Twenty Third Floor
Technical Business Advantage

Moneyweb has an interview with Eskom CFO. For me, the point made about the reasons for differences between retail and industrial tariffs is worth highlighting. This is another example of where common perception is off.

(Incidentally, Eskom tariffs are currently 68 cents for residential, 28 cents for big industrial)

From the moneyweb interview:

PAUL O’FLAHERTY: What is one of the myths of this industry is that the key industrial user does subsidise the residential user – that’s a fact. And the reason for it, even though it seems on the tariff that you quoted, that can’t be – it is true because the cost of delivering electricity to someone living out in the sticks is a lot more than delivering it to a transmission station right next to a mine, for example. So there’s a significant cost differential in actually getting electricity out there, and therefore the key industrial users do actually subsidise the residential users.

I blogged recently about why I park on the fourth floor of the Cape Town airport parkade, and also about understanding and utilising unlikely but extreme events to your advantage. There is actually a link between these two posts.

Parking on the top floor does have a cost. It takes longer to drive up all the ramps and does, perhaps, on average take longer than parking on the most convenient floor every time. This extra time is a premium I pay to reduce the potential for really bad outcomes and thus optimising the parking problem. For example:

• I avoid the situation of attempting to park on a lower floor (trusting the untrustworthy electronic vehicle counter) and, after driving around for a while trying to find parking, having to give up and try a different floor. This much longer time, even if it only happens rarely, is a much worse outcome than 30 seconds on every flight. It can easily be the difference between making and missing a flight.
• I don’t have to worry about remembering where I parked my car. I don’t know that I am more forgetful than the average traveller, but travelling almost every week makes each trip blur into the next. I don’t waste headspace on trying to remember where I parked my car, and I don’t worry about forgetting. I have the peace of mind from having purchased a time of insurance against the risk of forgetting where I parked.

I get no value out of successfully memorising my car location, but gain from removing this risk and this worry from my routine.

If your company has a foreign currency exposure due to imported input components, this is a risk and a worry over which you have no control. Your energies are better expended elsewhere, on the operational and sales issues that you can effectively change. Get rid of these risks and get on with your real business.

Insurance and gambling have much in common. They both involve uncertainty and money and the rational consumer will, on average, lose money through the interaction. Both business models involve leveraging the tail of probability distributions (one nasty and one nice).

The tail of a distribution includes the very bad and very good possible outcomes, that typically have a very low frequency of occurring. Having your house burn down is a very bad outcome, but fortunately happens very infrequently. Winning the lottery is very good, but unfortunately in this case is also very unlikely for any particular individual.

Managing the nasty tail

A rational person who wants to avoid the unlikely but catastrophic risk of  losing their house to fire will be prepared to pay more than just the average cost of the loss of the house in order to avoid the risk. Typically, we humans are risk averse (a wild generalisation given the research into utility and decision making that has led to behavioural finance and behavioural economics, but probably good enough for now). Insurance provides:

• genuine decrease in risk and indemnification of losses against the loss event happening
• peace of mind even if no loss is ever experienced, which has real value in terms of clearing the mind to think about other more important and more controllable personal and business matters
• reduction in the amount of capital / liquid assets individuals and businesses need to keep against unforeseen events. This capital can be better used and invested elsewhere

Contrary to the popular view, insurance has value even if you never claim.

Gearing to the nice tail

Gambling can be dangerous and addictive. It can also be entirely rational to gamble within certain parameters. (more…)

CEIOPS issued additional guidance around the standard formula for calculating capital requirements in respect of operational risk late last year.

Why was a new OpRisk formula needed?

The original formula for OpRisk proposed in QIS4 was widely condemned. Complaints included being too simplistic, being insensitive to risk (and basely primarily on business size) and the impossibility of calibrating to 99.5% in a meaningful way. CEIOPS accepts most of this criticism, but counters by reminding stakeholders that the aim of the standard formula is partly about being simple.

A more serious problem is that in comparison against companies’ own internal models, the standard formula produced results lower than companies’ own assessment. Median internal model requirements for OpRisk were 133% of the standard formula and 13 out of 16 countries reported higher requirements under their insurers’ internal models.

One of the aims of the standard formula is to be slightly conservative to provide an incentive for insurers to develop their internal models. Clearly this objective is not being achieved. (more…)

A friend “volunteered” me to answer an insurance question from Aardvark on allocating economic capital across different insurance products. After writing a short response, I received the frighteningly useful message: “Error”.

Having written a brief summary of the different techniques used in this really important area, I thought I should use it as a blog post. Maybe “Daan d.” from Cape Town will stumble across this answer eventually.

The question:

What is the standard practice to allow for diversification benefits when allocating capital required between different insurance products?

My brief answer (this is a huge topic!):

There is no standard practice. It’s one of the more irritating and subjective aspects of allocating capital between imperfectly correlated product

Economic Capital doesn’t have to be calculated as VaR, but I will use VaR below as a generalisation. Banks are typically slightly more mature in their capital allocation processes so what I’m describing below is often used in the banking world, but applies equally to insurance (life and non-life / P&C).

Splitting the capital in proportion to the sum of the components is frequently used, but is flawed and usually doesn’t give good results unless speed and simplicity are primary objectives. (more…)

After my last post around common misunderstandings of how medical schemes operate,  I saw a Fin24 article on South African medical schemes that are below the required minimum solvency.

What Fin24 readers had to say

Nolulamo Matutu from Fin24 writes:

Acting CEO of the CMA Patrick Matshidze told MPs 18 schemes have fallen below the prescribed solvency ratio of 25%.

Clearly, these 18 schemes cannot pay all the claims we all would like in an ideal world.

However, more interesting to me than the article itself (fairly balanced and factual) were some of the comments written below. Clearly the misconceptions are still strong!

Fed Up had some strong views:

I’d like to see them look at medical aids the other way and see how many of them are making huge profits, some make billions are rands profit which in my opinion is really just ripping people off, medical aids should be non-profit as the less they pay out the more people suffer. Also medical aid is such a bad word, it should be called what it is medical insurance.

I wonder who be the one to break the news that medical aids are non-profit? (more…)

Creative Commons License photo credit: pheaber

The separation of medical schemes and administrators is poorly understood. This confusion leads to any number of misguided arguments about the miserliness of the industry. There are plenty of other, better reasons to complain, but that’s a different post!

Medical schemes

Medical schemes are non-profit entities established to provide medical cover pooling and administration to members.

If you want to get legal about it, they are independent legal entities regulated by The Medical Schemes Act no.131 of 1998.

The schemes needs to show solvency by having a surplus (assets greater than liabilities) of more than 25% of gross written premium. (“Gross” is really unneeded since it means before allowing for reinsurance which is effectively non-existent in the industry any more.) The solvency margin provides security to members that their claims can be paid even if more claims need to be paid than planned for in the pricing of the medical scheme contributions.

Medical schemes administrators

Medical scheme administrators are typically for-profit companies provided a service to medical schemes and charging a fee for this service in the hope of making a profit.

The administrators negotiate fees with the medical scheme. Since pretty much the start of this millennium, administrators have not made profit out of not paying claims.

So who is ripping me off then?

When a medical scheme declines to pay your claim, it is not the big profit-seeking administrator that benefits. Remember, they just get a fee per member for administration. The people who benefit are the other members of the scheme. There is more money in the fund available to pay their claims, to protect the surplus and to reduce contribution increases next year.

When someone’s cosmetic surgery is approved by the scheme, the other members pay the price. (more…)

The South African Reserve Bank today lowered the REPO rate by a further 50 basis points, down to the level last seen in 2005 and the lowest the REPO and BA Rate have been in nearly 3 decades. Surveys leading up to the announcement and analysis of market interest rates suggests that the expectation was for rates to be held constant. Was this a purely populist decision, or does Tito Mboweni see more economic trouble ahead that other, more optimistic South Africans believe?

To date, the South African economy has been relatively less affected by the global financial crisis. Unemployment in Spain is up to 18% – within spitting distance of our own extravagant unemployment rates. Several large economies have been making eyes at 10% annual declines in GDP – often used as an informal definition of a depression (compared with a recession typically defined as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP). Property prices have been declining between 5% and 10% (depending on who you ask) and even after allowing for our higher inflation and thus greater real decreases, we compare very favourable to the drops of 20% to 50% in some parts of some countries. (more…)