Somewhat unfairly blamed as the instigating agent of the 2007 Global Credit Crunch, are collaterized debt obligations or CDO, really deserving of such infamy?
By: Ringo Bones
After reading the latest book by the billionaire investor guru George Soros titled “The New Paradigm for Financial Markets”, I recently had an epiphany that stability and equilibrium are not our Wall Street controlled global economy’s natural state of being. Instead, the quixotic adventurism in search of quick and easy profits undertaken under unacceptable levels of risk is the rule, rather than the exception. Thus explaining the inevitability of the global credit crunch and the current yo-yoing price of crude oil pegged against the US dollar. Even the rise of asset backed security based on synthetic constructs marketed as investments to anyone who likes to experience first-hand what it's like to be financially devastated by an Enron-type scheme.
Often referred to by everyone’s friendly neighborhood financial advisor as an asset backed security product that works just like a home insurance against losses from fire and theft. Except that it applies to big corporation’s credit insurance which you – a mere civilian – can easily get rich of off. By the start of the 21st Century, CDO s was being sold-off to with alarming frequency to financially ignorant civilians – i.e. people like you and me. Your friendly neighborhood financial advisor might – and it’s very likely – to have made ungodly amounts of money relatively easily. Surprisingly to you – the financially ignorant - through the sheer inherent complexity of structured financial transactions of CDO s that he or she –your financial advisor – might seem like a saint for helping you, the financially ignorant retail chump, to experience your friendly neighborhood financial advisors new found get-rich-quick scheme. Except your financial advisor forgot to mention one tiny but very important detail. You must sell – i.e. pass on / dump them – your CDO s once the financial markets turns into a “Bear”. But most of all, are collaterized debt obligations or CDO deserving of their infamy? But first, let us first explain what is a CDO.
Collaterized Debt Obligations or CDO s are often described by financial academics as a type of asset-backed security and structured credit product. CDO ’s are constructed from a portfolio of fixed-income assets. The assets are divided into different credit rating tranches: senior tranches which are rated AAA or “triple a”, mezzanine tranches which are lower on the credit rating “food chain” are rated AA to BB, and the equity tranches, which are unrated. The first CDO were issued back in 1987 by bankers of the now defunct Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. for the Imperial Savings Association. A decade later, CDO s became the fastest growing sector of the asset-backed “synthetic” securities market.
A major factor for the further growth of CDO s at the start of the 21st Century was the 2001 introduction of Gaussian Copula Models by David X. Li. Which allowed the rapid pricing of CDO s. Because of this, Collaterized Debt Obligations became a major force in the so-called derivatives market were the value of the derivative is derived from the value of other assets. But unlike some fairly straightforward – i.e. “real” derivatives – such as stock options, calls and even the much-maligned Credit Default Swap, CDO s were nearly impossible for the average person to understand. To me at least, the higher mathematics used in creating synthetic securities constructs like Collaterized Debt Obligations and its related variants like Collaterized Insurance Obligations are better to be used in designing weapons systems that will allow a 250-gram projectile to be thrown at 2,700 feet per second. Most of all if anything goes terribly wrong, asset-backed synthetic securities are really worth less than the paper they are printed on, or the bits – one’s and zeroes – they are encoded on.
The complexity of CDO products – which the investor savvy swears by for making him or her earn easy money – is the reason why CDO s are often blamed by the mainstream news media for the 2007 credit crunch. This inherent complexity is often blamed for the failure of risk and recovery models used by credit rating agencies to value these products. Worst of all, CDO s and their ilk are just mere “financial constructs” – as opposed to concrete assets like gold or land. Complicating matters even more was that there was no market on which to sell the CDO s – i.e. CDO s aren’t traded on exchanges. Causing many CDO customers to be mauled by the impending Bear Market. Which is no Bull by the way.
Given that the math used for credit rating various CDO products is about as complex as the higher mathematics used to quantify the dynamics of certain complex sociological phenomena, its best to be pragmatic. It might lead some to some desperation in embracing Sharia Banking Laws in order to retain a semblance of financial stability in our post global credit crunch environment. Were the sobering fact fiscal austerity are forcing credit and bond insurance underwriters to finally remember what it means to be prudent in doing business.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Credit Default Swaps: Easy Money through Complexity?
Often referred to as a sophisticated form of credit insurance that’s an easy source of big money for the financially savvy, that is until greedy speculators used them to cash in on the US subprime mortgage crisis. Green backs from Red Tape?
By: Vanessa Uy
Financial regulators now bemoan the existence of Credit Default Swaps or CDS. Some even say that trading in Credit Default Swaps ought to be crime because of the way it siphons the hard-earned money of less investment savvy folks into the coffers of greedy speculators. This almost criminal practice of earning big money easily was recently highlighted by the financially savvy purchasers of homeowners insurance who opted for Credit Default Swaps to hedge their risks, which unfortunately created a “domino-effect” that led into the US credit crunch and the subprime mortgage crisis. Because of this, majority of US banks and other financial institutions no longer trust the credit worthiness of their fellow “financial institutions” due to the effects of the unregulated trade in Credit Default Swaps. But in order for us to form a sound judgment over Credit Default Swaps, let us first define what it is.
A Credit Default Swap or CDS is a credit derivative – i.e. financial instruments of special nature – dealt between two counterparties. One party makes periodic payments – usually in the form of insurance premiums – to the other and receives the promise of a payoff if a third party defaults. The former party receives credit protection via credit insurance and is said to be the “purchaser”. The other party provides credit protection and is said to be the "seller”, while the third party is known as the “reference entity”. For all intents and purposes, Credit Default Swaps are nothing more than privately traded insurance contracts that let people bet on a certain company’s financial health.
When it comes to credit derivative products, Credit Default Swaps are the most widely traded. The usual term of maturity of a CDS contract is five years. But because it is a derivative that’s dealt over-the-counter, Credit Default Swaps of almost any maturity can be traded.
As credit derivatives go, Credit Default Swaps are a relatively recent development. Back in 1995, Blythe Masters of JP Morgan developed the first Credit Default Swap and Collaterized Debt Obligations even though other bond insurance products are already available since the 1970’s. When Blythe Masters was heading the Global Credit Derivatives group of JP Morgan, he introduced Credit Watch in April 2, 2007 as a regulatory measure and also to help evaluate credit swaps among other financial instruments. By the end of 2007, there is an estimated 45 trillion US dollars worth of Credit Default Swap contracts. But if the inherent regulatory measures are well established, then what’s the problem?
The problem with Credit Default Swaps occurs when they hit the market. Everyone knows that banks and insurance companies are regulated, while the credit swaps market is not. Because of this, contracts can be traded – or swapped – from investor to investor without any regulatory body overseeing the trades to ensure the buyer has the resources to cover the losses if the security defaults. The instruments can be bought and sold from both ends – the insured and the insurer – with nary an oversight. Thus your typical greedy speculator has now been granted “free reign” to prey upon the financially ignorant and those with gullibility for get rich quick schemes. For all intents and purposes, the current market in credit derivatives has now become Mephistopheles’ playground due to lack of regulation and oversight. Thus perpetuating our current financial crisis in which these forms of credit insurance were built to prevent in the first place.
By: Vanessa Uy
Financial regulators now bemoan the existence of Credit Default Swaps or CDS. Some even say that trading in Credit Default Swaps ought to be crime because of the way it siphons the hard-earned money of less investment savvy folks into the coffers of greedy speculators. This almost criminal practice of earning big money easily was recently highlighted by the financially savvy purchasers of homeowners insurance who opted for Credit Default Swaps to hedge their risks, which unfortunately created a “domino-effect” that led into the US credit crunch and the subprime mortgage crisis. Because of this, majority of US banks and other financial institutions no longer trust the credit worthiness of their fellow “financial institutions” due to the effects of the unregulated trade in Credit Default Swaps. But in order for us to form a sound judgment over Credit Default Swaps, let us first define what it is.
A Credit Default Swap or CDS is a credit derivative – i.e. financial instruments of special nature – dealt between two counterparties. One party makes periodic payments – usually in the form of insurance premiums – to the other and receives the promise of a payoff if a third party defaults. The former party receives credit protection via credit insurance and is said to be the “purchaser”. The other party provides credit protection and is said to be the "seller”, while the third party is known as the “reference entity”. For all intents and purposes, Credit Default Swaps are nothing more than privately traded insurance contracts that let people bet on a certain company’s financial health.
When it comes to credit derivative products, Credit Default Swaps are the most widely traded. The usual term of maturity of a CDS contract is five years. But because it is a derivative that’s dealt over-the-counter, Credit Default Swaps of almost any maturity can be traded.
As credit derivatives go, Credit Default Swaps are a relatively recent development. Back in 1995, Blythe Masters of JP Morgan developed the first Credit Default Swap and Collaterized Debt Obligations even though other bond insurance products are already available since the 1970’s. When Blythe Masters was heading the Global Credit Derivatives group of JP Morgan, he introduced Credit Watch in April 2, 2007 as a regulatory measure and also to help evaluate credit swaps among other financial instruments. By the end of 2007, there is an estimated 45 trillion US dollars worth of Credit Default Swap contracts. But if the inherent regulatory measures are well established, then what’s the problem?
The problem with Credit Default Swaps occurs when they hit the market. Everyone knows that banks and insurance companies are regulated, while the credit swaps market is not. Because of this, contracts can be traded – or swapped – from investor to investor without any regulatory body overseeing the trades to ensure the buyer has the resources to cover the losses if the security defaults. The instruments can be bought and sold from both ends – the insured and the insurer – with nary an oversight. Thus your typical greedy speculator has now been granted “free reign” to prey upon the financially ignorant and those with gullibility for get rich quick schemes. For all intents and purposes, the current market in credit derivatives has now become Mephistopheles’ playground due to lack of regulation and oversight. Thus perpetuating our current financial crisis in which these forms of credit insurance were built to prevent in the first place.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Environmental Coverage: Corporations versus Mother Nature?
Legislated environmental laws not only vary from country to country it is also evolving over time – in favor of the environment. Using this rationale, are existing environmental coverage clauses just a thinly veiled right for companies to pollute?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since the term Corporate Social Responsibility became the latest buzzword in the world, corporate leaders keeping their promises to shareholders and the company’s “bottom line” is no longer enough. Corporate leaders must also fulfil their promise to their employees and the community that their business practices are not placing our environment at risk. But when push comes to shove, how many of our so-called corporate leaders choose in favor of the environment instead of just “looking out for number one”? Especially when there are Environmental Coverage already available that not only turn “unforeseen disasters” that they create in the first place out of greed and ignorance – or a bit of both – into manageable situations. If you choose to define manageable situations as “immunity from prosecution” to “profiting from their own apathy”, which explains the popularity of every G8 summit to unruly teenagers.
There are now a number of insurance companies that offer environmental coverage with well-backed claims of underwriting authority for environmental risks. Some of them with reputations solidly backed by Triple-A-rated financial strength, the latest Basel Accord compliance and what have you. The question now is, are products like Cleanup Cost Cap and Pollution Legal Liability Select and their ilk nothing more than a thinly veiled rights for companies to pollute while avoiding the pay out of punitive damages?
The most commonly perceived truth states that this problem is either too complicated to the average layman or can be easily manipulated by the demagoguery of every environmentalist / vote-for-me politician come lately who favors passion over rational thought. Fortunately one can easily “hedge their bets” so to speak by utilizing the aid of one of the latest mathematical tools in assessing whether a corporations “green credentials” are nothing more than misspent PR – namely Quantitative Risk Assessment.
As of late, Quantitative Risk Assessment has been utilized by insurance companies I cited before that offer Cleanup Cost Cap and Pollution Legal Liability Select services as a form of corporate transparency. Stating that their products are not just thinly veiled provisos that allow corporations to pollute and ruin our environment with impunity. Insurance companies that provide environmental coverage always stay abreast with the latest Quantitative Risk Assessment findings especially ones pertaining to the protection of our environment. I just hope when insurance companies custom-tailor an environmental coverage policy to a certain company; it would be equitable to the needs of our environment and to the local economy. The world doesn’t need another corporate injustice like the still unresolved compensation claims of the victims of the 1984 Union Carbide insecticide plant disaster in Bhopal, India.
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since the term Corporate Social Responsibility became the latest buzzword in the world, corporate leaders keeping their promises to shareholders and the company’s “bottom line” is no longer enough. Corporate leaders must also fulfil their promise to their employees and the community that their business practices are not placing our environment at risk. But when push comes to shove, how many of our so-called corporate leaders choose in favor of the environment instead of just “looking out for number one”? Especially when there are Environmental Coverage already available that not only turn “unforeseen disasters” that they create in the first place out of greed and ignorance – or a bit of both – into manageable situations. If you choose to define manageable situations as “immunity from prosecution” to “profiting from their own apathy”, which explains the popularity of every G8 summit to unruly teenagers.
There are now a number of insurance companies that offer environmental coverage with well-backed claims of underwriting authority for environmental risks. Some of them with reputations solidly backed by Triple-A-rated financial strength, the latest Basel Accord compliance and what have you. The question now is, are products like Cleanup Cost Cap and Pollution Legal Liability Select and their ilk nothing more than a thinly veiled rights for companies to pollute while avoiding the pay out of punitive damages?
The most commonly perceived truth states that this problem is either too complicated to the average layman or can be easily manipulated by the demagoguery of every environmentalist / vote-for-me politician come lately who favors passion over rational thought. Fortunately one can easily “hedge their bets” so to speak by utilizing the aid of one of the latest mathematical tools in assessing whether a corporations “green credentials” are nothing more than misspent PR – namely Quantitative Risk Assessment.
As of late, Quantitative Risk Assessment has been utilized by insurance companies I cited before that offer Cleanup Cost Cap and Pollution Legal Liability Select services as a form of corporate transparency. Stating that their products are not just thinly veiled provisos that allow corporations to pollute and ruin our environment with impunity. Insurance companies that provide environmental coverage always stay abreast with the latest Quantitative Risk Assessment findings especially ones pertaining to the protection of our environment. I just hope when insurance companies custom-tailor an environmental coverage policy to a certain company; it would be equitable to the needs of our environment and to the local economy. The world doesn’t need another corporate injustice like the still unresolved compensation claims of the victims of the 1984 Union Carbide insecticide plant disaster in Bhopal, India.
Monday, May 5, 2008
The Emergency Landing Brace Position: A Lethal Proposition?
Conspiracy theorists reasoned out that the emergency landing brace position is really designed to kill airline passengers in a crash because its cheaper to pay wrongful death suits than medical injury compensation. Is there a truth to this?
By: Vanessa UY
Our technological ability to fly – make that heavier than air technology – is now well over 100 years old, and yet quite a large portion of our populace still harbor this irrational fear of flying even though statistically air travel is the safest way to go. This is probably the reason why unfounded myths and rumors pertaining to the airline industry have become so prevalent lately. But one of these somewhat controversial myth / rumor being spread around by conspiracy theorists is about the one pertaining to the brace position instructed to be performed by airline passengers in case of an emergency landing.
According to the conspiracy buffs, the brace position is intended to kill airline passengers by breaking their necks easily rather than saving their lives. This is so because it’s cheaper for airline companies to pay out to the wrongful death lawsuits than to pay for the surviving passengers’ medical treatment and rehabilitation which could last the survivors entire natural life. In wrongful death pay outs, the airline companies typically pays 3 to 5 million dollars while for survivors medical treatment and lifetime rehabilitation, it could reach 50 million dollars. The risk assessment in dollar terms alone is very scary, reinforcing the typical conspiracy theorists conjecture about insurance and underwriters companies in collusion with the airline industry. By placing profits first before the safety and lives of their passengers, conspiracy theorists never had a better excuse in thinking so. But is there any truth to this?
A very entertaining science program on the Discovery Channel called Mythbusters routinely dispel and test suspected myths like the one previously mentioned by performing visually extravagant but valid scientific experiments that had gained them a cult following – especially to the younger viewers who desperately needed scientific enlightenment. In one episode, they did an experiment to test the validity of the myth that the brace position is designed to kill airline passengers during an emergency landing. Their high tech sensor loaded (actually they used postal / parcel service shock measuring stickers) crash test dummy named “Buster” was used to substitute a human passenger in an emergency landing situation. Sure enough, Buster demonstrated that the brace position actually reduced the shock or G load to a typical passenger by as much as 20 G s. That’s 20 G s less shock compared to a passenger in a normal sitting position. That’s a very significant difference of an outcome between survival and death.
To evaluate the big picture on why this myth ever came about in the first place, let’s examine first the history of manned aviation. When the Wright Brothers first demonstrated their newfound prowess of manned flight, they spawned a host of barnstormers i.e. early aviation enthusiasts. Even though they are very much popular and widespread, most people back then were still deathly scared by flying. Even witnessing a plane flying 30 feet above their heads is enough to terrify them even though there’s also a large majority who are curious to experience themselves the magic of flight. So when business entrepreneurs started the airline business back then, they have to convince the people how safe their planes are – or at least they cared about the safety of their passengers. And since airline companies are still around till this day, then safety concerns did came hand and hand with profits.
Sadly, there’s this other thing that the conspiracy theorists overlook that was always part and parcel of profit generating enterprises – namely corporate social responsibility and ethical business governance. Even though these concepts only became unique selling points of customers quite recently. It’s only common sense that your customers and clients will only do business with you again if you treat them right. Even private security contractors are subscribing to the corporate social responsibility and ethical business governance fad by using the phrase “at least we’re not killing innocent civilians” as their unique selling point. Maybe conspiracy theorists need to study the history of aviation first. If these conspiracy theorists don’t find history or science as a “sexy subject” anymore, then they should blame the Board of Education, not the airline industry.
By: Vanessa UY
Our technological ability to fly – make that heavier than air technology – is now well over 100 years old, and yet quite a large portion of our populace still harbor this irrational fear of flying even though statistically air travel is the safest way to go. This is probably the reason why unfounded myths and rumors pertaining to the airline industry have become so prevalent lately. But one of these somewhat controversial myth / rumor being spread around by conspiracy theorists is about the one pertaining to the brace position instructed to be performed by airline passengers in case of an emergency landing.
According to the conspiracy buffs, the brace position is intended to kill airline passengers by breaking their necks easily rather than saving their lives. This is so because it’s cheaper for airline companies to pay out to the wrongful death lawsuits than to pay for the surviving passengers’ medical treatment and rehabilitation which could last the survivors entire natural life. In wrongful death pay outs, the airline companies typically pays 3 to 5 million dollars while for survivors medical treatment and lifetime rehabilitation, it could reach 50 million dollars. The risk assessment in dollar terms alone is very scary, reinforcing the typical conspiracy theorists conjecture about insurance and underwriters companies in collusion with the airline industry. By placing profits first before the safety and lives of their passengers, conspiracy theorists never had a better excuse in thinking so. But is there any truth to this?
A very entertaining science program on the Discovery Channel called Mythbusters routinely dispel and test suspected myths like the one previously mentioned by performing visually extravagant but valid scientific experiments that had gained them a cult following – especially to the younger viewers who desperately needed scientific enlightenment. In one episode, they did an experiment to test the validity of the myth that the brace position is designed to kill airline passengers during an emergency landing. Their high tech sensor loaded (actually they used postal / parcel service shock measuring stickers) crash test dummy named “Buster” was used to substitute a human passenger in an emergency landing situation. Sure enough, Buster demonstrated that the brace position actually reduced the shock or G load to a typical passenger by as much as 20 G s. That’s 20 G s less shock compared to a passenger in a normal sitting position. That’s a very significant difference of an outcome between survival and death.
To evaluate the big picture on why this myth ever came about in the first place, let’s examine first the history of manned aviation. When the Wright Brothers first demonstrated their newfound prowess of manned flight, they spawned a host of barnstormers i.e. early aviation enthusiasts. Even though they are very much popular and widespread, most people back then were still deathly scared by flying. Even witnessing a plane flying 30 feet above their heads is enough to terrify them even though there’s also a large majority who are curious to experience themselves the magic of flight. So when business entrepreneurs started the airline business back then, they have to convince the people how safe their planes are – or at least they cared about the safety of their passengers. And since airline companies are still around till this day, then safety concerns did came hand and hand with profits.
Sadly, there’s this other thing that the conspiracy theorists overlook that was always part and parcel of profit generating enterprises – namely corporate social responsibility and ethical business governance. Even though these concepts only became unique selling points of customers quite recently. It’s only common sense that your customers and clients will only do business with you again if you treat them right. Even private security contractors are subscribing to the corporate social responsibility and ethical business governance fad by using the phrase “at least we’re not killing innocent civilians” as their unique selling point. Maybe conspiracy theorists need to study the history of aviation first. If these conspiracy theorists don’t find history or science as a “sexy subject” anymore, then they should blame the Board of Education, not the airline industry.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Risk Calculations: On the Mark or Missing by a Mile?
Ever since it was mathematically proven that air travel is actually much safer than driving, risk calculations has become a perennial topic of discussion by anyone too worried to be worried. Are we being scared unnecessarily?
By: Vanessa Uy
There’s this very funny anecdote that I heard quite recently about how much air travel is safer compared to your typical “little girls bike”. You also probably heard it before. The punch line goes: “At least when my little girl falls from her bike, its not a 30,000 foot drop. This could very well serve as a rationale for the toy manufacturer Mattel to start competing with the jumbo jet manufacturer Boeing once the scandal over the high lead content of Mattel’s PROC-manufactured toy products eventually dies down.
Basing from such tales of perception and of opinion from the general public with regards to the risks that they face everyday, its no wonder that people who do risk assessment for a living harbor a pre-conceived notion. A notion that the general public is largely irrational when it comes to risk assessment, but there’s a kernel of truth regarding this matter.
Calculations used for risk assessment are based on averages, so they have limited value to the individual. Air travel, for instance, may be safe in terms of deaths per passenger mile. But that says little about the specific flight you are about to board. The very one that will subject you and your fellow passengers to a number of takeoffs and landings in bad weather, not to mention the flight crews’ forays into alcohol addled hedonism that previous night.
To define a certain risk implies that the risk assessor resorts to foretelling, but the accuracy of the math’s predictive power can be misleading. This is so because risk assessors’ calculations – by and large – always use historical data while adhering to the dubious assumption that the future will behave like the past. It seems like risk and uncertainty always goes hand in hand, even under mathematical scrutiny.
On the other end of the risk spectrum, examine for a moment the unthinkable scenario when almost all life on Earth – including humans - being wiped out by a catastrophic comet, meteorite or asteroid impact. Due to Hollywood cashing in the legitimate concerns of astronomers warning us of this “Doomsday Scenario”, the general public has been fascinated on what might happen as we prepare, during, and after a catastrophic asteroid or comet impact during the last ten years or so.
One asteroid that got famous after receiving it’s “15 Minutes of Fame” in the mainstream media spotlight is 99942 Apophis. This 320 meter wide asteroid was first discovered in 2004 and was supposedly calculated to hit our planet on April 13, 2029. Though by no means dead certain, estimates for the asteroid 99942 Apophis hitting us ranges from a “scary” 1 in 27 to NASA’s “somewhat reassuring” official estimate of 1 in 45,000.
As of late, NASA’s official estimate has recently recalculated by an “astronomically curious” high school student using off the shelf computer software. Using such modest resources, the student’s findings that the asteroid 99942 Apophis now has a probability of 1 in 459 in hitting our planet. The student’s findings were later proven by NASA to be correct. But for those who based their calculations via current geological evidence that catastrophic impacts that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years occur regularly at 13 million- year intervals. Therefore the chances of our planet being hit catastrophically by a comet or asteroid in a span of one year comes to about 1 in 20,000. Even though I’m worried, I do keep my worries to an absolute-minimum. Anymore than that is an unacceptable risk to my overall wellbeing.
By: Vanessa Uy
There’s this very funny anecdote that I heard quite recently about how much air travel is safer compared to your typical “little girls bike”. You also probably heard it before. The punch line goes: “At least when my little girl falls from her bike, its not a 30,000 foot drop. This could very well serve as a rationale for the toy manufacturer Mattel to start competing with the jumbo jet manufacturer Boeing once the scandal over the high lead content of Mattel’s PROC-manufactured toy products eventually dies down.
Basing from such tales of perception and of opinion from the general public with regards to the risks that they face everyday, its no wonder that people who do risk assessment for a living harbor a pre-conceived notion. A notion that the general public is largely irrational when it comes to risk assessment, but there’s a kernel of truth regarding this matter.
Calculations used for risk assessment are based on averages, so they have limited value to the individual. Air travel, for instance, may be safe in terms of deaths per passenger mile. But that says little about the specific flight you are about to board. The very one that will subject you and your fellow passengers to a number of takeoffs and landings in bad weather, not to mention the flight crews’ forays into alcohol addled hedonism that previous night.
To define a certain risk implies that the risk assessor resorts to foretelling, but the accuracy of the math’s predictive power can be misleading. This is so because risk assessors’ calculations – by and large – always use historical data while adhering to the dubious assumption that the future will behave like the past. It seems like risk and uncertainty always goes hand in hand, even under mathematical scrutiny.
On the other end of the risk spectrum, examine for a moment the unthinkable scenario when almost all life on Earth – including humans - being wiped out by a catastrophic comet, meteorite or asteroid impact. Due to Hollywood cashing in the legitimate concerns of astronomers warning us of this “Doomsday Scenario”, the general public has been fascinated on what might happen as we prepare, during, and after a catastrophic asteroid or comet impact during the last ten years or so.
One asteroid that got famous after receiving it’s “15 Minutes of Fame” in the mainstream media spotlight is 99942 Apophis. This 320 meter wide asteroid was first discovered in 2004 and was supposedly calculated to hit our planet on April 13, 2029. Though by no means dead certain, estimates for the asteroid 99942 Apophis hitting us ranges from a “scary” 1 in 27 to NASA’s “somewhat reassuring” official estimate of 1 in 45,000.
As of late, NASA’s official estimate has recently recalculated by an “astronomically curious” high school student using off the shelf computer software. Using such modest resources, the student’s findings that the asteroid 99942 Apophis now has a probability of 1 in 459 in hitting our planet. The student’s findings were later proven by NASA to be correct. But for those who based their calculations via current geological evidence that catastrophic impacts that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years occur regularly at 13 million- year intervals. Therefore the chances of our planet being hit catastrophically by a comet or asteroid in a span of one year comes to about 1 in 20,000. Even though I’m worried, I do keep my worries to an absolute-minimum. Anymore than that is an unacceptable risk to my overall wellbeing.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Genetic Science and Life Insurance Companies: An Unholy Alliance?
As the science of genetics advances to a level where someone’s future health status and life span can be calculated with unprecedented degrees of accuracy. As these tools will be utilized by life insurance companies. Will the establishment of a voluntary code of conduct in the rate - making procedures of life insurance providers be the norm rather than the exception?
By: Vanessa Uy
In a typical contemporary life insurance company, the actuary knows only that ultimately that the policyholder will die. The factors governing the event as they apply to any given individual-the when, the why, and the how-are still a mystery beyond casual prediction. Insurance experts must therefore draw up their actuarial tables entirely from death statistics, separating into categories of such subdivisions as age, sex and occupation. The expert thus starts with known statistics and from these, works out the probabilities. As always in the case of probability, the greater the sampling, the more accurate the resultant forecast will be.
Recent advances in genetic science can now allow scientists to predict with ever increasingly accurate forecasts of the probable characteristics of even the unborn. Characteristics such as height, weight, intelligence, even longevity. These tools now in use routinely by genetic science has become increasingly harder to be overlooked by life insurance actuaries. Surely, the element of gambling can be eliminated if the customer’s premiums are like the proverbial “money in the bank” since the life insurance company will now be less likely to pay out with most of their policyholders are now living as long as sequoia trees.
Will life insurance policies in the future be tailored to the individual customer’s “genetic endowment”? The sad news is that it will be a definite certainty despite the resulting resentment that will be harbored by a working underclass. To me, this is where a voluntary code of conduct should be adopted by “mainstream” life insurance companies to avoid the increased customer exclusion that would result if life insurance actuaries adopt a method that by all intents and purposes is unfair. But the bad news is life insurance companies primarily are a business entity that’s primarily concerned with their “bottom line”. If life insurance actuaries see that an unjust method of customer exclusion or insurance policies can fatten up their bottom line, then surely, they will accept it with open arms despite of the ensuing social turmoil.
By: Vanessa Uy
In a typical contemporary life insurance company, the actuary knows only that ultimately that the policyholder will die. The factors governing the event as they apply to any given individual-the when, the why, and the how-are still a mystery beyond casual prediction. Insurance experts must therefore draw up their actuarial tables entirely from death statistics, separating into categories of such subdivisions as age, sex and occupation. The expert thus starts with known statistics and from these, works out the probabilities. As always in the case of probability, the greater the sampling, the more accurate the resultant forecast will be.
Recent advances in genetic science can now allow scientists to predict with ever increasingly accurate forecasts of the probable characteristics of even the unborn. Characteristics such as height, weight, intelligence, even longevity. These tools now in use routinely by genetic science has become increasingly harder to be overlooked by life insurance actuaries. Surely, the element of gambling can be eliminated if the customer’s premiums are like the proverbial “money in the bank” since the life insurance company will now be less likely to pay out with most of their policyholders are now living as long as sequoia trees.
Will life insurance policies in the future be tailored to the individual customer’s “genetic endowment”? The sad news is that it will be a definite certainty despite the resulting resentment that will be harbored by a working underclass. To me, this is where a voluntary code of conduct should be adopted by “mainstream” life insurance companies to avoid the increased customer exclusion that would result if life insurance actuaries adopt a method that by all intents and purposes is unfair. But the bad news is life insurance companies primarily are a business entity that’s primarily concerned with their “bottom line”. If life insurance actuaries see that an unjust method of customer exclusion or insurance policies can fatten up their bottom line, then surely, they will accept it with open arms despite of the ensuing social turmoil.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Credit Insurance: A White Knight against Recession?
As Bond Insurers loose their “triple A” credit ratings thanks to the US economic turbulence towards the end of 2007. Can Credit Insurance providers still be counted on as recession looms?
By: Vanessa Uy
In today’s world, credit has become a vital part of our modern economy. If large credit losses occur, profits may be totally lost. Manufacturing and wholesaling firms always have that looming threat that someone to whom they extend credit may become insolvent and will be unable to meet their obligations.
Ordinarily, it is possible to estimate probable losses caused by extending credit and to add this cost to the price of the goods. It is also possible to be very cautious about extending credit. However, one large loss may upset all plans and methods for meeting the losses, and if too restricted credit practice is followed sales and thus profits will be cut even greater than credit losses. Credit insurance was developed, therefore, to protect business against undue credit losses. This insurance does not cover credit transactions between retailers and customers. Credit insurance policies do not place any serious restrictions or limitations on the cause of the debtor’s insolvency and thus contain broad coverage after the title of the goods has passed to the various debtors.
The principal kinds of credit insurance policies are general coverage policies. With the general coverage policy, all customers are included subject to the limitation of the policy. The financial standing of the customers and their credit ratings determines whether he or she is to be covered and for what limit.
The Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., mercantile agency manual is generally relied upon for information concerning customers, although there are other approved agencies. The insurance companies require that the customers have a capital and credit rating in a recognized mercantile agency because of the nature of the fluctuating hazard of credit.
The mercantile agency books show the approximate amount of net worth and the promptness of meeting obligations of the various concerns. The better firms receive high or good credit ratings and are regarded as preferred ratings. Usually the much coveted “triple A” rating badge. Other, less secure enterprises are rated as fair and limited and are considered inferior ratings. Often credit – insurance policies do not cover concerns rated as limited as these firms represent great hazards. Under such circumstances credit afforded to customers in this class is extended at the insured own risk. The liability of the insurance company on any one loss is limited in relation to the credit and financial standing of the customer.
Credit insurance does not cover loss of profits involved in a failure of the customer to pay for the goods. An amount, representing the estimated profits, generally 10 per cent, is deducted from the total of the uncollected accounts for which indemnity is provided. This deduction of a stated percentage from provable losses is known as coinsurance. By payment of an additional premium the coinsurance clause will be eliminated.
Since all concerns normally expect to suffer some credit losses every year, an amount known as the normal loss, is deducted. This is done way before any of the losses be paid by the company. Generally the amount is based upon the total sales of the insured and the ratings on which coverage is required.
So in today’s financial climate that’s fast heading into uncertainty, do credit insurers help manufacturers and wholesalers from going under? Well, if one looks our global financial system from the perspective of “enlightened self interest” the answer is a big fat yes. This is so because manufacturers and wholesalers are the main customers of credit insurance providers. And credit insurance providers are not stupid enough to sacrifice their own “cash cows” just to protect their own interests. But when bad goes to worse especially if your specific credit insurance provider can’t reimburse you because it went bust. Then, this is surely a sign that a full blown economic recession is in progress. Just hope that a full blown economic depression doesn’t come next.
By: Vanessa Uy
In today’s world, credit has become a vital part of our modern economy. If large credit losses occur, profits may be totally lost. Manufacturing and wholesaling firms always have that looming threat that someone to whom they extend credit may become insolvent and will be unable to meet their obligations.
Ordinarily, it is possible to estimate probable losses caused by extending credit and to add this cost to the price of the goods. It is also possible to be very cautious about extending credit. However, one large loss may upset all plans and methods for meeting the losses, and if too restricted credit practice is followed sales and thus profits will be cut even greater than credit losses. Credit insurance was developed, therefore, to protect business against undue credit losses. This insurance does not cover credit transactions between retailers and customers. Credit insurance policies do not place any serious restrictions or limitations on the cause of the debtor’s insolvency and thus contain broad coverage after the title of the goods has passed to the various debtors.
The principal kinds of credit insurance policies are general coverage policies. With the general coverage policy, all customers are included subject to the limitation of the policy. The financial standing of the customers and their credit ratings determines whether he or she is to be covered and for what limit.
The Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., mercantile agency manual is generally relied upon for information concerning customers, although there are other approved agencies. The insurance companies require that the customers have a capital and credit rating in a recognized mercantile agency because of the nature of the fluctuating hazard of credit.
The mercantile agency books show the approximate amount of net worth and the promptness of meeting obligations of the various concerns. The better firms receive high or good credit ratings and are regarded as preferred ratings. Usually the much coveted “triple A” rating badge. Other, less secure enterprises are rated as fair and limited and are considered inferior ratings. Often credit – insurance policies do not cover concerns rated as limited as these firms represent great hazards. Under such circumstances credit afforded to customers in this class is extended at the insured own risk. The liability of the insurance company on any one loss is limited in relation to the credit and financial standing of the customer.
Credit insurance does not cover loss of profits involved in a failure of the customer to pay for the goods. An amount, representing the estimated profits, generally 10 per cent, is deducted from the total of the uncollected accounts for which indemnity is provided. This deduction of a stated percentage from provable losses is known as coinsurance. By payment of an additional premium the coinsurance clause will be eliminated.
Since all concerns normally expect to suffer some credit losses every year, an amount known as the normal loss, is deducted. This is done way before any of the losses be paid by the company. Generally the amount is based upon the total sales of the insured and the ratings on which coverage is required.
So in today’s financial climate that’s fast heading into uncertainty, do credit insurers help manufacturers and wholesalers from going under? Well, if one looks our global financial system from the perspective of “enlightened self interest” the answer is a big fat yes. This is so because manufacturers and wholesalers are the main customers of credit insurance providers. And credit insurance providers are not stupid enough to sacrifice their own “cash cows” just to protect their own interests. But when bad goes to worse especially if your specific credit insurance provider can’t reimburse you because it went bust. Then, this is surely a sign that a full blown economic recession is in progress. Just hope that a full blown economic depression doesn’t come next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
