During global insurer Chubb’s first quarter earnings call, CEO Evan Greenberg described the rapid softening in the property insurance market as “dumb,” citing a misalignment between supply-demand factors related to capital in the re/insurance industry and high intermediation costs.
Chubb reported that it reduced exposures in its Major Accounts and Excess and Surplus (E&S) divisions by non-renewing a substantial portion of shared and layered property insurance business in Q1.
In addition to walking away from business it deemed inadequately priced, Chubb also purchased additional reinsurance to further protect its remaining property risks.
Greenberg stated: “In a number of important markets, property and financial lines pricing conditions are soft, with property pricing in those markets softening at a pace that, frankly, I’ll only describe as dumb.”
Further explaining: “If I sort of step back and look at overall market rate, in shared and layered in North America and in London, pricing overall is off 25% in the quarter, heading to thirty. You can actually see it’s accelerating in that trend.
“And by the way, loss costs, to put a point on it, loss costs are moving at about 4-5% in shared and layered property, so you can work out the math there.”
When asked about the drivers behind this softening, Greenberg highlighted a “hunger” in the market, attributing price pressure to an oversupply of capital entering the sector through channels that prioritise volume over technical underwriting discipline.
“It’s the amount of supply, which is capital, that is chasing a relatively finite amount of business. And by the way, in a concentrated way,” he said.
The executive noted that the current market dynamics are distinct from retail business because large account risks in E&S and London are “boxed up” and easily accessible to anyone with a balance sheet.
Greenberg said: “It doesn’t take a lot of capability. It takes some balance sheet capital and a couple of underwriters and you’re in the market. So, it’s a hunger that way. The structural difference this time is simply how the capital is showing up. It’s showing up, a lot of it, in a volume based incentive system.
“MGAs, the majority of them, are just volume based. What do they bring? They bring a cheaper price and a higher commission. And it’s the reinsurance market and it’s alternative capital, and the number of bites of the apple in the supply is taken by intermediation.”
He concluded with a note of caution: “That is what you are reflecting here. And by the way, the loser at the end of the day is the ultimate risk taker who puts up the capital. This is short-tail business. The report card comes home rather quickly, so stay tuned.”
