funded
or self-liquidating debt appearing on a company’s balance sheet is likely to be excluded from adjusted
financial leverage and earnings/cash flow coverage metrics because the debt is analytically viewed as
operating debt rather than financial debt.
However, we also believe it is important to consider in tandem with our adjusted financial leverage metric
the total debt profile of a group, on an unadjusted basis (apart from pension obligations and operating
leases) and including operating debt. Although potentially match-funded, operating debt nevertheless
involves external debt-raising and needs to meet certain criteria to avoid being classified as financial
leverage.
25
The scoring ranges for the adjusted financial leverage and total leverage metrics are the same in
order to highlight those groups most reliant on the use of hybrids and operating debt.
Other considerations incorporated into our opinions about financial leverage may include – where
applicable – a company’s double leverage (i.e., investments in subsidiaries funded by parent company debt
or a stacked ownership structure), historical trends, management’s target level for leverage relative to
current position, and maturity profile, as well as the complexity of the capital structure itself.
The debt capacity of an insurer is also implied by its earnings capacity and dividend capacity relative to
interest expense and preferred dividends, although there can be substantial variability in these figures from
year to year. Companies with higher scores for the factor tend to have stronger earnings and cash flow
coverage metrics than companies with lower scores.
24
We believe that it is appropriate for our credit analysis to limit the amount of total equity credit that is derived from the issuance of hybrid securities within a capital
structure. Please refer to our cross-sector rating methodology for hybrid equity credit. A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be
found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
25
Please refer to our cross-sector rating methodology that discusses how we assess operating debt used by insurance companies. A link to an index of our sector and cross-
sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
23 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
The earnings coverage ratio is calculated on a consolidated basis (US GAAP, IFRS or an equivalent standard)
and considers consolidated earnings (pre-tax, pre-interest expense and preferred dividend coverage of
consolidated interest expense and preferred dividends). The focus is typically on coverage of interest
expense and preferred dividends, although the numerator and denominator are also adjusted for pensions
and leases. Because there can be regulatory restrictions on dividend capacity from an operating company to
its holding company, the earnings coverage ratio is usually evaluated in the context of the insurer’s actual
flexibility in terms of cash available to be sent up to the holding company.
The cash flow coverage ratio assesses the flexibility of the parent holding company, which usually is the
issuer of debt and/or hybrid securities.
26
The ratio relates the recurring sources of cash to the holding
company to its uses of cash. For cash sources, we include the maximum allowable dividend (unrestricted)
from regulated subsidiaries (subject to the condition that capital adequacy is maintained at the operating
company). For cash uses, we include interest expense and preferred dividends at the holding company. The
cash flow coverage ratio cannot be calculated in all jurisdictions due to varying disclosures. If we are unable
to calculate cash flow coverage due to a lack of disclosure, we allocate the weight assigned to this sub-
factor to our earnings coverage sub-factor.
When analyzing the coverage ratios, we generally consider any differences that may exist between interest
expense and the cash payments associated with interest. We also typically assess the interrelationship
between cash flow coverage and earnings coverage by considering a) whether material earnings are
generated in regions where dividend extraction is more difficult; b) if the parent has meaningful and
consistent sources of cash flow from unregulated entities; and c) the relative levels of dividend capacity
compared to earning capacity. In instances where dividend capacity significantly exceeds earnings capacity,
this may indicate dividend capacity is unlikely to be replenished should a significant dividend be made.
In addition to these metrics, we also may consider holding company liquidity, measuring the extent to
which financial debt obligations, covering near-term debt maturities, interest expense and preferred and
common stock dividends, are covered by readily realizable assets (i.e., cash, investment-grade bonds and all
publicly traded equities). This is relevant in light of the large proportion of debt typically issued by a parent
company and the aforementioned regulatory restrictions regarding dividend upstreaming by operating
companies. As with the coverage ratios, we also may assess the extent to which a holding company is
unduly reliant on subsidiaries where dividend extraction is difficult, as well as any other liquidity resources
that could be drawn upon if necessary.
We also recognize that it is important for a company to maintain capital market confidence. Ready access
to the capital markets is necessary for many insurers in the case of needing to raise capital after a severe
unexpected event, to fund an acquisition or to expand internal growth plans. The inability to access the
capital markets at all, or on non-attractive terms, vividly illustrated by the 2008-09 financial crisis, can
significantly impair a company’s financial flexibility As a result, we view P&C insurers’ access to the capital
markets, which can be limited by outsized financial leverage or poor coverage, as important given the
inherent volatility of the business.
We additionally may consider a company’s backup lending facilities and letter of credit arrangements and
the conservatism of covenants, if any, embedded in borrowing arrangements. Strong backup facilities with
limited restrictive covenants enhance financial flexibility for a company, particularly in times of stress.
In assessing financial flexibility, we also consider the country in which a company is domiciled. We believe
that the ability to raise debt and equity as governed by the scale and sophistication of a country’s capital
26
See our cross-sector methodology for assigning instrument ratings for insurers for more information on the relationship between IFSRs and other ratings. A link to an
index of our sector and cross-sector methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
24 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
markets is an important adjunct to the level of debt and its debt-servicing capability. As a result, our
financial flexibility scores are typically capped by the local currency bond rating of the country in which it
operates. This cap applies as well to the local subsidiaries of foreign insurance groups, even if the foreign
insurance group has strong financial flexibility.
EXHIBIT 10
Summary of Relevant Metrics - Financial Flexibility
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Adjusted Financial
Leverage
≤ 15%
15% < x
< 30%
30% ≤ x
< 40%
40% ≤ x
< 50%
50%≤ x
< 60%
60% ≤ x
< 70%
≥ 70%
Total Leverage ≤ 15% 15% < x
< 30%
30% ≤ x
< 40%
40% ≤ x
< 50%
50% ≤ x
< 60%
60% ≤ x
< 70%
≥ 70%
Earnings Coverage
(5-year average)
≥ 12x
12x > x
> 8x
8x ≥ x
> 4x
4x ≥ x
> 2x
2x ≥ x
> 0x
≤ 0 N.A.
Cash Flow Coverage
(5-year average)
≥ 7x
7x > x
> 5x
5x ≥ x
> 3x
3x ≥ x
> 1.5x
1.5x ≥ x
≥ 0x
< 0 N.A.
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Operating Environment
Why It Matters
Although our analysis of insurers is focused predominantly on company-specific characteristics and on
business and financial parameters in the context of an insurer’s operations within its industry sector, an
important component of our analysis – particularly in developing markets – is the extent to which external
conditions can exert a meaningful influence on insurers’ credit profiles.
The Operating Environment serves to capture relevant economic, social, judicial, institutional and general
business conditions in a particular country as regards the insurance sector. Country-specific trends and
developments can over time have as much of a bearing on insurers’ long-term viability as the intrinsic
strength of their own operations. Considerations can include the trajectory of economic development
relative to other countries, major social or political developments, and the degree of utilization, recognition
and acceptance of insurance as a legitimate vehicle for asset accumulation and wealth protection.
Relevant Metrics:
The Operating Environment incorporates scores for multiple factors in two categories – Insurance Systemic
Risk and Insurance Market Development – by country, based on the country in which an insurer operates.
For insurers that have meaningful operations in multiple countries or jurisdictions, we consider a blended
approach to evaluating the overall Operating Environment score.
Three of the five country-specific components of the Operating Environment score that pertain to Insurance
Systemic Risk are based on macro-level indicators from our sovereign rating methodology
27
and country
research. The remaining two components – pertaining to Insurance Market Development – assess the
degree of development of the insurance sector in a given country.
28
27
For more details on our sovereign rating methodology, a link to an index of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related
Publications” section.
28
We generally assess the degree of development of the insurance sector in a given country and may consider indicators such as those published annually by Swiss Re
Sigma, or through equivalent data otherwise captured by Moody’s.
25 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Insurance Systemic Risk
E
Economic Strength:
We use our published factor score for a sovereign’s Economic Strength.
Institutions and Governance Strength
: We use our published factor score for a sovereign’s Institutions and
Governance Strength.
Susceptibility to Event Risk:
We use our published factor score for a sovereign’s Susceptibility to Event Risk.
In each case, the broad alpha or alphanumeric sovereign factor score is mapped to a numeric as described
below.
Insurance Market Development
Insurance Penetration (%)
: Total (life and non-life) industry-wide insurance premiums (excluding cross-border
business) as a percentage of GDP. Insurance penetration assesses the significance of a country’s insurance
market in the national economy.
Insurance Density (percentile-rank)
: Percentile-rank, worldwide, of total (life and non-life) industry-wide
insurance premiums (excluding cross-border business) per capita. Insurance density assesses the extent of
utilization of insurance protection in a given country.
Interpreting the Operating Environment Metrics
In our view, the better the operating environment, the less it impinges on the intrinsic strength of an
insurer’s credit profile. To the extent that the operating environment is considered more favorable than the
insurer’s own intrinsic credit profile, it is typically not a material consideration in the rating analysis.
Furthermore, operating environments at the A or higher rating level are considered to be sufficiently strong
so as to be neutral with respect to insurers’ credit profiles, and are therefore not considered. Consequently,
operating environments have only a neutral-to-negative impact on our ratings for insurers. Additionally, we
believe that the weaker operating environment is, the greater influence it has on an insurer’s overall credit
profile, as the structural strength of the insurance industry and contractual agreements increasingly come
into question.
Insurance Systemic Risk
Economic Strength
– The intrinsic strength of an economy provides critical indications of a sovereign’s
resilience to external shocks. A sovereign’s ability to generate sufficient revenue to service debt over the
medium term relies on sustained economic growth and prosperity, i.e., wealth.
Institutions and Governance Strength
– The strength of institutions and governance are important
determinants of a sovereign’s creditworthiness because they influence the predictability and stability of the
legal and regulatory environment. Institutions and governance provide a strong indication of a government’s
willingness to repay its debt. They influence the sovereign’s capacity and willingness to formulate and
implement economic, fiscal and monetary policies that support growth, socioeconomic stability and fiscal
sustainability, which in turn protect the interests of creditors over the long term.
Susceptibility to Event Risk
– Susceptibility to sudden, extreme events that could severely impact the
country’s economy or its institutions, or strain public finances is an important indicator of a sovereign’s
creditworthiness. Event risks are varied and typically include domestic political and geopolitical risks,
26 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
government liquidity risk, banking sector risk and external vulnerability risk. We believe that such events
could have significant negative implications for financial institutions such as insurance companies.
Insurance Market Development
I
Insurance Penetration and Density
– Insurance markets around the world vary significantly in their degree
of development with respect to the range of product offerings, utilization, and the significance of insurance
as a means of risk mitigation and asset protection. Whereas Insurance Penetration considers the
importance of the industry sector relative to the overall national economy, Insurance Density considers its
importance relative to the population base of a country, thereby providing a helpful demographic
perspective. Taken together, these two measures offer a more balanced perspective than either one taken in
isolation. Broadly speaking, and all other things being equal, the higher the penetration and density levels,
the more highly developed the insurance market, including the scopes of coverage provided and the greater
the perceived utility of the product. We also note that the particularities of different countries’ insurance
market structure and insurance accounting can significantly influence their penetration and density levels.
Nevertheless, we believe that insurance penetration and density provide a meaningful basis of macro-level
differentiation among countries, with respect to the utilization and development of insurance.
Calculating the Operating Environment Score
The Operating Environment score is derived by the combining the scores for Insurance Systemic Risk,
composed of Economic Strength (25%), Institutions and Governance Strength (50%) and Susceptibility to
Event Risk (25%) with Insurance Market Development, composed of Insurance Penetration (50%) and
Insurance Density (50%).
For Insurance Systemic Risk, we start with the published factor scores for the sovereign’s Economic Strength
and Institutions and Governance Strength, which are expressed on an alphanumeric scale, and Susceptibility
to Event Risk, which is expressed on a broad alpha scale.
29
We then convert these scores to numeric scores
using the two Mapping Sovereign Rating Methodology Scoring tables below (Exhibits 11 and 12), and we
combine them according to the weights described in the prior paragraph. Specifically, the numeric
equivalent score for each sovereign methodology factor assigned score is multiplied by its weight, with the
results then summed to produce a numeric Insurance Systemic Risk factor score.
29
Broad alpha scores ranging from Aa to Caa are mapped at the midpoint of the associated alphanumeric scores; e.g., for an Aa broad alpha score, we would use Aa2, which
maps to a numeric equivalent of 1.71 using the exhibit for Mapping Sovereign Rating Methodology Scoring for Susceptibility to Event Risk.
27 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
EXHIBIT 11
Mapping Sovereign Rating Methodology Scoring for Economic Strength and Institutions and
Governance Strength*
Economic Strength and Institutions and Governance Strength Numeric Equivalent
aaa, aa1 2.00
aa2, aa3 1.71
a1 1.43
a2 1.14
a3 0.86
baa1 0.57
baa2 0.29
baa3 0.00
ba1, ba2 -0.29
ba3 -0.57
b1 -0.86
b2 -1.14
b3 -1.43
caa1, caa2 -1.71
caa3, ca -2.00
* The effect of this mapping is to compress the alphanumeric sovereign factor scores and convert them to a numeric score for use in the scorecard
for P&C insurers.
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
EXHIBIT 12
Mapping Sovereign Rating Methodology Scoring for Susceptibility to Event Risk
Susceptibility to Event Risk Numeric Equivalent
aaa 2.00
aa 1.71
a 1.43
baa 0.57
ba 0.00
b -0.86
caa -1.71
ca -2.00
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
The Insurance Systemic Risk score is then mapped back to an alphanumeric score as shown in the table
below.
The Insurance Market Development factor is based on a simple averaging of separate indicators for
Insurance Penetration (total premiums – life and non-life – as a percentage of GDP) and Insurance Density
(total premiums – life and non-life – per capita). Insurance Market Penetration is mapped to the global
rating scale directly as indicated in the table below. Insurance Density is assessed by country, and then
measured or estimated on a worldwide percentile-rank basis, with premiums denominated in US dollars.
The Insurance Market Development factor is calculated using three-year averages. These results are then
mapped to our global rating scale as shown in the table below.
28 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Modifiers (1, 2, 3) for broad alpha categories from Aa to Caa are produced by interpolating the numerical
result to the upper, middle and lower tercile of each factor range as indicated in the following table.
EXHIBIT 13
Summary of Relevant Metrics*
Indicator
Factor
Weights
Sub-Factor
Weights Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Insurance Systemic Risk 2/3 2.0 2.0-1.0 1.0-0.5 0.5-0 0-(0.5) (0.5)-(1.0) <(1.0)
Insurance Market Development 1/3
Insurance Penetration (% GDP) 50% >=6.5% 5.5%-6.5% 4.5%-5.5% 3.5%-
4.5%
2.5%-3.5% 1.5%-2.5% <1.5%
Insurance Density (percentile-rank) 50% >=90% 75%-90% 60%-75% 45%-60% 30%-45% 15%-30% <15%
* An indicator’s alphanumeric scoring bands are based on an equal-width partition of the corresponding broad alpha scoring band for the indicator.
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Having calculated the Insurance Systemic Risk and Insurance Market Development indicators, and mapping
each to our global rating scale, these two factors are, in turn, mapped to Aaa to Caa3 (1-19; please see the
first table in Appendix 1, which shows alphanumeric and numeric equivalents). The final Operating
Environment score is then determined by averaging these numeric scores with a 2/3 weight for Insurance
Systemic Risk and a 1/3 weight for Insurance Market Development, and then mapping the result (rounded to
the nearest whole number between 1 and 19) to Aaa to Caa3, using the first table in Appendix 1.
Absent extraordinary systemic (e.g., economic, social, institutional, political and judicial) or market
development considerations that may not be adequately reflected in these metrics, we generally expect to
apply the Operating Environment result without further modification.
Other Scorecard Considerations in Determining the Standalone Credit Profile:
Notching Factors
Management, Governance and Risk Management
We evaluate an insurer’s management, governance and risk management processes as part of our credit
assessment. However, an insurer’s management, governance and risk management only affect the
scorecard-indicated outcome to the extent we believe they are not reflected in the preliminary standalone
outcome score derived from the Business Profile, Financial Profile and Operating Environment, discussed
above. Notching for these factors has typically been limited. That said, in some instances, further
assessment of management, governance or risk management may lead to upward or downward notching.
Considerations in this factor include:
» Key person risk. A high dependence on a single executive or group of executives can pose increased
risks, because the loss of a single person could adversely affect the insurer’s future fundamentals. For
example, an insurer whose corporate customers closely associate the chief executive with the
institution itself could suffer loss of business, earnings and ultimately reduced capital if the chief
executive were to leave, absent adequate succession planning.
» Strategy and management. A radical departure in strategy, a shake-up in management, or an untested
team can all herald sudden change that increases the uncertainty about risk profile. An aggressive
growth plan can also signal an elevated risk appetite, while clear weaknesses in risk management can
increase exposure to adverse developments. Any concerns regarding the rigor of Board or management
oversight may also be considered here.
29 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
» Dividend policy. An aggressive dividend policy may imply reduced financial flexibility. Management
teams are often slow to reduce established dividend levels out of concern over negative signaling and
adverse share price impact. (The same can be said of share buybacks, although to a lesser extent, as the
timing and certainty of execution of even announced buyback programs leave greater management
discretion).
» Compensation policy. Similarly, an aggressive compensation policy, for example, widespread use of
high bonus payments relative to salaries, and skewed towards cash, may encourage short-term risk-
taking behavior to the detriment of bondholders.
We may reduce our preliminary standalone outcome score if we judge that any of these factors has a
material bearing on the insurer’s overall risk profile. Typically, this would be one notch but could be more if
we perceive multiple and/or more deep-seated and serious issues. We may also adjust our preliminary
standalone outcome score upwards, for example where we perceive sustained exemplary stewardship over
time, or exceptional risk management and controls, with a tangible impact on the insurer’s risk profile.
Accounting Policy and Disclosures
Relevant and timely financial information is a critical part of any financial analysis. Many insurers prepare
financial information under generally accepted accounting principles either developed by their home
country or based on international standards. Financial information is also generally prepared on a regulatory
basis of accounting that may be different from generally accepted accounting principles. The presence of a
strong government/independent body for financial standards is considered a positive factor when evaluating
an accounting regime.
Disclosure of financial information varies widely on a global basis and within regions. In certain locations,
regulatory bodies provide access to financial information, although the depth of that information also
varies. Some companies have chosen to provide market participants with easy access to their own financial
data, which we view favorably.
The consistent application of financial information is a fundamental presumption of financial analysis. When
evaluating accounting principles, we consider how well financial reporting mirrors economic reality. Where
we believe the economics of a transaction are not consistent with financial reporting, we may make analytic
adjustments to metrics derived from financial statements to facilitate our analysis.
Sovereign and Regulatory Environment
Deterioration in sovereign credit quality can directly affect the credit standing of insurers domiciled within
the sovereign, and, more generally, tends to be associated with macroeconomic and financial market trends
that are unfavorable for all.
30
Issuers in the same sovereign environment are exposed to some degree to the
transmission of shocks across sectors in the economy and the domestic banking system. In addition, they
are subject to defensive sovereign actions that can include austerity measures, changes in tax or regulatory
policies, and interference during a crisis. Given this linkage, sovereign credit quality can constrain the IFSR of
an insurer.
Our cross-sector methodology that discusses how sovereign credit quality can affect other ratings describes
how we consider the insurer’s geographic diversification, direct exposure to government debt and product
characteristics in analyzing these impacts. Insurers with high geographic diversification, low direct exposure
30
See our methodology that discusses how sovereign credit quality can affect other ratings. A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies
can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
30 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
to government debt and product characteristics less sensitive to sovereign risks can have an IFSR above the
sovereign rating, but generally no more than two notches above.
Moving from the Standalone Credit Profile to the IFSR — Assessing Support
While the above factors are critical in order to determine the standalone credit profile of P&C insurers, the
analytic consideration of support - explicit or implicit - from a parent company or affiliate is necessary to
determine the IFSR, which can be higher than the company’s standalone credit profile. It is important to
note that a well-capitalized, profitable insurance operating company with a highly leveraged parent or a
weak affiliate often has a lower IFSR than it would have were it a free-standing company because of the
pressure those factors can place on its earnings and capital.
Support from a Parent Company or Affiliate
The credit rating of an insurer can ultimately be affected by its relationship to its parent, a subsidiary or
affiliate companies through either explicit or implicit support.
31
We incorporate support from a parent
company or affiliate into the rating by narrowing the spread (expressed in number of rating notches)
between the standalone credit profile of the entity/security and the rating of the entity providing
the support.
32
Ultimately, our assessment of the extent to which the affiliation benefits the rating is based on a number of
variables, including the supporting company’s level of commitment to the country or region of the affiliate,
brand-name sharing, our assessment of how important this entity is to the overall enterprise business
model, its size relative to the whole, its geographic proximity to the supporting entity, existence of shared
regulatory oversight, full or partial ownership, and its integration with the rest of the organization from a
management, distribution and operating perspective, as well as our view of the company’s ability and
willingness to support that entity. Support is evaluated incorporating an assessment of past actions of
the provider of support, current public statements of support and our assessment of the outlook for
future support.
Our judgment of how the prospective supporting entity is likely to behave in the future is strongly
influenced by our assessment of its prospective economic motivations. Accordingly, strong public
statements of support would not be a persuasive reason to raise the rating of a weaker subsidiary if a sound
economic rationale for doing so seems lacking. Although support may provide uplift to a company’s rating,
it may not necessarily raise it to the same level as that of the supporting entity.
While, in most instances, support is incrementally positive, there are instances where group affiliation may
constrain the rating of an entity/security relative to its standalone level. For example, if the insurer is
affiliated with weak or highly leveraged entities, such associations usually, in turn, weaken the insurer.
History has shown that capital often flows from stronger to weaker companies within a controlled group,
and frequently before regulatory action can occur.
Explicit support is usually intended to transfer the credit of the supporting entity to the supported affiliate
or obligation. Explicit support is generally in the form of a capital maintenance agreement, minimum net
31
For additional discussion of our rating guidance related to support, see our cross-sector rating methodology on rating non-guaranteed subsidiaries, which includes credit
considerations for assigning subsidiary ratings in the absence of legally binding parental support. A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector credit rating
methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section. In addition, affiliate companies generally refer to companies outside of the analytic unit being
rated.
32
When this occurs our research typically describes the relationship between the analytic unit and the supporting organization and provides a discussion of the standalone
credit profile of the analytic unit.
31 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
worth agreement or some type of direct guarantee. It can also take the form of management contracts,
marketing arrangements, reinsurance agreements or tax-sharing agreements.
In analyzing explicit support, we consider the specific legal nature and enforceability of the support, as well
as its possible termination. Explicit support, depending on its structure, can achieve credit transference and
bring the affiliate’s rating up to that of the supporting entity. However, we also make an assessment as to
whether the extension of this support (as well as with implicit support) will weaken the credit profile of the
parent or affiliate.
Where support is present, the IFSR typically receives one or two notches of uplift from the standalone credit
profile. Although rare, three or more notches of uplift is possible, although typically only when strong
explicit support is provided. In addition, uplift such that the supported entity’s rating is equal to the
supporter’s rating is rare without meaningful explicit support. This can be the case even where the
company’s management states that the subsidiary is core to its ongoing strategy and operation, primarily
due to the risks that the supporter may change its strategy or the supporter’s regulator may constrain
support in times of stress, particularly if support is to be provided outside of their own jurisdiction.
Where the owner-supporter is a government and we are using this methodology to assign a BCA, to
incorporate support we use our methodology that discusses government-related issuers and the joint
default analysis approach described therein. For clarity, support from a non-government owner is
incorporated using the support portion of the P&C insurers scorecard, whereas support from a government
owner is considered outside of the P&C scorecard.
Factoring in Support from Other-Than-Related Entities
Our ratings of life insurers do not typically reflect an expectation of government support. Based on our
observations, we believe government support would neither be widely offered nor sufficiently reliable nor
predictable to be routinely incorporated into our P&C insurance ratings. In the limited cases where such
support is received, we consider its credit implications on a case-by-case basis. If we believe government
support is long term in nature, or if the insurer is directly owned by the government, we may apply the
rating methodology for government-related issuers when evaluating the credit profile of the insurer.
33
(Please see the Assigning Insurance Financial Strength and Instrument Ratings section below).
If the insurer is part of a bancassurance group, and there is clear evidence that failure of the insurer would
have negative implications on the creditworthiness of banking operations, the likelihood of support by the
government may increase. However, we expect such support to be rarely applied and focused on limiting
any damage to the bank franchise.
Other Rating Considerations
Ratings may include additional factors that are not in the scorecard, usually because they may have a
meaningful effect in differentiating credit quality, but only in some cases. Such factors include financial
controls and the quality of financial reporting; the quality and experience of management; environmental
and social considerations; exposure to uncertain licensing regimes; and possible government interference
in some countries. Regulatory, litigation, liquidity, technology and reputational risk as well as changes to
consumer and business spending patterns, competitor strategies and macroeconomic trends also affect
ratings.
33
A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
32 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Following are some examples of additional considerations that may be reflected in our ratings and that may
cause ratings to be different from scorecard-indicated outcomes.
Special Rating Situations
In a few, very special – and typically adverse – situations, a single rating factor or sub-factor may be so
important to a company’s financial health and solvency, that it overrides all of the others, despite its
nominal weighting in the scorecard. This would typically occur in highly adverse situations, where a
company’s solvency or liquidity is at stake. Examples of this would include the breach of local
capital-solvency or risk-based capital thresholds that precede regulatory intervention, or concerns of a
looming liquidity crisis – e.g., a material holding company debt maturity with a highly uncertain source
of repayment.
If a rated entity has cliff-like rating triggers,
34
its susceptibility to events may be exacerbated.
Special Rating Situations often deal with information that is not necessarily captured by point-in-time
ratios, or annual / quarterly regulatory or reporting requirements. For this reason, we may stress critical
solvency ratios and liquidity needs to identify potentially severe pressure points, and the resultant scenario
may be considered in an additional view of the scorecard.
Financial Institutions with Limited Financial History
Most rated insurers have many years of financial history and lengthy operating track records that generally
act as the basis for our forward-looking credit analysis. Insurers with limited financial history may undergo
rapid evolution initially, before developing readily distinguishable and stable operating characteristics.
Financial institutions are highly confidence-sensitive. A demonstrable track record can be instrumental in
building customer and market trust, which creates franchise value and supports the institution’s
performance during a down cycle.
The franchise value of start-up insurers is usually weak, and most tend to lack product depth, market share,
operating experience as an institution (rather than as a collection of individuals) and a record of resilience
through a full credit cycle. Their systems, policies and procedures tend to be less robust than those of
established insurers.
For start-ups that lack a financial history of at least several years and in cases of a material transformation in
an insurer’s business, such that its financial history does not provide a good indication of future results
(collectively, insurers with limited financial history), existing financial history provides less insight into the
future credit profile. In these cases, our baseline projections may reflect more-conservative expectations
than management’s projections. In addition, we are likely to make downward adjustments to several factors
in our scorecard in order to reflect the considerable uncertainty around our baseline expectations of future
operations and financial profile. To the extent these risks and uncertainties are not fully captured in the
scorecard, they may be reflected in an assigned IFSR that is lower than the scorecard-indicated outcome.
Insurers with limited financial history may benefit from external support. When material, we incorporate
that support into our ratings. In assessing the level of expected support, we generally consider whether the
company’s status as a start-up could affect the willingness of the support provider to step in should support
be needed. For a highly publicized start-up subsidiary of a parent with a solid credit profile, we may expect a
34
Rating triggers are typically used in credit agreements covering funded bank loans and unfunded credit lines (providing back-stop liquidity) and in bond indentures and
reinsurance contracts. Creditors often use rating triggers in an attempt to protect themselves in the event of credit deterioration. A rating trigger typically provides
creditors with certain rights in the event that a borrower’s credit ratings change to predetermined levels. These rights run the gamut from step-ups in loan pricing (not
very risky) to events of default that would enable the creditor to "put" or accelerate the debt (very risky).
33 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
high level of support. Certain parent companies and affiliates, conversely, could be less willing to provide
support if the reputational and financial risks attached to failure of an early-stage business venture were
lower than for subsidiaries with long track records and entrenched businesses in their home markets. We
generally expect that governmental support for start-ups, typically small players in the early years of
operations that are not systemically important, to be low. Exceptions could include government-owned
start-ups and start-up insurers of long-term strategic importance to government policy initiatives.
Financial Controls
We rely on the accuracy of audited financial statements to assign and monitor ratings in this sector.
The quality of financial statements may be influenced by internal controls, including the proper tone at the
top, centralized operations, and consistency in accounting policies and procedures. Auditors’ comments in
financial reports and unusual financial statement restatements or delays in regulatory filings may indicate
weaknesses in internal controls.
Additional Metrics
The metrics included in the scorecard are those that are generally most important in assigning ratings to
companies in this industry; however, we may use additional metrics to inform our analysis of specific
companies. These additional metrics may be important to our forward view of metrics that are in the
scorecard or other rating factors.
Environmental Risks, Including Climate Change
P&C insurers have significant exposure to the economic consequences of climate change relating primarily
to their insured risks and, to a much lesser extent, their investments. Climate-change risks arise primarily
from weather-related catastrophe exposures and potential claims on liability policies. The ability of insurers
to reprice risk on an annual basis somewhat mitigates this risk.
The effects of climate trends on the frequency and severity of catastrophic events are difficult to predict.
Climate change adds complexity to underwriting and an extra layer of risk modeling and pricing uncertainty.
A concentration of insured high-value properties along coastlines and the increased severity of weather-
related catastrophic events magnify the volatility for these firms and result in a number of risk management
challenges associated with the assessment, measurement and mitigation of these risks.
Climate change also affects liability policies. Insurers and reinsurers are exposed to potential losses from
liability insurance provided to corporations that face litigation alleging damages resulting from carbon
emissions, and from companies’ failures to disclose the risks of climate change.
Social Issues
For issuers in this sector, we also consider social issues that could materially affect the likelihood of default
and severity of loss, for example through adverse impacts on business reputation, brand strength and
employee relations.
Assigning Insurance Financial Strength and Instrument Ratings
IFSRs are opinions of the ability of insurance companies to pay punctually senior policyholder obligations
and claims and also reflect the expected financial loss suffered in the event of default.
35
IFSRs are assigned
to legal entities.
35
Please refer to Rating Symbols and Definitions for more details; a link can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
34 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
In contrast, our long-term debt and preferred stock ratings are assigned to specific instruments issued by
either a holding or operating company. The relationship between IFSRs and instrument ratings depends on
the legal and regulatory framework in a particular jurisdiction and the relative standing of policyholders and
instrument holders in the event of insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization or liquidation of the entity. The
relationship between the ratings for these different classes of creditors is discussed in our cross-sector
methodology providing guidance on assigning ratings to instruments issued by insurers.
36
For issuers that
benefit from rating uplift from government ownership or other government support, we may assign a
Baseline Credit Assessment.
37
Global and National Scale Ratings
With the extension of credit ratings to a broader range of markets, our rating scales have evolved to provide
comparability on both a globally and nationally consistent basis.
We have developed two rating scale conventions, namely Global Foreign and Local Currency Ratings
(GFC and GLC Ratings) and National Scale Ratings (NSRs).
38
By convention, reference to an insurer’s IFSR is
understood to refer to the Local Currency IFSR on the global rating scale, unless otherwise specified. Foreign
Currency IFSRs are the same as the Local Currency IFSRs, except where the Local Currency IFSR is above the
country’s Foreign Currency Bond Ceiling, in which case it will be the same as the Foreign Currency Bond
Ceiling.
Assumptions
Key rating assumptions that apply in this sector include our view that sovereign credit risk is strongly
correlated with that of other domestic issuers, that legal priority of claim affects average recovery on
different classes of debt sufficiently to generally warrant differences in ratings for different debt classes of
the same issuer, and the assumption that access to liquidity is a strong driver of credit risk.
Our forward-looking opinions are based on assumptions that may prove, in hindsight, to have been
incorrect. Reasons for this could include unanticipated changes in any of the following: the macroeconomic
environment, general financial market conditions, industry competition, disruptive technology, or regulatory
and legal actions.
Limitations
In the preceding sections, we have discussed the scorecard factors, many of the other rating considerations
that may be important in assigning ratings, and certain key assumptions. In this section, we discuss
limitations that pertain to the scorecard and to the overall rating methodology.
Limitations of the Scorecard
There are various reasons why scorecard-indicated outcomes may not map closely to actual ratings.
36
A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
37
For an explanation of the Baseline Credit Assessment, please refer to Rating Symbols and Definitions and to our cross-sector methodology for government-related
issuers. A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector methodologies and a link to Rating Symbols and Definitions can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications”
section.
38
See our cross-sector methodology for mapping national scale ratings from global scale ratings. A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector credit rating
methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
35 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
The scorecard in this rating methodology is a relatively simple tool focused on indicators for relative credit
strength. Credit loss and recovery considerations, which are typically more important as an issuer gets closer
to default, may not be fully captured in the scorecard. The scorecard is also limited by its upper and lower
bounds, causing scorecard-indicated outcomes to be less likely to align with ratings for issuers at the upper
and lower ends of the rating scale.
The weights for each sub-factor and factor in the scorecard represent an approximation of their importance
for rating decisions across the sector, but the actual importance of a particular factor may vary substantially
based on an individual company’s circumstances.
Factors that are outside the scorecard, including those discussed above in the “Other Rating Considerations”
section, may be important for ratings, and their relative importance may also vary from company to
company. In addition, certain broad methodological considerations described in one or more cross-sector
rating methodologies may be relevant to ratings in this sector.
39
Examples of such considerations include
the following: how sovereign credit quality affects non-sovereign issuers, the assessment of credit support
from other entities, the relative ranking of different classes of debt and hybrid securities, and the assignment
of short-term ratings.
We may use the scorecard over various historical or forward-looking time periods. Furthermore, in our
ratings we often incorporate directional views of risks and mitigants in a qualitative way.
General Limitations of the Methodology
This methodology document does not include an exhaustive description of all factors that we may consider
in assigning ratings in this sector. Companies in the sector may face new risks or new combinations of risks,
and they may develop new strategies to mitigate risk. We seek to incorporate all material credit
considerations in ratings and to take the most forward-looking perspective that visibility into these risks and
mitigants permits.
Ratings reflect our expectations for an issuer’s future performance; however, as the forward horizon
lengthens, uncertainty increases and the utility of precise estimates, as scorecard inputs or in other rating
considerations, typically diminishes. In any case, predicting the future is subject to substantial uncertainty.
39
A link to an index of our sector and cross-sector methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
36 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Appendix 1: Using the Scorecard
This appendix describes how we use the scorecard to arrive at an alphanumeric scorecard-indicated
outcome. Alphanumeric categories from Aaa to C are mapped to numeric values of 1 through 21, as follows:
Alphanumeric Categories Numeric Value
Aaa 1
Aa1 2
Aa2 3
Aa3 4
A1 5
A2 6
A3 7
Baa1 8
Baa2 9
Baa3 10
Ba1 11
Ba2 12
Ba3 13
B1 14
B2 15
B3 16
Caa1 17
Caa2 18
Caa3 19
Ca 20
C 21
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Qualitative sub-factors are scored on a broad alpha scale based on the scoring descriptions (with an
equivalent numeric score based on the midpoint of that alpha category), and these sub-factor scores are
combined to produce an alphanumeric factor score. A numeric value for each score is mapped from the
table above. A numeric value between 1 and 18 is established for each financial metric through linear
interpolation. Taking, for example, the scoring ranges for the Financial Flexibility factor, a company with
adjusted financial leverage of 22% would map to a numeric score of 2.9, and fall within the Aa range for
that metric, and a company with financial leverage of 34% (mapping to a 5.7 numeric score) would fall
within the A range. The weightings per the table below are then applied to arrive at an overall numeric value
for each scorecard factor. The numeric value by scorecard factor is mapped back to the Aaa through C scale
shown above.
Each scorecard factor is assessed and then weighted according to its importance within our rating approach
for the industry. The Operating Environment scores, to the extent it corresponds to a broad alpha category
of Baa or below, is accorded a weight as shown in the following table. These weights apply regardless of the
modifier (1, 2 or 3). The Operating Environment’s weight is variable and increases toward the lower end of
the rating scale for scores at the Baa level or below. Importantly, the Operating Environment component is
reflected in an insurer’s credit profile only to the extent that it exerts a downward influence.
Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Operating Environment Weights n/a n/a n/a 20% 40% 60% 80%
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
37 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Once the weighted average result (based on the company-specific business and financial factors) is
calculated, it is multiplied by one minus the Operating Environment weight, and then added to the result of
the Operating Environment weight multiplied by the numeric value associated with the Operating
Environment component. Using those weightings, a weighted average is calculated, which is then mapped
back to the Aaa through C rating scale shown above. The result is oriented to the IFSR in the local or foreign
currency. This scorecard-indicated outcome may be different from the final rating because it does not
consider the analyst’s input to the individual factors, or management and governance, special rating
situations, and accounting policy and disclosures, as well as implicit/explicit support.
The weightings shown below are our assessment of the typical relative importance of the company-specific
factors and sub-factors, and of the Operating Environment for P&C insurers, but in assigning ratings,
individual factors or sub-factors may have greater or lesser weight, depending on the specific characteristics
of the insurer. The metrics are primarily calculated based on public information. Non-public financial data or
public financial data modified due to accounting and reporting formats in other than US GAAP or IFRS may
also be used.
38 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Factor Weights
Metric Weights
(relative to factor weights)
B
BUSINESS PROFILE
F
Factor 1: Market Position, Brand and Distribution
25%
Relative Market Share Ratio (relative to industry average)
75%
Underwriting Expenses as % of Net Premiums Written
25%
F
Factor 2: Product Focus and Diversification
10%
Product Risk
40%
P&C Insurance Product Diversification
40%
Geographic Diversification
20%
F
FINANCIAL PROFILE
F
Factor 3: Asset Quality
10%
High Risk Assets as % of Shareholders’ Equity
40%
Reinsurance Recoverables as % of Shareholders’ Equity
30%
Goodwill & Intangibles as % of Shareholders’ Equity
30%
F
Factor 4: Capital Adequacy
15%
Gross Underwriting Leverage
100%
F
Factor 5: Profitability
15%
Return on Capital (5-year average)
50%
Sharpe Ratio of Return On Capital (5-year average)*
50%
F
Factor 6: Reserve Adequacy
10%
Loss Reserve Development as % of Reserves
100%
F
Factor 7: Financial Flexibility
15%
Adjusted Financial Leverage
25%
Total Leverage
15%
Earnings Coverage (5-year average)
30%
Cash Flow Coverage (5-year average)**
30%
Subtotal – company-specific factors
100%
O
OPERATING ENVIRONMENT
Variable (see above)
* When calculating the Sharpe ratio, if the average ROC of the analytic unit is 0 or negative, this ratio is not meaningful, and the weight of this sub-
factor is reallocated to the ROC sub-factor.
** If we are unable to calculate cash flow coverage due to lack of disclosure, we allocate the weight assigned to this sub-factor to our earnings
coverage sub-factor.
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Differences between the scorecard-indicated outcome and the standalone credit profile may exist due to
analytic judgment regarding the weighting of the factors, the importance of the other analytic
considerations, or other unique fundamentals of the company not appropriately captured or weighted by
the scorecard. Furthermore, the standalone credit profile may be different from the actual rating due to
affiliate support or sovereign considerations.
39 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Appendix 2: Takaful (Islamic) Insurers
Takaful is a form of insurance that complies with the fundamentals of Sharia (Islamic religious law). It is
based on the principles of mutual assistance, co-operation and voluntary contribution, with risks shared
collectively and voluntarily by a group of participants. Participants in Takaful arrangements agree to
contribute a sum of money (tabarru) to a common pool with the intention of financially assisting fellow
participants in case of any misfortune. In this respect, it is similar to conventional mutual insurance
arrangements, and we make a number of adjustments to our standard life insurance and P&C
methodologies as a result.
Main differences between Takaful and conventional insurers
A Takaful insurer’s financial statements include an income statement and balance sheet for both the Takaful
fund (policyholder) and shareholder fund. Depending on the specific Takaful model adopted by the insurer,
the shareholder fund typically receives revenue streams either from i) a profit-sharing agreement based on
the underwriting profit of the Takaful fund (Al Mudharaba, as is common in Malaysia), or ii) via fees charged
to the Takaful fund on revenues to cover the operating costs (Wakala) and the asset management costs
(Mudaraba), as is common in the Middle East. A third Takaful model, Waqf, also exists where the
distribution of generated surplus is not permitted and the fund operates as a public foundation.
Irrespective of the Takaful model used, if the policyholder fund falls into deficit, the Takaful insurer’s
shareholders typically have a constructive obligation to make an interest-free loan (Qard-al-Hassan)
available to the Takaful fund to meet this deficit, which is repayable out of future profits emerging from the
Takaful fund.
Analytic adjustments
Because of these inter-relationships between shareholders and policyholders, our analytical approach is to
effectively aggregate the two sets of income statements and balance sheets and eliminate any double
counting.
However, a number of additional concepts are relevant in our analysis of Takaful insurers, including the
following: i) because Sharia law prohibits the payment of riba (interest), this disqualifies conventional bonds
as an acceptable investment class, increasing the likely exposure to higher-risk asset classes, such as real
estate or Sharia-compliant equities; ii) as Sharia compliance is monitored by a Sharia board at the insurer,
this poses additional reputational risks relative to a conventional insurer in the event of non-compliance
with Sharia law; and iii) as with mutuals, we recognize that the maximization of return on capital,
particularly within the policyholder fund, is not always the company’s primary objective.
Regarding market position, brand and distribution, the importance of purchasing a Takaful product for some
policyholders effectively limits their choice to Islamic insurers. We therefore consider the market position,
brand and distribution of an issuer within the Takaful segment of the overall insurance market the issuer
operates in and within the total insurance market.
With regard to asset risk, as discussed earlier, Takaful insurers’ investment options are somewhat restricted
compared to a conventional insurer. We therefore consider the investment risk of the issuer in the context
of the asset classes in which a Takaful insurer is permitted to invest. Notwithstanding this, we typically
consider higher-risk assets, such as equities and real estate, to be detrimental to the creditworthiness of
Takaful.
Arguably the most significant adjustment relates to capital adequacy. As discussed above, we effectively
aggregate the shareholder and policyholder balance sheets (and income statements) of a Takaful insurer,
40 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
and we evaluate the company’s capital position on a consolidated basis, reflecting the capital available in
the policyholder and shareholder funds. However, if the policyholder fund is in a sustained, structural deficit
position and is reliant on funding from the shareholders, we typically cap our assessment of the insurer’s
capital adequacy at the Ba level, notwithstanding that many Takaful insurers generate only modest
insurance revenues relative to their consolidated capital base. As part of this analysis, we also consider the
fungibility of capital between the balance sheets, with shareholders obliged to make an interest free loan to
the policyholder fund if this is in deficit. However, because the loan is repayable out of future profits
emerging from the policyholder fund, sustained losses may mean it is not possible to repay this loan.
We also aggregate the profitability of the policyholder fund with that of the shareholders and eliminate any
intra-income statement balances. This ensures that if the fees charged to the policyholder fund by
shareholders do not exactly reflect the actual expenses incurred in any particular accounting period, the net
impact is zero once the fees are eliminated. This facilitates a better assessment of the underlying
profitability of the business written.
41 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Appendix 3: Analyzing ‘Composite’ Firms Active in Both P&C and Life Insurance
This appendix identifies the key metrics used when evaluating companies that have a diversified business
model writing meaningful amounts of both P&C and life insurance business within the same analytic unit.
40
Such insurers are referred to as composites.
Scorecard Factors and Key Metrics for Composite Companies
Examples of insurers writing both P&C and life insurance business within the same legal entity, or where the
combined non-life and life operations of a company are considered as one analytic unit, have been largely
confined to Europe. In assessing such companies, we use a composite scorecard, for which we have selected
all of the key factors within the P&C and life insurance methodologies.
40
Examples of analytic units for which a composite scorecard is produced include legal entities that write both life and non-life business, and a regional group of non-life
and life companies that are subject to common management, systems, distribution and internal review and may publish consolidated accounts. These analytic units
typically have P&C insurance premiums/reserves and life insurance premiums/reserves that individually represent more than 15% of total premiums/reserves.
42 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Composite Insurers: Summary of Scorecard Factors, Metrics and Scoring Guidelines
Key Factors and
Metrics
(weights/sub-
factor weights
relative to factor
weights) Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
B
Business Profile
Market Position and Brand (20%)
Relative Market
Share (relative to
industry average)
≥ 3x 1.5x < x < 3x 0.5x < x ≤ 1.5x 0.25x < x ≤ 0.5x 0.15x < x ≤ 0.25x 0.05x < x ≤ 0.15x ≤ 0.05x
D
Distribution
(
(5
%
%)
Distribution
Control (50%)
Owned captive or
controlled
distribution
system whose
high cost
structure is
aligned with high
value products;
excellent
distribution
productivity and
retention that
leads to
persistent, stable,
and profitable
business.
Blend of
controlled
distribution and
preferred
position in
multiple
unaffiliated
independent
third-party
distribution
sources; captive
agent distribution
systems’ higher
cost structure is
aligned with high
value products;
above-average
distribution
productivity and
retention leads to
persistent, stable,
and profitable
business; relative
strength in
negotiating
distribution
contracts and
costs with third
parties. Not
overly dependent
on one
distributor for
sourcing of
business -
distribution at
company is
aligned by
product type and
costs; able to
easily expand
distribution and
channel-
penetration on a
profitable basis;
attractive
provider to new
distribution
channels.
Blend of
controlled
distribution and
unaffiliated
independent
third party
distribution
sources;
controlled
distribution
systems’ high
cost structure
not effectively
aligned with
commodity-like
products being
sold; less
preferred
position with
third-party
distributors who
are less loyal,
resulting in
higher surrender
rates, increased
liquidity concerns
and more
volatile/less
profitable
business; able to
align third-party
distribution with
type of products
sold, but less
negotiating
power in
arranging
distribution
contracts and
costs.
Unaffiliated
independent
third-party
distribution, not
likely to have
preferred
position with
third-party
distributors,
increased
liquidity
concerns,
increased
movement of
business if
concerns about
company’s
financial position,
able to align
distribution with
type of products
sold, but scale
and other issues
leave company in
poor position
negotiating
distribution
contracts and
costs.
Unaffiliated
independent
third-party
distribution,
marginalized
position with
third-party
distributors,
increased
liquidity
concerns,
increased
movement of
business with
concerns about
company’s weak
financial position,
may not be able
to align
distribution with
type of products
sold, and scale
and other issues
leaves company
in poor position
negotiating
distribution
contracts and
costs.
Company has
lost access to
most or all of its
unaffiliated third-
party distribution
channels and
sales production
capabilities, due
to the run-off of
its business
resulting from
concerns about
company’s
viability/financial
position.
n/a
43 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Composite Insurers: Summary of Scorecard Factors, Metrics and Scoring Guidelines
Key Factors and
Metrics
(weights/sub-
factor weights
relative to factor
weights) Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Diversity of
Distribution (50%)
Greater than 5
distinct
distribution
channels each
with > 10% of
premiums; no
concentration in
any one channel
for sourcing of
business; strong
alignment by
product type and
costs; an anchor
product provider
sought out by
new distribution
channels.
4 distinct
distribution
channels with
>10% of
premiums; no
significant
dependence on
any one
distributor for
sourcing of
business;
distribution at
company is
aligned by
product type and
costs; able to
easily expand
distribution on a
profitable basis;
attractive
provider to new
distribution
channels.
3 distinct
distribution
channels with
>10% of
premiums; more
dependence on a
few sources of
distribution;
position within
third-parties is
modest; more
vulnerable to
disruption and
changes in
distribution
channels, as
distributors can
easily switch to
other carriers;
capable of adding
some new
distribution
outlets on a
profitable basis.
Dependence on 2
distribution
channels;
vulnerable to
disruption and
changes in
distribution
channels, as
distributors can
easily switch to
other carriers;
difficulty in
attracting new
distributors on
profitable basis.
Dependence on a
single
distribution
channel for all
premiums; very
vulnerable to
disruption and
changes in
distribution
channels, as
distributors can
easily switch to
other carriers;
unable to attract
new distributors.
Company has no
active
distribution
channels;
business has
either purposely
been put into
run-off or
distribution
access has shut
down due to
company-specific
financial stress.
n/a
P
Product Focus and Diversification (10%)
Product Risk –
P&C (25%)
Very granular
exposures; short-
tail lines; very
low risk of
estimating
ultimate claim
costs.
Granular
exposures; short-
and medium-
tailed lines
represent more
than 2/3rd of
premiums;
generally
moderate risk of
estimating
ultimate claim
costs, but may
have manageable
property
catastrophe risk.
Policies may have
high gross limits
relative to equity;
risk of estimating
ultimate claim
costs is
meaningful;
longer-tailed
lines may
represent more
than 1/3rd of
premiums;
manageable
catastrophe risk
may be present in
either casualty or
property
exposures.
Longer-tailed
lines are majority
of premiums
and/or policies
have high gross
limits relative to
equity; risk of
estimating
ultimate claim
cost may be
significant;
significant
catastrophe risk
may be present in
either casualty or
property
exposures.
Combination of
size of in-force
portfolio and size
of individual
policies limits
application of
"law of large
numbers"; claim
cost estimation
risk is high;
catastrophe risk
is substantial.
Extremely
volatile in-force
portfolio, the size
of which and the
size of individual
policies
significantly
limits application
of "law of large
numbers"; claim
cost estimation
risk is very high;
catastrophe risk
is substantial.
n/a
Product Risk – Life
(25%)
Low Risk
Reserves are >
50% of Total
Reserves;
majority of
liabilities have
high ability to
share risk with
policyholders;
low interest rate,
equity market,
and/or liquidity
risks; liabilities
Low Risk
Reserves are
40%-50% of
Total Reserves;
significant
portion of
liabilities have
above-average
ability to share
risks with
policyholders;
low or
mana
g
eable
Low Risk
Reserves are
30%-40% of
Total Reserves;
moderate
amount of
liabilities have
ability to share
risks with
policyholders;
higher interest
rate, equity
market, and/or
Low Risk
Reserves are
20%-30% of
Total Reserves;
limited amount
of liabilities have
ability to share
risks with
policyholders;
higher interest
rate, equity
market, and
li
q
uidit
y
risk in
Low Risk
Reserves = 10%-
20% of Total
Reserves; low
risk sharing with
policyholders;
high interest rate,
equity market,
and/or and
liquidity risk in
just asset
accumulation
p
roducts;
Low Risk
Reserves = 0%-
10% of Total
Reserves; no risk
sharing with
policyholders;
singular
concentration in
high risk asset
accumulation
products; interest
rate, equity
market, and/or
n/a
44 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Composite Insurers: Summary of Scorecard Factors, Metrics and Scoring Guidelines
Key Factors and
Metrics
(weights/sub-
factor weights
relative to factor
weights) Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
have very modest
guarantees and
limited
policyholder
optionality that
will be exercised;
minimal market
conduct risk.
interest rate,
equity market,
and/or liquidity
risks; liabilities
have moderate
amounts of
embedded
guarantees and
policyholder
options; modest
market conduct
risk.
liquidity risks in
both asset
accumulation
and protection
products;
meaningful
embedded
pricing
guarantees and
policyholder
optionality that
could be
exercised;
moderate market
conduct risk.
both asset
accumulation
and protection
products;
significant
embedded
pricing
guarantees and
policyholder
optionality
resulting in
greater variability
around expected
long term
profitability;
complex
products that
may have
increased market
conduct risks.
substantial
embedded long-
term pricing
guarantees; and
policyholder
optionality
resulting in great
variability around
expected long
term profitability;
complex
products that
may have
increased market
conduct risks.
and liquidity risk;
substantial
embedded long-
term pricing
guarantees; and
policyholder
optionality
resulting in great
variability around
expected long
term profitability;
complex
products that
may have
increased market
conduct risks.
Product
Diversification
(25%)
Minority segment
produces at least
35% of gross
written
premiums.
Minority segment
produces 25%-
35% of gross
written
premiums.
Minority segment
produces 15%-
25% of gross
written
premiums.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Geographic
Diversification
(25%)
No single
regulated region
generates more
than 20% of
total net
premiums
written.
No single
regulated region
generates more
than 40% of
total net
premiums
written.
No single
regulated region
generates more
than 60% of
total net
premiums
written.
No single
regulated region
generates more
than 80% of
total net
premiums
written.
One regulated
region generates
more than 80%
of total net
premiums
written.
n/a n/a
F
Financial Profile
A
Asset Quality (10%)
High Risk Assets
% of Shareholders’
Equity (55%)
≤ 25% 25% < x < 50% 50% ≤ x < 100%
100% ≤ x <
175%
175% ≤ x <
250%
250% ≤ x <
325%
≥ 325%
Reinsurance
Recoverables % of
Shareholders’
Equity (15%)
< 35% 35% ≤ x < 70% 70% ≤ x < 100%
100% ≤ x <
150%
150% ≤ x <
200%
200% ≤ x <
250%
≥ 250%
Goodwill &
Intangibles % of
Shareholders’
Equity (30%)
≤ 20% 20% < x < 30% 30% ≤ x < 40% 40% ≤ x < 55% 55% ≤ x < 75% 75% ≤ x < 95% ≥ 95%
C
Capital Adequacy (15%)
(Shareholders’
Equity minus 10%
of HRA) as % of
(Total Assets
minus 10% of
HRA) (100%)
≥ 12% 8% < x < 12% 6% < x ≤ 8% 4% < x ≤ 6% 2% < x ≤ 4% 0% < x ≤ 2% ≤ 0%
P
Profitability (15%)
45 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Composite Insurers: Summary of Scorecard Factors, Metrics and Scoring Guidelines
Key Factors and
Metrics
(weights/sub-
factor weights
relative to factor
weights) Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa
Return on Capital
(5yr. avg.) (50%)
≥ 12% 8% < x < 12% 4% < x ≤ 8% 0% < x ≤ 4% (4%) < x ≤ 0% (8%) < x ≤ (4%) ≤ (8%)
Sharpe Ratio of
Return on Capital
(5 yr.) (50%)
≥ 400% 300% < x < 400% 200% < x ≤ 300% 100% < x ≤ 200% 0% < x ≤ 100% n/a n/a
L
Liquidity and Asset/Liability Management (5%)
Life Liquid Assets
as % of Life Liquid
Liabilities (100%)
≥ 4x 2x < x < 4x 1.5x < x ≤ 2x 1x < x ≤ 1.5x 0.75x < x ≤ 1x 0.5x < x ≤ 0.75x ≤ 0.5x
R
Reserve Adequacy (5%)
Loss Reserve
Development as %
of Reserves
(100%)
≤ (5)% (5)% < x < (2)% (2)% ≤ x < 2% 2% ≤ x < 5% 5% ≤ x < 7% 7% ≤ x < 9% ≥ 9%
F
Financial Flexibility (15%)
Adjusted Financial
Leverage (25%)
≤ 15% 15% < x < 30% 30% ≤ x < 40% 40% ≤ x < 50% 50% ≤ x < 60% 60% ≤ x < 70% ≥ 70%
Total Leverage
(15%)
≤ 15% 15% < x < 30% 30% ≤ x < 40% 40% ≤ x < 50% 50% ≤ x < 60% 60% ≤ x < 70% ≥ 70%
Earnings Coverage
(5 yr. avg.) (60%)
≥ 12x 8x < x < 12x 4x < x ≤ 8x 2x < x ≤ 4x 0x < x ≤ 2x (2x) < x ≤ 0x ≤ (2x)
O
Operating Environment (Variable %)
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
46 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
For some of the factors common to both P&C and life, we have used either P&C metrics (e.g., for Asset
Quality), or life metrics (e.g., for Capital Adequacy), or, in the case of Product Focus and Diversification,
combined various elements. For each key factor selected, the scorecard metrics correspond exactly to the
ones used in the P&C and life methodologies, apart from the Product Diversification and Geographic
Diversification metrics under the Product Focus and Diversification factor. In light of the combination, and
therefore greater number of key factors employed, the factor weightings in the composite scorecard are
different in some cases from those used in the P&C and life methodologies. Sub-factor weightings are
different only for the Asset Quality and Product Focus and Diversification factors.
Using the Scorecard for Insurers That Write Both P&C and Life Business
Differences between the scorecard-indicated outcome and the actual standalone credit profile may exist
due to analytic judgment regarding the weighting of the factors, the importance of the other analytic
considerations, or other unique fundamentals of the company not appropriately captured or weighted by
this scorecard. Furthermore, the standalone credit profile may be different from the actual rating due to
parental support or sovereign rating considerations.
47 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Appendix 4: Incorporating Stress Testing in Our Analysis — The Pre-defined Stress
Scenario
In order to capture the risk to an insurer’s credit profile posed by potentially volatile economic and financial
conditions, as well as the possibility of catastrophic loss events, we typically consider stress scenarios as a
fundamental part of our rating analysis. This appendix explains our approach and, more specifically, our
pre-defined stress scenarios.
Combining results of a pre-defined stress scenario with an expected case allows us to gauge the impact of
stress on capital of an individual insurer and relative to a group of insurers. Our stress scenario is generally
focused on short-to medium-term shock losses to earnings/capital and not on every risk faced by insurers.
We also perform supplemental insurer-specific stress tests when an insurer’s business profile does not lend
itself well to the pre-defined stress scenario.
Our ratings reflect our assessment of the insurer’s relative credit profile in a forward-looking expected
scenario, but also considers the volatility of a company’s credit profile implied by the results of our stress
scenario. We generally expect that an insurer can withstand moderate stress while maintaining a credit
profile consistent with its assigned rating. In cases where a more severe stress scenario indicates that the
company’s credit profile would deteriorate dramatically (e.g., by the equivalent of three or more rating
notches), we would in most cases assign a rating lower than indicated by our analysis of the expected
case scenario.
Our Stress Test Scenario Analysis Focuses on Common Near-to-Medium-Term Risks
We apply a specific stress scenario that is generally focused on short- to medium-term shock losses to
earnings/capital and not on every risk faced by insurers (e.g., not on particularly long-term risks, such as
prolonged low interest rates).
While we recognize the lack of complete coverage of all risks, we typically
assess shock events that offer the insurer limited time to correct for and manage through over a short time
horizon. We consider long-term risks faced by insurers and we may additionally undertake insurer-specific
stress analysis when an insurer’s business profile does not lend itself well to the pre-defined stress test.
However, we do not typically consider stress scenarios where the outcome is subject to meaningful
variability that is contingent on management’s future actions.
Our stress scenario analysis, when combined with an expected case, allows us to gauge the relative impact
of stress on the capital and credit profile of an insurer compared to the performance of a group of insurers.
Key Risks Subject to the Stress Scenarios
In the table below, we identify the key “shock” risks we assess. In addition, we summarize the stress scenario
we postulate for each key risk. Rather than trying to create stress scenarios that mimic specific historical
events, we develop scenarios by specifying defined stresses to key financial attributes. This uniform
application of stress analysis facilitates peer comparison.
Although we attribute no specific event probability to our stress scenario, we consider each scenario to
be severe.
48 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Key Risk Area Risk
Stress Scenario
41
Investments The risk that investments perform worse than
expected
See Figure 1
Catastrophes The risk of significant underwriting losses arising
from a major natural catastrophe like a hurricane
or earthquake or a pandemic event
1-in-250-year aggregate event
Loss reserves
The risk of unfavorable development on loss
reserves
3%, 5% or 7% increase in loss reserves (rate
determined by types of insurance written between
personal, diversified and commercial lines)
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Our investment stress analysis is based on economic loss, instead of market value, because of the industry’s
strong liquidity profile and the nature of its (mostly) non-puttable liabilities (or puttable, with a meaningful
penalty to the policyholder in terms of amount reimbursed or coverage forfeited). That said, we generally
supplement our economic-loss-based investment scenarios analysis by considering the sensitivity of those
results to actual market value losses in times of severe market dislocation. In certain instances, we may use
the greater of actual market value losses or economic losses for our analysis of investment stress.
Investment Economic Loss Percentages
FIGURE 1
Investment Category Stress Scenario Loss Percentages
Cash 0%
F
Fixed maturities
42
Aaa/Aa/A 0.5%
Baa 3.5%
Ba 11.7%
B 32.5%
Caa and below 50%
M
Mortgage/real estate
Commercial mortgage loans 3.5%
Other mortgage loans 3.5%
Real estate investments 20%
A
All other
Non-redeemable preferred securities 5%
Other equity securities 25%
Alternatives 25%
Derivatives 10%
All Other (including corporate and other loans) 10%
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
41
The information necessary to complete the stress test is sourced from public and private sources. When full information is not available, estimates may be used. In
addition, adjustments to information may be warranted upon review.
42
Our fixed income factors are derived from the two-year expected loss after notching down from current rating levels. We adjust for material impairments taken for the
lowest-rated instruments.
49 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Adding Up Stress for the Stress Test Scenario
Once stress losses from all sources are derived, we assess the impact on capital adequacy. While we
recognize the likelihood of each risk occurring simultaneously is low, historical results have shown cycles in
insured losses and the potential for confluent events to affect investment returns. For this scenario analysis,
each risk is summed without the benefit of diversification to create a severe stress scenario.
43
The
diversification benefit is less relevant given our objective to look for those insurers whose results deviate
materially from the average.
In interpreting the results of the stress test on a subsidiary of a larger group, we consider the extent to which
unencumbered excess
44
cash available at an unregulated holding company or affiliate would likely be made
available to the operating company(ies)
45
as a capital contribution, if need be. Our analysis of excess cash
considers the ongoing permanence of funds maintained outside of the operating company that is above and
beyond any amount that would lead to a narrowing of standard debt notching practices for the holding
company.
Below is our pre-defined stress scenario template for a P&C insurance company. In this scenario, investment
losses are based on idealized expected losses. When the actual market value of investment losses
(calculated as the unrealized loss excluded from opening equity) exceeds severe stress economic investment
loss, we may replace the economic loss with the market value of investment loss.
Pre-defined Stress Scenario - Equity Impact Analysis
Beginning Reported Surplus or Equity
Exclude Unrealized Gains or Losses on Investments
Adjusted Beginning Surplus or Equity
E
Equity Roll Forward:
Recurring Operating Income Before Taxes
L
Less Stress Losses:
Catastrophe Losses
Investment Losses
Adverse Development on Loss Reserves
Total: Stress Losses
EBIT
Tax Expense (Benefit)
Net Income
Preferred Dividends
Net Income to Common Shares
Change in Surplus or Equity
%
% Change in Adjusted Beginning Surplus or Equity
D
D
u
ue to Stress Losses
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
43
We do consider losses after tax benefits, although we reduce the tax benefit from local statutory rates to reflect recoverability risk.
44
E.g., after interest expense and other debt service coverage needs as well as expected shareholder dividend needs.
45
Scenario testing is performed on an analytic unit basis, which may include more than one legal operating company.
50 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
How Ratings Reflect the Stress Scenarios
We typically prepare an alternate view of the scorecard that shows the pre-defined stress scenario analysis.
Each insurance scorecard includes an adjusted score for each key rating factor. We combine the adjusted
factor scores to arrive at the scorecard-indicated outcome.
46
While a company’s expected performance is already reflected in the adjusted scores, a separate set of
adjusted scores are typically prepared for our pre-defined stress scenario (which is severe). The adjusted
scores for this severe scenario are generally lower than our expected case adjusted scores. Lower adjusted
scores are typical for several financial profile key factors, such as asset quality, capital adequacy, profitability
and financial flexibility. In addition, some Business Profile scores may be lower under the pre-defined stress
scenario. In many cases, the magnitude of the difference is directly influenced by the relative results of our
stress testing.
In cases where the pre-defined stress scenario indicates that the company’s credit profile would deteriorate
dramatically (e.g., by the equivalent of three or more rating notches), the assigned rating would typically be
lower than the expected case scorecard-indicated outcome, in recognition of the potential downside risk to
the insurer’s credit profile if the stress case were to occur over the medium term.
46
In certain instances, assigned ratings may reflect uplift where warranted from support from a parent or affiliate. Our scenario testing is performed on a standalone basis
before consideration of support.
51 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Appendix 5: Moody’s Capital Tool
MCT (Moody’s Capital Tool) is a tool used to quantify the typical sources of risk an insurance company
47
faces in order to gauge the adequacy of its resources for covering those risks. MCT uses information about
an insurer’s business and financial profiles to generate a large number of stochastic loss scenarios and
estimate the distribution of changes in the insurer’s net asset value (NAV) for a single year.
48
The change-
in-NAV distribution, therefore, provides an estimate of the capital required for the company to fully absorb
losses at a specified probability (e.g., the 99.5% quantile). MCT produces capital adequacy metrics that
compare an insurer’s available capital
49
to user-selected quantiles for required capital.
MCT also provides quantitative information about the principal sources of risk facing insurers, allowing an
approximate allocation of required capital to a line of business and risk category.
MCT uses a set of economic and insurance scenarios generated by Moody’s Analytics Real-World Scenario
Generator and a set of proxy functions that are used to estimate the change in assets and insurance
liabilities in all scenarios.
50
The tool is intended to capture the key risks insurers typically face, including risks
related to interest rates, credit spreads, credit rating migrations, bond defaults, equities, real estate, foreign
exchange, mortality, policy lapses, P&C reserving, P&C underwriting, reinsurance defaults, and natural
catastrophes. MCT typically uses a combination of the company’s public and non-public information. Where
such information is lacking, we may make assumptions, for example, by estimating some inputs based on
industry averages or using information about the insurer’s peers, when similar. MCT’s consideration of risk
drivers is not exhaustive. For example, the tool does not explicitly incorporate operational risk.
MCT incorporates information about an insurer’s business and financial profile including its geographic and
product exposures and invested assets. The tool is different in this respect from the internal models
developed by insurance companies because it does not contain the level of proprietary detail used by those
models. For example, MCT’s P&C segment does not require users to input premiums and reserves by line of
business. Instead, the insurer’s business risk may be described in the tool by entering the sub-factor scores
for Product Focus and Diversification. MCT uses standard parameters that apply by product category in a
country. Thus, MCT treats all products in the same category (e.g., participating savings products) in a given
market (e.g., Italy) as having similar features. While such uniformity may not hold in practice, we find that
for many markets, products within the same category are often similar across competitors. In some
instances, products within the same category can be differentiated in the tool as “low risk” or “high risk.”
In cases where particular liabilities are not stochastically simulated in MCT (e.g., because of data limitations
or because MCT’s simulation framework does not apply), the tool classifies these as “other” and applies a
fixed capital charge.
47
The MCT model may be used for P&C insurers or life insurers.
48
An insurer’s NAV is the estimated difference between the economic value of its assets and the economic value of its liabilities.
49
For clarity, available capital refers to an economic valuation of the insurer’s reported shareholders’ equity.
50
Proxy functions serve as computational aids in MCT. They are developed and calibrated to efficiently approximate more complex models of risk. For example, using a
proxy instead of a cash flow model enables rapid estimation of changes in assets or liabilities based on how they depend on economic and insurance-specific variables.
52 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
EXHIBIT 14
Moody’s Capital Tool
Overview
Source: Moody’s Investors Service
Evaluating P&C Insurance Risks
For P&C insurance analysis, MCT treats underwriting risk, reserving risk and catastrophe risk separately.
Underwriting Risk
MCT uses a modeling assumption that the change in NAV due to underwriting risk (also known as pricing
risk) is predominantly explained by a company’s specific product risk, its product diversification, the
company’s premium volume and general inflation.
Reserving Risk
MCT uses a modeling assumption that the change in NAV due to reserving risk is explained by the following:
(i) a market-specific component, driven largely by the medical inflation rate; (ii) a company-specific
component driven by product risk, product diversification and the company’s reserve balance; and (iii) the
risk that reserve strengthening may continue for several years (implemented in the tool using a serial
correlation factor).
Catastrophe Risk
MCT stochastically simulates annual catastrophe losses using a company’s estimated return-period curve
for natural catastrophe losses. The user enters estimated catastrophe losses, both gross and net of any
expected reinsurance recoveries, at various return periods (e.g., the once-in-a-100-years annual loss) and
the tool estimates the return-period loss curve including for return periods between the user-specified
return periods (using piecewise linear interpolation) and for return periods that extend beyond the most
remote user-specified return period (using linear extrapolation).
53 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
MCT uses the gross and net catastrophe loss information to simulate losses ceded to reinsurers and thereby
estimate an insurer’s credit exposure risk to its catastrophe reinsurers. MCT estimates the impact of
reinsurance default risk for balance sheet reinsurance recoverable (i.e., for catastrophes that have already
occurred), separately. These are described in the “Asset Risk” section below.
MCT can simulate catastrophe losses in several regions simultaneously, if the corresponding regional
catastrophe curves are available as inputs, or in the aggregate based on the company’s global catastrophe
curve. If the global curve is used, the tool will correlate simulated catastrophe losses with simulated equity
markets shocks in the economy associated with the reporting currency of the insurer.
51
Evaluating Life Insurance Risks
For each life insurance product that is modeled, a proxy function has been computed to estimate the
change in the difference between the value of liabilities associated with the product and the value of the
typical assets backing these liabilities. These proxy functions are not company-specific. Rather, they are
intended to reflect the “average” product sold in a given market and reflect our view of how the products
work. The modeling parameters used in these cash flow proxies incorporate market data or averages of
cohorts of insurers operating in the market. Most of MCT’s life insurance proxy functions have been built
from underlying ad hoc cash flow models (for most life products in EMEA and in Asia-Pacific) or by using
Moody’s Analytics AXIS
TM
actuarial system (for North American life products). MCT treats low-risk health
and protection products that we expect generate recurring or stable earnings by adding the expected annual
result for such products (as opposed to a simulated distribution of results) to the change in NAV in each
scenario that is run for an insurer.
One or several of the following factors describe the risk drivers that typically relate to various life insurance
products: the average guaranteed rate of in-force policies, the duration of these policies, the profit-sharing
rules applicable to these products, modeling assumptions regarding the triggers of payments to
policyholders or their beneficiaries (e.g., deaths, lapses and maturities), and the typical asset allocation we
estimate would be used in a given market to support associated liabilities.
Variables used by the proxy function include the following: absolute change in the annual nominal
government spot rate, absolute change in the government spot rate yield curve slope (i.e., between the
10-year spot rate and the one-year), absolute change in rate spread, change in credit rating migration
(including defaults), equity market return, real estate return, relative change in mortality rate, relative
change in insurance lapse rate and annual inflation.
52
Asset Risks
As explained previously, most life proxy functions used in MCT estimate the change in the difference
between the value of the liabilities and the value of the typical mix of assets backing these liabilities. In
practice, however, an insurer’s actual investment allocation will usually be different from the benchmark
asset mix used for the construction of the proxy functions. Therefore, to incorporate an insurer’s asset mix,
MCT simulates the difference between the insurer’s actual asset allocation and the typical asset allocation
used in the tool.
MCT estimates asset risk by using the stochastic scenarios embedded in the tool. Equity and real estate
assets are reevaluated in each scenario directly based on equity return index and real estate return index
51
In practice, in most cases, the largest catastrophe exposure of a company is within the economy associated with the reported currency.
52
For clarity, we use two points on the risk-free yield curve to estimate changes in levels of rates and the slope of the curve. For spread risk, we use one specific variable
available in Moody’s Analytics Economic Scenario Generator tool to calculate changes in spreads in the scenarios. Similarly, we use one specific variable for credit rating
migration risk.
54 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
variables. The value of the insurer’s sovereign bond portfolio is recalculated in each scenario as the risk-free
rate evolves. MCT also models the default of sovereign bonds if exposures by country are available. MCT
simulates non-sovereign bonds by partitioning an insurer’s portfolio according to five rating categories,
namely, Aaa, Aa, A, Baa, and Ba and below.
53
The value of corporate bonds in each category is recalculated
in each stochastic scenario according to simulations of the risk-free rate, bond yields, rating-specific spreads,
defaults, and credit ratings migration.
If the duration of bonds is not available, the tool uses a default value for P&C companies and a default value
for life companies. Similarly, if the breakdown by rating of certain asset classes is missing, the tool applies
default breakdown by rating category.
MCT’s default assumption is that there is no currency risk in insurers’ balance sheets. This assumption
reflects our view that most insurers typically currency-match assets and liabilities. However, where an
insurer invests a significant part of its portfolio in currencies that are different from its liability currency, a
user can include this information in MCT to estimate the corresponding currency risk.
MCT also estimates the required capital associated with P&C reinsurance recoverables. The tools treats
reinsurance recoverables using the same approach it uses for non-sovereign bonds, including rating category
distribution.
54
The default rate of reinsurance recoverables varies by the severity of the catastrophe event
simulated. In case of a sizable natural catastrophe event, the default risk of reinsurers is exacerbated in
the tool.
Model Outputs
MCT provides two types of output:
» Specific quantile of the change-in-NAV distribution, compared with the insurer’s economic level of
available capital.
» Drivers of the change in NAV at the chosen quantile by risk category and by line of business, before and
after diversification.
Change-in-NAV Distribution Quantiles and Use of the Tool
MCT’s change-in-NAV distribution for a company can be used to estimate the capital required for the
company to fully absorb losses up to specified quantile of the distribution. The 99.5% quantile is a
commonly used required capital level in the insurance industry.
The required capital at a given quantile, typically 99.5%, is compared to insurer’s available capital. To
estimate an insurer’s available capital, MCT makes economic valuation adjustments to certain asset and
liability accounts based on user inputs related to the company’s accounting regime. These accounts also
typically include the standard adjustments that apply based on our cross-sector methodology on financial
statement adjustments for financial institutions.
55
Thus, the tool’s estimate of the company’s available
capital reflects the combined effect of these adjustments on the company’s reported shareholders’ equity.
53
MCT treats unrated bonds by placing them in the Ba and below category.
54
The tool treats reinsurance recoverables for losses that the insurer has paid as well as for loss reserves ceded to reinsurers.
55
A link to a list of our sector and cross-sector credit rating methodologies can be found in the “Moody’s Related Publications” section.
55 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
The main adjustments include:
» An adjustment that deducts the value of goodwill and other non-insurance related intangibles.
» An adjustment to reflect the difference between the fair value of assets and the book value of assets.
» An adjustment to reflect the difference between the best estimate liabilities and the book value of
liabilities.
With respect to P&C insurers, the third adjustment incorporates the difference between accounting P&C
claims reserves and P&C economic best-estimate reserves, approximated by using reported reserve releases
in the last five years within the tool. Some adjustments are also specific to some accounting regimes or to
some products.
We may also consider the required capital at a given quantile in comparison to other capital measures, for
example, an available capital amount that includes the full amount of hybrid debt.
Drivers of the Change in NAV at the Chosen Quantile
For a chosen quantile, the tool provides a breakdown of the required capital by risk category and by product.
This information contributes to understanding the capital ratio generated by the tool by identifying the
main sources of risks (and main sources of required capital) for a given company. This can also help in
comparing the capital adequacy of different insurers by identifying, for example, whether a lower capital
ratio is driven by higher asset risks or higher insurance risks.
This feature can also be leveraged to complement the analysis of an insurer’s risk profile and to compare the
risk profile of different insurers.
What-If Features
The tool also allow the user to perform what-if scenario analysis by recalculating required capital and
available capital, and the allocation of required capital by line of business and by risk category, based on
hypothetical scenarios (e.g., changes in financial markets, shock in insurance markets, or changes in the risk
profile of the insurer following an acquisition or a divestment).
56 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
Moody’s Related Publications
Credit ratings are primarily determined by sector credit rating methodologies. Certain broad methodological
considerations (described in one or more cross-sector rating methodologies) may also be relevant to the
determination of credit ratings of issuers and instruments. An index of sector and cross-sector credit rating
methodologies can be found here.
For data summarizing the historical robustness and predictive power of credit ratings, please click here.
For further information, please refer to Rating Symbols and Definitions, which is available here.
57 AUGUST 11, 2022
INSURANCE
RATING METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS
OUTDATED
METHODOLOGY
OU
ME
Report Number: 1330527
Authors
Sarah Hibler
Pano Karambelas
© 2022 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved.
CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT
COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY,
“PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE APPLICABLE MOODY’S RATING
SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS.
CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS,
NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL
FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED
BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR
PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO
NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER
OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY
AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.
MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS
,
,
ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND
INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN
DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR
OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH
PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS,
,
ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR
REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CO
NSIDERED A BENCHMARK.
All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other
factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit
rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot
in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing its Publications.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special,
consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the inf
ormation contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if
MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited
to: (a) any loss of
present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or
damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by
law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers,
arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information..
NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING,
ASSESSMENT, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and
municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s
Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $5,000,000. MCO and Moody’s Investors Service also maintain policies
and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of
MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%,
is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”
Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty
Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to
“wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or
are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to
“retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the
equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors.
Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas
Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical
Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and,
consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency
and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.
MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated
by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging
from JPY100,000 to approximately JPY550,000,000.
MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.