FORM 10-K
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ |
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. |
For the transition period from
to
.
Commission file number 0-4604
Cincinnati Financial Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Ohio
|
|
31-0746871 |
(State of incorporation)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
6200 S. Gilmore Road
Fairfield, Ohio 45014-5141
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(513) 870-2000
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
$2.00 par, common stock
(Title of Class)
6.125% Senior Notes due 2034
(Title of Class)
6.9% Senior Debentures due 2028
(Title of Class)
6.92% Senior Debentures due 2028
(Title of Class)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of
the Securities Act. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or
Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject
to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is
not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants knowledge, in
definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K
or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large
accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer þ
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of voting stock held by nonaffiliates of the Registrant was
$3,708,499,771 as of June 30, 2008.
As of February 19, 2009, there were 162,502,547 shares of common stock outstanding.
Document Incorporated by Reference
Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement for Cincinnati Financial Corporations Annual Meeting of
Shareholders to be held on May 2, 2009, are incorporated by reference into Parts II and III of this
Form 10-K.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I
Item 1. Business
Cincinnati Financial Corporation Introduction
We are an Ohio corporation formed in 1968. Our lead subsidiary, The Cincinnati Insurance
Company, was founded in 1950. Our main business is marketing property casualty insurance.
Our headquarters is in Fairfield, Ohio. At year-end 2008, we had 4,179 associates, with
2,984 headquarters associates providing support to 1,195 field associates.
At year-end 2008, Cincinnati Financial Corporation owned 100 percent of four subsidiaries:
The Cincinnati Insurance Company, CSU Producer Resources Inc., CFC Investment Company and
CinFin Capital Management Company. In addition, the parent company has an investment
portfolio, owns the headquarters building and is responsible for corporate borrowings and
shareholder dividends. The Cincinnati Insurance Company owns 100 percent of our four other
insurance subsidiaries.
In addition to The Cincinnati Insurance Company, our standard market property casualty
insurance group includes two of those subsidiaries The Cincinnati Casualty Company and The
Cincinnati Indemnity Company. This group markets a broad range of business, homeowner and
auto policies in 35 states. Other subsidiaries of The Cincinnati Insurance Company include
The Cincinnati Life Insurance Company, which markets life insurance, disability income
policies and annuities, and The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company, which
began offering surplus lines insurance products in January 2008.
The three other subsidiaries of Cincinnati Financial are CSU Producer Resources, which
offers insurance brokerage services to our independent agencies so their clients can access
our surplus lines insurance products; CFC Investment Company, which offers commercial
leasing and financing services to our agents, their clients and other customers; and CinFin
Capital Management Company, which provided asset management services to internal and
third-party clients. CinFin Capital Management will cease operations effective February 28,
2009.
Our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission are available, free of charge, on
our Web site, www.cinfin.com, as soon as possible after they have been filed with the SEC.
These filings include our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q,
current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In the following pages we
reference various Web sites. These Web sites, including our own, are not incorporated by
reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Periodically, we refer to estimated industry data so that we can give information about our
performance versus the overall insurance industry. Unless otherwise noted, the industry data
is prepared by A.M. Best Co., a leading insurance industry statistical, analytical and
insurer financial strength and credit rating organization. Information from A.M. Best is
presented on a statutory basis. When we provide our results on a comparable statutory basis,
we label it as such; all other company data is presented in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP).
Our Business And Our Strategy
Introduction
The Cincinnati Insurance Company was founded almost 60 years ago by independent insurance
agents. They established the mission that continues to guide all of the companies in the
Cincinnati Financial family to grow profitably and enhance the ability of local
independent insurance agents to deliver quality financial protection to the people and
businesses they serve by:
|
|
providing market stability through financial strength |
|
|
producing competitive up-to-date products and services and |
|
|
developing associates committed to superior service |
A select group of agencies in 35 states actively markets our property casualty insurance
within their communities. Standard market commercial lines policies are available in all of
those states, while personal lines policies are available in 27 and surplus commercial lines
policies are available in 33 of the same 35 states. Within this select group, we also seek
to become the life insurance carrier of choice and to help agents and their clients our
policyholders by offering leasing and financing services.
Three hallmarks distinguish this company, positioning us to build value and long-term
success:
|
|
Commitment to our network of professional independent insurance agencies and to
their continued success |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 1
|
|
Financial strength that lets us be a consistent market for our agents business,
supporting stability and confidence |
|
|
Operating structure that supports local decision making, showcasing our claims
excellence and allowing us to balance growth with underwriting discipline |
Independent Insurance Agency Marketplace
The U.S. property casualty insurance industry is a highly competitive marketplace with over
2,000 stock and mutual companies operating independently or in groups. No single company or
group dominates across all product lines and states. Standard market insurance companies
(carriers) can market a broad array of products nationally or:
|
|
choose to sell a limited product line or only one type of insurance (monoline
carrier) |
|
|
target a certain segment of the market (for example, personal insurance) |
|
|
focus on one or more states or regions (regional carrier) |
Standard market property casualty insurers generally offer insurance products through one or
more distribution channels:
|
|
independent agents, who represent multiple carriers, |
|
|
captive agents, who represent one carrier exclusively, or |
|
|
direct marketing to consumers |
For the most part, we compete with standard market insurance companies that market through
independent insurance agents.
We are committed to this channel. The independent agencies that we choose to market our
standard lines insurance products share our philosophies. They do business person to person;
offer broad, value-added services; maintain sound balance sheets; and manage their agencies
professionally. We develop our relationships with agencies that are active in their local
communities, providing important knowledge of local market trends, opportunities and
challenges.
In addition to the standard market for property casualty insurance, the surplus lines market
exists due to a regulatory distinction. Generally, surplus lines insurance carriers provide
insurance that is unavailable in the standard market due to market conditions or due to
characteristics of the insured person or organization that are caused by nature, the
insureds claim history or the characteristics of their business. Insurers operating in the
surplus lines market are generally small specialty insurers or specialized divisions of
larger insurance organizations. Each markets through surplus lines insurance brokers.
We opened our own surplus line insurance brokerage firm so that we could offer surplus lines
products exclusively to the independent agents who market our other property casualty
insurance products. We also market life insurance products through the agencies that market
our property casualty products.
At year-end 2008, our 1,133 agency relationships had 1,387 reporting locations marketing our
standard market insurance products. An increasing number of agencies have multiple,
separately identifiable locations, reflecting their growth and consolidation of ownership
within the independent agency marketplace. The number of reporting agency locations
indicates our agents regional scope and the extent of our presence within our 35 active
states. At year-end 2007, our 1,092 agency relationships had 1,327 reporting locations. At
year-end 2006, our 1,066 agency relationships had 1,289 reporting locations.
On average, we have a 12.4 percent share of the property casualty insurance purchased
through our reporting agency locations. Our share is 18.1 percent in reporting agency
locations that have represented us for more than 10 years; 7.4 percent in agencies that have
represented us for five to 10 years; 4.4 percent in agencies that have represented us for
one to five years; and 0.6 percent in agencies that have represented us for less than one
year.
Our largest single agency relationship accounted for approximately 1.3 percent of our total
property casualty agency earned premiums in 2008. No aggregate of locations under a single
ownership structure accounted for more than 2.3 percent of our total agency earned premiums
in 2008.
Over the next decade, industry analysts predict successful agencies will have opportunities
to increase their size on average almost three-fold. Agencies are expected to continue to
pursue consolidation opportunities, buying or merging with other agencies to create stronger
organizations and expand service. In addition to the growing networks of agency locations
owned by banks and brokers, other agencies are addressing the consolidation by forming
voluntary associations that may share back office and other functions to enhance economies,
while maintaining their individual ownership structures.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 2
Financial Strength
We believe that our financial strength and strong surplus position, reflected in our insurer
financial strength ratings, are clear, competitive advantages in the segment of the
insurance marketplace that we serve. This strength supports the consistent, predictable
performance that our policyholders, agents, associates and shareholders have always expected
and received, and helps us withstand significant challenges.
While the prospect exists for volatility due to our exposures to potential catastrophes or
significant capital market losses, the ratings agencies consistently have asserted that we
have built appropriate financial strength and flexibility to manage that volatility. We
remain committed to strategies that emphasize being a consistent, stable market for our
agents business over short-term benefits that might accrue by quick reaction to changes in
market conditions.
At year-end 2008 and 2007, risk-based capital (RBC) for our standard and surplus lines
property casualty operations and life operations was exceptionally strong, far exceeding
regulatory requirements.
|
|
We ended 2008 with a 0.9-to-1 ratio of property casualty premiums to surplus, a key
measure of property casualty insurance company capacity. Our ratio gives us the
flexibility to reduce risk by expanding our operations into new geographies and product
areas. The estimated industry average ratio also was 0.9 to 1 for 2008. The lower the
ratio, the greater capacity an insurer has for growth. |
|
|
We ended 2008 with a 17.7 percent ratio of life statutory adjusted risk-based
surplus to liabilities, a key measure of life insurance company capital strength. The
estimated industry average ratio was 9.9 percent for 2008. A higher ratio indicates an
insurers stronger security for policyholders and capacity to support business growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
Standard market property casualty insurance subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statutory surplus |
|
$ |
3,360 |
|
|
$ |
4,307 |
|
Risk-based capital (RBC) |
|
|
3,389 |
|
|
|
4,336 |
|
Authorized control level risk-based capital |
|
|
407 |
|
|
|
615 |
|
Ratio of risk-based capital to authorized control level risk-based capital |
|
|
8.3 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
Written premium to surplus ratio |
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life insurance subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statutory surplus |
|
$ |
290 |
|
|
$ |
477 |
|
Risk-based capital (RBC) |
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
506 |
|
Authorized control level risk-based capital |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
Ratio of risk-based capital to authorized control level risk-based capital |
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
7.3 |
|
Total liabilities excluding separate account business |
|
|
1,640 |
|
|
|
1,552 |
|
Life statutory risk-based adjusted surplus to liabilities ratio |
|
|
17.7 |
% |
|
|
33.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surplus lines subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statutory surplus |
|
$ |
174 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
Risk-based capital (RBC) |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
196 |
|
Authorized control level risk-based capital |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Ratio of risk-based capital to authorized control level risk-based capital |
|
|
39.7 |
|
|
|
20.7 |
|
Written premium to surplus ratio |
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
The consolidated property casualty insurance groups ratio of investments in common stock to
statutory surplus at 53.4 percent at year-end 2008 compared with 84.5 percent at year-end
2007. The life insurance companys ratio was 39.2 percent compared with 70.6 percent a year
ago.
Our parent companys senior debt is rated by four independent ratings firms. In addition,
the ratings firms award our property casualty and life operations insurer financial strength
ratings based on their quantitative and qualitative analyses. These ratings assess an
insurers ability to meet financial obligations to policyholders and do not necessarily
address all of the matters that may be important to shareholders. Ratings may be subject to
revision or withdrawal at any time by the rating agency, and each rating should be evaluated
independently of any other rating.
All of our insurance subsidiaries continue to be highly rated. Each of the four
organizations that rate our companies placed the ratings of our standard market property
casualty and life companies on watch or review in June and July 2008 and subsequently
lowered them. These actions followed our June announcement of significant catastrophe losses
and declines in value of our investment assets.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 3
As of February 26, 2009, our credit and financial strength ratings were:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance Financial Strength Ratings |
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
Standard Market Property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rating |
|
Senior Debt |
|
|
Casualty Insurance |
|
|
Life Insurance |
|
|
Surplus Lines |
|
|
|
|
Agency |
|
Rating |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Status (date) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier |
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Best Co. |
|
|
a |
|
|
|
A+ |
|
|
Superior |
|
2 of 16 |
|
|
A |
|
|
Excellent |
|
3 of 16 |
|
|
A |
|
|
Excellent |
|
3 of 16 |
|
Stable outlook (12/19/08) |
Fitch Ratings |
|
|
A- |
|
|
AA- |
|
Very Strong |
|
4 of 21 |
|
AA- |
|
Very Strong |
|
4 of 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negative outlook (2/13/09) |
Moodys Investors |
|
|
A3 |
|
|
|
A1 |
|
|
Good |
|
5 of 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stable outlook (9/25/08) |
Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard & Poors |
|
BBB+ |
| |
|
A+ |
|
|
Strong |
|
5 of 21 |
|
|
A+ |
|
|
Strong |
|
5 of 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negative outlook (06/30/08) |
Ratings Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.M. Best Co. On December 22, 2008, A.M. Best affirmed its A (Excellent) financial
strength rating and its issuer credit rating of The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters
Insurance Company, our surplus lines subsidiary. A.M. Best removed from under review
with negative implications its financial strength and issuer credit ratings for our
other insurance companies, lowering the financial strength ratings to A+ (Superior) for
the standard market property casualty insurance group and member companies and to A
(Excellent) for The Cincinnati Life Insurance Company. A.M. Best cited our continued
exposure to the vagaries of the capital markets, at the same time raising the outlook
to stable on all of the companys ratings to acknowledge our enhanced risk management
processes, sound liquidity, superior risk-adjusted capitalization for our operating
entities and successful business profile within our targeted regional markets. |
|
|
|
|
Fitch Ratings On February 13, 2009, Fitch Ratings affirmed our ratings it had
assigned in July 2008, continuing its negative outlook due to the downside risk in our
equity portfolio. Fitch stated that it viewed favorably the number of steps we have
taken to rebalance our equity portfolio and reduce exposure to the financial sector.
Fitch noted our strong capitalization at the current ratings level and low operating
leverage. In July 2008, Fitch had removed ratings for our three standard market
property casualty insurance companies and The Cincinnati Life Insurance Company from
rating watch negative, lowering the insurer financial strength ratings to AA- (Very
Strong). |
|
|
|
|
Moodys Investors Service On September 25, 2008, Moodys Investors Service removed
our standard market property casualty insurance companies from review, lowering the
insurance financial strength ratings to A1. The outlook on the ratings is stable.
Moodys said its action reflected reduced shareholders equity and risk-adjusted
capitalization, concerns about management of investment portfolio volatility, and
increasing commercial lines competition. Moodys noted our strong regional franchise
and strong risk-adjusted capitalization reflecting consistent reserve strength and
manageable peak-level catastrophe exposure; and an excellent financial leverage profile
accompanied by significant holding company liquidity. |
|
|
|
|
Standard & Poors Ratings Services On June 30, 2008, Standard & Poors Ratings
Services removed our three standard market property casualty insurance companies and
The Cincinnati Life Insurance Company from credit watch, lowering the insurer financial
strength ratings to A+ (Strong) with a negative outlook. Standard & Poors said its
actions reflected our weakened capitalization and current and prospective operating
performance, increased market competition and reduced liquidity. Standard & Poors
noted support for operating company ratings in view of our
capital at the A level, extremely strong and loyal agency force, strong competitive
position, improved technological efficiencies, and improved and adequate enterprise risk
management. |
Our debt ratings are discussed in Item 7, Additional Sources of Liquidity, Page 71.
Operating Structure
We offer our broad array of insurance products through the independent agency channel. We
recognize that locally based independent agencies have relationships in their communities
that can lead to policyholder satisfaction, loyalty and profitable business. We seek to be a
consistent and predictable property casualty carrier that agencies can rely on to serve
their clients. For our standard market business, field and headquarters underwriters make
risk-specific decisions about both new business and renewals.
In our 10 highest volume states for consolidated property casualty premiums, 910 reporting
agency locations wrote 68.7 percent of our 2008 consolidated property casualty earned
premium volume compared with 69.1 percent in 2007.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 4
Property Casualty Insurance Earned Premiums by State
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Earned |
|
% of total |
|
Agency |
|
premium per |
(Dollars in millions) |
|
premiums |
|
earned |
|
locations |
|
location |
|
Year ended December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio |
|
$ |
630 |
|
|
|
20.9 |
% |
|
|
219 |
|
|
$ |
2.9 |
|
Illinois |
|
|
270 |
|
|
|
9.0 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
Indiana |
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
6.8 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
Pennsylvania |
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
Georgia |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
North Carolina |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
Michigan |
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
Virginia |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
Tennessee |
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio |
|
$ |
664 |
|
|
|
21.2 |
% |
|
|
218 |
|
|
$ |
3.0 |
|
Illinois |
|
|
283 |
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
Indiana |
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
Pennsylvania |
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
North Carolina |
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
Georgia |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
Michigan |
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
Virginia |
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
Tennessee |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
3.3 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
Field Focus
We rely on our field associates to provide service and be accountable to our agencies for
decisions we make at the local level. These associates live in the communities they serve
and work from offices in their homes, providing 24/7 availability to our agents.
Headquarters associates also provide agencies with underwriting, accounting and technology
assistance and training. Company executives, headquarters underwriters and special teams
regularly travel to visit agencies, strengthening the personal relationships we have with
these organizations. Agents have opportunities for direct, personal
conversations with our senior management team, and headquarters associates have
opportunities to refresh their knowledge of marketplace conditions and field activities.
The field team is coordinated by field marketing representatives responsible for new
commercial lines business underwriting. They are joined by field representatives
specializing in claims, loss control, personal lines, machinery and equipment, bond, premium
audit, life insurance and leasing. The field team provides many services for agencies and
policyholders; for example, our field machinery and equipment and loss control
representatives perform inspections and recommend specific actions to improve the safety of
the policyholders operations and the quality of the agents account.
Agents work with us to carefully select risks and assure pricing adequacy. They appreciate
the time our associates invest in creating solutions for their clients while protecting
profitability, whether that means working on an individual case or customizing policy terms
and conditions that preserve flexibility, choice and other sales advantages. We seek to
develop long-term relationships by understanding the unique needs of their customers, our
policyholders.
We also are responsive to agent needs for well designed property casualty products. Our
commercial lines products are structured to allow flexible combinations of property and
liability coverages in a single package with a single expiration date. This approach brings
policyholders convenience, discounts and a reduced risk of coverage gaps or disputes. At the
same time, it increases account retention and saves time and expense for the agency and our
company.
We seek to employ technology solutions and business process improvements that:
|
|
allow our agencies and our field and headquarters associates to collaborate more
efficiently, |
|
|
provide our agencies the ability to access our systems and client data to process
business transactions from their offices, |
|
|
automate our internal processes so our associates can spend more time serving agents
and policyholders, and |
|
|
reduce duplicated effort and make our processes more efficient to reduce company and
agency costs. |
Agencies access our systems and other electronic services via their agency management
systems or CinciLink®, our secure agency-only Web site. CinciLink provides an array of
Web-based services and content
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 5
that make it easier to do business with us, such as
commercial and personal lines rating and processing systems, policy loss information, sales
and marketing materials, educational courses on our products and services, accounting
services, and electronic libraries for property and casualty coverage forms and state rating
manuals.
Superior Claims Service
Our claims philosophy reflects our belief that we will prosper as a company by responding to
claims person to person, paying covered claims promptly, preventing false claims from
unfairly adding to overall premiums and building financial strength to meet future
obligations.
Our 748 locally based field claims representatives work from their homes, assigned to
specific agencies. They respond personally to policyholders and claimants, typically within
24 hours of receiving an agencys claim report. We believe we have a competitive advantage
because of the person-to-person approach and the resulting high level of service that our
field claims representatives provide. We also help our agencies provide prompt service to
policyholders by giving agencies authority to immediately pay most first-party claims under
standard market policies up to $2,500. We believe this same local approach to handling
claims is a competitive advantage for our agents providing surplus lines coverage in their
communities. Our field claims representatives handle these claims under the guidance of
headquarters-based surplus lines claims managers.
Our property casualty claims operation uses CMS, a claims management system, to streamline
processes and achieve operational efficiencies. CMS allows field and headquarters claims
associates to collaborate on reported claims through a virtual claim file. Our field claims
representatives use tablet computers to view and enter information into CMS from any
location, including an insureds home or agents office, and to print claim checks using
portable printers. Agencies now can access selected CMS information such as activity notes
on workers compensation claims. Later in 2009, activity notes for other business lines will
be available to the agencies.
Catastrophe response teams are comprised of volunteers from our experienced field claims
staff. We take pride in giving our field personnel the tools and authority they need to do
their jobs. In times of widespread loss, our field claims representatives confidently and
quickly resolve claims, often writing checks on the same day they inspect the loss. CMS
introduced new efficiencies that are especially evident during catastrophes. Electronic
claim files allow for fast initial contact of policyholders and easy sharing of information
and data between rotating storm teams, headquarters and local field claims representatives.
When hurricanes or other weather events are predicted, we can choose to have catastrophe
response team members travel to strategic locations near the expected impact area. This puts
them in position to quickly get to the affected area, set up temporary offices and start
calling on policyholders.
Our claims associates work to control costs where appropriate. They use vendor resources
that provide negotiated pricing to our insureds and claimants. Our field claims
representatives also are educated continuously on new techniques and
repair trends. They can leverage their local knowledge and experience with area body shops,
which helps them negotiate the right price with any facility the policyholder chooses.
We staff a Special Investigations Unit with former law enforcement and claims professionals
whose qualifications make them uniquely suited to gathering facts to uncover potential
fraud. While we believe its our job to pay what is due under each policy, we also want to
prevent false claims from unfairly increasing overall premiums. Our SIU also operates a
computer forensic lab, using sophisticated software to recover data and mitigate the cost of
computer-related claims for business interruption and loss of records.
Loss and Loss Expense Reserves
When claims are made by or against policyholders, any amounts that our property casualty
operations pay or expect to pay for covered claims are losses. The costs we incur in
investigating, resolving and processing these claims are loss expenses. Our consolidated
financial statements include property casualty loss and loss expense reserves that estimate
the costs of not-yet-paid claims incurred through December 31 of each year. The reserves
include estimates for claims that have been reported to us plus our estimates for claims
that have been incurred but not yet reported (IBNR), along with our estimate for loss
expenses associated with processing and settling those claims. We develop the various
estimates based on individual claim evaluations and statistical projections. We reduce the
loss reserves by an estimate for the amount of salvage and subrogation we expect to recover.
Our annual review has led us to add to earnings in each of the past 20 years savings from
favorable development of loss reserves on prior accident years.
We encourage you to review several sections of the Managements Discussion and Analysis
where we discuss our loss reserves in greater depth. In Item 7, Critical Accounting
Estimates, Property Casualty Insurance Loss and Loss Expense Reserves, Page 41, we discuss
our process for analyzing potential losses and establishing reserves. In Item 7, Property
Casualty Loss and Loss Expense Obligations and Reserves, Page 74, and Life Insurance
Policyholder Obligations and Reserves, Page 80, we review reserve levels, including 10 year
development of our property casualty loss reserves.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 6
Insurance Products
We actively market property casualty insurance in 35 states through a select group of
independent insurance agencies. Our standard market commercial lines products are marketed
in all of those states while our standard market personal lines are marketed in 27. We
discuss our commercial lines and personal lines insurance operations and products in
Commercial Lines Property Casualty Insurance Segment, Page 11, and Personal Lines Property
Casualty Insurance Segment, Page 14. At year-end 2008, CSU Producer Resources marketed our
surplus lines products to agencies in 33 states that represent Cincinnati Insurance.
The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company was formed in 2007. The company was
capitalized with $200 million from its parent company, The Cincinnati Insurance Company. It
began offering surplus lines insurance products in January 2008. We structured this
operation to exclusively serve the needs of the independent agencies that currently market
our standard market insurance policies. When all or a portion of a current or potential
clients insurance program requires surplus lines coverages, those agencies now can write
the whole account with Cincinnati, gaining benefits not often found in the broader surplus
lines market. Agencies have access to The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance
Companys product line through CSU Producer Resources, the wholly owned insurance brokerage
subsidiary of parent-company Cincinnati Financial Corporation.
Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters and CSU Producer Resources employ a Web-based policy
administration system to quote, bind, issue and deliver policies electronically to agents.
This system also provides integration to existing document management and data management
systems, allowing for straight-through processing of policies and billing.
We also support the independent agencies affiliated with our property casualty operations in
their programs to sell life insurance. The products offered by our life insurance subsidiary
round out and protect accounts and improve account persistency. At the same time, our life
operation increases diversification of revenue and profitability sources for both the agency
and our company.
Our property casualty agencies make up the main distribution system for our life insurance
products. To help build scale, we also develop life business from other independent life
insurance agencies in geographic markets not served through our property casualty agencies.
We are careful to solicit business from these other agencies in a manner that does not
conflict with or compete with the marketing and sales efforts of our property casualty
agencies. We emphasize up-to-date products, responsive underwriting, high quality service
and competitive pricing.
Other Services to Agencies
We complement the insurance operations by providing products and services that help attract
and retain high-quality independent insurance agencies. When we appoint agencies, we look
for organizations with knowledgeable, professional staffs. In turn, we make an exceptionally
strong commitment to assist them in keeping their knowledge up to date and educating new
people they bring on board as they grow. Numerous activities fulfill this commitment at our
headquarters, in regional and agency locations, and online.
Except travel-related expenses for courses held at our headquarters, most programs are
offered at no cost to our agencies. While that approach may be extraordinary in our industry
today, the result is quality service for our policyholders and increased success for our
independent agencies.
In addition to broad education and training support, we make non-insurance financial
services available through CFC Investment Company. CFC Investment Company offers equipment
and vehicle leases and loans for independent insurance agencies, their commercial clients
and other businesses. It also provides commercial real estate loans to help agencies operate
and expand their businesses. We believe that providing these services enhances agency
relationships with their clients, increasing loyalty while diversifying the agencys
revenues.
Strategic Initiatives
Management has worked with the board of directors to identify the strategies that can
position us for long-term success. We broadly group these strategies into three areas of
focus preserving capital, improving insurance profitability and driving premium growth
correlating with the primary ways we measure our progress toward our long-term financial
objectives. Our strategies are intended to position us to compete successfully in the
markets we have targeted while minimizing risk. We believe successful implementation of the
initiatives that support our strategies will help us better serve our agent customers,
reduce volatility in our financial results and weather difficult economic, market or pricing
cycles. We describe our expectations for the results of these initiatives in Item 7,
Executive Summary of the Managements Discussion and Analysis, Page 37.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 7
Preserve Capital
Our first strategy is to preserve capital. Implementation of the initiatives below that
support this strategy is intended to preserve our capital and liquidity so that we can
successfully grow our insurance business. A strong capital position provides the capacity to
support premium growth and provides the liquidity to sustain our investment in the people
and infrastructure needed to implement our other strategic initiatives.
The four primary capital preservation initiatives are:
|
|
Maintain a diversified and stabilized investment portfolio by applying parameters
and tolerances We discuss our portfolio strategies in greater depth in Investments
Segment, Page 17. |
|
o |
|
High-quality fixed-maturity portfolio that matches or exceeds total insurance
reserves At year-end 2008, the average rating of the $5.827 billion fixed maturity
portfolio was Aa3/A+, and the portfolio value exceeded total insurance reserve
liability. We also have reinsurance recoverables to offset a portion of insurance
reserves. |
|
|
o |
|
Parent company liquidity that increases our flexibility through all periods
to maintain our cash dividend and to continue to invest in and expand our insurance
operations We aim to keep approximately 90 percent of parent company investments
in cash and marketable securities. At year-end 2008, we held $1.3 billion of our
cash and invested assets at the parent company level, of which $809 million, or 61.5
percent, was invested in common stocks and $344 million, or 26.1 percent, was cash
or cash equivalents. |
|
|
o |
|
Diversified equity portfolio that has no concentrated positions in single
stocks or industries At year-end 2008, no single security accounted for more than
14.5 percent of our portfolio of publicly traded common stocks and no single sector
accounted for more than 21.6 percent. Because of the strength of our fixed-maturity
portfolio, we have the opportunity to invest for potential capital appreciation by
purchasing equity securities. We seek to achieve a total return on the equity
portfolio over any five-year period that exceeds that of the Standard & Poors 500
Index while taking equal or less risk. |
|
|
Minimize reliance on debt as a source of capital, maintaining the ratio of
debt-to-total capital below 20 percent This target is higher than we had identified
in previous years because total capital declined in 2008 although debt levels were
essentially unchanged. At year-end 2008, this ratio was 16.7 percent compared with 12.7
percent at year-end 2007 and 11.0 percent at year-end 2006. Our long-term debt consists
of three non-convertible, non-callable debentures, two due in 2028 and one in 2034. |
|
|
Purchase reinsurance from highly rated reinsurers to mitigate underwriting risk and
to support our ability to hold investments until maturity. See Item 7, 2009 Reinsurance
Programs, Page 81, for additional details on these programs. |
|
|
Identify tolerances for other operational risks and calibrate management decisions
accordingly For example, we are developing programs to address the concentration of
production operations at our headquarters location. |
We measure the overall success of our strategy to preserve capital primarily by growing
investment income and by achieving over any five-year period a total return on our equity
investment portfolio that exceeds the Standard & Poors 500s return. We also monitor other
measures. One of the most significant is our ratio of property casualty net written premiums
to statutory surplus, which was 0.9-to-1 at year-end 2008 compared with 0.7-to-1 at year-end
2007 and 2006. This ratio is a common measure of operating leverage used in the property
casualty industry; the lower the ratio the more capacity a company has for premium growth.
The estimated property casualty industry net written premium to statutory surplus ratio also
was 0.9-to-1 at year-end 2008, 0.8-to-1 at year-end 2007 and 0.9-to-1 at year-end 2006.
Our second means of verifying our capital preservation strategy is our financial strength
ratings as discussed in Our Business and Our Strategy, Page 1. All of our insurance
subsidiaries continue to be highly rated. A third means is measurement of our risk-based
capital ratios, which currently indicate that our insurance subsidiaries are operating with
a level of capital far exceeding regulatory requirements.
Improve Insurance Profitability
Our second strategy is to improve insurance profitability. Implementation of the operational
initiatives below is intended to support improved cash flow and profitable growth for the
agencies that represent us and for our company. These initiatives primarily seek to
strengthen our relationships with agents, allowing them to serve clients faster and manage
expenses better. Others may streamline our internal processes so we can devote more time to
agent service.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 8
The three primary initiatives to improve insurance profitability are:
|
|
Implement technology projects to improve critical efficiencies and streamline
processes for our agencies, allowing us to win an increasing share of their business.
By the end of this year, we expect to make significant strides with deployment of
technology initiatives that enhance local decision making based on the local knowledge
and risk selection expertise we derive from our agents and from having a large network
of field representatives who live and work in our agents communities: |
|
o |
|
Predictive modeling tool for our workers compensation business line The
tool will increase pricing precision so that our agents can better compete for the
most desirable workers compensation business. We should begin using this tool to
help make risk and pricing selection decisions during 2009. |
|
|
o |
|
Commercial lines policy administration system By year-end 2009, we expect
to deploy a new system for commercial package and auto to all of our appointed
agencies in 10 of our larger states with additional states in 2010. The new system
includes direct bill capabilities and other features we need so we can cement our
spot among the go-to carriers for our agencies. |
|
|
o |
|
Personal lines policy administration system In early 2010, our personal
lines policy processing system will move to a next generation platform. We expect
our agents efficiency to improve with newly designed, easier to use screens that
can be delivered with greater speed. We continue to focus on making it easier for
our agents to do business with us. |
|
|
o |
|
Online technologies to serve agencies and policyholders During 2009, we
expect to introduce online services that agents have requested for policyholders. In
the first quarter of 2009, personal lines policyholders whom we bill for our agents
will be able to visit our Web site to make payments. |
|
|
o |
|
Improved claims processes with options such as agent access to more detailed
information on the status of pending claims These capabilities help sustain our
reputation for superior claims service by helping keep the agent better informed on
the details of claim status. In 2009, we will enhance our response time for new
claims by adding an online system for agency submission of notices of loss. |
|
|
o |
|
Improving our business data, supporting accurate underwriting, pricing and
decisions Over the next several years, we will deploy a full data management
program, including a property casualty insurance data warehouse. One of the greatest
advantages will be enhanced granularity of pricing data. |
|
|
Continue to staff field positions to ensure that we carefully select and evaluate
new business on a case-by-case basis so we can grow profitably. At year-end 2008, we
had 111 field marketing territories, up from 106 at the end of 2007 and 102 at the end
of 2006. |
|
o |
|
Personal lines field marketing representatives In 2008, we expanded the
role of our personal lines marketing representative by locating associates in states
newer to our personal lines offerings. In these states, our personal lines
automation has allowed us to introduce or broaden our product offerings. We now have
two headquarters-based and three field-based personal lines marketing
representatives and will add two more in the field in 2009. These representatives
have underwriting authority and visit agencies on a regular basis to promote the
advantages of Cincinnati personal lines. |
|
|
o |
|
Other field associates help provide our agents with superior service and
support Additions are planned to the field teams that provide the local expertise,
help us better understand the accounts we underwrite and provide another market
advantage for our agents. In 2009, we expect to add three new premium audit
representatives and three new loss control representatives, including two who will
help support our expansion into western states. In 2010, we are considering
additional machinery and equipment field positions. |
|
|
Improve internal efficiencies to make best use of our resources Smart spending
today means we will be even better prepared with strong, local market-based
relationships when external conditions improve. Projects under way include developing
an energy efficiency plan for our headquarters buildings and reviewing underwriting workflow. |
We measure the overall success of our strategy to improve insurance profitability primarily
through our GAAP combined ratio, which we believe can be consistently below 100 percent over
any five-year period.
In addition, we expect these initiatives to contribute to our rank as the No. 1 or No. 2
carrier based on premium volume in agencies that have represented us for at least five
years. In 2008, we again earned that rank in more than 75 percent of the agencies that have
represented Cincinnati Insurance for more than five years. We are working to improve that
rank again in 2009 and in each of the years that follow.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 9
Drive Premium Growth
Our third strategy is to drive premium growth. Implementation of the operational initiatives
below is intended to expand our geographic footprint and diversify our premium sources to
obtain profitable growth without significant infrastructure expense. Diversified growth also
may reduce our catastrophe exposure risk and temper negative changes that may occur in the
economic, judicial or regulatory environments in the territories we serve.
The four primary initiatives to drive premium growth are:
|
|
New agency appointments in 2009 We continue to appoint new agencies in our current
operating territories, adding 76 in 2008. Our objective is to appoint additional points
of distribution each year. In 2009, we are targeting 65 appointments of independent
agencies writing an aggregate $1 billion in property casualty premiums annually with
all carriers they represent. This target includes appointments in the recently opened
state of Texas. |
|
|
|
In measuring progress towards achieving this initiative, we include appointment of new
agency relationships with Cincinnati. For those that we believe will produce a meaningful
amount of new business premiums, we also include appointment of agencies that merge with
a Cincinnati agency and new branch offices opened by existing Cincinnati agencies. We
made 76, 66 and 55 new appointments in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Of these new
appointments, 52, 50 and 42, respectively, were new relationships. These new appointments
and other changes in agency structures led to a net increase in reporting agency
locations of 60 in 2008, 38 in 2007 and 37 in 2006. We seek to build a close, long-term
relationships with each agency we appoint. We carefully evaluate the marketing reach of
each new appointment to ensure the territory can support both current and new agencies. |
|
|
New states With our entry into Texas during the fourth quarter of 2008, Cincinnati
Insurance now is actively marketing our policies in 35 states, expanding our
opportunities beyond the Midwest and South. We now have a sizeable presence in the
western states opening New Mexico and eastern Washington in 2007, Utah in 2000,
Idaho in 1999 and Montana in 1998. We entered Arizona in 1971. We plan to look next at
taking Cincinnati Insurance to agencies in Colorado and Wyoming. While we continually
study the regulatory and competitive environment in other states where we could decide
to actively market our property casualty products, we have not announced the timetable
for entry into new states. |
|
|
|
We generally are able to reach a 10 percent share of an
agencys business after 10
years. In Delaware, New Mexico and Washington, our three newest states, weve appointed
agencies that write about $400 million annually with all the carriers they represent. Our
writings with these new agencies were almost 2 percent of that total in 2008. |
|
|
|
We appointed our first agencies in Texas late in 2008. Over the next 18 months, we expect
to appoint agencies in that state that write about $750 million in premiums annually with
all carriers they represent. |
|
|
Surplus lines insurance Another source of premium growth is our new surplus lines
operation, which ended the year on track with products available in 33 states. We
entered this business area to better serve our agents. Today, they write about $2.5
billion annually of surplus lines business with other carriers. We want to earn an
appropriate share by bringing Cincinnati-style service to those clients. In 2008, our
first year, we wrote $14 million in surplus lines premiums and met our 2008 strategic plan objectives. |
|
|
Personal lines We are working to position our personal lines business for
profitable future growth. By late-2009, we expect to have made more advances using
tiered rating, helping to further improve our rate and credit structures. Personal
lines rate changes made in 2008 have started to drive additional new business. |
|
|
|
We believe additional rate changes that became effective the beginning of 2009 can
further drive new business. These changes build on our 2006 introduction of credits for
homeowner and personal auto products that began to address rates that were too high, our
2007 introduction of discounts on homeowner policies in some states when an auto policy
is also purchased and our 2008 introduction of further credits and debits. These pricing
refinements reduced premiums for many policies we write, presenting an opportunity to
market the policy advantages to our agents more quality-conscious clientele. |
|
|
|
We also are more aggressively tapping our potential to market personal lines insurance
through agencies that already represent us for commercial lines. We began offering
personal lines in two more states in 2008, expanded our product offerings in two others
and expect to add two additional states Idaho, and South Carolina in early 2009. We
expect to make personal lines available in these six states through agencies that write
approximately $600 million in personal lines premiums annually with all carriers they
represent. |
We measure the overall success of this strategy to drive premium growth primarily through
changes in net written premiums, which we believe can grow faster than the industry average
over any five-year period.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 10
Notably, many of our growth initiatives have been under way for a
year or more and helped us achieve 13 percent new business growth for 2008 although total
written premiums were down on weak market pricing, economic pressures and a reinsurance
restatement premium.
Our Segments
Consolidated financial results primarily reflect the results of our four reporting segments.
These segments are defined based on financial information we use to evaluate performance and
to determine the allocation of assets.
|
|
Commercial lines property casualty insurance |
|
|
Personal lines property casualty insurance |
We also evaluate results for our consolidated property casualty operations, which is the
total of our commercial lines, personal lines and surplus lines results.
Revenues, income before income taxes, and identifiable assets for each segment are shown in
a table in Item 8, Note 18 of the Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 119. Some of that
information also is discussed in this section of this report, where we explain the business
operations of each segment. The financial performance of each segment is discussed in the
Item 7, Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations, which begins on Page 37.
Commercial Lines Property Casualty Insurance Segment
The commercial lines property casualty insurance segment contributed net earned premiums of
$2.316 billion to total revenues, or 60.6 percent of that total, and $70 million to income
before income taxes in 2008. Commercial lines net earned premiums declined 3.9 percent in
2008 after growing 0.4 percent in 2007 and 6.6 percent in 2006.
Approximately 95 percent of our commercial lines premiums are written to provide accounts
with coverages from more than one of our business lines. As a result, we believe that our
commercial lines business is best measured and evaluated on a segment basis. However, we
provide line of business data to summarize growth and profitability trends separately for
our business lines. The seven commercial business lines are:
|
|
Commercial casualty Commercial casualty insurance provides coverage to businesses
against third-party liability from accidents occurring on their premises or arising out
of their operations, including liability coverage for injuries sustained from products
sold as well as coverage for professional services, such as dentistry. Specialized
casualty policies may include liability coverage for employment practices liability
(EPLI), which protects businesses against claims by employees that their legal rights
as employees of the company have been violated, and other acts or failures to act under
specified circumstances as well as excess insurance and umbrella liability, including
personal umbrella liability written as an endorsement to commercial umbrella coverages.
The commercial casualty business line includes liability coverage written on both a
discounted and non-discounted basis as part of commercial package policies. |
|
|
Commercial property Commercial property insurance provides coverage for loss or
damage to buildings, inventory and equipment caused by covered causes of loss such as
fire, wind, hail, water, theft and vandalism, as well as business interruption
resulting from a covered loss. Commercial property also includes crime insurance, which
provides coverage for losses such as embezzlement or misappropriation of funds by an
employee, among others, and inland marine insurance, which provides coverage for a
variety of mobile equipment, such as contractors equipment, builders risk, cargo and
electronic data processing equipment. Various property coverages can be written as
stand-alone policies or can be added to a package policy. The commercial property
business line includes property coverage written on both a non-discounted and
discounted basis as part of commercial package policies. |
|
|
Commercial auto Commercial auto coverages protect businesses against liability to
others for both bodily injury and property damage, medical payments to insureds and
occupants of their vehicles, physical damage to an insureds own vehicle from collision
and various other perils, and damages caused by uninsured motorists. |
|
|
Workers compensation Workers compensation coverage protects employers against
specified benefits payable under state or federal law for workplace injuries to
employees. We write workers compensation coverage in all of our active states except
North Dakota, Ohio and Washington, where coverage is provided solely by the state
instead of by private insurers. |
|
|
Specialty packages Specialty packages include coverages for property, liability
and business interruption tailored to meet the needs of specific industry classes, such
as artisan contractors, dentists, |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 11
|
|
garage operators, financial institutions,
metalworkers, printers, religious institutions, or smaller, main street businesses.
Businessowners policies, which combine property, liability and business interruption
coverages for small businesses, are included in specialty packages. |
|
|
Surety and executive risk This business line includes: |
|
o |
|
Contract and commercial surety bonds, which guarantee a payment or
reimbursement for financial losses resulting from dishonesty, failure to perform and
other acts. |
|
|
o |
|
Fidelity bonds, which cover losses that policyholders incur as a result of
fraudulent acts by specified individuals or dishonest acts by employees. |
|
|
o |
|
Director and officer liability insurance, which covers liability for alleged
errors in judgment, breaches of duty and wrongful acts related to activities of
for-profit or nonprofit organizations. Our director and officer liability policy can
optionally include EPLI coverage. |
|
|
Machinery and equipment Specialized machinery and equipment coverage can provide
protection for loss or damage to boilers and machinery, including production and
computer equipment, from sudden and accidental mechanical breakdown, steam explosion,
or artificially generated electrical current. |
Our emphasis is on products that agents can market to small- to mid-size businesses in their
communities. Of our 1,387 reporting agency locations, eight market only our surety and
executive risk products and four market only our personal lines products. The remaining
1,375 locations, located in all states in which we actively market, offer some or all of our
standard market commercial insurance products.
In 2008, our 10 highest volume commercial lines states generated 65.9 percent of our earned
premiums compared with 66.7 percent in the prior year. Earned premiums in the 10 highest
volume states decreased 4.4 percent in 2008 and decreased 3.1 percent in the remaining 25
states. The number of reporting agency locations in our 10 highest volume states increased
to 905 in 2008 from 878 in 2007.
Commercial Lines Earned Premiums by State
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Earned |
|
% of total |
|
Agency |
|
premium per |
|
|
premiums |
|
earned |
|
locations |
|
location |
|
Year ended December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio |
|
$ |
377 |
|
|
|
16.2 |
% |
|
|
218 |
|
|
$ |
1.7 |
|
Illinois |
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
Pennsylvania |
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
Indiana |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
North Carolina |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
Virginia |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
Michigan |
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
Georgia |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
Tennessee |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio |
|
$ |
397 |
|
|
|
16.5 |
% |
|
|
216 |
|
|
$ |
1.8 |
|
Illinois |
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
Pennsylvania |
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
Indiana |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
North Carolina |
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
Virginia |
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
Michigan |
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
Georgia |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
Tennessee |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
For new commercial lines business, case-by-case underwriting and pricing is coordinated by
our locally based field marketing representatives. Our agents and our field marketing,
claims, loss control, premium audit, bond and machinery and equipment representatives get to
know the people and businesses in their communities and can make informed decisions about
each risk. These field marketing representatives also are responsible for selecting new
independent agencies, coordinating field teams of specialized company representatives and
promoting all of the companys products within the agencies they serve.
Commercial lines policy renewals are managed by headquarters underwriters who are assigned
to specific agencies and consult with local field staff as needed. As part of our team
approach, the headquarters underwriter also helps oversee agency growth and profitability.
They are responsible for formal issuance of all new business and renewal policies as well as
policy endorsements. Further, the headquarters underwriters provide day-to-day customer
service to agencies and marketing representatives by providing product training, answering
underwriting questions, helping to determine underwriting eligibility and assisting with the
mechanics of premium determination.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 12
Our commercial lines packages are typically offered on a three-year policy term for most
insurance coverages, a key competitive advantage. Although we offer three-year policy terms,
premiums for some coverages within those policies are adjustable at anniversary for the next
annual period, and policies may be cancelled at any time at the discretion of the
policyholder. Contract terms often provide that rates for property, general liability,
inland marine and crime coverages, as well as policy terms and conditions, are fixed for the
term of the policy. The general liability exposure basis may be audited annually. Commercial
auto, workers compensation, professional liability and most umbrella liability coverages
within multi-year packages are rated at each of the policys annual anniversaries for the
next one-year period. The annual pricing could incorporate rate changes approved by state
insurance regulatory authorities between the date the policy was written and its annual
anniversary date, as well as changes in risk exposures and premium credits or debits
relating to loss experience and other underwriting judgment factors. We estimate that
approximately 75 percent of 2008 commercial premiums were subject to annual rating or were
written on a one-year policy term.
In our experience, multi-year packages are somewhat less price sensitive for the
quality-conscious insurance buyers who we believe are typical clients of our independent
agents. Customized insurance programs on a three-year term complement the long-term
relationships these policyholders typically have with their agents and with the company. By
reducing annual administrative efforts, multi-year policies lower expenses for our company
and for our agents. The commitment we make to policyholders encourages long-term
relationships and reduces their need to annually re-evaluate their insurance carrier or
agency. We believe that the advantages of three-year policies in terms of improved
policyholder convenience, increased account retention and reduced administrative costs
outweigh the potential disadvantage of these policies, even in periods of rising rates.
Staying abreast of evolving market conditions is a critical function, accomplished in both
an informal and a formal manner. Informally, our field marketing representatives and
underwriters are in constant receipt of market intelligence from the
agencies with which they work. Formally, our commercial lines product management group and
field marketing associates conduct periodic surveys to obtain competitive intelligence. This
market information helps identify the top competitors by line of business or specialty
program and also identifies our market strengths and weaknesses. The analysis encompasses
pricing, breadth of coverage and underwriting/eligibility issues.
In addition to reviewing our competitive position, our product management group and our
underwriting audit group review compliance with our underwriting standards as well as the
pricing adequacy of our commercial insurance programs and coverages. Further, our research
and development department analyzes opportunities and develops new products, new coverage
options and improvements to existing insurance products.
At year-end 2008, we supported our commercial lines operations with a variety of technology
tools. WinCPP® is our commercial lines premium quoting system. WinCPP is available in all of
our agency locations in which we actively market commercial lines insurance and provides
quoting capabilities for nearly 100 percent of our new and renewal commercial lines
business. WinCPP works with our real-time agency interface, CinciBridge, which allows
automated movement of key underwriting data from an agencys management system to WinCPP,
reducing agents data entry and allowing seamless quoting and rating capabilities.
Many small business accounts written as Businessowners Policies (BOP) and Dentists Package
Policies (DBOP) are eligible to be issued at our agency locations through our Web-based
e-CLAS® policy processing system. (A businessowners policy combines property, liability and
business interruption coverages for small businesses.) e-CLAS provides full policy lifecycle
transactions, including quoting, issuance, policy changes, renewal processing and policy
printing at the agency location. These features make it easy and efficient for our agencies
to issue and service these policies. At year-end 2008, e-CLAS for BOP and DBOP was in use in
30 states representing 98 percent of our premiums for these products, which are included in
the specialty packages commercial line of business. e-CLAS also uses CinciBridge to provide
real-time data transfer with agency management systems.
We have been streamlining internal processes and achieving operational efficiencies in our
headquarters commercial lines operations through deployment of iView, a policy imaging and
workflow system. This system provides online access to electronic copies of policy files,
enabling our underwriters to respond to agent requests and inquiries more quickly and
efficiently. iView also automates internal workflows through electronic routing of
underwriting and processing work tasks. At year-end 2008, more than 92 percent of in-force
non-workers compensation commercial lines policy files were administered and stored
electronically in iView. Workers compensation policies are to be added to iView in 2009.
Commercial Lines Insurance Marketplace
Our competition for the types and sizes of commercial accounts we typically write in the
standard market predominantly consists of those companies that also distribute through
independent agencies. The independent agencies that market our commercial lines products
typically represent six to 12 standard
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 13
market insurance carriers, including both national
and regional carriers, some of which may be mutual companies.
Overall, the softening commercial lines marketplace of the past several years continued to
intensify in 2008. Over this period, anecdotal reports of very aggressive pricing have grown
in frequency. Over the course of 2008, we saw many situations where underwriting discipline
appeared to slip as carriers sought to capture market share. Many carriers continued to
manage the soft market conditions by working aggressively to protect their renewal
portfolios. Renewal decreases in the mid-single digits were still prevalent in the fourth
quarter of 2008; however, we have worked to retain our best renewal business while
continuing to write new business and maintain underwriting discipline. In late 2008 and
early 2009, we have begun to see preliminary indications leading us to believe that market
pricing may be starting to level.
Personal Lines Property Casualty Insurance Segment
The personal lines property casualty insurance segment contributed net earned premiums of
$689 million to total revenues, or 18.0 percent of the total, and reported a loss before
income taxes of $82 million in 2008. Personal lines net earned premiums declined 3.4 percent
in 2008, 6.3 percent in 2007 and 5.3 percent in 2006.
We prefer to write personal lines coverage in accounts that include both auto and homeowner
coverages as well as coverages that are part of our other personal business line. As a
result, we believe that our personal lines business is best measured and evaluated on a
segment basis. However, we provide line of business data to summarize growth and
profitability trends separately for three business lines:
|
|
Personal auto This business line includes personal auto coverages that protect
against liability to others for both bodily injury and property damage, medical
payments to insureds and occupants of their vehicle, physical damage to an insureds
own vehicle from collision and various other perils, and damages caused by uninsured
motorists. In addition, many states require policies to provide first-party personal
injury protection, frequently referred to as no-fault coverage. |
|
|
Homeowners This business line includes homeowner coverages that protect against
losses to dwellings and contents from a wide variety of perils, as well as liability
arising out of personal activities both on and off the covered premises. The company
also offers coverage for condominium unit owners and renters. |
|
|
Other personal lines This includes the variety of other types of insurance
products we offer to individuals such as dwelling fire, inland marine, personal
umbrella liability and watercraft coverages. |
At year-end, we marketed personal lines insurance products through 954 of our 1,387
reporting agency locations in 27 of the 35 states in which we offer standard market
commercial lines insurance. The remaining 433 locations primarily are in states where we do
not yet actively market these products; some are in locations where we have determined, in
conjunction with agency management, that our personal lines products were not appropriate
for their agencies at this time. As discussed in Strategic Initiatives, Page 7, introducing
personal lines to these agencies is one of the ways we intend to grow profitably in the next
several years. The number of reporting agency locations in our 10 highest volume states
increased to 627 in 2008 from 604 in 2007.
In 2008, our 10 highest volume personal lines states generated 85.1 percent of our earned
premiums compared with 84.9 percent in the prior year. Earned premiums in the 10 highest
volume states declined 3.0 percent in 2008 and declined 6.4 percent in the remaining states.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 14
Personal Lines Earned Premiums by State
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Earned |
|
% of total |
|
Agency |
|
premium per |
(Dollars in millions) |
|
premiums |
|
earned |
|
locations |
|
location |
|
Year ended December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio |
|
$ |
253 |
|
|
|
36.8 |
% |
|
|
199 |
|
|
$ |
1.3 |
|
Georgia |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
8.9 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
Indiana |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
8.3 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
Illinois |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
Alabama |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
5.9 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
Kentucky |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
Michigan |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
Florida |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
Virginia |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio |
|
$ |
266 |
|
|
|
37.3 |
% |
|
|
200 |
|
|
$ |
1.3 |
|
Georgia |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
8.6 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
Indiana |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
8.3 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
Illinois |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
6.8 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
Alabama |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
Kentucky |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
Michigan |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
Florida |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
Virginia |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
New and renewal personal lines business reflects our risk-specific underwriting philosophy.
Each agency selects personal lines business primarily from within the geographic territory
that it serves, based on the agents knowledge of the risks in those communities or
familiarity with the policyholder. Personal lines activities are supported by headquarters
associates assigned to individual agencies. We now have five full-time personal lines
marketing representatives, two headquarters based and three living in the field, and plan to
add two more in 2009. These marketing representatives have underwriting authority and visit
agencies on a regular basis. They reinforce the advantages of our personal lines products
and offer training in the use of our processing system.
Competitive advantages of our personal lines coverages include our claims service, credit
structure and customizable endorsements for both the personal auto and homeowner policies.
Most of our personal lines products are processed through Diamond, our real-time personal
lines policy processing system, which supports and allows once-and-done processing. Diamond
incorporates features frequently requested by our agencies such as direct bill and monthly
payment plans, local and headquarters policy printing options, data transfer to and from
popular agency management systems and real-time integration with third-party data such as
insurance scores, motor vehicle reports and address verification. At year-end 2008, Diamond
was in use in 24 states representing approximately 99 percent of our personal lines premium
volume, all of which is on a one-year term.
In 2006, we introduced PL-efiles, a policy imaging system, to our personal lines operations.
Through year-end 2008, we had transitioned information on current Diamond personal lines
policies to PL-efiles and continue to work on imaging necessary older information. The
transition replaces paper format with electronic copies of policy documents. PL-efiles
complements the Diamond system by giving personal lines underwriters and support staff
online access to policy documents and data, enabling them to respond to agent requests and
inquiries quickly and efficiently.
Personal Lines Insurance Marketplace
The independent agencies that market our personal lines products typically represent four to
six standard personal lines carriers. In addition to carriers that market through
independent agents, our personal lines competition also includes carriers that market
through captive agents and direct writers, which our agencies clients may investigate
independently.
Over the past several years, we have seen increased competition in the personal lines
marketplace, driven by industrywide improvement in results and favorable frequency and
severity trends. The increased competition in the past several years also reflected
implementation of tiered rating systems by a growing number of carriers. Carriers that have
adopted these systems rely on increasingly more data, including credit-based information, to
identify multiple relevant variables to segment the market.
We expect the overall market to remain competitive, with small pricing increases in personal
lines over the next 12 to 24 months. Carriers will continue to increase the sophistication
of their pricing to attract more
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 15
preferred customers and gain market share. Industry results
should continue to improve if catastrophe losses return to a normalized level.
Life Insurance Segment
The life insurance segment contributed $126 million, or 3.3 percent, of net earned premiums
and $4 million of income before income taxes in 2008. Life insurance segment profitability
is discussed in detail in Item 7, Life Insurance Results of Operations, Page 64. Life
insurance net earned premiums grew 0.8 percent in 2008, 9.0 percent in 2007 and 7.9 percent
in 2006.
The overall mission of our company is supported by The Cincinnati Life Insurance Company.
Cincinnati Life helps meet the needs of our agencies, including increasing and diversifying
agency revenues. We primarily focus on life products that produce revenue growth through a
steady stream of premium payments. By diversifying revenue and profitability for both the
agency and our company, this strategy enhances the already strong relationship built by the
combination of the property casualty and life companies.
Cincinnati Life seeks to become the life insurance carrier of choice for the independent
agencies that work with our property casualty operations. We emphasize up-to-date products,
responsive underwriting and high quality service as well as competitive commissions. At
year-end 2008, almost 75 percent of our 1,387 property casualty reporting agency locations
offered Cincinnati Lifes products to their clients. We also develop life business from
approximately 500 other independent life insurance agencies. We are careful to solicit
business from these other agencies in a manner that does not conflict with or compete with
the marketing and sales efforts of our property casualty agencies.
Life Insurance Business Lines
Four lines of business term insurance, universal life insurance, worksite products and
whole life insurance account for approximately 83.7 percent of the life insurance
segments revenues:
|
|
Term insurance policies under which a death benefit is payable only if the insured
dies during a specific period of time. For policies without a return of premium
provision, no benefit is payable if the insured person survives to the end of the term.
For policies in-force with a return of premium provision, a benefit equal to the sum of
all paid premiums is payable if the insured person survives to the end of the term.
While premiums are fixed, they must be paid as scheduled. The policies are fully
underwritten. |
|
|
Universal life insurance long-duration life insurance policies. Contract premiums
are neither fixed nor guaranteed; however, the contract does specify a minimum interest
crediting rate and a maximum cost of insurance charge and expense charge. Premiums are
not fixed and may be varied by the contract owner. The cash values, available as a loan
collateralized by the cash surrender value, are not guaranteed and depend on the amount
and timing of actual premium payments and the amount of actual contract assessments.
The policies are fully underwritten. |
|
|
Worksite products term insurance, whole life insurance, universal life and
disability insurance offered to employees through their employer. Premiums are
collected by the employer using payroll deduction. Polices are issued using a
simplified underwriting approach and on a guaranteed issue basis. Worksite insurance
products provide our property casualty agency force with excellent cross-serving
opportunities for both commercial and personal accounts. Agents report that offering
worksite marketing to employees of their commercial accounts provides a benefit to the
employees at no cost to the employer. Worksite marketing also connects agents with new
customers who may not have previously benefited from receiving the services of a
professional independent insurance agent. |
|
|
Whole life insurance policies that provide life insurance for the entire lifetime
of the insured; the death benefit is guaranteed never to decrease and premiums are
guaranteed never to increase. While premiums are fixed, they must be paid as scheduled.
These policies provide guaranteed cash values that are available as loans
collateralized by the cash surrender value. The policies are fully underwritten. |
In addition, Cincinnati Life markets:
|
|
Disability income insurance provides monthly benefits to offset the loss of income
when the insured person is unable to work due to accident or illness. |
|
|
Deferred annuities provide regular income payments that commence after the end of a
specified period or when the annuitant attains a specified age. During the deferral
period, any payments made under the contract accumulate at the crediting rate declared
by the company but not less than a contract-specified guaranteed minimum interest rate.
A deferred annuity may be surrendered during the deferral period for a cash value equal
to the accumulated payments plus interest less the surrender charge, if any. |
|
|
Immediate annuities provide some combination of regular income and lump sum payments
in exchange for a single premium. Immediate annuities also are written by our life
insurance segment and purchased by our property casualty companies to settle casualty
claims. |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 16
Life Insurance Marketplace
Our property casualty agencies comprise the main distribution system for our life insurance
segment. While other life insurance carriers continue to expand the use of nontraditional
distribution channels, such as banks or direct sales as alternatives to the agency channel,
we intend to market solely through independent agencies, with an emphasis on enhancing
relationships with agencies affiliated with our property casualty insurance operations.
When marketing through our property casualty agencies, we have specific competitive
advantages:
|
|
Because our property casualty operations are held in high regard, property casualty
agency management is predisposed to consider selling our life products. |
|
|
Marketing efforts for both our property casualty and life insurance businesses are
directed by our field marketing department, which assures consistency of communication
and operations. Life field marketing representatives are available to meet face-to-face
with agency personnel and their clients as well. |
|
|
The resources of our life headquarters underwriters and other associates are
available to the agents and field team to assist in the placement of business. Fewer
and fewer of our competitors provide direct, personal support between the agent and the
insurance carrier. |
We continue to emphasize the cross-serving opportunities of our life insurance, including
term and worksite products, for the property casualty agencys personal and commercial
accounts. In both the property casualty and independent life agency distribution systems, we
enjoy the advantages of offering competitive, up-to-date products, providing close personal
attention in combination with financial strength and stability.
|
|
We primarily offer products addressing the needs of businesses with key person and
buy-sell coverages. We offer personal and commercial clients of our agencies quality,
personal life insurance coverage. |
|
|
Term insurance is our largest life insurance product line. We continue to introduce
new term products with features our agents indicate are important, such as a return of
premium rider, and we have restructured our underwriting classifications to better meet
the needs of their clients. |
Because of our strong capital position, we can offer a competitive product portfolio
including guaranteed products, giving our agents a marketing edge. Our life insurance
company maintains strong insurer financial strength ratings: A.M. Best A (Excellent),
Fitch AA- (Very Strong) and Standard & Poors A+ (Strong), as discussed in Financial
Strength, Page 3. Our life insurance company has not chosen to establish a Moodys rating.
Current statutory laws and regulations require life insurance companies to hold redundant
reserves, particularly for preferred risk underwriting classes. While these redundant
reserves have no effect on GAAP results, they depress statutory earnings and require a large
commitment of capital. Redundant reserves are a significant issue, not just for our life
insurance operations, but for all writers of term insurance and universal life with
secondary guarantees.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners recognizes the problems caused by
redundant reserves and is considering a principles-based reserving system rather than the
current formulaic system. While still capturing all material risks, a principles-based
system would allow a company to use its own experience, subject to credibility standards and
appropriate margins for uncertainty. Also, under the proposed principles-based system, the
insurer would fully document and disclose all its assumptions and methods to regulatory
officials.
Investments Segment
The investment segment contributed $675 million, or 17.6 percent, of our total revenues in
2008, primarily from net investment income and from realized investment gains and losses
from investment portfolios managed for the holding company and each of the operating
subsidiaries. After deducting $63 million in interest credited to contract holders of the
life insurance segment, the investments segment contributed $612 million of income before
income taxes, or more than 100 percent of our 2008 total income before income taxes.
During 2008, our board and investment department adopted internal guidelines to place
additional parameters around our portfolio. These parameters address, among other issues,
the overall mix of the portfolio as well as security and sector concentrations. The
parameters came out of our risk management program, with the goal of more specifically
defining our risk tolerances, aligning our operating plan accordingly and improving
managements ability to identify and respond to changing conditions. Going forward, we will
evaluate all of our fixed-maturity and equity investments using our investment parameters,
as appropriate.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 17
The fair value (market value) of our investment portfolio was $8.807 billion and $12.198
billion at year-end 2008 and 2007, respectively. Despite the market turmoil of 2008 and our
decision to realize $1.024 billion in gains on security sales during the year, the overall
portfolio remained in an unrealized gain position at year-end.
The cash we generate from insurance operations historically has been invested in three broad
categories of investments:
|
|
Fixed-maturity investments Includes taxable and tax-exempt bonds and redeemable
preferred stocks. During 2008 and 2007, purchases served to offset sales, calls and
market value declines. |
|
|
Equity investments Includes common and nonredeemable preferred stocks. During 2008
and 2007, sales and market value declines of equity securities more than offset
purchases and market value appreciation. |
|
|
Short-term investments Primarily commercial paper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2007 |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Book value |
|
% of BV |
|
Fair value |
|
% of FV |
|
Book value |
|
% of BV |
|
Fair value |
|
% of FV |
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable fixed maturities |
|
$ |
3,354 |
|
|
|
40.8 |
% |
|
$ |
3,094 |
|
|
|
35.1 |
% |
|
$ |
3,265 |
|
|
|
36.9 |
% |
|
$ |
3,284 |
|
|
|
26.9 |
% |
Tax-exempt fixed maturities |
|
|
2,704 |
|
|
|
32.9 |
|
|
|
2,733 |
|
|
|
31.0 |
|
|
|
2,518 |
|
|
|
28.4 |
|
|
|
2,564 |
|
|
|
21.0 |
|
Common equities |
|
|
1,889 |
|
|
|
23.0 |
|
|
|
2,721 |
|
|
|
30.9 |
|
|
|
2,715 |
|
|
|
30.7 |
|
|
|
6,020 |
|
|
|
49.4 |
|
Preferred equities |
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
229 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
8,219 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
8,807 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
8,859 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We actively determine the portion of new cash flow to be invested in fixed-maturity and
equity securities at the parent and insurance subsidiary levels. We consider internal
measures, as well as insurance department regulations and ratings agency guidance. We
monitor a variety of metrics, including after-tax yields, the ratio of investments in common
stocks to statutory surplus for the property casualty and life insurance operations and the
parent companys ratio of investment assets to total assets.
At year-end 2008, 1.6 percent of the value of our investment portfolio was made up of
securities that do not actively trade on a public market and require managements judgment
to develop pricing or valuation techniques (Level 3 assets). We obtain at least two outside
valuations for these assets and generally use the more conservative calculation. These
investments include private placements, small issues and various thinly traded securities.
See Item 7, Fair Value Measurements, Page 45, and Item 8, Note 3 of the Consolidated
Financial Statements Page 106, for additional discussion of our valuation techniques.
In addition to securities held in our investment portfolio, at year-end 2008, other invested
assets included $37 million of life policy loans, $32 million of venture capital fund
investments, $8 million of private equity investments and $6 million of investment in real
estate.
Fixed-maturity and Short-term Investments
By maintaining a well diversified fixed-maturity portfolio, we attempt to reduce overall
risk. We invest new money in the bond market on a continuous basis, targeting what we
believe to be optimal risk-adjusted after-tax yields. Risk, in this context, includes
interest rate, call, reinvestment rate, credit and liquidity risk. We do not make a
concerted effort to alter duration on a portfolio basis in response to anticipated movements
in interest rates. By continuously investing in the bond market, we build a broad,
diversified portfolio that we believe mitigates the impact of adverse economic factors.
We place a strong emphasis on purchasing current income-producing securities for the
insurance companies portfolios. Within the fixed-maturity portfolio, we invest in a blend
of taxable and tax-exempt securities with an eye toward maximizing credit adjusted after-tax
yields.
During the third quarter of 2008, we terminated a securities lending program under which
certain fixed maturities from our investment portfolio were loaned to other institutions for
short periods of time. As a result, no securities were on loan at year-end 2008 compared
with $745 million at year-end 2007. We discuss the program in Item 8, Note 2 of the
Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 104.
In conjunction with the program termination, we returned the collateral but chose to retain
a small portfolio of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) rather than sell them at
what we felt were distressed prices in an illiquid market. The CMOs were an investment made
by one of the short-duration funds, which subsequently dissolved and distributed the assets
to its investors. All $30 million of the CMOs in the portfolio are collateralized by Alt-A mortgages that
originated between 2004 and 2006. Consequently, at December 31, 2008, we owned
investment-grade CMOs with a fair value and book value of $27 million and $39 million,
respectively. Of the $27 million investment-grade CMOs, $21 million were rated AAA by
Standard & Poors. We also owned non-investment grade CMOs that had a fair value and book
value of $3 million and $4 million, respectively. We do not intend to make additional
investments in this asset category.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 18
Fixed-maturity and Short-term Portfolio Ratings
As of year-end 2008, the portfolio was trading at 96.2 percent of its book value, in line
with general market conditions. The general level of interest rates decreased over the
course of 2008; however, credit spreads widened considerably due to a continued flight to
quality.
The downward shift in the higher portfolio ratings during 2008 primarily was driven by
significant calls of government sponsored entities (GSE) bonds, as well as rating
withdrawals that occurred in response to the difficulties experienced by certain municipal
bond insurers. The majority of our non-rated securities are tax-exempt municipal bonds from
smaller municipalities that chose not to pursue a credit rating. Credit ratings as of
December 31 for the fixed-maturity and short-term portfolio were:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2008 |
|
|
At December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Percent |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Percent |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
value |
|
|
to total |
|
|
value |
|
|
to total |
|
|
Moodys Ratings and Standard & Poors Ratings combined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaa, Aa, A, AAA, AA, A |
|
$ |
4,149 |
|
|
|
70.2 |
% |
|
$ |
4,366 |
|
|
|
73.4 |
% |
Baa, BBB |
|
|
1,258 |
|
|
|
21.3 |
|
|
|
1,076 |
|
|
|
18.1 |
|
Ba, BB |
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
225 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
B, B |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
Caa, CCC |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
Ca, CC |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
C, C |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
Non-rated |
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
5,911 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
5,949 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We discuss the maturity of our fixed-maturity portfolio in Item 8, Note 2 of the
Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 104. Attributes of the fixed-maturity portfolio
include:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
Weighted average yield-to-book value |
|
|
5.6 |
% |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
Weighted average maturity |
|
|
8.2 |
yrs |
|
|
8.0 |
yrs |
Effective duration |
|
|
5.4 |
yrs |
|
|
4.8 |
yrs |
|
Taxable Fixed Maturities
Our taxable fixed-maturity portfolio (at fair value) at year-end 2008 included:
|
|
$389 million in U.S. agency paper that is rated Aaa/AAA by Moodys and Standard &
Poors, respectively. |
|
|
$2.324 billion in investment-grade corporate bonds that have a Moodys rating at or
above Baa3 or a Standard & Poors rating at or above BBB-. |
|
|
$210 million in high-yield corporate bonds that have a Moodys rating below Baa3 or
a Standard & Poors rating below BBB-. |
|
|
$171 million in convertible bonds and redeemable preferred stocks. |
Our strategy typically is to buy and hold fixed-maturity investments to maturity, but we
monitor credit profiles and market value movements when determining holding periods for
individual securities. With the exception of U.S. agency paper (government-sponsored
entities), no individual issuers securities accounted for more than 1.7 percent of the
taxable fixed-maturity portfolio at year-end 2008.
The investment-grade corporate bond portfolio is most heavily concentrated in the
financial-related sectors, including banks, brokerage, finance and investment and insurance
companies. The financial sectors represented 34.2 percent of fair value of this portfolio at
year-end 2008, compared with 42.1 percent, at year-end 2007. Although the financial-related
sectors make up our largest group of investment-grade corporate bonds, we believe our
concentration is below the average for the corporate bond market as a whole. Utilities are
the only other sector that exceeds 10 percent of our investment-grade corporate bond
portfolio, at 11.6 percent of fair value at year-end 2008.
Tax-exempt Fixed Maturities
We traditionally have purchased municipal bonds focusing on general obligation and essential
services bonds, such as sewer, water or others. While no single municipal issuer accounted
for more than 0.6 percent of the tax-exempt municipal bond portfolio at year-end 2008, there
are higher concentrations within individual states. Holdings in Texas and Indiana accounted
for a total of 35.0 percent of the municipal bond portfolio at year-end 2008.
In recent years, we have purchased insured municipal bonds because of their excellent
credit-adjusted after-tax yields. At year-end 2008, bonds representing $2.290 billion, or
83.8 percent, of the fair value of our municipal portfolio were insured with an average
rating of AAA. Because of our emphasis on general obligation and essential services bonds,
over 90 percent of the insured municipal bonds have an underlying rating of at least A3 or
A-.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 19
Short-term Investments
Our short-term investments consist primarily of commercial paper, demand notes or bonds
purchased within one year of maturity. We make short-term investments primarily with funds
to be used to make upcoming cash payments, such as taxes. At year-end 2008, we had $84
million of short-term investments compared with $101 million at year-end 2007.
Equity Investments
After covering both our intermediate and long-range insurance obligations with
fixed-maturity investments, we historically used available cash flow to invest in equity
securities. Investment in equity securities has played an important role in achieving our
portfolio objectives and has contributed to portfolio appreciation. We remain committed to
our long-term equity focus, which we believe is key to our companys long-term growth and
stability.
Common Stocks
Our common stock investments generally are dividend-paying securities. In this market, we
are seeking to maximize our potential return while minimizing dividend income risk by
selecting securities from a variety of dividend scenarios, including those with the
potential for dividend growth from a below-market current yield. Other criteria we evaluate
include increasing sales and earnings, proven management and a favorable outlook. We believe
our equity investment style is an appropriate long-term strategy after we have purchased
fixed maturity investments to cover our insurance reserves.
In mid-2008, we began applying new investment guidelines that increased portfolio
diversification, reducing single issue and sector concentrations. Our year-end 2008
portfolio has been positioned for reduced volatility going forward. As a result, despite
economic and market disruptions that led to unprecedented value declines, our equity
portfolio suffered less than the broader indices during 2008.
We view our diversifying actions to be consistent with our view of prudent risk management.
At year-end 2008, our financial sector holdings were 12.4 percent of our $2.7 billion
publicly traded common stock portfolio, below the Standard & Poors 500 weighting, and
significantly lower than our 56.2 percent financial sector weighting at year-end 2007. Among
other changes, we reduced our Fifth Third Bancorp (NASDAQ:FITB) holding to approximately 12
million shares at year-end 2008. Following Fifth Thirds further reduction of its dividend
payout in December 2008, we sold the remainder of our holding in January 2009 for an
additional capital gain. We expect to continue to make changes to the portfolio, as deemed
appropriate.
Proceeds of sales are being reinvested in both fixed income and equity securities with
yields that we believe are likely to be more secure. This may slow the return to growth in
investment income although we believe year-over-year comparisons may turn positive in the
second half of 2009.
Common Stock Portfolio Industry Sector Distribution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of Publicly Traded Common Stock Portfolio |
|
|
|
At December 31, 2008 |
|
|
At December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
Cincinnati |
|
|
S&P 500 Industry |
|
|
Cincinnati |
|
|
S&P 500 Industry |
|
|
|
Financial |
|
|
Weightings |
|
|
Financial |
|
|
Weightings |
|
|
Sector: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Healthcare |
|
|
21.6 |
% |
|
|
14.8 |
% |
|
|
10.2 |
% |
|
|
12.0 |
% |
Consumer staples |
|
|
19.8 |
|
|
|
12.8 |
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
|
|
10.2 |
|
Energy |
|
|
16.8 |
|
|
|
13.3 |
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
|
|
12.9 |
|
Financial |
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
13.3 |
|
|
|
56.2 |
|
|
|
17.6 |
|
Utilities |
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
Consumer discretionary |
|
|
6.6 |
|
|
|
8.4 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
Industrials |
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
Information technology |
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
15.3 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
16.8 |
|
Materials |
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
3.3 |
|
Telecomm services |
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At year-end 2008, 29.7 percent of our common stock holdings (measured by fair value) were
held at the parent company level.
Until June 2008, we had held more than 10 percent of Fifth Thirds common stock for many
years. We continue to hold more than 5 percent of Piedmont Natural Gas Company (NYSE:PNY).
At year-end 2008, there were 12 holdings with a fair value equal to or greater than 2
percent of our publicly traded common stock portfolio compared with 15 similar holdings at
year-end 2007. No single issue accounted for more than 14.5 percent at year-end 2008.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 20
Nonredeemable Preferred Stocks
We evaluate preferred stocks in a manner similar to the evaluation we make for
fixed-maturity investments, seeking attractive relative yields. We generally focus on
investment-grade preferred stocks issued by companies that have a strong history of paying
common dividends, providing us with another layer of protection. We believe that careful
application of this strategy continues to have merit, although events of 2008 indicated that
preferred stocks will not receive preferential treatment in a government-sponsored
restructuring. When possible, we seek out preferred stocks that offer a dividend received
deduction for income tax purposes.
Additional information regarding the composition of investments is included in Item 8, Note
2 of the Consolidated Financial Statements,
Page 104.
Other
We report as Other the other income of our standard market property casualty insurance
subsidiary, as well as non-investment operations of the parent company and its subsidiaries,
CFC Investment Company and CinFin Capital Management Company (excluding client investment
activities). In 2008, we also included results of our surplus lines operations, The
Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company and CSU Producer Resources.
CFC Investment Company
CFC Investment Company offers commercial leasing and financing services to our agents, their
clients and other customers. As of year-end 2008, CFC Investment Company had 2,197 accounts
and $71 million in receivables, compared with 2,590 accounts and $92 million in receivables
at year-end 2007.
CinFin Capital Management
CinFin Capital Management provided asset management services to internal and third-party
clients. CinFin Capital advised clients in December 2008 that it would close on February 28,
2009. During the recent financial market downturn, this business performed satisfactorily
relative to the appropriate benchmarks, and it was profitable over its 10 years in
operation. We determined that sufficient future growth through agency referrals or other
routes would have required a substantial increase in resources even as we are seeking to
increase our focus on our core insurance business with new initiatives. Many of our agencies
did not see referrals for investment management services within the scope of their offerings
to their clients.
As of year-end 2008, CinFin Capital had 44 institutional, corporate and individual clients.
Assets under management were $817 million. We have given our unaffiliated clients ample
opportunity to arrange for another financial adviser and respond to any market changes in a
timely manner. We will continue to manage internally our pension plan and Cincinnati Lifes
separate accounts.
Surplus Lines Property Casualty Insurance
Agencies have access to The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Companys product
line through CSU Producer Resources, the wholly owned insurance brokerage subsidiary of
parent-company Cincinnati Financial Corporation. CSU Producer Resources has binding
authority on all classes of business written through CSU and maintains appropriate agent and
surplus lines licenses to process non-admitted business.
Producers can submit risks to CSU Producer Resources, reflecting the mix of accounts
Cincinnati agencies currently write in their non-admitted surplus lines markets. CSU
Producer Resources currently markets and underwrites commercial general liability, property
and miscellaneous errors and omissions coverages in 33 states. It will continue to add lines
of business and coverages.
Agency producers have direct access through CSU Producer Resources to our dedicated surplus
lines underwriters, and they also can tap into their agencies broader Cincinnati
relationships to bring their policyholders services such as experienced and responsive loss
control and claims handling. Our new surplus lines policy administration system delivers
electronic copies of policies to producers within minutes of underwriting approval and
policy issue. CSU Producer Resources gives extra support to our producers by remitting
surplus lines taxes and stamping fees and retaining admitted market affadavits, where
required.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 21
Regulation
State Regulation
The business of insurance primarily is regulated by state law. All of our insurance company
subsidiaries are domiciled in the State of Ohio, except The Cincinnati Specialty
Underwriters Insurance Company, which is domiciled in the State of Delaware. Each insurance
subsidiary is governed by the insurance laws and regulations in its respective state of
domicile. We also are subject to state regulatory authorities of all states in which we
write insurance. The state laws and regulations that have the most significant effect on our
insurance operations and financial reporting are discussed below.
|
|
Insurance Holding Company Regulation We are regulated as an insurance holding
company system in the respective states of domicile of our standard market property
casualty company subsidiary and its surplus lines and life insurance subsidiaries.
These regulations require that we annually furnish financial and other information
about the operations of the individual companies within the holding company system. All
transactions within a holding company affecting insurers must be fair and equitable.
Notice to the state insurance commissioner is required prior to the consummation of
transactions affecting the ownership or control of an insurer and prior to certain
material transactions between an insurer and any person or entity in its holding
company group. In addition, some of those transactions cannot be consummated without
the commissioners prior approval. |
|
|
Subsidiary Dividends The Cincinnati Insurance Company is 100 percent owned by
Cincinnati Financial Corporation. The dividend-paying capacity of The Cincinnati
Insurance Company and its 100 percent owned subsidiaries is regulated by the laws of
the applicable state of domicile. Under these laws, our insurance subsidiaries must
provide a 10-day advance informational notice to the insurance commissioner for the
domiciliary state prior to payment of any dividend or distribution to its shareholders.
In all cases, ordinary dividends may be paid only from earned surplus, which for the
Ohio subsidiaries is the amount of unassigned funds set forth in an insurance
subsidiarys most recent statutory financial statement. For the Delaware subsidiary, it
is the amount of available and accumulated funds derived from the subsidiarys net
operating profit of its business and realized capital gains. |
|
|
|
The insurance company subsidiaries must give 30 days notice to and obtain prior approval
from the state insurance commissioner before the payment of an extraordinary dividend as
defined by the states insurance code. You can find information about the dividends paid
by our insurance subsidiary in 2008 in Item 8, Note 9 of the Consolidated Financial
Statements, Page 110. |
|
|
Insurance Operations All of our insurance subsidiaries are subject to licensing
and supervision by departments of insurance in the states in which they do business.
The nature and extent of such regulations vary, but generally have their source in
statutes that delegate regulatory, supervisory and administrative powers to state
insurance departments. Such regulations, supervision and administration of the
insurance subsidiaries include, among others, the standards of solvency that must be
met and maintained; the licensing of insurers and their agents and brokers; the nature
and limitations on investments; deposits of securities for the benefit of
policyholders; regulation of policy forms and premium rates; policy cancellations and
non-renewals; periodic examination of the affairs of insurance companies; annual and
other reports required to be filed on the financial condition of insurers or for other
purposes; requirements regarding reserves for unearned premiums, losses and other
matters; the nature of and limitations on dividends to policyholders and shareholders;
the nature and extent of required participation in insurance guaranty funds; the
involuntary assumption of hard-to-place or high-risk insurance business, primarily
workers compensation insurance; and the collection, remittance and reporting of
certain taxes and fees. |
|
|
|
The legislative and regulatory climate in Florida continues to create uncertainty for the
insurance industry. In February 2007, we adopted a marketing stance of writing no new
business relationships in Florida. This remained our stance through 2008, except in the
lines of directors and officers, surety, machinery and equipment and life insurance,
which we resumed writing in June 2007, subject to existing guidelines. In 2009, we intend
to cautiously resume writing additional commercial lines of business, while working to
more actively manage the associated catastrophe risk, carefully underwriting new
commercial submissions and non-renewing commercial and personal lines policies that
present the most risk of loss because of their age, construction and geographic
characteristics. In 2008, our written premiums from Florida agencies were 2.9 percent of
total written premiums, compared with 3.2 percent in 2007. |
|
|
|
On August 24, 2007, the company received administrative subpoenas from the Florida Office
of Insurance Regulation seeking documents and testimony concerning insurance for
residential risks located in Florida and communications with reinsurers, risk modeling
companies, rating agencies and insurance trade associations. We produced documents to
respond to the subpoenas. The Office of Insurance Regulation cancelled and has not
rescheduled the hearing noticed in the subpoena for |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 22
|
|
October 18, 2007. Although inactive,
these subpoenas remain outstanding as of December 31, 2008. We continue to assess the
changing insurance environment in Florida and hope to resume writing our complete
portfolio of insurance products in the state as the market stabilizes. |
|
|
|
Insurance Guaranty Associations Each state has insurance guaranty association laws
under which the associations may assess life and property casualty insurers doing
business in the state for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to
policyholders and claimants. Typically, states assess each member insurer in an amount
related to the
insurers proportionate share of business written by all member insurers in the state.
Our insurance companies incurred a charge of less than $1 million from guaranty
associations in 2008 and a charge of $2 million in 2007. We cannot predict the amount and
timing of any future assessments or refunds on our insurance subsidiaries under these
laws. |
|
|
|
Shared Market and Joint Underwriting Plans State insurance regulation requires
insurers to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint
underwriting associations, which are mechanisms that generally provide applicants with
various basic insurance coverages when they are not available in voluntary markets.
Such mechanisms are most commonly instituted for automobile and workers compensation
insurance, but many states also mandate participation in FAIR Plans or Windstorm Plans,
which provide basic property coverages. Participation is based upon the amount of a
companys voluntary market share in a particular state for the classes of insurance
involved. Underwriting results related to these organizations, which tend to be adverse
to our company, have been immaterial to our results of operations. |
|
|
|
Statutory Accounting For public reporting, insurance companies prepare financial
statements in accordance with GAAP. However, certain data also must be calculated
according to statutory accounting rules as defined in the NAICs Accounting Practices
and Procedures Manual (SAP). While not a substitute for any GAAP measure of
performance, statutory data frequently is used by industry analysts and other
recognized reporting sources to facilitate comparisons of the performance of insurance
companies. |
|
|
|
Insurance Reserves State insurance laws require that property casualty and life
insurance insurers analyze the adequacy of reserves annually. Our appointed
actuaries must submit an opinion that reserves are adequate for policy claims-paying
obligations and related expenses. |
|
|
|
Risk-Based Capital Requirements The NAICs risk-based capital (RBC) requirements
for property casualty and life insurers serve as an early warning tool for the NAIC and
state regulators to identify companies that may be undercapitalized and may merit
further regulatory action. The NAIC has a standard formula for annually assessing RBC.
The formula for calculating RBC for property casualty companies takes into account
asset and credit risks but places more emphasis on underwriting factors for reserving
and pricing. The formula for calculating RBC for life insurance companies takes into
account factors relating to insurance, business, asset and interest rate risks. |
Federal Regulation
Although the federal government and its regulatory agencies generally do not directly
regulate the business of insurance, federal initiatives often have an impact. Some of the
current and proposed federal measures that may significantly affect our business are
discussed below.
|
|
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) TRIA was originally signed into
law on November 26, 2002, and extended on December 22, 2005, in a revised form, and
extended again on December 26, 2007. TRIA provides a temporary federal backstop for
losses related to the writing of the terrorism peril in property casualty insurance
policies. TRIA now is scheduled to expire December 31, 2014. Under regulations
promulgated under this statute, insurers are required to offer terrorism coverage for
certain lines of property casualty insurance, including property, commercial
multi-peril, fire, ocean marine, inland marine, liability, aircraft and workers
compensation. In the event of a terrorism event defined by TRIA, the federal government
would reimburse terrorism claim payments subject to the insurers deductible. The
deductible is calculated as a percentage of subject written premiums for the preceding
calendar year. Our deductible in 2008 was $395 million (20 percent of 2007 subject
premiums) and we estimate it will be $383 million (20 percent of 2008 subject premiums)
in 2009. |
|
|
Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) Subject to an Executive Order signed on
September 24, 2001, intended to thwart financing of terrorists and sponsors of
terrorism, financial institutions were required to block and report transactions and
attempted transactions between their organizations and persons and organizations named
in a list published by OFAC. We currently use a combination of software, third-party
vendor and manual searches to accomplish our transaction blocking and reporting
activities. |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 23
|
|
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Our subsidiary, CinFin Capital Management Company,
operates an investment advisory business and is therefore subject to regulation by the
SEC as a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. This
law imposes certain annual reporting, recordkeeping, client disclosure and compliance
obligations on CinFin Capital Management. CinFin Capital Management is terminating
operations effective February 28, 2009. |
|
|
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the economic stimulus bill, and related
executive, legislative and regulatory actions The President, Congress and various
regulatory agencies have worked, and continue to work, to enact measures designed to
improve the economy by recapitalizing banks, stimulating the economy, providing relief
to homeowners at risk of foreclosure and enhancing oversight of the financial system.
To date, none of these measures directly affect us. We are not a bank or a bank
holding company and do not intend to obtain TARP funds. Effects of other statutes and
regulations on our business are uncertain, as details of existing and proposed laws
continue to emerge. |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 24
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Our business involves various risks and uncertainties that may affect achievement of our
business objectives. Many of the risks could have ramifications across our organization. For
example, while risks related to setting insurance rates and establishing and adjusting loss
reserves are insurance activities, errors in these areas could have an impact on our
investment activities, growth and overall results. The following discussion should be viewed
as a starting point for understanding the significant risks we face. It is not a definitive
summary of their potential impacts or of our strategies to manage and control the risks.
Please see Item 7, Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
of Operations, Page 37, for a discussion of those strategies.
The risks and uncertainties discussed below are not the only ones we face. There are
additional risks and uncertainties that we currently do not believe are material at this
time. There also may be risks and uncertainties of which we are not aware. If any risks or
uncertainties discussed here develop into actual events, they could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In that case, the
market price of our common stock could decline materially.
Readers should carefully consider this information together with the other information we
have provided in this report and in other reports and materials we file periodically with
the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as news releases and other information we
disseminate publicly.
We rely exclusively on independent insurance agents to distribute our products.
We market our products through independent, non-exclusive insurance agents. These agents are
not obligated to promote our products and can and do sell our competitors products. We must
offer insurance products that meet the needs of these agencies and their clients. We need to
maintain good relationships with the agencies that market our products. If we do not, these
agencies may market our competitors products instead of ours, which may lead to us having a
less desirable mix of business and could affect our results of operations.
Events or conditions that could diminish our agents desire to produce business for us and
the competitive advantage that our independent agencies enjoy:
|
|
Downgrade of the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries. We
believe our strong insurer financial strength ratings, in particular the A+ (Superior)
rating from A.M. Best for our standard market property casualty insurance subsidiaries,
are an important competitive advantage. Ratings agencies could change or expand their
requirements. If our property casualty ratings were to be further downgraded, our
agents might find it more difficult to market our products or might choose to emphasize
the products of other carriers. See Item 1, Our Business and Our Strategy, Page 1, for
additional discussion of our financial strength ratings. |
|
|
|
Concerns that doing business with us is difficult or not profitable, perceptions
that our level of service is no longer a distinguishing characteristic in the
marketplace, or perceptions that our business practices are not compatible with agents
business models. These issues could occur if agents or policyholders believe that we
are no longer providing the prompt, reliable personal service that has long been a
distinguishing characteristic of our insurance operations. |
|
|
|
Delays in the development, implementation, performance and benefits of technology
projects and enhancements or independent agent perceptions that our technology
solutions are inadequate to match their needs. |
A reduction in the number of independent agencies marketing our products, the failure of
agencies to successfully market our products or the choice of agencies to reduce their
writings of our products could affect our results of operations if we are unable to replace
them with agencies that produce adequate and profitable premiums. We could lose premium if
a bank that owns appointed agencies changes its strategies.
Further, policyholders may choose a competitors product rather than our own because of real
or perceived differences in price, terms and conditions, coverage or service. If the quality
of the independent agencies with which we do business were to decline, that also might cause
policyholders to purchase their insurance through different agencies or channels. Consumers,
especially in the personal insurance segments, may increasingly choose to purchase insurance
from distribution channels other than independent insurance agents, such as direct
marketers.
We could experience an unusually high level of losses due to catastrophic, pandemic or
terrorism events or risk concentrations.
In the normal course of our business, we provide coverage against perils for which estimates
of losses are highly uncertain, in particular catastrophic and terrorism events.
Catastrophes can be caused by a number of
events, including hurricanes, tornadoes, windstorms, earthquakes, hailstorms, explosions,
severe winter weather and fires. Due to the nature of these events, we are unable to predict
precisely the frequency or
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 25
potential cost of catastrophe occurrences. The extent of losses from a catastrophe is a
function of both the total amount of insured exposure in the area affected by the event and
the severity of the event. Our ability to appropriately manage catastrophe risk depends
partially on catastrophe models, the accuracy of which may be impacted by inaccurate or
incomplete data, the uncertainty of the frequency and severity of future events and the
uncertain impact of climate change.
The geographic regions in which we market insurance are exposed to numerous natural
catastrophes, such as:
|
|
Hurricanes in the gulf, eastern and southeastern coastal regions. |
|
|
|
Earthquakes in the New Madrid fault zone, which lies within the central Mississippi
valley, extending from northeast Arkansas through southeast Missouri, western Tennessee
and western Kentucky to southern Illinois, southern Indiana and parts of Ohio. |
|
|
|
Tornado, wind and hail in the Midwest, South and Southeast and, to a certain extent,
the mid-Atlantic. |
The occurrence of terrorist attacks in the geographic areas we serve could result in
substantially higher claims under our insurance policies than we have anticipated. While we
do insure terrorism risk in all areas we serve, we have identified our major terrorism
exposure as general commercial risks in the metropolitan Chicago area as well as small co-op
utilities, small shopping malls and small colleges throughout our 35 active states.
Additionally, our life insurance subsidiary could be adversely affected in the event of a
terrorist event or an epidemic such as the avian flu, particularly if the epidemic were to
affect a broad range of the population beyond just the very young or the very old. Our
associate health plan is self-funded and could similarly be affected.
Our results of operations would be adversely affected if the level of losses we experience
over a period of time exceeds our actuarially determined expectations. In addition, our
financial condition would be adversely affected if we were required to sell securities prior
to maturity or at unfavorable prices to pay an unusually high level of loss and loss
expenses. Securities pricing might be even less favorable if a number of insurance companies
needed to sell securities during a short period of time because of unusually high losses
from catastrophic events.
Our geographic concentration ties our performance to business, economic, environmental and
regulatory conditions in certain states. We market our property casualty insurance products
in 35 states, but our business is concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast. We also have
exposure in states where we do not actively market insurance when clients of our independent
agencies have businesses or properties in multiple states.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company also participates in three assumed reinsurance treaties
with two reinsurers that spread the risk of very high catastrophe losses among many
insurers. In 2009, we have exposure of up to $7 million of assumed losses in three layers,
from $1.0 billion to $1.7 billion, from a single event under an assumed reinsurance treaty
for Munich Re Group. The other two assumed reinsurance treaties are immaterial.
In the event of a severe catastrophic event or terrorist attack elsewhere in the world, our
insurance losses may be immaterial. However, the companies in which we invest might be
severely affected, which could affect our financial condition and results of operations. Our
reinsurers might experience significant losses, potentially jeopardizing their ability to
pay losses we cede to them. We also may be exposed to state guaranty fund assessments if
other carriers in a state cannot meet their obligations to policyholders. A catastrophe or
epidemic event also could affect our operations by damaging our headquarters facility,
injuring associates and visitors at our Fairfield, Ohio, headquarters or disrupting our
associates ability to perform their assigned tasks.
Our ability to achieve our performance objectives could be affected by changes in the
financial, credit and capital markets or the general economy.
We invest premiums received from policyholders and other available cash to generate
investment income and capital appreciation, maintaining sufficient liquidity to pay covered
claims and operating expenses, service our debt obligations and pay dividends.
Investment income is an important component of our revenues and net income. The ability to
increase investment income and generate longer-term growth in book value is affected by
factors that are beyond our control, such as inflation, economic growth, interest rates,
world political conditions, terrorism attacks or threats, adverse events affecting other
companies in our industry or the industries in which we invest, market events leading to
credit constriction and other widespread unpredictable events. These events may adversely
affect the economy generally and could cause our investment income or the value of
securities we own to decrease. A significant decline in our investment income could have an
adverse effect on our net income, and thereby on our shareholders equity and our
policyholders surplus. For more detailed discussion of risks associated with our
investments, please refer to Item 7A, Qualitative and Quantitative Disclosures About Market
Risk, Page 85.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 26
We issue
life contracts with guaranteed minimum returns, referred to as bank-owned life
insurance contracts (BOLIs). BOLI investment assets must meet certain criteria established
by the regulatory authorities in which jurisdiction the group contract holder is subject.
Therefore, sales of investments may be mandated to maintain compliance with these
regulations, possibly requiring gains or losses to be recorded. We could experience losses
if the assets in the accounts are less than liabilities at the time of maturity or
termination. We discuss other risks associated with our separate account BOLIs in Item 7,
Critical Accounting Estimates, Separate Accounts, Page 47.
Further deterioration in the banking sector or in banks with which we have relationships
could affect our results of operations. Our ability to maintain or obtain short-term lines
of credit could be affected if the banks from which we obtain these lines are purchased,
fail or are otherwise negatively affected. The value of corporate bonds and common equities
we hold in the banking sector could further deteriorate. We may lose
premium if a bank that owns appointed agencies changes its strategies. We could experience increased
losses in our directors and officers liability line of business if claims are made against
insured financial institutions.
Our investment performance also could suffer because of the types or concentrations of
investments, industry groups and/or individual securities in which we choose to invest.
Market value changes related to these choices could cause a material change in our financial
condition or results of operations.
At year-end 2008, common stock holdings made up 30.6 percent of our invested assets. Adverse
news or events affecting the global or U.S. economy or the equity markets could affect our
net income, book value and overall results as well as our ability to pay our common stock
dividend. See Item 7, Investments Results of Operations, Page 66, and Item 7A, Qualitative
and Quantitative Disclosures About Market Risk, Page 85, for discussion of our investment
activities.
Deteriorating credit and market conditions could also impair our ability to access credit
markets and could affect existing or future lending arrangements.
Our overall results could be affected if a significant portion of our commercial lines
policyholders, including those purchasing surety bonds, are adversely affected by marked or
prolonged economic downturns and events such as a downturn in construction and related
sectors, tightening credit markets and higher fuel costs. Such events could make it more
difficult for policyholders to finance new projects, complete projects or expand their
businesses, leading to lower premiums from reduced payrolls and sales and lower purchases of
equipment and vehicles. These events could also cause claims, including surety claims, to
increase due to a policyholders inability to secure necessary financing to complete
projects or to collect on underlying lines of credit in the claims process. Such economic
downturns and events could have a greater impact in the construction sector where we have a
concentration of risks and in geographic areas that are hardest hit by economic downturns.
Deteriorating economic conditions could also increase the degree of credit risk associated
with amounts due from independent agents who collect premiums for payment to us and could
hamper our ability to recover amounts due from reinsurers.
Our ability to properly underwrite and price risks and increased competition could adversely
affect our results.
Our financial condition, cash flow and results of operations depend on our ability to
underwrite and set rates accurately for a full spectrum of risks. We establish our pricing
based on assumptions about the level of losses that may occur within classes of business,
geographic regions and other criteria.
To properly price our products, we must collect and properly analyze data; the data must be
sufficient, reliable and accessible; we need to develop appropriate rating methodologies and
formulae; and we may need to identify and respond to trends quickly. If rates are not
accurate, we may not generate enough premiums to offset losses and expenses or we may not be
competitive in the marketplace.
Setting appropriate rates could be hampered if a state or states where we write business
refuses to allow rate increases that we believe are necessary to cover the risks insured. At
least one state requires us to purchase reinsurance from a mandatory reinsurance fund. Such
reinsurance funds can create a credit risk for insurers if not adequately funded by the
state and, in some cases, the existence of a reinsurance fund could affect the prices
charged for our policies. The effect of these and similar arrangements could reduce our
profitability in any given period or limit our ability to grow our business.
The insurance industry is cyclical and intensely competitive. From time to time, the
insurance industry goes through prolonged periods of intense competition during which it is
more difficult to attract new business, retain existing business and maintain profitability.
Competition in our insurance business is based on many factors, including:
|
|
Competitiveness of premiums charged |
|
|
|
Relationships among carriers, agents, brokers and policyholders |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 27
|
|
Underwriting and pricing methodologies that allow insurers to identify and flexibly
price risks |
|
|
|
Compensation provided to agents |
|
|
|
Underwriting discipline |
|
|
|
Terms and conditions of insurance coverage |
|
|
|
Speed at which products are brought to market |
|
|
|
Product and marketing innovations, including advertising |
|
|
|
Technological competence and innovation |
|
|
|
Ability to control expenses |
|
|
|
Adequacy of financial strength ratings by independent ratings agencies such as A.M.
Best |
|
|
|
Quality of services provided to agents and policyholders |
|
|
|
Claims satisfaction and reputation |
If our pricing is incorrect or we are unable to compete effectively because of one or more
of these factors, our premium writings could decline and our results of operations and
financial condition could be materially adversely affected.
Please see the discussion of our Commercial Lines, Personal Lines and Life Insurance
Segments in Item 1, Page 11, Page 14 and Page 16, for a discussion of our competitive
position in the insurance marketplace.
Our loss reserves, our largest liability, are based on estimates and could be inadequate to
cover our actual losses.
Our consolidated financial statements are prepared using GAAP. These principles require us
to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Consolidated
Financial Statements and accompanying Notes. Actual results could differ materially from
those estimates. For a discussion of the significant accounting policies we use to prepare
our financial statements and the material implications of uncertainties associated with the
methods, assumptions and estimates underlying our critical accounting policies, please refer
to Item 8, Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 98, and Item 7, Critical
Accounting Estimates, Property Casualty Insurance Loss and Loss Expense Reserves and Life
Insurance Policy Reserves, Page 41 and Page 44.
Our most critical accounting estimate is loss reserves. Loss reserves are the amounts we
expect to pay for covered claims and expenses we incur to settle those claims. The loss
reserves we establish in our financial statements represent an estimate of amounts needed to
pay and administer claims arising from insured events that have already occurred, including
events that have not yet been reported to us. Loss reserves are estimates and are inherently
uncertain; they do not and cannot represent an exact measure of liability. Accordingly, our
loss reserves for past periods could prove to be inadequate to cover our actual losses and
related expenses. Any changes in these estimates are reflected in our results of operations
during the period in which the changes are made. An increase in our loss reserves would
decrease earnings, while a decrease in our loss reserves would increase earnings.
The estimation process for unpaid loss and loss expense obligations involves uncertainty by
its very nature. We continually review the estimates and adjust the reserves as facts about
individual claims develop, additional losses are reported and new information becomes known.
Adjustments due to loss development on prior periods are reflected in the calendar year in
which they are identified. The process used to determine our loss reserves is discussed in
Item 7, Critical Accounting Estimates, Property Casualty Insurance Loss and Loss Expense
Reserves and Life Insurance Policy Reserves, Page 41 and Page 44.
Unforeseen losses, the type and magnitude of which we cannot predict, may emerge in the
future. These additional losses could arise from changes in the legal environment, laws and
regulations, climate change, catastrophic events, increases in loss severity or frequency,
or other causes. Such future losses could be substantial.
Our ability to obtain or collect on our reinsurance protection could affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We buy property casualty and life reinsurance coverage to mitigate the liquidity risk of an
unexpected rise in claims severity or frequency from catastrophic events or a single large
loss. The availability, amount and cost of reinsurance depend on market conditions and may
vary significantly. If we are unable to obtain reinsurance on acceptable terms and in
appropriate amounts, our business and financial condition may be adversely affected.
In addition, we are subject to credit risk with respect to our reinsurers. Although we
purchase reinsurance to manage our risks and exposures to losses, this reinsurance does not
discharge our direct obligations under the policies we write. We would remain liable to our
policyholders even if we were unable to recover what we
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 28
believe we are entitled to receive under our reinsurance contracts. Reinsurers might refuse
or fail to pay losses that we cede to them, or they might delay payment. For long-tail
claims, the creditworthiness of our reinsurers may change before we can recover amounts to
which we are entitled. A reinsurers insolvency, inability or unwillingness to make payments
under the terms of its reinsurance agreement with our insurance subsidiaries could have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Prior to 2003, we participated in USAIG, a joint underwriting association of individual
insurance companies that collectively functions as a worldwide insurance market for all
types of aviation and aerospace accounts. At year-end 2008, 28.6 percent, or $217 million,
of our total reinsurance receivables were related to USAIG, primarily for September 11,
2001, events, offset by $226 million of amounts ceded to other pool
participants and reinsurers. If the pool participants and reinsurers are unable to fulfill
their financial obligations and all security collateral that supports the participants
obligations becomes worthless, we could be liable for an additional pool liability of
$283 million and our financial position and results of operations could be materially
affected. Currently all pool participants and reinsurers are financially solvent.
We no longer participate in new business generated by USAIG and its members. Please see Item
7, 2009 Reinsurance Programs, Page 81, for a discussion of our reinsurance treaties.
Our business depends on the uninterrupted operation of our facilities, systems and business
functions.
Our business depends on our associates ability to perform necessary business functions,
such as processing new and renewal policies and claims. We increasingly rely on technology
and systems to accomplish these business functions in an efficient and uninterrupted
fashion. Our inability to access our headquarters facilities or a failure of technology,
telecommunications or other systems could significantly impair our ability to perform such
functions on a timely basis or affect the accuracy of transactions. If sustained or
repeated, such a business interruption or system failure could result in a deterioration of
our ability to write and process new and renewal business, serve our agents and
policyholders, pay claims in a timely manner, collect receivables or perform other necessary
business functions. If our disaster recovery and business continuity plans did not
sufficiently consider, address or reverse the circumstances of an interruption or failure,
this could result in a materially adverse effect on our operating results and financial
condition. This risk is exacerbated because approximately 70 percent of our associates work
at our Fairfield, Ohio, headquarters.
The effects of changes in industry practices and regulations on our business are uncertain.
As industry practices and legal, judicial, legislative, regulatory, political, social and
other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to insurance
pricing, claims, and coverage, may emerge. These issues may adversely affect our business by
impeding our ability to obtain adequate rates for covered risks, extending coverage beyond
our underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims. In some instances,
unforeseeable emerging and latent claim and coverage issues may not become apparent until
some time after we have issued the insurance policies that could be affected by the changes.
As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance contracts may not be known for
many years after a policy is issued.
Further, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), state insurance
regulators and state legislators are continually reexamining existing laws and regulations
governing insurance companies and insurance holding companies, specifically focusing on
modifications to statutory accounting principles, interpretations of existing laws and the
development of new laws and regulations that affect a variety of financial and nonfinancial
components of our business. Any proposed or future legislation, regulation or NAIC
initiatives, if adopted, may be more restrictive on our ability to conduct business than
current regulatory requirements or may result in higher costs.
Additionally, laws and regulations may be enacted in the wake of the current financial and
credit crises that have adverse affects on our business, potentially including a change from
a state-based system of regulation to a system of federal regulation. While we do not
participate or intend to seek to participate in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the
effect of it or any similar legislation on our industry and the economy in general is
uncertain.
The effects of such changes could adversely affect our results of operations. Please see
Item 7, Critical Accounting Estimates, Property Casualty Insurance Loss and Loss Expense
Reserves and Life Insurance Policy Reserves, Page 41 and Page 44, for a discussion of our
reserving practices.
Managing technology initiatives and meeting new data security requirements are significant
challenges.
While technology can streamline many business processes and ultimately reduce the cost of
operations, technology initiatives present short-term cost, implementation and operational
risks. In addition, we may have inaccurate expense projections, implementation schedules or
expectations regarding the efficacy of the
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 29
end product. These issues could escalate over time. If we are unable to find and retain
employees with key technical knowledge, our ability to develop and deploy key technology
solutions could be hampered.
We necessarily collect, use and hold data concerning individuals and businesses with whom we
have a relationship. Threats to data security rapidly emerge and change, exposing us to
rising costs and competing time constraints to secure our data in accordance with customer
expectations and statutory and regulatory requirements. A breach of our security that
results in unauthorized access to our data could expose us to data loss, litigation,
damages, fines and penalties, significant increases in compliance costs and reputational
damage.
Please see Item 1, Strategic Initiatives, Page 7 for a discussion of our technology
initiatives.
Our status as an insurance holding company with no direct operations could affect our
ability to pay dividends in the future.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation is a holding company that transacts substantially all of
its business through its subsidiaries. Our primary assets are the stock in our operating
subsidiaries and our investments. Consequently, our cash flow to pay cash dividends and
interest on our long-term debt depends on dividends we receive from our operating
subsidiaries and income earned on investments held at the parent-company level.
Dividends paid to our parent company by our insurance subsidiary are restricted by the
insurance laws of Ohio, its domiciliary state. These laws establish minimum solvency and
liquidity thresholds and limits. Currently, the maximum dividend that may be paid without
prior regulatory approval is limited to the greater of 10 percent of statutory surplus or
100 percent of statutory net income for the prior calendar year, up to the amount of
statutory unassigned surplus as of the end of the prior calendar year. Dividends exceeding
these limitations may be paid only with prior approval of the Ohio Department of Insurance.
Consequently, at times, we might not be able to receive dividends from our insurance
subsidiary, or we might not receive dividends in the amounts necessary to meet our debt
obligations or to pay dividends on our common stock. This could affect our financial
position.
Please see Item 1, Regulation, Page 22, and Item 8, Note 9 of the Consolidated Financial
Statements, Page 110, for discussion of insurance holding company dividend regulations.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 30
Item 2. Properties
Cincinnati Financial Corporation owns our headquarters building located on 100 acres of land
in Fairfield, Ohio. This building has approximately 1,508,200 total square feet of available
space. In 2008, we completed construction of a 425,400 square foot third office tower and
276,800 square foot underground garage. We expect this expansion to accommodate our business
needs for the foreseeable future. The property, including land, is carried in our financial
statements at $159 million as of December 31, 2008, and is classified as land, building and
equipment, net, for company use. John J. & Thomas R. Schiff & Co. Inc., a related party,
occupies approximately 6,750 square feet (less than 1 percent).
Cincinnati Financial Corporation also owns the Fairfield Executive Center, which is located on
the northwest corner of our headquarters property. This four-story office building has
approximately 124,000 square feet of available space. The property is carried in the
financial statements at $6 million as of December 31, 2008, and is classified as an other
invested asset. Unaffiliated tenants occupy approximately 8 percent. All unoccupied space is
currently available for lease.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company owns an unoccupied building on 16 acres of land in
Springfield Township, Ohio, approximately six miles from our headquarters. We plan to
renovate the 48,000 square foot building to serve as a business continuity center.
The property, including land, is carried on our financial statements at $6 million as of
December 31, 2008, and is classified as land, building and equipment, net, for company use.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Neither the company nor any of our subsidiaries is involved in any material litigation other
than ordinary, routine litigation incidental to the nature of its business.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders of Cincinnati Financial during the
fourth quarter of 2008.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 31
Part II
Item 5. Market for the Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Cincinnati Financial Corporation had approximately 12,000 shareholders of record and
approximately 37,000 beneficial shareholders as of December 31, 2008. Many of our
independent agent representatives and most of the 4,179 associates of our subsidiaries own
the companys common stock. We are unable to quantify those holdings because many are
beneficially held.
Our common shares are traded under the symbol CINF on the Nasdaq Global Select Market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Source: Nasdaq Global Select Market) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
Quarter: |
|
1st |
|
2nd |
|
3rd |
|
4th |
|
|
1st |
|
2nd |
|
3rd |
|
4th |
|
|
|
|
High close |
|
$ |
39.71 |
|
|
$ |
39.97 |
|
|
$ |
33.60 |
|
|
$ |
31.71 |
|
|
|
$ |
45.92 |
|
|
$ |
47.62 |
|
|
$ |
44.79 |
|
|
$ |
44.84 |
|
Low close |
|
|
35.10 |
|
|
|
25.40 |
|
|
|
21.83 |
|
|
|
18.80 |
|
|
|
|
42.24 |
|
|
|
42.57 |
|
|
|
36.91 |
|
|
|
38.37 |
|
Period-end close |
|
|
38.04 |
|
|
|
25.40 |
|
|
|
28.44 |
|
|
|
29.07 |
|
|
|
|
42.40 |
|
|
|
43.40 |
|
|
|
43.31 |
|
|
|
39.54 |
|
Cash dividends declared |
|
|
0.39 |
|
|
|
0.39 |
|
|
|
0.39 |
|
|
|
0.39 |
|
|
|
|
0.355 |
|
|
|
0.355 |
|
|
|
0.355 |
|
|
|
0.355 |
|
We discuss the factors that affect our ability to pay cash dividends and repurchase shares
in Item 7, Liquidity and Capital Resources, Page 70. One factor we address is regulatory
restrictions on the dividends our insurance subsidiary can pay to the parent company, which
also is discussed in Item 8, Note 9 of the Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 110.
The following summarizes securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation
plans as of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of securities to be |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of securities remaining available |
|
|
|
issued upon exercise of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
for future issuance under equity |
|
|
|
outstanding options, |
|
|
Weighted-average exercise |
|
|
compensation plan (excluding securities |
|
|
|
warrants and rights at |
|
|
price of outstanding |
|
|
reflected in column (a)) at December 31, |
|
Plan category |
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
options, warrants and rights |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
|
(b) |
|
|
(c) |
|
Equity compensation plans approved
by security holders |
|
|
10,789,082 |
|
|
$ |
36.31 |
|
|
|
7,333,645 |
|
Equity compensation plans not
approved by security holders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
10,789,082 |
|
|
$ |
36.31 |
|
|
|
7,333,645 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The number of securities remaining available for future issuance includes: 7,304,065 shares
available for issuance under the Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2006 Stock Compensation
Plan, which can be issued as stock options, service-based, or performance-based restricted
stock units, stock appreciation rights or other equity-based grants; 25,394 shares available
for issuance of full share grants under the Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2003
Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan; and 4,186 shares of stock options available for issuance
under the Cincinnati Financial Corporation Stock Option Plan VII. Additional information
about stock-based associate compensation granted under our equity compensation plans is
available in Item 8, Note 17 of the Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 117.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of shares |
|
Maximum number of |
|
|
Total number |
|
Average |
|
purchased as part of |
|
shares that may yet be |
|
|
of shares |
|
price paid |
|
publicly announced |
|
purchased under the |
Month |
|
purchased |
|
per share |
|
plans or programs |
|
plans or programs |
|
January 1-31, 2008 |
|
|
71,003 |
|
|
$ |
0.00 |
|
|
|
71,003 |
|
|
|
12,293,608 |
|
February 1-29, 2008 |
|
|
1,192,197 |
|
|
|
37.51 |
|
|
|
1,192,197 |
|
|
|
11,101,411 |
|
March 1-31, 2008 |
|
|
1,736,800 |
|
|
|
37.15 |
|
|
|
1,736,800 |
|
|
|
9,364,611 |
|
April 1-30, 2008 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
9,364,611 |
|
May 1-31, 2008 |
|
|
750,957 |
|
|
|
35.88 |
|
|
|
750,000 |
|
|
|
8,614,611 |
|
June 1-30, 2008 |
|
|
71,003 |
|
|
|
34.59 |
|
|
|
71,003 |
|
|
|
8,543,608 |
|
July 1-31, 2008 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
8,543,608 |
|
August 1-31, 2008 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
8,543,608 |
|
September 1-30, 2008 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
8,543,608 |
|
October 1-31, 2008 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
8,543,608 |
|
November 1-30, 2008 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
8,543,608 |
|
December 1-31, 2008 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
8,543,608 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
|
3,821,960 |
|
|
|
36.28 |
|
|
|
3,821,003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 32
We did not sell any shares that were not registered under the Securities Act during 2008.
The board of directors has authorized share repurchases since 1996. In 2008, we repurchased
a total of 3.8 million shares. In January 2008, we acquired 71,003 shares to settle the
accelerated share repurchase program authorized in October 2007, when the board of directors
expanded an existing repurchase authorization to approximately 13 million shares. Purchases
are expected to be made generally through open market transactions. The board gives
management discretion to purchase shares at reasonable prices in light of circumstances at
the time of purchase, pursuant to SEC regulations.
The prior repurchase program for 10 million shares was announced in 2005, replacing a
program that had been in effect since 1999. No repurchase program has expired during the
period covered by the above table. All of the publicly announced plan repurchases in the
table above were made under the expansion announced in October 2007 of our 2005 program.
Neither the 2005 nor 1999 program had an expiration date, but no further repurchases will
occur under the 1999 program.
Cumulative Total Return
As depicted in the graph below, the fiveyear total return on a $100 investment made
December 31, 2003, assuming the reinvestment of all dividends, was a negative 9.0 percent
for Cincinnati Financial Corporations common stock compared with a negative 2.1 percent for
the Standard & Poors Composite 1500 Property & Casualty Insurance Index and a negative 10.5
percent for the Standard & Poors 500 Index.
The Standard & Poors Composite 1500 Property & Casualty Insurance Index includes 23
companies: Allstate Corporation, Berkley (W R) Corporation, Chubb Corporation, Cincinnati
Financial Corporation, Fidelity National Financial Inc., First American Corporation, Hanover
Insurance Group Inc., Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation, MBIA Inc., Mercury General
Corporation, Navigators Group Inc., Old Republic International Corporation, Proassurance
Corporation, Progressive Corporation, RLI Corporation, Safety Insurance Group Inc.,
Selective Insurance Group Inc., Stewart Information Services, Tower Group Inc., Travelers
Companies Inc., United Fire & Casualty Company, XL Capital Ltd. and Zenith National
Insurance Corporation.
The Standard & Poors 500 Index includes a representative sample of 500 leading companies in
a cross section of industries of the U.S. economy. Although this index focuses on the large
capitalization segment of the market, it is widely viewed as a proxy for the total market.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 33
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions except per share data) |
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
Consolidated Income Statement Data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
3,136 |
|
|
$ |
3,250 |
|
|
$ |
3,278 |
|
|
$ |
3,164 |
|
Investment income, net of expenses |
|
|
537 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
526 |
|
Realized investment gains and losses* |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
Total revenues |
|
|
3,824 |
|
|
|
4,259 |
|
|
|
4,550 |
|
|
|
3,767 |
|
Net income |
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
855 |
|
|
|
930 |
|
|
|
602 |
|
|
Net income per common share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
2.63 |
|
|
$ |
5.01 |
|
|
$ |
5.36 |
|
|
$ |
3.44 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
2.62 |
|
|
|
4.97 |
|
|
|
5.30 |
|
|
|
3.40 |
|
Cash dividends per common share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declared |
|
|
1.56 |
|
|
|
1.42 |
|
|
|
1.34 |
|
|
|
1.205 |
|
Paid |
|
|
1.525 |
|
|
|
1.40 |
|
|
|
1.31 |
|
|
|
1.162 |
|
|
Shares Outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average, diluted |
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invested assets |
|
$ |
8,890 |
|
|
$ |
12,261 |
|
|
$ |
13,759 |
|
|
$ |
12,702 |
|
Deferred policy acquisition costs |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
429 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
13,369 |
|
|
|
16,637 |
|
|
|
17,222 |
|
|
|
16,003 |
|
Loss and loss expense reserves |
|
|
4,086 |
|
|
|
3,967 |
|
|
|
3,896 |
|
|
|
3,661 |
|
Life policy reserves |
|
|
1,551 |
|
|
|
1,478 |
|
|
|
1,409 |
|
|
|
1,343 |
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
4,182 |
|
|
|
5,929 |
|
|
|
6,808 |
|
|
|
6,086 |
|
Book value per share |
|
|
25.75 |
|
|
|
35.70 |
|
|
|
39.38 |
|
|
|
34.88 |
|
|
Consolidated Property Casualty Operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
3,010 |
|
|
$ |
3,125 |
|
|
$ |
3,164 |
|
|
$ |
3,058 |
|
Unearned premiums |
|
|
1,542 |
|
|
|
1,562 |
|
|
|
1,576 |
|
|
|
1,557 |
|
Loss and loss expense reserves |
|
|
4,040 |
|
|
|
3,925 |
|
|
|
3,860 |
|
|
|
3,629 |
|
Investment income, net of expenses |
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
338 |
|
Loss ratio |
|
|
57.7 |
% |
|
|
46.6 |
% |
|
|
51.9 |
% |
|
|
49.2 |
% |
Loss expense ratio |
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
Underwriting expense ratio |
|
|
32.3 |
|
|
|
31.7 |
|
|
|
30.8 |
|
|
|
30.0 |
|
Combined ratio |
|
|
100.6 |
% |
|
|
90.3 |
% |
|
|
94.3 |
% |
|
|
89.2 |
% |
|
Per share data adjusted to reflect all stock splits and dividends prior to December 31,
2008.
|
|
|
* |
|
Realized investment gains and losses are integral to our financial results over the
long term, but our substantial discretion in the timing of investment sales may cause
this value to fluctuate substantially. Also, applicable accounting standards require us
to recognize gains and losses from certain changes in fair values of securities and
embedded derivatives without actual realization of those gains and losses. We discuss
realized investment gains for the past three years in Item 7, Investments Results of
Operations, Page 66. |
One-time Charges or Adjustments:
2008 We changed the form of retirement benefit we offer certain associates to a 401(k)
plan with company match from a qualified defined benefit pension plan. We incurred a pretax
expense of $27 million to recognize a settlement loss associated with the partial
termination of the qualified pension plan. The expense reduced net income by $17 million, or
11 cents per share, and raised the combined ratio by 0.8 percentage points.
2003 As the result of a settlement negotiated with a vendor, pretax results included the
recovery of $23 million of the $39 million one-time, pretax charge incurred in 2000.
2000 We recorded a one-time charge of $39 million, pretax, to write down
previously capitalized costs related to the development of software to process property
casualty policies. We earned $5 million in interest in the first quarter from a
$303 million single-premium bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policy booked at the end of
1999 that was segregated as a separate account effective April 1, 2000. Investment income
and realized investment gains and losses from separate accounts generally accrue directly to
the contract holder and, therefore, are not included in the companys consolidated
financials.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
2003 |
|
2002 |
|
2001 |
|
2000 |
|
1999 |
|
1998 |
|
$ |
3,020 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,748 |
|
|
$ |
2,478 |
|
|
$ |
2,152 |
|
|
$ |
1,907 |
|
|
$ |
1,732 |
|
|
$ |
1,613 |
|
|
492 |
|
|
|
|
|
465 |
|
|
|
445 |
|
|
|
421 |
|
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
387 |
|
|
|
368 |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
3,614 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,181 |
|
|
|
2,843 |
|
|
|
2,561 |
|
|
|
2,331 |
|
|
|
2,128 |
|
|
|
2,054 |
|
|
584 |
|
|
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3.30 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.11 |
|
|
$ |
1.33 |
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
|
$ |
1.40 |
|
|
$ |
1.31 |
|
|
3.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
2.10 |
|
|
|
1.32 |
|
|
|
1.07 |
|
|
|
0.67 |
|
|
|
1.37 |
|
|
|
1.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.04 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.90 |
|
|
|
0.81 |
|
|
|
0.76 |
|
|
|
0.69 |
|
|
|
0.62 |
|
|
|
0.55 |
|
|
1.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.89 |
|
|
|
0.80 |
|
|
|
0.74 |
|
|
|
0.67 |
|
|
|
0.60 |
|
|
|
0.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,677 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,485 |
|
|
$ |
11,226 |
|
|
$ |
11,534 |
|
|
$ |
11,276 |
|
|
$ |
10,156 |
|
|
$ |
10,296 |
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
286 |
|
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
16,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
15,509 |
|
|
|
14,122 |
|
|
|
13,964 |
|
|
|
13,274 |
|
|
|
11,795 |
|
|
|
11,484 |
|
|
3,549 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,415 |
|
|
|
3,176 |
|
|
|
2,887 |
|
|
|
2,473 |
|
|
|
2,154 |
|
|
|
2,055 |
|
|
1,194 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,025 |
|
|
|
917 |
|
|
|
724 |
|
|
|
641 |
|
|
|
885 |
|
|
|
536 |
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
426 |
|
|
|
449 |
|
|
|
456 |
|
|
|
472 |
|
|
6,249 |
|
|
|
|
|
6,204 |
|
|
|
5,598 |
|
|
|
5,998 |
|
|
|
5,995 |
|
|
|
5,421 |
|
|
|
5,621 |
|
|
35.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
35.10 |
|
|
|
31.43 |
|
|
|
33.62 |
|
|
|
33.80 |
|
|
|
30.35 |
|
|
|
30.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,919 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,653 |
|
|
$ |
2,391 |
|
|
$ |
2,073 |
|
|
$ |
1,828 |
|
|
$ |
1,658 |
|
|
$ |
1,543 |
|
|
1,537 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,444 |
|
|
|
1,317 |
|
|
|
1,060 |
|
|
|
920 |
|
|
|
835 |
|
|
|
458 |
|
|
3,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,386 |
|
|
|
3,150 |
|
|
|
2,894 |
|
|
|
2,416 |
|
|
|
2,093 |
|
|
|
1,979 |
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
49.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
56.1 |
% |
|
|
61.5 |
% |
|
|
66.6 |
% |
|
|
71.1 |
% |
|
|
61.6 |
% |
|
|
65.4 |
% |
|
10.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
29.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
27.0 |
|
|
|
26.8 |
|
|
|
28.2 |
|
|
|
30.4 |
|
|
|
28.6 |
|
|
|
29.6 |
|
|
89.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
94.7 |
% |
|
|
99.7 |
% |
|
|
104.9 |
% |
|
|
112.8 |
% |
|
|
100.2 |
% |
|
|
104.3 |
% |
|
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 35
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 36
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
Introduction
The purpose of Managements Discussion and Analysis is to provide an understanding of
Cincinnati Financial Corporations consolidated results of operations and financial
condition. Our Managements Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with Item
6, Selected Financial Data, Pages 34 and 35, and Item 8, Consolidated Financial Statements
and related Notes, beginning on Page 91. We present per share data on a diluted basis unless
otherwise noted, adjusting those amounts for all stock splits and stock dividends.
We begin with an executive summary of our results of operations and outlook, as well as
details on critical accounting policies and estimates. Periodically, we refer to estimated
industry data so that we can give information on our performance within the context of the
overall insurance industry. Unless otherwise noted, the industry data is prepared by A.M.
Best, a leading insurance industry statistical, analytical and financial strength rating
organization. Information from A.M. Best is presented on a statutory basis. When we provide
our results on a comparable statutory basis, we label it as such; all other company data is
presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
of America (GAAP).
Executive Summary
Through The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Cincinnati Financial Corporation is one of the 25
largest property casualty insurers in the nation, based on written premium volume for
approximately 2,000 U.S. stock and mutual insurer groups. We market our insurance products
through a select group of independent insurance agencies in 35 states as discussed in Item
1, Our Business and Our Strategy, Page 1.
Although 2008 was a difficult year for our economy, our industry and our company, our
long-term perspective lets us address the immediate challenges while focusing on the major
decisions that best position the company for success through all market cycles. We believe
that this forward-looking view has consistently benefited our policyholders, agents,
shareholders and associates.
To measure our progress, we have defined a measure of value creation that we believe
captures the contribution of our insurance operations, the success of our investment
strategy and the importance we place on paying cash dividends to shareholders. Between 2010
and 2014, we expect the total of 1) our rate of growth in book value per share plus 2) the
ratio of dividends declared per share to beginning book value per
share to average 12 percent to 15
percent. With the current economic and market uncertainty, we believe this ratio is an
appropriate way to measure our long-term progress in creating value.
When looking at our longer-term objectives, we see three performance drivers:
|
|
Premium growth We believe over any five-year period our agency relationships and
initiatives can lead to a property casualty written premium growth rate that exceeds
the industry average. The compound annual growth rate of our net written premiums was 1.3 percent over the
past five years, equal to the estimated growth rate for a broad group of standard
market property casualty insurance companies. |
|
|
Combined ratio We believe our underwriting philosophy and initiatives can
generate a GAAP combined ratio over any five-year period that is consistently below 100
percent. Our GAAP combined ratio has averaged 92.8 percent over the past five years.
Our combined ratio was below 100 percent in each year during the period, except 2008
when we experienced a record level of catastrophe losses as discussed in Consolidated
Property Casualty Insurance Results of Operations, Page 49. Our statutory combined
ratio averaged 92.6 percent over the same period compared with an estimated 98.5
percent for the same industry group. |
|
|
Investment contribution We believe our investment philosophy and initiatives can
drive investment income growth and lead to a total return on our equity investment
portfolio over a five-year period that exceeds the five-year return of the Standard &
Poors 500 Index. |
|
o |
|
Investment income growth has averaged 2.9 percent over the past five years.
It grew in each year except 2008 when we experienced a dramatic reduction in
dividend payouts by financial services companies held in our equity portfolio, a
risk we addressed aggressively during 2008. |
|
o |
|
Over the five years ended December 31, 2008, our compound annual equity
portfolio return was a negative 9.0 percent compared with a compound annual total
return of a negative 2.1 percent for the Index. Our equity portfolio underperformed
the market for the five-year period primarily because of the decline in the market
value of our previously large holdings in the financial services sector. In 2008,
our compound annual equity portfolio return was a negative 31.5 percent, compared
with a negative 36.9 percent for the Index. |
The board of directors is committed to rewarding shareholders directly through cash
dividends and through share repurchase authorization. The board also has periodically
declared stock dividends and splits. Through
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 37
2008, the company has increased the indicated annual cash dividend rate for 48 consecutive
years, a record we believe is matched by only 11 other publicly traded companies. While
seeing merit in continuing that record, in February 2009, our board indicated its first
priority was assuring continued financial strength for the company and that its intention
was to consider the potential for a 49th year of increase over the course of
2009. We discuss our financial position in more detail in Liquidity and Capital Resources,
Page 70.
Strategic Initiatives Highlights
Management has worked with the board of directors to identify the strategies that can lead
to long-term success. Our strategies are intended to position us to compete successfully in
the markets we have targeted while minimizing risk. We believe successful implementation of
the initiatives that support our strategies will help us better serve our agent customers,
reduce volatility in our financial results and weather difficult economic, market or pricing
cycles.
|
|
Preserve capital Implementation of these initiatives is intended to preserve our
capital and liquidity so that we can successfully grow our insurance business. A strong
capital position provides the capacity to support premium growth and provides the
liquidity to sustain our investment in the people and infrastructure needed to
implement our other strategic initiatives. |
|
|
Improve insurance profitability Implementation of these operational initiatives is
intended to support improved cash flow and profitable growth for the agencies that
represent us and for our company. These initiatives primarily seek to strengthen our
relationships with agents, allowing them to serve clients faster and manage expenses
better. Others may streamline our internal processes so we can devote more resources to
agent service. |
|
|
Drive premium growth Implementation of these operational initiatives is intended
to expand our geographic footprint and diversify our premium sources to obtain
profitable growth without significant infrastructure expense. Diversified growth also
may reduce our catastrophe exposure risk. |
We discuss each of these strategies, along with the metrics we use to assess their progress,
in Item 1, Strategic Initiatives, Page 7,
Factors Influencing Our Future Performance
In January and February of 2009, storms affecting our policyholders largely in the Midwest
currently are estimated to have resulted in about $30 million of reported claims, which
will be included in first-quarter pretax catastrophe losses. This estimate does not take
into account development of these catastrophes, any further catastrophe activity that may
occur in the remainder of the first quarter of 2009 or potential development from events in
prior periods.
In 2008, the rate of growth in book value plus the rate of dividend contribution was below
our target, as discussed in the review of our financial highlights below. In 2009, we
believe our value creation ratio may also be below our long-term target for several reasons.
|
|
The weak economy is expected to continue to affect policyholders by deflating their
business and personal insurable assets. Until the economy begins to recover, we also do
not expect to see significant appreciation of our investments. |
|
|
Lingering effects of soft insurance market pricing are expected to affect growth
rates and earned premium levels into 2010, continuing to weaken loss ratios and hamper
near-term profitability. Economic factors, including inflation, may increase our claims
and settlement expenses related to medical care, litigation and construction. |
|
|
Property casualty written premium growth may lag as our growth initiatives need more
time to reach their full contribution. |
|
|
We will incur the cost of continued investment in our business, including
technology, new states and process initiatives to create long-term value. In addition,
we will not see the full advantage of many of our investments in technology until 2010
and beyond. |
|
|
Diversification of the investment portfolio over the past year included sales of
selected positions to lock in gains, reduce concentrations and increase liquidity.
Proceeds of sales are being reinvested in both fixed income and in equity securities
with yields that we believe are likely to be more secure. This may slow the return to
growth in investment income although we believe year-over-year comparisons may turn
positive in the second half of the year. We expect to continue to make changes to the
portfolio, as appropriate. |
Our view of the value we can create over the next five years relies on two assumptions about
the external environment. First, were anticipating some firming of commercial insurance
pricing during 2009. Second, we believe that the economy and financial markets can resume a
growth track by the end of 2010. If those assumptions prove to be inaccurate, we may not be
able to achieve our performance targets even if we accomplish our strategic objectives.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 38
Other factors that could influence our ability to achieve our targets include:
|
|
We expect the insurance marketplace to remain competitive, which is likely to cause
carriers to pursue strategies that they believe could lead to economies of scale,
market share gains or the potential for an improved competitive posture. Direct writers
will continue to be a factor in the personal insurance market. |
|
|
We expect the independent insurance agency system to remain strong and viable, with
continued agency consolidation, especially as agency margins come under more pressure
due to soft pricing and the difficult economic environment. The soft commercial market
that has extended into 2009 creates additional risk for agencies. We expect the soft
market to continue, particularly in non-catastrophe event prone states and lines of
business, absent a significant event or events. |
|
|
|
|
We expect initiatives that make it easier for agents to do business with us will
continue to be a significant factor in agency relationships, with technology being a
major driver. Policyholders will increasingly demand online services and access from
agents or carriers.
|
We discuss in our Item 1A, Risk Factors, Page 25, many potential risks to our business and
our ability to achieve our qualitative and quantitative objectives. These are real risks,
but their probability of occurring may not be high. We also believe that our risk management
programs generally can mitigate their potential effects, in the event they do occur.
We have formal risk management programs overseen by a senior officer and supported by a team
of representatives from business areas. The team reports to our chairman, our president and
chief executive officer and our board of directors, as appropriate, on detailed and summary
risk assessments, risk metrics and risk plans. Our use of operational audits, strategic
plans and departmental business plans, as well as our culture of open communications and our
fundamental respect for our code of conduct, continue to help us manage risks on an ongoing
basis.
Below we review highlights of our financial results for the past three years. Detailed
discussion of these topics appears in Results of Operations, Page 48, and Liquidity and
Capital Resources, Page 70.
Corporate Financial Highlights
The value creation ratio discussed in the Executive Summary, Page 37, was a negative 23.5
percent in 2008, a negative 5.7 percent in 2007 and a positive 16.7 percent in 2006. In both
2008 and 2007, a decline in unrealized gains on our investment portfolio was the most
significant factor in the decline in book value as discussed below. In 2008, net income also
was significantly below the level of the prior two years.
Cash dividends declared per share rose 9.9 percent in 2008, 6.0 percent in 2007 and 11.2
percent in 2006.
Balance Sheet Data and Performance Measures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions except share data) |
|
At December 31, |
|
At December 31, |
|
At December 31, |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
Balance sheet data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invested assets |
|
$ |
8,890 |
|
|
$ |
12,261 |
|
|
$ |
13,759 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
13,369 |
|
|
|
16,637 |
|
|
|
17,222 |
|
Short-term debt |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
4,182 |
|
|
|
5,929 |
|
|
|
6,808 |
|
Book value per share |
|
|
25.75 |
|
|
|
35.70 |
|
|
|
39.38 |
|
Debt-to-capital ratio |
|
|
16.7 |
% |
|
|
12.7 |
% |
|
|
11.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
Performance measures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value creation ratio |
|
|
(23.5) |
% |
|
|
(5.7) |
% |
|
|
16.7 |
% |
Invested
assets declined because of lower fair values for portfolio investments, largely
due to economic factors. The downturn in the economy had a particularly adverse effect on
our financial sector equity holdings, which made up a significant portion of the portfolio
prior to mid-2008. By year-end 2008, the portfolio was substantially more diversified and
generally better positioned to withstand short-term fluctuations. We discuss our investment
strategy in Item 1, Investments Segment, Page 17, and results for the segment in Investments
Results of Operations, Page 66.
Our ratio of debt to total capital (debt plus shareholders equity) rose over the three
years due to the effect on shareholders equity of the declining value of our invested
assets. Long-term debt was unchanged over the period.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 39
Income Statement and Per Share Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions except share data) |
|
Twelve months ended December 31, |
|
2008-2007 |
|
2007-2006 |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
Change % |
|
Change % |
|
Income statement data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
3,136 |
|
|
$ |
3,250 |
|
|
$ |
3,278 |
|
|
|
(3.5 |
) |
|
|
(0.9 |
) |
Investment income, net of expenses |
|
|
537 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
(11.6 |
) |
|
|
6.6 |
|
Realized investment gains and losses
(pretax) |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
|
|
(64.0 |
) |
|
|
(44.1 |
) |
Total revenues |
|
|
3,824 |
|
|
|
4,259 |
|
|
|
4,550 |
|
|
|
(10.2 |
) |
|
|
(6.4 |
) |
Net income |
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
855 |
|
|
|
930 |
|
|
|
(49.9 |
) |
|
|
(8.0 |
) |
Per share data (diluted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
2.62 |
|
|
$ |
4.97 |
|
|
$ |
5.30 |
|
|
|
(47.3 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
Cash dividends declared |
|
|
1.56 |
|
|
|
1.42 |
|
|
|
1.34 |
|
|
|
9.9 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares
outstanding |
|
|
163,362,409 |
|
|
|
172,167,452 |
|
|
|
175,451,341 |
|
|
|
(5.1 |
) |
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
Net income declined in 2008 from the higher levels of the prior two years because of a
three-year decline in realized investment gains, a first-ever decline in investment income
and a lower aggregate contribution from our insurance segments. The pension plan settlement
reduced 2008 net income by $17 million, or 11 cents per share. The transition from a defined
benefit pension plan reduces company risk while providing flexible, company-sponsored 401(k)
benefit to associates.
Weighted average shares outstanding may fluctuate from period to period because we
repurchase shares under board authorizations and we issue shares when associates exercise
stock options. Weighted average shares outstanding on a diluted basis declined 9 million in
2008, 3 million in 2007 and 2 million in 2006.
As discussed in Investments Results of Operation, Page 66, security sales led to realized
investment gains in all three years, although 2008 gains were tempered by $510 million in
other-than-temporary impairment charges. Realized investment gains and losses are integral
to our financial results over the long term. We have substantial discretion in the timing of
investment sales and, therefore, the gains or losses that are recognized in any period. That
discretion generally is independent of the insurance underwriting process. Also, applicable
accounting standards require us to recognize gains and losses from certain changes in fair
values of securities and for securities with embedded derivatives without actual realization
of those gains and losses.
Lower income from dividends led to an 11.6 percent decline in net investment income in 2008,
the first decline in this measure in company history. The primary reason for the decline was
dividend reductions by common and preferred holdings, including reductions during the year
on positions subsequently sold or reduced.
Contribution from Insurance Segments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
2008-2007 |
|
2007-2006 |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
Change % |
|
Change % |
|
Consolidated property casualty
highlights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
3,010 |
|
|
$ |
3,117 |
|
|
$ |
3,178 |
|
|
|
(3.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
Earned premiums |
|
|
3,010 |
|
|
|
3,125 |
|
|
|
3,164 |
|
|
|
(3.7 |
) |
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
Underwriting profit (loss) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
(105.6 |
) |
|
|
68.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GAAP combined ratio |
|
|
100.6 |
% |
|
|
90.3 |
% |
|
|
94.3 |
% |
|
|
10.3 |
|
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
Statutory combined ratio |
|
|
100.4 |
|
|
|
90.3 |
|
|
|
93.9 |
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
Written premium to statutory surplus |
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
The trend in overall written premium growth reflected the competitive and market factors
discussed in Item 1, Commercial Lines and Personal Lines Property Casualty Insurance
Segment, Page 11 and Page 14.
In 2008, our property casualty insurance operations reported an underwriting loss after
achieving record profitability in 2007. Underwriting profitability can be measured by the
combined ratio. (The combined ratio is the percentage of each earned premium dollar spent on
claims plus all expenses the lower the ratio, the better the performance.) In 2008 and
2007, higher savings from favorable development on prior period reserves helped offset other
loss and loss expenses. Catastrophe losses fluctuated dramatically over the three-year
period, making an unusually high contribution of 6.8 percentage points to the combined ratio
in 2008 after an unusually low 0.8 points in 2007. The pension plan settlement increased the
2008 combined ratio by 0.8 percentage points.
Our new surplus lines operation contributed $14 million to net written premiums and $5
million to earned premiums, but had an immaterial effect on net income. The business
achieved its first-year strategic plan objectives.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 40
Our life insurance segment continued to provide a consistent source of profit. We discuss results for the segment in Life Insurance Results of
Operations, Page 64. Income and gains from the life insurance investment portfolio are
included in Investment segment results.
Critical Accounting Estimates
Cincinnati Financial Corporations financial statements are prepared using GAAP. These
principles require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts
reported in the Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying Notes. Actual results
could differ materially from those estimates.
The significant accounting policies used in the preparation of the financial statements are
discussed in Item 8, Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 98. In
conjunction with that discussion, material implications of uncertainties associated with the
methods, assumptions and estimates underlying the companys critical accounting policies are
discussed below. The audit committee of the board of directors reviews the annual financial
statements with management and the independent registered public accounting firm. These
discussions cover the quality of earnings, review of reserves and accruals, reconsideration
of the suitability of accounting principles, review of highly judgmental areas including
critical accounting policies, audit adjustments and such other inquiries as may be
appropriate.
Property Casualty Insurance Loss And Loss Expense Reserves
Overview
We establish loss and loss expense reserves for our property casualty insurance business as
balance sheet liabilities. These reserves account for unpaid loss and loss expenses as of a
financial statement date. Unpaid loss and loss expenses are the estimated amounts necessary
to pay for and settle all outstanding insured claims, including incurred but not reported
(IBNR) claims, as of that date.
For some lines of business that we write, a considerable and uncertain amount of time can
elapse between the occurrence, reporting and payment of insured claims. The amount we will
actually have to pay for such claims also can be highly uncertain. This uncertainty,
together with the size of our reserves, makes the loss and loss expense reserves our most
significant estimate. Gross loss and loss expense reserves were $4.040 billion at year-end
2008 compared with $3.925 billion at year-end 2007.
How Reserves Are Established
Our field claims representatives establish case reserves when claims are reported to the
company to provide for our unpaid loss and loss expense obligation associated with these
claims. Experienced headquarters claims supervisors review individual case reserves greater
than $35,000 that were established by field claims representatives. Headquarters claims
managers also review case reserves greater than $100,000.
Our claims representatives base their case reserve estimates primarily upon case-by-case
evaluations that consider:
|
|
circumstances surrounding each claim |
|
|
policy provisions pertaining to each claim |
|
|
potential for subrogation or salvage recoverable |
|
|
general insurance reserving practices |
Case reserves of all sizes are subject to review on a 90-day cycle, or more frequently if
new information about a loss becomes available. As part of the review process, we monitor
industry trends, cost trends, relevant court cases, legislative activity and other current
events in an effort to ascertain new or additional loss exposures.
We also establish incurred but not reported (IBNR) reserves to provide for all unpaid loss
and loss expenses not accounted for by case reserves:
|
|
For weather events designated as catastrophes, we calculate IBNR reserves directly
as a result of an estimated IBNR claim count and an estimated average claim amount for
each event. Our claims department management coordinates the assessment of these events
and prepares the related IBNR reserve estimates. Such an assessment involves a
comprehensive analysis of the nature of the storm, of policyholder exposures within the
affected geographic area and of available claims intelligence. Depending on the nature
of the event, available claims intelligence could include surveys of field claims
associates within the affected geographic area, feedback from a catastrophe claims team
sent into the area, as well as data on claims reported as of the financial statement
date. We generally use the catastrophe definition provided by Property Claims Service,
a division of Insurance Services Office. PCS
defines a catastrophe as an event that causes countrywide damage of $25 million or more
in insured property losses and affects a significant number of policyholders and
insureds. |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 41
|
|
For asbestos and environmental claims, we calculate IBNR reserves by deriving an
actuarially based estimate of total unpaid loss and loss expenses. We then reduce the
estimate by total case reserves. We discuss the reserve analysis that applies to
asbestos and environmental reserves in Asbestos and Environmental Reserves, Page 76. |
|
|
For all other claims and events, we calculate IBNR reserves quarterly by first
deriving an actuarially based estimate of the ultimate cost of total loss and loss
expenses incurred. We then reduce the estimate by total loss and loss expense payments
and total case reserves carried. We discuss below the development of actuarial-based
estimates of the ultimate cost of total loss and loss expenses incurred. |
Our actuarial staff applies significant judgment in selecting models and estimating model
parameters when preparing reserve analyses. In addition, unpaid loss and loss expenses are
inherently uncertain as to timing and amount. Uncertainties relating to model
appropriateness, parameter estimates and actual loss and loss expense amounts are referred
to as model, parameter and process uncertainty, respectively. Our management and actuarial
staff control for these uncertainties in the reserving process in a variety of ways.
Our actuarial staff bases its IBNR reserve estimates for these losses primarily on the
indications of methods and models that analyze accident year data. Accident year is the year
in which an insured claim, loss, or loss expense occurred. The specific methods and models
that our actuaries have used for the past several years are:
|
|
paid and reported loss development methods |
|
|
paid and reported loss Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods |
|
|
individual and multiple probabilistic trend family models |
Our actuarial staff uses diagnostics provided by stochastic reserving software to evaluate
the appropriateness of the models and methods listed above. The softwares diagnostics have
indicated that the appropriateness of these models and methods for estimating IBNR reserves
for our lines of business tends to depend on a lines tail. Tail refers to the time interval
between a typical claims occurrence and its settlement. For our long-tail lines such as
workers compensation and commercial casualty, models from the probabilistic trend family
tend to provide superior fits and to validate well compared with models underlying the loss
development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods. The loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson
methods, particularly the reported loss variations, tend to produce the more appropriate
IBNR reserve estimates for our short-tail lines such as homeowner and commercial property.
For our mid-tail lines such as personal and commercial auto liability, all models and
methods provide useful insights.
Our actuarial staff also devotes significant time and effort to the estimation of model and
method parameters. The loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods require the
estimation of numerous loss development factors. The Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods also
involve the estimation of numerous ultimate loss ratios by accident year. Models from the
probabilistic trend family require the estimation of development trends, calendar year
inflation trends and exposure levels. Consequently, our actuarial staff monitors a number of
trends and measures to gain key business insights necessary for exercising appropriate
judgment when estimating the parameters mentioned.
These trends and measures include:
|
|
company and industry pricing |
|
|
company and industry exposure |
|
|
company and industry loss frequency and severity |
|
|
past large loss events such as hurricanes |
|
|
company and industry premium |
|
|
company in-force policy count |
|
|
average premium per policy |
These trends and measures also support the estimation of ultimate accident year loss ratios
needed for applying the Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods and for assessing the reasonability of
all IBNR reserve estimates computed. Our actuarial staff reviews these trends and measures
quarterly and updates them as necessary.
Quarterly, our actuarial staff summarizes its reserve analysis by preparing an actuarial
best estimate and a range of reasonable IBNR reserves intended to reflect the uncertainty of
the estimate. An inter-departmental committee that includes our actuarial management team
reviews the results of each quarterly reserve analysis. The committee establishes
managements best estimate of IBNR reserves, which is the amount that is included in each
periods financial statements. In addition to the information provided by actuarial staff,
the committee also considers factors such as the following:
|
|
large loss activity and trends in large losses |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 42
|
|
general economic trends such as inflation |
|
|
trends in litigiousness and legal expenses |
|
|
product and underwriting changes |
|
|
changes in claims practices |
The determination of managements best estimate, like the preparation of the reserve
analysis that supports it, involves considerable judgment. Changes in reserving data or the
trends and factors that influence reserving data may signal fundamental shifts or may simply
reflect single-period anomalies. Even if a change reflects a fundamental shift, the full
extent of the change may not become evident until years later. Moreover, since our methods
and models do not explicitly relate many of the factors we consider directly to reserve
levels, we typically cannot quantify the precise impact of such factors on the adequacy of
reserves prospectively or retrospectively.
Due to the uncertainties described above, our ultimate loss experience could prove better or
worse than our carried reserves reflect. To the extent that reserves are inadequate and
increased, the amount of the increase is a charge in the period that the deficiency is
recognized, raising our loss and loss expense ratio and reducing earnings. To the extent
that reserves are redundant and released, the amount of the release is a credit in the
period that the redundancy is recognized, reducing our loss and loss expense ratio and
increasing earnings.
Key Assumptions Loss Reserving
Our actuarial staff makes a number of key assumptions when using their methods and models to
derive IBNR reserve estimates. Appropriate reliance on these key assumptions essentially
entails determinations of the likelihood that statistically significant patterns in
historical data may extend into the future. The four most significant of the key assumptions
used by our actuarial staff and approved by management are:
|
|
Emergence of loss and allocated loss expenses on an accident year basis. Historical
paid loss, reported loss and paid allocated loss expense data for the business lines we
analyze contain patterns that reflect how unpaid losses, unreported losses and unpaid
allocated loss expenses as of a financial statement date will emerge in the future on
an accident year basis. Unless our actuarial staff or management identifies reasons or
factors that invalidate the extension of historical patterns into the future, these
patterns can be used to make projections necessary for estimating IBNR reserves. Our
actuaries significantly rely on this assumption in the application of all methods and
models mentioned above. |
|
|
Calendar year inflation. For long-tail and mid-tail business lines, calendar year
inflation trends for future paid losses and paid allocated loss expenses will not vary
significantly from a stable, long-term average. Our actuaries base reserve estimates
derived from probabilistic trend family models on this assumption. |
|
|
Exposure levels. Historical earned premiums, when adjusted to reflect common levels
of product pricing and loss cost inflation, can serve as a proxy for historical
exposures. Our actuaries require this assumption to estimate expected loss ratios and
expected allocated loss expense ratios used by the Bornhuetter-Ferguson reserving
methods. They also use this assumption to establish exposure levels for recent accident
years, characterized by green or immature data, when working with probabilistic trend
family models. |
|
|
Claims having atypical emergence patterns. Characteristics of certain subsets of
claims, such as high frequency, high severity, or mass tort claims, have the potential
to distort patterns contained in historical paid loss, reported loss and paid allocated
loss expense data. When testing indicates this to be the case for a particular subset
of claims, our actuaries segregate these claims from the data and analyze them
separately. Subsets of claims that could fall into this category include hurricane
claims, individual large claims and asbestos and environmental claims. |
These key assumptions have not changed since 2005, when our actuarial staff began using
probabilistic trend family models to estimate IBNR reserves.
Paid losses, reported losses and paid allocated loss expenses are subject to random as well
as systematic influences. As a result, actual paid losses, reported losses and paid
allocated loss expenses are virtually certain to differ from projections. Such differences
are consistent with what specific models for our business lines predict and with the related
patterns in the historical data used to develop these models. As a result, management does
not closely monitor statistically insignificant differences between actual and projected
data.
Reserve Estimate Variability
Management believes that the standard error of a reserve estimate, a measure of the
estimates variability, provides the most appropriate measure of the estimates sensitivity.
The reserves we establish depend on the models we use and the related parameters we estimate
in the course of conducting reserve analyses.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 43
However, the actual amount required to settle
all outstanding insured claims, including IBNR claims, as of a financial statement date
depends on stochastic, or random, elements as well as the systematic elements captured by
our models and estimated model parameters. For the lines of business we write, process
uncertainty the inherent variability of loss and loss expense payments typically
contributes more to the imprecision of a reserve estimate than parameter uncertainty.
Consequently, a sensitivity measure that ignores process uncertainty would provide an
incomplete picture of the reserve estimates sensitivity. Since a reserve estimates
standard error accounts for both process and parameter uncertainty, it reflects the
estimates full sensitivity to a range of reasonably likely scenarios.
The table below provides standard errors and reserve ranges for lines of business that
account for 90.6 percent of our 2008 loss and loss expense reserves as well as the potential
effects on our net income, assuming a 35 percent federal tax rate. Standard errors and
reserve ranges for assorted groupings of these lines of business cannot be computed by
simply adding the standard errors and reserve ranges of the component lines of business,
since such an approach would ignore the effects of product diversification. See Range of
Reasonable Reserves, Page 74, for a total reserve range. While the table reflects our
assessment of the most likely range within which each lines actual unpaid loss and loss
expenses may fall, one or more lines actual unpaid loss and loss expenses could nonetheless
fall outside of the indicated ranges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Net loss and loss expense range of reserves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carried |
|
|
Low |
|
|
High |
|
|
Standard |
|
|
Net income |
|
|
|
reserves |
|
|
point |
|
|
point |
|
|
error |
|
|
effect |
|
|
At December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
3,498 |
|
|
$ |
3,256 |
|
|
$ |
3,592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial casualty |
|
$ |
1,559 |
|
|
$ |
1,280 |
|
|
$ |
1,595 |
|
|
$ |
158 |
|
|
$ |
103 |
|
Commercial property |
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Commercial auto |
|
|
385 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
401 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Workers compensation |
|
|
842 |
|
|
|
854 |
|
|
|
943 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
Personal auto |
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Homeowners |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
At December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
3,397 |
|
|
$ |
3,132 |
|
|
$ |
3,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial casualty |
|
$ |
1,565 |
|
|
$ |
1,352 |
|
|
$ |
1,634 |
|
|
$ |
141 |
|
|
$ |
92 |
|
Commercial property |
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Commercial auto |
|
|
383 |
|
|
|
362 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Workers compensation |
|
|
777 |
|
|
|
726 |
|
|
|
786 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
Personal auto |
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Homeowners |
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
If actual unpaid loss and loss expenses fall within these ranges, our cash flow and fixed
maturity investments should provide sufficient liquidity to make the subsequent payments. To
date, our cash flow has covered our loss and loss expense payments, and we have never had to
sell investments to make these payments. If this were to become necessary, however, our
fixed maturity investments should provide us with ample liquidity. At year-end 2008,
consolidated fixed maturity investments exceeded total insurance reserves (including life
policy reserves) by more than $190 million.
Life Insurance Policy Reserves
We establish the reserves for traditional life insurance policies based on expected
expenses, mortality, morbidity, withdrawal rates and investment yields, including a
provision for uncertainty. Once these
assumptions are established, they generally are maintained throughout the lives of the
contracts. We use both our own experience and industry experience adjusted for historical
trends in arriving at our assumptions for expected mortality, morbidity and withdrawal
rates. We use our own experience and historical trends for setting our assumptions for
expected expenses. We base our assumptions for expected investment income on our own
experience adjusted for current economic conditions.
We establish reserves for our universal life, deferred annuity and investment contracts
equal to the cumulative account balances, which include premium deposits plus credited
interest less charges and withdrawals. Some of our universal life insurance policies contain
no-lapse guarantee provisions. For these policies, we establish a reserve in addition to the
account balance based on expected no-lapse guarantee benefits and expected policy
assessments.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 44
Asset Impairment
Our fixed-maturity and equity investment portfolios are our largest assets. The companys
asset impairment committee continually monitors the holdings in these portfolios and all
other assets for signs of other-than-temporary or permanent impairment. The committee
monitors significant decreases in the fair value of invested assets, changes in legal
factors or in the business climate, an accumulation of costs in excess of the amount
originally expected to acquire or construct an asset, uncollectability of all receivable
assets, or other factors such as bankruptcy, deterioration of creditworthiness, failure to
pay interest or dividends or signs indicating that the carrying amount may not be
recoverable.
The application of our impairment policy resulted in other-than-temporary impairment charges
that reduced our income before income taxes by $510 million in 2008, $16 million in 2007 and
$1 million in 2006. Impairment charges are recorded for other-than-temporary declines in
value, if, in the asset impairment committees judgment, there is little expectation that
the value may be recouped within a designated recovery period. Other than-temporary
impairment losses represent non-cash charges to income.
Our portfolio managers monitor their assigned portfolios. If a security is trading below
book value, the portfolio managers undertake additional reviews. Such declines often occur
in conjunction with events taking place in the overall economy and market, combined with
events specific to the industry or operations of the issuing organization. Management
reviews quantitative measurements such as a declining trend in fair value, the extent of the
fair value decline and the length of time the value of the security has been depressed, as
well as qualitative measures such as pending events, credit ratings and issuer liquidity. We
are even more proactive when these declines in valuation are greater than might be
anticipated when viewed in the context of overall economic and market conditions. We provide
information about valuation of our invested assets in Item 8, Note 2 of the Consolidated
Financial Statements, Page 104.
All securities valued below 100 percent of book value are reported to the asset impairment
committee for evaluation. A security valued between 95 percent and 100 percent of book value
is not monitored separately by the committee. These assets generally are at this value
because of interest rate-driven factors.
When evaluating for other-than-temporary impairments, the committee considers the companys
intent and ability to retain a security for a period adequate to recover its cost. Because
of the companys financial strength, management may not impair certain securities even when
they are trading below cost.
For fixed-maturity investments, we can make that determination based on our ability to hold
until their scheduled redemption securities that are meeting their debt obligations and have
the potential to recover value. For equity investments, we can make that determination based
on a thorough assessment of the potential for recovery over a longer-term horizon. In
addition to evaluating the securitys current valuation, the impairment committee reviews
objective evidence that indicates the potential for a recovery in value. Information is
evaluated regarding the security, such as financial performance, near-term prospects and the
financial condition of the region and industry in which the issuer operates.
Securities that have previously been impaired are evaluated based on their adjusted book
value and written down further, if deemed appropriate. We provide detailed information about
securities trading in a continuous loss position at year-end 2008 in Item 7A, Application of
Asset Impairment Policy, Page 87. An other-than-temporary decline in the fair value of a
security is recognized in net income as realized investment losses.
Other-than-temporary impairment charges are distinct from the ordinary fluctuations seen in
the value of a security when considered in the context of overall economic and market
conditions. Securities considered to have a temporary decline would be expected to recover
their fair value, which may be at maturity. Under the same accounting
treatment as fair value gains, temporary declines (changes in the fair value of these securities) are
reflected in shareholders equity on our balance sheet in accumulated other comprehensive
income, net of tax, and have no impact on reported net income.
Fair Value Measurements
Valuation of Financial Instruments
Valuation of financial instruments, primarily securities held in our investment portfolio,
is a critical component of our interim financial statement preparation. We account for our
investment portfolio at fair value and apply fair value measurements as defined by SFAS No.
157, Fair Value Measurements, to financial instruments. Fair value is applicable to SFAS No.
115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, SFAS No. 133,
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, SFAS No. 155, Accounting for
Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments, and SFAS No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of
Financial Instruments.
We adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 157 on January 1, 2008. SFAS No. 157 defines fair
value as the exit price or the amount that would be 1) received to sell an asset or 2) paid
to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between marketplace participants at the
measurement date. When determining an exit price, we
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 45
must, whenever possible, rely upon observable market data. Prior to the adoption of SFAS No.
157, we considered various factors such as liquidity and volatility but primarily obtained
pricing from various external services, including broker quotes.
The SFAS No. 157 exit price notion requires our valuation also to consider what a
marketplace participant would pay to buy an asset or receive to assume a liability.
Therefore, while we can consider pricing data from outside services, we ultimately determine
whether the data or inputs used by these outside services are observable or unobservable.
In accordance with SFAS No. 157, we have categorized our financial instruments, based on the
priority of the inputs to the valuation technique, into a three-level fair value hierarchy.
The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets for
identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs
(Level 3). If the inputs used to measure the financial instruments fall within different
levels of the hierarchy, the categorization is based on the lowest level that is significant
to the fair value measurement of the instrument.
Financial assets and liabilities recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets are categorized
based on the inputs to the valuation techniques as described in Item 8, Note 3 of the
Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 106.
Level 1 and Level 2 Valuation Techniques
Over 98 percent of our $8.8 billion invested assets measured at fair value are classified as
Level 1 or Level 2. Financial assets that fall within Level 1 and Level 2 are priced
according to observable data from identical or similar securities that have traded in the
marketplace. Also within Level 2 are securities that are valued by outside services or
brokers where we have evaluated the pricing methodology and determined that the inputs are
observable.
Included in the Level 2 hierarchy are a small portfolio of collateralized mortgage
obligations that represented less than 1 percent of the fair value of our investment
portfolio at December 31, 2008. We obtained the CMOs as part of the termination of our
securities lending program during 2008. The CMOs were an investment made by one of the
short-duration funds, which subsequently dissolved and distributed the assets to its
investors. When we terminated the securities lending program, we chose to retain the CMOs
rather than sell them at what we felt were distressed prices in an illiquid market.
All $30 million of the CMOs in our portfolio are collateralized by Alt-A mortgages that
originated between 2004 and 2006. We owned investment grade CMOs with a fair value and
book value of $27 million and $39 million, respectively, at December 31, 2008. Of the $27
million investment-grade CMOs, $21 million were rated AAA by Standard & Poors. We also
owned non-investment grade CMOs that had a fair value and book value of $3 million and $4
million, respectively. We do not intend to make additional investments in this asset
category.
Level 3 Valuation Techniques
Financial assets that fall within the Level 3 hierarchy are valued based upon unobservable
market inputs, normally because they are not actively traded on a public market. Level 3
taxable fixed maturities securities include certain private placements, small issues,
general corporate bonds and medium-term notes. Level 3 tax-exempt fixed maturities
securities include various thinly traded municipal bonds. Level 3 common equities include
private equity securities. Level 3 preferred equities include private and thinly traded
preferred securities.
Pricing for each Level 3 security is based upon inputs that are market driven, including
third-party reviews provided to the issuer or broker quotes. However, we placed in the Level
3 hierarchy securities for which we were unable to obtain the pricing methodology or we
could not consider the price provided as binding. Management ultimately determined the
pricing for each Level 3 security that we considered to be the best exit price valuation. As
of December 31, 2008, total Level 3 assets were 1.6 percent of our investment portfolio
measured at fair value, which was relatively stable throughout 2008. Broker
quotes are obtained for thinly traded securities that subsequently fall within the Level 3
hierarchy. We obtained two non-binding quotes from brokers and used the more conservative
price for fair value. At December 31, 2008, total fair value of assets priced by broker
quotes for the SFAS No. 157 disclosure was $83 million and consisted mostly of taxable fixed
maturities.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 46
Employee Benefit Pension Plan
As discussed in Item 8, Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 113, we
modified our qualified defined benefit pension during 2008, terminating participation in the
plan for certain participants in a transition to a sponsored 401(k) with company matching of
associate contributions. Contributions and pension costs are developed from annual actuarial
valuations. These valuations involve key assumptions including discount rates and expected
return on plan assets, which are updated each year. Any adjustments to these assumptions are
based on considerations of current market conditions. Therefore, changes in the related
pension costs or credits may occur in the future due to changes in assumptions.
Key assumptions used in developing the 2008 net pension obligation were a 6.00 percent
discount rate and rates of compensation increases ranging from 4 percent to 6 percent. Key
assumptions used in developing the 2008 net pension expense were a 6.25 percent discount
rate, an 8 percent expected return on plan assets and rates of compensation increases
ranging from 4 percent to 6 percent. See Note 13 for additional information on assumptions.
In 2008, the net pension expense was $47 million, including one-time charges of $27 million
for settlement and $3 million for curtailment related to the modifications to the qualified
pension plan. In 2009, we expect a net pension expense of $11 million.
Holding all other assumptions constant, a 0.5 percentage point decline in the discount rate
would lower our 2009 net income before income taxes by $1 million. Likewise, a 0.5
percentage point decline in the expected return on plan assets would lower our 2009 income
before income taxes by $1 million.
The fair value of the plan assets was $52 million less than the accumulated benefit
obligation at year end 2008 and $4 million greater than the accumulated benefit obligation
at year-end 2007. The fair value of the plan assets was $88 million less than the projected
plan benefit obligation at year-end 2008 and $60 million less at year-end 2007. Market
conditions and interest rates significantly affect future assets and liabilities of the
pension plan. In 2009, we expect to contribute approximately $33 million to our qualified
plan.
Deferred Acquisition Costs
We establish a deferred asset for costs that vary with, and are primarily related to,
acquiring property casualty and life insurance business. These costs are principally agent
commissions, premium taxes and certain underwriting costs, which are deferred and amortized
into income as premiums are earned. Deferred acquisition costs track with the change in
premiums. Underlying assumptions are updated periodically to reflect actual experience.
Changes in the amounts or timing of estimated future profits could result in adjustments to
the accumulated amortization of these costs.
For property casualty policies, deferred acquisition costs are amortized over the terms of
the policies. For life policies, acquisition costs are amortized into income either over the
premium-paying period of the policies or the life of the policy, depending on the policy
type.
Contingent Commission Accrual
Another significant estimate relates to our accrual for property casualty contingent
(profit-sharing) commissions. We base the contingent commission accrual estimates on
property casualty underwriting results and on supplemental information. Contingent
commissions are paid to agencies using a formula that takes into account agency
profitability, premium volume and other factors, such as prompt monthly payment of amounts
due to the company. Due to the complexity of the calculation and the variety of factors that
can affect contingent commissions for an individual agency, the amount accrued can differ
from the actual contingent commissions paid. The contingent commission accrual of $75
million in 2008 contributed 2.5 percentage points to the property casualty combined ratio.
If contingent commissions paid were to vary from that amount by 5 percent, it would affect
2009 net income by $2 million (after tax), or 1 cent per share, and the combined ratio by
approximately 0.1 percentage points.
Separate Accounts
We issue life contracts, referred to as bank-owned life insurance policies (BOLI). Based on
the specific contract provisions, the assets and liabilities for some BOLIs are legally
segregated and recorded as assets and liabilities of the separate accounts. Other BOLIs are
included in the general account. For separate account BOLIs, minimum investment returns and
account values are guaranteed by the company and also include death benefits to
beneficiaries of the contract holders.
Separate account assets are carried at fair value. Separate account liabilities primarily
represent the contract holders claims to the related assets and are carried at an amount
equal to the contract holders account value. Generally, investment income and realized
investment gains and losses of the separate accounts accrue directly to the contract holders
and, therefore, are not included in our Consolidated Statements of Income. However, each
separate account contract includes a negotiated realized gain and loss sharing arrangement
with the company. This share is transferred from the separate account to our general account
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 47
and is recognized as revenue or expense. In the event that the asset value of contract
holders accounts is projected below the value guaranteed by the company, a liability is
established through a charge to our earnings.
For our most significant separate account, written in 1999, realized gains and losses are
retained in the separate account and are deferred and amortized to the contract holder over
a five-year period, subject to certain limitations. Upon termination or maturity of this
separate account contract, any unamortized deferred gains and/or losses will revert to the
general account. In the event this separate account holder were to exchange the contract for
the policy of another carrier in 2009, the account holder would pay a surrender charge equal
to 1 percent of the contracts account value. The surrender charge falls to zero in 2010 and
beyond.
At year-end 2008, net unamortized realized losses amounted to $12 million. In accordance
with this separate account agreement, the investment assets must meet certain criteria
established by the regulatory authorities to whose jurisdiction the group contract holder is
subject. Therefore, sales of investments may be mandated to maintain compliance with these
regulations, possibly requiring gains or losses to be recorded, and charged to the general
account. Potentially, losses could be material; however, unrealized losses are approximately
$36 million before tax in the separate account portfolio, which had a book value of $521
million at year-end 2008.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
Information about recent accounting pronouncements is provided in Item 8, Note 1 of the
Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 98. We have determined that recent accounting
pronouncements have not had nor are they expected to have any material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
Results Of Operations
Consolidated financial results primarily reflect the results of our four reporting segments.
These segments are defined based on financial information we use to evaluate performance and
to determine the allocation of assets.
|
|
Commercial lines property casualty insurance |
|
|
Personal lines property casualty insurance |
We report as Other the non-investment operations of the parent company and its
subsidiaries CFC Investment Company and CinFin Capital Management Company (excluding client
investment activities), as well as other income of our standard market property casualty
insurance operations. CinFin Capital Management will terminate all operations effective
February 28, 2009. Beginning in 2008, we also include in Other the results of The Cincinnati
Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company and CSU Producer Resources.
We measure profit or loss for our commercial lines and personal lines property casualty and
life insurance segments based upon underwriting results (profit or loss), which represent
net earned premium less loss and loss expenses and underwriting expenses on a pretax basis.
We also frequently evaluate results for our consolidated property casualty insurance
operations, which is the total of our commercial, personal and surplus insurance results.
Underwriting results and segment pretax operating income are not substitutes for net income
determined in accordance with GAAP.
For our consolidated property casualty insurance operations as well as the insurance
segments, statutory accounting data and ratios are key performance indicators that we use to
assess business trends and to make comparisons to industry results, since GAAP-based
industry data generally is not as readily available.
Investments held by the parent company and the investment portfolios for the insurance
subsidiaries are managed and reported as the investments segment, separate from the
underwriting businesses. Net investment income and net realized investment gains and losses
for our investment portfolios are discussed in the Investments Results of Operations.
The calculations of segment data are described in more detail in Item 8, Note 18 of the
Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 119. The following sections review results of
operations for each of the four segments. Commercial Lines Insurance Results of Operations
begins on Page 51, Personal Lines Insurance Results of Operations begins on Page 59, Life
Insurance Results of Operations begins on Page 64, and Investments Results of Operations
begins on Page 66. We begin with an overview of our consolidated property casualty
operations, which is the total of our commercial lines, personal lines and surplus lines
results.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 48
Consolidated Property Casualty Insurance Results Of Operations
In addition to the factors discussed in Commercial Lines and Personal Lines Insurance
Results of Operations, Page 51 and Page 59, growth and profitability for our consolidated
property casualty insurance operations were affected by a number of common factors.
Changes in written and earned premiums over the past three years reflected growing price
competition partially offset by consistently high retention rates of renewal business. New
business written directly by agencies rose in 2008 after declining in 2007. The resurgence
in new business was largely due to the contribution of agencies appointed the past five
years, the contribution of our surplus lines business and more competitive personal lines
pricing. Other written premium is largely ceded reinsurance premiums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Agency renewal written premiums |
|
$ |
2,828 |
|
|
$ |
2,960 |
|
|
$ |
2,931 |
|
|
|
(4.5 |
) |
|
|
1.0 |
|
Agency new business written
premiums |
|
|
368 |
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
13.1 |
|
|
|
(8.9 |
) |
Other written premiums |
|
|
(186 |
) |
|
|
(168 |
) |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
(10.3 |
) |
|
|
(54.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net written premiums |
|
|
3,010 |
|
|
|
3,117 |
|
|
|
3,178 |
|
|
|
(3.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
Unearned premium change |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
nm |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
3,010 |
|
|
$ |
3,125 |
|
|
$ |
3,164 |
|
|
|
(3.7 |
) |
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our combined ratio before catastrophe losses and savings from favorable prior period reserve
development rose substantially in 2008 due to lower pricing prompted by soft market
conditions and also due to normal loss cost inflation, a higher level of larger commercial
lines losses and the pension plan settlement cost. The pension plan settlement increased the
2008 combined ratio by 0.8 percentage points. Our 2007 combined ratio before catastrophe
losses and savings from favorable prior period reserve development rose largely due to the
effects of lower pricing, normal loss cost inflation and a higher level of larger commercial
lines losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
3,010 |
|
|
$ |
3,125 |
|
|
$ |
3,164 |
|
|
|
(3.7 |
) |
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
2,174 |
|
|
|
2,030 |
|
|
|
1,947 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
341.2 |
|
|
|
(73.4 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(321 |
) |
|
|
(224 |
) |
|
|
(113 |
) |
|
|
(43.5 |
) |
|
|
(94.3 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
90.4 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
|
2,056 |
|
|
|
1,832 |
|
|
|
2,008 |
|
|
|
12.2 |
|
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
971 |
|
|
|
989 |
|
|
|
975 |
|
|
|
(1.8 |
) |
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriting profit |
|
$ |
(17 |
) |
|
$ |
304 |
|
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
68.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
72.2 |
% |
|
|
64.9 |
% |
|
|
61.6 |
% |
|
|
7.3 |
|
|
|
3.3 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
6.8 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
|
|
(4.1 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(10.7 |
) |
|
|
(7.1 |
) |
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
|
|
(3.5 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
|
68.3 |
|
|
|
58.6 |
|
|
|
63.5 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
|
(4.9 |
) |
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
32.3 |
|
|
|
31.7 |
|
|
|
30.8 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio |
|
|
100.6 |
% |
|
|
90.3 |
% |
|
|
94.3 |
% |
|
|
10.3 |
|
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio |
|
|
100.6 |
% |
|
|
90.3 |
% |
|
|
94.3 |
% |
|
|
10.3 |
|
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
Contribution from catastrophe losses and prior
years
reserve development |
|
|
(3.9 |
) |
|
|
(6.3 |
) |
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
(8.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio before catastrophe losses and
prior
years reserve development |
|
|
104.5 |
% |
|
|
96.6 |
% |
|
|
92.4 |
% |
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catastrophe losses contributed 6.8 percentage points to the combined ratio in 2008, the
highest catastrophe loss ratio for our company since 1991. In 2007, catastrophe losses added
just 0.8 percentage points, the lowest ratio over the same period. The following table shows
catastrophe losses incurred, net of reinsurance, for the past three years, as well as the
effect of loss development on prior period catastrophe reserves.
Hurricane Ike, which reached the Gulf Coast on September 12, 2008, moved into the Midwest on
September 14, causing unusually high winds in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. At December 31,
2008, our gross losses from Hurricane Ike were estimated at $129 million, making it the
single largest catastrophe in the companys history. Net of reinsurance, the loss was
estimated at $58 million. Virtually all of the losses reported by our policyholders occurred
in the Midwest.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 49
Catastrophe Losses Incurred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions, net of reinsurance) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
Personal |
|
|
|
|
Dates |
|
Cause of loss |
|
Region |
|
lines |
|
|
lines |
|
|
Total |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan. 4-9 |
|
Wind, hail, flood, freezing |
|
South, Midwest |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
Jan. 29-30 |
|
Wind, hail |
|
Midwest |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Feb. 5-6 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Mar. 14 |
|
Tornadoes, wind, hail, flood |
|
South |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Mar. 15-16 |
|
Wind, hail |
|
South |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Apr. 9-11 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
South |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
May 1 |
|
Wind, hail |
|
South |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
May 10-12 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
South, Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
May 22-26 |
|
Wind, hail |
|
Midwest |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
May 29- Jun 1 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Jun. 2-4 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Jun. 5-8 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Jun. 11-12 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Jun. 25 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Jul. 19 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Jul. 26 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Sep. 12-14 |
|
Hurricane Ike |
|
South, Midwest |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
Other 2008
catastrophes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Development on 2007 and prior catastrophes |
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar year
incurred total |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
103 |
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar. 1-2 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
South |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Jun. 7-9 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Sep. 20-21 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Other 2007
catastrophes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
Development on 2006 and prior catastrophes |
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar year
incurred total |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar. 11-13 |
|
Wind, hail |
|
Midwest, Mid-Atlantic |
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
Apr. 2-3 |
|
Wind, hail |
|
Midwest |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Apr. 6-8 |
|
Wind, hail |
|
South |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
Apr. 13-15 |
|
Wind, hail |
|
South |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Jun. 18-22 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
South |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Jul. 19-21 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
South |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Aug. 23-25 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Oct. 2-4 |
|
Wind, hail, flood |
|
Midwest |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
Nov. 30-Dec. 3 |
|
Wind, hail, ice, snow |
|
Midwest, South |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Other 2006
catastrophes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Development on 2005 and prior catastrophes |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar year
incurred total |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
89 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The three-year rise in total underwriting expenses largely was due to the rise in
non-commission underwriting expenses, reflecting our continued investment in the people and
systems necessary for our future growth. The change in our pension plan added 0.8 percentage
points to the overall combined ratio, including a 0.5 percentage point addition to the
non-commission expense ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Commission expenses |
|
$ |
552 |
|
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
596 |
|
|
|
(7.8 |
) |
|
|
0.4 |
|
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
404 |
|
|
|
375 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
Policyholder dividends |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(3.5 |
) |
|
|
(5.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total underwriting expenses |
|
$ |
971 |
|
|
$ |
989 |
|
|
$ |
975 |
|
|
|
(1.8 |
) |
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned
premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commission expenses |
|
|
18.3 |
% |
|
|
19.2 |
% |
|
|
18.8 |
% |
|
|
(0.9 |
) |
|
|
0.4 |
|
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
13.5 |
|
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
Policyholder dividends |
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total underwriting expense ratio |
|
|
32.3 |
% |
|
|
31.7 |
% |
|
|
30.8 |
% |
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The discussions of our property casualty insurance segments provide additional detail about these factors.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 50
Commercial Lines Insurance Results Of Operations
Overview Three-year Highlights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
2,316 |
|
|
$ |
2,411 |
|
|
$ |
2,402 |
|
|
|
(3.9 |
) |
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
1,671 |
|
|
|
1,572 |
|
|
|
1,476 |
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
299.7 |
|
|
|
(69.2 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(270 |
) |
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
(98 |
) |
|
|
(39.3 |
) |
|
|
(94.9 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
69.3 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
|
1,504 |
|
|
|
1,394 |
|
|
|
1,466 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
(4.8 |
) |
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
742 |
|
|
|
756 |
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
(1.8 |
) |
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriting profit |
|
$ |
70 |
|
|
$ |
261 |
|
|
$ |
208 |
|
|
|
683.3 |
|
|
|
21.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
72.1 |
% |
|
|
65.2 |
% |
|
|
61.4 |
% |
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(11.7 |
) |
|
|
(8.0 |
) |
|
|
(4.1 |
) |
|
|
(3.7 |
) |
|
|
(3.9 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
|
64.9 |
|
|
|
57.9 |
|
|
|
61.0 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
(3.1 |
) |
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
32.1 |
|
|
|
31.3 |
|
|
|
30.3 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio |
|
|
97.0 |
% |
|
|
89.2 |
% |
|
|
91.3 |
% |
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio |
|
|
97.0 |
% |
|
|
89.2 |
% |
|
|
91.3 |
% |
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
Contribution from catastrophe losses and prior years
reserve development |
|
|
(7.2 |
) |
|
|
(7.3 |
) |
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
(6.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio before catastrophe losses and prior
years reserve development |
|
|
104.2 |
% |
|
|
96.5 |
% |
|
|
91.7 |
% |
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance highlights for the commercial lines segment include:
|
|
Premiums Pricing in our industry continues to be very competitive, and the poor
economy is driving exposures lower. While our net written premium growth rate lagged
that of the overall commercial lines industry, we feel our current pace for new and
renewal business is consistent with our agents practice of selecting and retaining
accounts with manageable risk characteristics that support the lower prevailing prices.
We believe our pace reflects the advantages we achieve through our field focus, which
provides us with quality intelligence on local market conditions. Commercial lines
industry net written premiums were estimated to decline 3.8 percent in 2008 and 0.3
percent in 2007, after rising 3.5 percent in 2006. Our earned premiums declined in 2008
after rising slightly in 2007. |
|
|
|
Combined ratio Our commercial lines combined ratio rose to 97.0 percent in 2008
from very strong performances in 2007 and 2006. The 2008 ratio largely reflected higher
current accident year losses before catastrophe losses. We continue to focus on sound
underwriting fundamentals and obtaining adequate premiums per policy. We discuss
factors affecting the combined ratio and reserve development by line of business below.
Approximately $49 million, or 2.1 percentage points, of the rise in current accident
year loss and loss expenses was due to refinements made to the allocation of IBNR
reserves by accident year. |
|
|
|
Our commercial lines statutory combined ratio was 96.6 percent in 2008 compared with
89.2 percent in 2007 and 90.8 percent in 2006. By comparison, the estimated industry
commercial lines combined ratio was 106.5 percent in 2008, 95.1 percent in 2007 and 91.2
percent in 2006. Industry commercial lines estimates include the mortgage and financial
guaranty insurers, which saw a surge in claims following the historically high level of
mortgage defaults in 2008. |
Commercial Lines Insurance Premiums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Agency renewal written premiums |
|
$ |
2,156 |
|
|
$ |
2,271 |
|
|
$ |
2,209 |
|
|
|
(5.1 |
) |
|
|
2.8 |
|
Agency new business written premiums |
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
324 |
|
|
|
8.8 |
|
|
|
(11.5 |
) |
Other written premiums |
|
|
(157 |
) |
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
(8.3 |
) |
|
|
(57.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net written premiums |
|
|
2,311 |
|
|
|
2,413 |
|
|
|
2,442 |
|
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
Unearned premium change |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
nm | |
|
|
94.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
2,316 |
|
|
$ |
2,411 |
|
|
$ |
2,402 |
|
|
|
(3.9 |
) |
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As commercial lines markets have grown more competitive over the past several years, we have
focused on leveraging our local relationships as well as the efforts of our agents and the
teams that work with them. In this environment, we have been careful to maintain appropriate
pricing discipline for both new and renewal
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 51
business as we emphasize the importance of
assessing account quality to our agencies and underwriters. We continue to make case-by-case
decisions not to write or renew certain business. We continue to use rate credits to retain
renewals of quality business and earn new business. Our experience remains that the larger
the account, the higher the credits, with variations by geographic region and class of
business. Agency emphasis on larger accounts, convenience and technology considerations were
the primary reasons for a slight decline in the number of our smaller policies.
Over the past three years, we continued to focus on seeking and maintaining adequate premium
per exposure as well as pursuing non-pricing means of enhancing longer-term profitability.
Non-pricing means have included deliberate reviews of each risk, terms and conditions and
limits of insurance. We continue to adhere to our underwriting guidelines, to re-underwrite
books of business with selected agencies and to update policy terms and conditions. In
addition, we continue to leverage our strong local presence. Our field marketing
representatives meet with local agencies to reaffirm agreements on the extent of frontline
renewal underwriting agents will perform. Loss control, machinery and equipment and field
claims representatives continue to conduct on-site inspections. To assist underwriters,
field claims representatives prepare full reports on risks of concern.
Both renewal and new business reflected the effects of the economic slowdown in many
regions, as exposures declined and policyholders became increasingly focused on reducing
expenses. For commercial accounts, we typically calculate general liability premiums based
on sales or payroll volume while we calculate workers compensation premiums based on
payroll volume. A change in sales or payroll volume generally indicates a change in demand
for a businesss goods or services, as well as a change in its exposure to risk.
Policyholders who experience sales or payroll volume changes due to economic factors may be
purchasers of other types of insurance, such as commercial auto or commercial property, in
addition to general liability and workers compensation. Premium levels for these other
types of policies generally are not linked directly to sales or payroll volumes.
In 2008, we estimated that policyholders with a contractor-related ISO general liability
code accounted for approximately 38 percent of our general liability premiums, which are
included in the commercial casualty line of business, and that policyholders with a
contractor-related NCCI workers compensation code accounted for approximately 47 percent of
our workers compensation premiums. The contractor market has been one of the more adversely
affected by the economic slowdown.
The decline in 2008 agency renewal written premiums was largely driven by the pricing and
exposure declines while policy retention rates remained relatively steady. For renewal
business, our headquarters underwriters talk regularly with agents. Our field teams are
available to assist headquarters underwriters by conducting inspections and holding renewal
review meetings with agency staff. These activities can help verify that a commercial
account retains the characteristics that caused us to write the business initially. For
renewal business, the typical pricing decline has moved into the mid-single-digits, although
higher declines occur. In addition to pricing pressures, premiums confirmed by audits of
policyholder sales and payrolls declined for 2008.
For new business, our field associates are in our agents offices helping to judge the
quality of each account, emphasizing the Cincinnati value proposition, calling on sales
prospects with those agents, carefully evaluating risk exposure and working up their best
quotes. In 2008, new business premium growth largely was driven by agencies appointed in the
past five years with relatively stable contributions from the remaining agencies. At
year-end 2008, our field marketing representatives reported pricing down about 5 percent to
10 percent on average to write the same piece of quality new business we would have quoted
in 2007, the third consecutive year of significant declines in our new business pricing.
Pricing on new business remains competitive as many carriers appear to be managing the soft
market by working aggressively to protect their renewal portfolios.
In 2007 and 2008, other written premiums lowered net written premiums more than 2006. Higher
ceded reinsurance costs were the primary driver in both 2007 and 2008, including the reinsurance
reinstatement premium incurred in 2008.
Commercial Lines Insurance Loss and Loss Expenses
Loss and loss expenses include both net paid losses and reserve changes for unpaid losses as
well as the associated loss expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
1,777 |
|
|
$ |
1,493 |
|
|
$ |
1,397 |
|
|
|
76.7 |
% |
|
|
61.9 |
% |
|
|
58.2 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,599 |
|
|
|
1,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.3 |
|
|
|
60.6 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65.1 |
|
For our larger business lines, the trend in the current accident year loss and loss expense
ratio before catastrophe losses over the past three years reflected normal loss cost
inflation as well as competitive
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 52
market conditions and softer pricing that began in 2005 and
continued through 2008, as discussed above. In 2008, we saw a higher level of larger losses
from director and officer liability coverages, as discussed below. The increase in larger losses in
2007 was primarily seen in general liability, commercial auto and workers compensation.
Catastrophe losses were highly volatile over the three year period as discussed in
Consolidated Property Casualty Insurance Results of Operations, Page 49. Savings from prior
period reserve development continued to trend favorably in 2008 as discussed in Commercial
Lines Insurance Segment Reserves, Page 77.
Commercial Lines Insurance Losses by Size
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
New losses greater than $4,000,000 |
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
835.3 |
|
|
nm | |
New losses $2,000,000-$4,000,000 |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
(32.8 |
) |
|
|
0.3 |
|
New losses $1,000,000-$2,000,000 |
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(13.8 |
) |
|
|
34.2 |
|
New losses $750,000-$1,000,000 |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
21.8 |
|
|
|
18.8 |
|
New losses $500,000-$750,000 |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
20.9 |
|
New losses $250,000-$500,000 |
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
33.7 |
|
|
|
14.1 |
|
Case reserve development above $250,000 |
|
|
229 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
13.9 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total large losses incurred |
|
|
607 |
|
|
|
561 |
|
|
|
511 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
Other losses excluding catastrophe losses |
|
|
547 |
|
|
|
502 |
|
|
|
562 |
|
|
|
8.9 |
|
|
|
(10.6 |
) |
Catastrophe losses |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
560.2 |
|
|
|
(82.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total losses incurred |
|
$ |
1,257 |
|
|
$ |
1,079 |
|
|
$ |
1,162 |
|
|
|
16.4 |
|
|
|
(7.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New losses greater than $4,000,000 |
|
|
1.8 |
% |
|
|
0.2 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
New losses $2,000,000-$4,000,000 |
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
0.0 |
|
New losses $1,000,000-$2,000,000 |
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
|
|
0.9 |
|
New losses $750,000-$1,000,000 |
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
New losses $500,000-$750,000 |
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
New losses $250,000-$500,000 |
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
Case reserve development above $250,000 |
|
|
9.9 |
|
|
|
8.4 |
|
|
|
8.3 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total large loss ratio |
|
|
26.3 |
|
|
|
23.3 |
|
|
|
21.3 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
Other losses excluding catastrophe losses |
|
|
23.4 |
|
|
|
20.8 |
|
|
|
23.4 |
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
(2.6 |
) |
Catastrophe losses |
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
(3.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss ratio |
|
|
54.2 |
% |
|
|
44.8 |
% |
|
|
48.4 |
% |
|
|
9.4 |
|
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rise in the loss and loss expense ratio reflected a growing contribution from new losses
and case reserve increases greater than $250,000. In total, commercial lines new losses and
reserve increases greater than $250,000 rose to 26.3 percent of earned premiums from 23.3
percent in 2007 and 21.3 percent in 2006. Our analysis indicated no unexpected concentration
of these losses and reserve increases by geographic region, policy inception, agency or
field marketing territory. We believe the increase was due to a number of factors, including
a larger number of director and officer liability claims, changes in retention levels for
our per risk reinsurance programs, changes in case reserving practices for our workers
compensation business line, natural volatility and general inflationary trends in loss
costs, which we continue to monitor. In 2006 and 2007, our retention for our property and
casualty working treaties was $4 million. In 2008, we raised the casualty retention to $5
million.
Commercial Lines Insurance Underwriting Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Commission expenses |
|
|
413 |
|
|
|
454 |
|
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
(8.9 |
) |
|
|
2.0 |
|
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
314 |
|
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
268 |
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
Policyholder dividends |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(3.5 |
) |
|
|
(5.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total underwriting expenses |
|
$ |
742 |
|
|
$ |
756 |
|
|
$ |
728 |
|
|
|
(1.8 |
) |
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned
premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commission expenses |
|
|
17.8 |
% |
|
|
18.8 |
% |
|
|
18.5 |
% |
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
0.3 |
|
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
13.7 |
|
|
|
11.9 |
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
Policyholder dividends |
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total underwriting expense ratio |
|
|
32.1 |
% |
|
|
31.3 |
% |
|
|
30.3 |
% |
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial lines commission expense as a percent of earned premium declined in 2008 from the
relatively stable level of the prior two years. The change in the ratio reflected both the
decline in earned premiums and a lower level of contingent commissions in 2008. Commission
expenses include our profit-sharing, or contingent, commissions, which are calculated on the
profitability of an agencys aggregate property casualty book of Cincinnati business, taking
into account longer-term profit and premium volume, with a percentage for prompt payment of
premiums and other criteria, to reward the agencys effort. These profit-based commissions
generally fluctuate with our loss and loss expense ratio. Our 2008 contingent commission
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 53
accrual reflected our estimate of the profit-sharing commissions to be paid to our agencies
in early 2009, based largely on each agencys performance in 2008.
In both 2007 and 2008, non-commission expenses rose on flat or declining earned premiums,
which also led to unfavorable deferred acquisition expense comparisons. Further, in 2008,
the salary cost contribution rose by approximately 0.8 percentage points and the change in
our pension plan contributed 0.5 percentage points to the ratio. In 2007, our surplus lines
start-up activities contributed slightly to higher staffing and technology expenses. Surplus
lines expenses were included in Other in 2008. Refinements in the allocation of expenses
between our commercial lines and personal lines segments also contributed to minor variations in the non-commission underwriting expenses.
Commercial Lines Insurance Outlook
Industrywide commercial lines written premiums are expected to decline approximately 1.4
percent in 2009 with the industry combined ratio estimated at 105.1 percent. As discussed in
Item 1, Commercial Lines Insurance Marketplace, Page 13, over the past several years,
renewal and new business pricing has come under steadily increasing pressure, reinforcing
the need for more flexibility and careful risk selection. We expect commercial lines price
declines to slow in 2009.
We intend to continue marketing our products to a broad range of business classes, pricing
our products appropriately and taking a package approach. We intend to maintain our
underwriting selectivity and carefully manage our rate levels as well as our programs that
seek to accurately match exposures with appropriate premiums. We will continue to evaluate
each risk individually and to make decisions about rates, the use of three-year commercial
policies and other policy conditions on a case-by-case basis, even in lines and classes of
business that are under competitive pressure. Nonetheless, we expect
commercial lines profitability to remain under pressure in 2009.
In Item 1, Strategic Initiatives, Page 7, we discuss the initiatives we are implementing to
achieve our corporate performance objectives. We discuss our overall outlook for our
property casualty insurance operations in the Executive Summary, Page 37.
Commercial Lines of Business Analysis
Approximately 95 percent of our commercial lines premiums relate to accounts with coverages
from more than one of our business lines. As a result, we believe that the commercial lines
segment is best measured and evaluated on a segment basis. However, we provide line of
business data to summarize growth and profitability trends separately for each line. The
accident year loss data provides current estimates of incurred loss and loss expenses and
corresponding ratios over the most recent three accident years. Accident year data
classifies losses according to the year in which the corresponding loss events occur,
regardless of when the losses are actually reported, recorded or paid.
Commercial Casualty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Commercial casualty: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
764 |
|
|
$ |
830 |
|
|
$ |
838 |
|
|
|
(7.9 |
) |
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
Earned premiums |
|
|
763 |
|
|
|
827 |
|
|
|
831 |
|
|
|
(7.8 |
) |
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
576 |
|
|
|
572 |
|
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
nm |
|
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(257 |
) |
|
|
(149 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
(72.3 |
) |
|
|
(50.1 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
319 |
|
|
$ |
423 |
|
|
$ |
440 |
|
|
|
(24.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
75.4 |
% |
|
|
69.2 |
% |
|
|
65.0 |
% |
|
|
6.2 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(33.7 |
) |
|
|
(18.1 |
) |
|
|
(12.0 |
) |
|
|
(15.6 |
) |
|
|
(6.1 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
41.7 |
% |
|
|
51.1 |
% |
|
|
53.0 |
% |
|
|
(9.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
576 |
|
|
$ |
479 |
|
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
|
75.4 |
% |
|
|
57.9 |
% |
|
|
49.8 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
572 |
|
|
|
469 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69.2 |
|
|
|
56.4 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65.0 |
|
Commercial casualty is our largest business line. The decline in commercial casualty net
written premiums reflected the intensifying competition in the casualty market. In addition,
premiums for this business line can reflect economic trends, including changes in underlying
exposures.
The calendar year loss and loss expense ratio improved in 2008 and 2007, largely because of
higher savings from favorable development on prior period reserves. Factors contributing to
the higher savings included
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 54
refinements to our IBNR reserve allocation, quarter-to-quarter
reductions in actuarial reserve estimates, the introduction of an additional umbrella
reserving model, sooner-than-expected moderation in the inflation trend of allocated loss
expenses and unusual deviations from predictions of reserving methods and models.
These factors are discussed in Commercial Lines Insurance Segment Reserves, Page 77. The
level of new losses and case reserve increases greater than $250,000 was slightly lower than
in 2007.
The current accident year loss and loss expense ratio before catastrophe losses deteriorated
over the three-year period, primarily because of lower pricing per exposure and normal loss
cost inflation. Further, the commercial casualty business line includes some of our longest
tail exposures, making initial estimates of accident year loss and loss expenses incurred
more uncertain, as we discuss in Critical Accounting Estimates, Property Casualty Insurance
Loss and Loss Expense Reserves, Page 41.
Commercial Property
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Commercial property: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
481 |
|
|
$ |
499 |
|
|
$ |
505 |
|
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
Earned premiums |
|
|
487 |
|
|
|
497 |
|
|
|
491 |
|
|
|
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
1.2 |
|
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe
losses |
|
|
282 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
17.3 |
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
304.2 |
|
|
|
(67.4 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
29.1 |
|
|
|
(519.7 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
73.4 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
353 |
|
|
$ |
241 |
|
|
$ |
282 |
|
|
|
46.7 |
|
|
|
(14.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe
losses |
|
|
57.7 |
% |
|
|
48.3 |
% |
|
|
44.0 |
% |
|
|
9.4 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
16.6 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
(8.6 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(1.3 |
) |
|
|
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.8 |
) |
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
(3.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
72.6 |
% |
|
|
48.5 |
% |
|
|
57.5 |
% |
|
|
24.1 |
|
|
|
(9.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
363 |
|
|
$ |
260 |
|
|
$ |
266 |
|
|
|
74.3 |
% |
|
|
52.3 |
% |
|
|
54.2 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
274 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.3 |
|
|
|
55.7 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56.6 |
|
Commercial property is our second largest business line. The decline in commercial property
net written premiums over the three-year period reflected pricing declines exacerbated by
higher reinsurance premiums, including the premium reinstatement premium in 2008.
The calendar year loss and loss expense ratio deteriorated substantially in 2008 after
improving in 2007, primarily due to fluctuations in catastrophe losses. New losses and case
reserve increases greater than $250,000 added 3.4 percentage points to the 2008 ratio.
Development on prior period reserves was relatively stable over the period.
The current accident year loss and loss expense ratio before catastrophe losses deteriorated
over the three-year period. A portion of the increase was due to a higher loss expense
allocation because of the level of catastrophe and weather-related losses. In addition, the
refinement in the allocation of IBNR reserves by accident year artificially accentuated the
difference between the 2007 and 2008 ratios by approximately 2 percentage points.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 55
Commercial Auto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Commercial auto: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
402 |
|
|
$ |
429 |
|
|
$ |
450 |
|
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
Earned premiums |
|
|
411 |
|
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
(6.7 |
) |
|
|
(2.9 |
) |
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
|
|
3.0 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
240.5 |
|
|
|
(83.4 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
67.6 |
|
|
|
(18.5 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
297 |
|
|
$ |
278 |
|
|
$ |
278 |
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
73.7 |
% |
|
|
69.3 |
% |
|
|
65.2 |
% |
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
(0.9 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
(5.8 |
) |
|
|
(4.6 |
) |
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
72.3 |
% |
|
|
63.5 |
% |
|
|
61.5 |
% |
|
|
8.8 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
305 |
|
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
289 |
|
|
|
74.3 |
% |
|
|
67.7 |
% |
|
|
63.8 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
284 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69.3 |
|
|
|
62.7 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.1 |
|
The decline in commercial auto written premiums over the three-year period reflected the
downward pressure exerted by the market on the pricing of commercial accounts. Commercial auto
is one of the business lines that we renew and price annually, so market trends may be reflected
here more quickly than in other lines. Commercial auto also experiences pricing pressure because
it often represents the largest portion of insurance costs for many commercial policyholders.
The calendar year loss and loss expense ratios moved above the range we consider appropriate in
2008 due to ongoing pricing pressures and normal loss cost inflation. We believe volatility in
the number of commercial auto losses greater than $1 million reflected natural volatility and
general inflationary trends in loss costs. Savings from development on prior period reserves was
lower in 2008 than 2007 and 2006 as commercial auto paid and reported loss development trends
were relatively stable.
Pricing and normal loss cost inflation were the primary drivers of the deterioration in the
accident year loss and loss expense ratio before catastrophe losses over the past three years.
Workers Compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Workers compensation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
382 |
|
|
$ |
378 |
|
|
$ |
379 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
Earned premiums |
|
|
375 |
|
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
7.4 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
75.0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
339 |
|
|
$ |
316 |
|
|
$ |
313 |
|
|
|
7.5 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
91.1 |
% |
|
|
87.3 |
% |
|
|
82.8 |
% |
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
|
|
(2.7 |
) |
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
(5.3 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
90.4 |
% |
|
|
84.6 |
% |
|
|
85.4 |
% |
|
|
5.8 |
|
|
|
(0.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
342 |
|
|
$ |
305 |
|
|
$ |
284 |
|
|
|
91.1 |
% |
|
|
81.7 |
% |
|
|
77.6 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
284 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87.3 |
|
|
|
77.6 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82.8 |
|
Workers compensation written premiums have been relatively flat over the past three years.
Although we have seen rising policy counts, these gains have been offset by reductions in
payroll levels due to the troubled economy as well as rate decreases and the use of credits in a
majority of our territories. We have had initiatives in place to judiciously expand our workers
compensation business in selected states that
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 56
traditionally have been profitable markets for us and to enter states, such as Arizona and West
Virginia, where we previously were not actively writing the line. We cannot offer workers
compensation coverage in Ohio, our highest total property casualty premium volume state, because
it is provided solely by the state instead of private insurers.
Since we pay a lower commission rate on workers compensation business, this line has a higher
calendar year loss and loss expense breakeven point than our other commercial business lines.
Nonetheless, the ratio remained above our target levels over the three-year period. Management
is actively pursuing programs to improve financial performance for this line. For example, in
2009, we are putting in place a predictive modeling program to improve our pricing accuracy, and
we are accelerating our delivery of loss control services to help manage our workers
compensation profitability.
In addition, the workers compensation business line includes our longest tail exposures, making
initial estimates of accident year loss and loss expenses incurred more uncertain. Due to the
lengthy payout period of workers compensation claims, small shifts in medical cost inflation
and payout periods could have a significant effect on our potential future liability compared
with our current projections.
Specialty Packages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Specialty packages: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
145 |
|
|
$ |
146 |
|
|
$ |
144 |
|
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
|
|
1.5 |
|
Earned premiums |
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
(1.3 |
) |
|
|
3.1 |
|
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
9.2 |
|
|
|
12.8 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
287.4 |
|
|
|
(71.8 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
|
22.0 |
|
|
|
(7.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
60.8 |
% |
|
|
54.8 |
% |
|
|
50.2 |
% |
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
15.6 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
(10.5 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
(3.0 |
) |
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
(3.1 |
) |
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
73.5 |
% |
|
|
59.4 |
% |
|
|
66.3 |
% |
|
|
14.1 |
|
|
|
(6.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
110 |
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
|
76.4 |
% |
|
|
59.9 |
% |
|
|
64.7 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58.9 |
|
|
|
65.3 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.7 |
|
Specialty packages net written premiums were relatively flat over the three-year period. Our
commercial lines policy processing system for Businessowners Policies, which are included in
this business line, is helping us meet changing agency needs and address pricing, technology
and service innovations that other carriers have introduced for similar products in recent
years.
The calendar year loss and loss expense ratio reflected the volatility in catastrophe losses
over the three-year period. In addition, the current accident year loss and loss expense ratio
before catastrophe losses has risen over the period because of pricing reductions and normal
loss cost inflation.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 57
Surety and Executive Risk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Surety and executive risk: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
107 |
|
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
|
Earned premiums |
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
75.2 |
|
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
494.7 |
|
|
|
(79.7 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
|
87.0 |
|
|
|
(11.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
66.1 |
% |
|
|
40.6 |
% |
|
|
44.4 |
% |
|
|
25.5 |
|
|
|
(3.8 |
) |
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
|
|
|
(5.1 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
72.6 |
% |
|
|
41.8 |
% |
|
|
50.7 |
% |
|
|
30.8 |
|
|
|
(8.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
|
66.1 |
% |
|
|
54.3 |
% |
|
|
45.2 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40.6 |
|
|
|
47.3 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44.4 |
|
Surety and executive risk net written premiums rose over the three-year period as we enhanced
our marketing of these products.
Director and officer liability coverage accounted for 58.9 percent of surety and executive
risk premiums in 2008 compared with 62.3 percent in 2007 and 60.5 percent in 2006. We actively
manage the potentially high risk of writing director and officer liability by:
|
|
Marketing primarily to nonprofit organizations, which accounted for approximately 80
percent of the director and officer liability policies we wrote in 2008. |
|
|
Writing on a claims-made basis, which normally restricts coverage to losses reported
during the policy term. |
|
|
Providing limits no higher than $15 million with facultative or treaty reinsurance in
place in 2009 for losses greater than $6 million. |
|
|
Limiting the number of for-profit policies. At year-end 2008, our in-force director
and officer liability policies provided coverage to 30 non-financial publicly traded
companies, including two Fortune 1000 companies. We also provided this coverage to
approximately 500 banks, savings and loans and other financial institutions. The majority
of these financial institution policyholders are smaller community banks, and we believe
they have no unusual exposure to credit-market concerns, including subprime mortgages.
Based on new policy data or information from the most recent policy renewal, only 12 of
our bank and savings and loan policyholders have assets greater than $2 billion,
including one Fortune 500 company; only 23 have assets between $1 billion and $2 billion;
and 49 have assets between $500 million and $1 billion. |
The calendar year and current accident year loss and loss expense ratios rose substantially in
2008, driven by additional director and officer new losses and case reserve increases greater
than $250,000. During 2008, 38 of the new director and officer losses and case reserve
increases added approximately $43 million to loss and loss expenses compared with 20 adding
about $9 million in 2007 and 16 adding about $16 million in 2006. The higher level in 2008 was
largely due to six new losses and five case reserve increases greater than $1 million on
claims made in 2007. Eight of these 11 items were related to lending practices at financial
institutions. To address the potential risk of this portion of our surety and executive risk
business line moving forward, we are working with our agents to limit the number of new
director and officer policies for financial institutions. At renewal, we are carefully
re-underwriting each account based on credit rating and other metrics.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 58
Machinery and Equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Machinery and equipment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
Earned premiums |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
10.9 |
|
|
|
(11.2 |
) |
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
57.7 |
|
|
|
(32.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
36.1 |
% |
|
|
33.6 |
% |
|
|
38.8 |
% |
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
(8.3 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
42.5 |
% |
|
|
27.8 |
% |
|
|
42.0 |
% |
|
|
14.7 |
|
|
|
(14.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
37.0 |
% |
|
|
34.2 |
% |
|
|
41.1 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.6 |
|
|
|
35.9 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.2 |
|
Machinery and equipment net written premiums rose in 2008 after a relatively flat 2007.
Because of the relatively small size of this business line, the calendar year and accident
year loss and loss expense ratios can fluctuate substantially.
Personal Lines Insurance Results Of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
689 |
|
|
$ |
714 |
|
|
$ |
762 |
|
|
|
(3.4 |
) |
|
|
(6.3 |
) |
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
459 |
|
|
|
471 |
|
|
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
(3.0 |
) |
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
396.4 |
|
|
|
(77.5 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(67.6 |
) |
|
|
(90.2 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
(270.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
|
547 |
|
|
|
438 |
|
|
|
542 |
|
|
|
25.2 |
|
|
|
(19.3 |
) |
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
(3.9 |
) |
|
|
(5.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriting profit (loss) |
|
$ |
(82 |
) |
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
(27 |
) |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
72.2 |
% |
|
|
64.3 |
% |
|
|
62.1 |
% |
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
14.4 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(7.3 |
) |
|
|
(4.3 |
) |
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
|
|
(3.0 |
) |
|
|
(2.2 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
|
79.4 |
|
|
|
61.3 |
|
|
|
71.2 |
|
|
|
18.1 |
|
|
|
(9.9 |
) |
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
32.5 |
|
|
|
32.6 |
|
|
|
32.4 |
|
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio |
|
|
111.9 |
% |
|
|
93.9 |
% |
|
|
103.6 |
% |
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
|
(9.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio |
|
|
111.9 |
% |
|
|
93.9 |
% |
|
|
103.6 |
% |
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
|
(9.7 |
) |
Contribution from catastrophe losses and prior years
reserve development |
|
|
7.2 |
|
|
|
(3.0 |
) |
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
10.2 |
|
|
|
(12.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio before catastrophe losses and prior
years reserve development |
|
|
104.7 |
% |
|
|
96.9 |
% |
|
|
94.5 |
% |
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overview Three-year Highlights
Performance highlights for the personal lines segment include:
|
|
Premiums Over the past three years, competition in our personal lines markets rose
and we continued to adjust pricing in an effort to return to consistent profitability in
our personal lines segment. Our written premiums declined on lower premiums per policy
and higher reinsurance-related premiums as new business growth remained positive.
Industry average written premium growth was estimated at 1.0 percent in 2008 after being
flat in 2007 and rising 2.0 percent in 2006. |
|
|
Combined ratio The combined ratio rose substantially in 2008 after improving in
2007. The year-over-year differences were partially due to dramatic fluctuations in the
level of catastrophe losses. In 2008, |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 59
the current accident year loss and loss expense
ratio before catastrophe losses also rose substantially. Approximately $20 million, or
2.9 percentage points, of the rise in current accident year loss and loss expenses was
due to refinements made to the allocation of IBNR reserves by accident year.
Our personal lines statutory combined ratio was 111.6 percent in 2008, 94.1 percent in 2007
and 103.6 percent in 2006. By comparison, the estimated industry personal lines combined
ratio was 103.3 percent in 2008, 96.1 percent in 2007 and 92.3 percent in 2006. Our
concentration of business in areas hard-hit by catastrophe events contributed to recent
results that differed from the overall industry.
Personal Lines Insurance Premiums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Agency renewal written premiums |
|
$ |
672 |
|
|
$ |
690 |
|
|
$ |
721 |
|
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
Agency new business written premiums |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
16.9 |
|
Other written premiums |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
(22.5 |
) |
|
|
(36.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net written premiums |
|
|
685 |
|
|
|
704 |
|
|
|
736 |
|
|
|
(2.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
Unearned premium change |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
(53.2 |
) |
|
|
(59.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
689 |
|
|
$ |
714 |
|
|
$ |
762 |
|
|
|
(3.4 |
) |
|
|
(6.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal lines insurance is a strategic component of our overall relationship with many of our
agencies and an important component of our agencies relationships with their clients. We
believe agents recommend Cincinnati personal insurance products for their value-oriented
clients who seek to balance quality and price and who are attracted by our superior claims
service and the benefits of our package approach.
Our personal lines policyholder retention and new business levels have remained at higher
levels following our July 2006 introduction of a limited program of policy credits for
personal auto and homeowner pricing in most of the states in which our Diamond system is in
use. The program provided credits for eligible new and renewal policyholders identified as
above-average risks.
The rate of decline in our personal lines agency renewal written premiums further slowed in
2008, as the benefits of additional tiers to our pricing structure were seen in many states.
These tiers are intended to improve our ability to compete for our agents highest quality
personal lines accounts, increasing opportunities for our agents to market the advantages of
our personal lines products and services to their clients.
The number of in-force homeowner and personal auto policies has declined steadily, but the
year-over-year rate of decline slowed to 2.3 percent as of year-end 2008 compared with 3.1
percent at year-end 2007. Additional pricing and credit changes were implemented in early
2009, with introductions in additional states planned for subsequent months. This round of
changes further improves pricing for the best accounts, which should help us retain and
attract even more of our agents preferred business.
Our personal lines new business written by our agencies rose for the third consecutive year in
2008 as the number of agency locations writing our personal lines rose by over 130, or 14.0
percent, in 2008. We set the stage to improve our geographic diversification by opening
Arizona and Utah to personal lines. We also expanded our activity in Maryland and North
Carolina by introducing personal auto and appointing additional locations from our existing
agency network. However, the increased new business did not fully offset the impact of lost
business and lower rates on above-average quality renewal business.
In 2007 and 2008, other written premiums lowered net written premiums more than 2006. Higher
ceded reinsurance costs were the primary driver in both years, including the reinsurance
reinstatement premium incurred in 2008.
Personal Lines Insurance Loss and Loss Expenses
Loss and loss expenses include both net paid losses and reserve changes for unpaid losses as
well as the associated loss expenses. The increase in the current accident year loss and loss
expense ratio before catastrophe losses over the past three years was due to the pricing
factors discussed above, normal loss cost inflation, refinements made to the allocation of
IBNR reserves by accident year and higher non-catastrophe weather-related losses. Larger
personal lines losses were a smaller percentage of earned premiums in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
597 |
|
|
$ |
480 |
|
|
$ |
535 |
|
|
|
86.6 |
% |
|
|
67.3 |
% |
|
|
70.2 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
478 |
|
|
|
547 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67.0 |
|
|
|
71.8 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
561 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73.6 |
|
Catastrophe losses were highly volatile over the three-year period as discussed in
Consolidated Property Casualty Insurance Results of Operations, Page 49. Savings from prior
period reserve development continued to trend favorably in 2008 as discussed in Personal Lines
Insurance Segment Reserves, Page 79.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 60
Personal Lines Insurance Losses by Size
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
New losses greater than $4,000,000 |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
New losses $2,000,000- $4,000,000 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(100.0 |
) |
|
|
72.0 |
|
New losses $1,000,000- $2,000,000 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
New losses $750,000-$1,000,000 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(11.5 |
) |
|
|
(6.7 |
) |
New losses $500,000-$750,000 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9.6 |
|
|
|
20.9 |
|
New losses $250,000-$500,000 |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
15.5 |
|
Case reserve development above $250,000 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
(20.1 |
) |
|
|
(16.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total large losses incurred |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
(11.0 |
) |
|
|
8.1 |
|
Other losses excluding catastrophe losses |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
309 |
|
|
|
5.6 |
|
|
|
(9.7 |
) |
Catastrophe losses |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
958.8 |
|
|
|
(89.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total losses incurred |
|
$ |
476 |
|
|
$ |
380 |
|
|
$ |
479 |
|
|
|
25.4 |
|
|
|
(20.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New losses greater than $4,000,000 |
|
|
0.7 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
New losses $2,000,000- $4,000,000 |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
|
|
0.9 |
|
New losses $1,000,000- $2,000,000 |
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
New losses $750,000-$1,000,000 |
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
0.0 |
|
New losses $500,000-$750,000 |
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
New losses $250,000-$500,000 |
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
Case reserve development above $250,000 |
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total large losses incurred |
|
|
11.7 |
|
|
|
12.8 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
1.8 |
|
Other losses excluding catastrophe losses |
|
|
42.8 |
|
|
|
39.1 |
|
|
|
40.6 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
Catastrophe losses |
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
|
|
13.2 |
|
|
|
(10.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss ratio |
|
|
69.0 |
% |
|
|
53.2 |
% |
|
|
62.9 |
% |
|
|
15.8 |
|
|
|
(9.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The effect on the loss and loss expense ratio from new losses and case reserve increases
greater than $250,000 was lower in 2008 than it was in 2007. Our analysis indicated no
unexpected concentration of these losses and reserve increases by risk category, geographic
region, policy inception, agency or field marketing territory. We believe the increase in 2007
largely was due to general inflationary trends in loss costs, which we continue to monitor, as
well as natural volatility.
Personal Lines Insurance Underwriting Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Commission expenses |
|
$ |
136 |
|
|
$ |
145 |
|
|
$ |
152 |
|
|
|
(6.4 |
) |
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
(7.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total underwriting expenses |
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
233 |
|
|
$ |
247 |
|
|
|
(3.9 |
) |
|
|
(5.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commission expenses |
|
|
19.7 |
% |
|
|
20.3 |
% |
|
|
19.9 |
% |
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
0.4 |
|
Underwriting expenses |
|
|
12.8 |
|
|
|
12.3 |
|
|
|
12.5 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
(0.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total underwriting expense ratio |
|
|
32.5 |
% |
|
|
32.6 |
% |
|
|
32.4 |
% |
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal lines commission expense as a percent of earned premium declined in 2008 after rising
slightly in 2007. The 2008 decline in the ratio reflected both the decline in earned premiums
and a lower level of contingent commissions. Commission expenses include our profit-sharing,
or contingent, commissions, which are calculated on the profitability of an agencys aggregate
property casualty book of Cincinnati business, taking into account longer-term profit and
premium volume, with a percentage for prompt payment of premiums and other criteria, to reward
the agencys effort. These profit-based commissions generally fluctuate with our loss and loss
expense ratio. Our 2008 contingent commission accrual reflected our estimate of the
profit-sharing commissions to be paid to our agencies in early 2009 based largely on each
agencys performance in 2008.
Non-commission underwriting expenses were relatively stable over the three-year period. The
modest increase in 2008 was due to the pension charge. Refinements in the allocation of
expenses between our commercial lines and personal lines segments also contributed to minor
variations in the non-commission underwriting expenses.
Personal Lines Insurance Outlook
Industry analysts currently anticipate industrywide personal lines written premiums may rise
approximately 2.5 percent in 2009, with the combined ratio estimated at 97.6 percent. While
the improvement in our new business levels and policy retention rates over the past several
years are positive indications for our personal lines business, we expect our growth rate to
be below that of the industry as we continue to address our pricing. In Item 1, Strategic
Initiatives, Page 7, we discuss the initiatives we are implementing to address the
unsatisfactory performance of our personal lines segment, in particular the homeowner line of
business.
Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 61
We describe steps that will enhance our response to the changing marketplace. We are
aware that our personal lines pricing and loss activity are at levels that could put
achievement of our corporate financial objectives at risk if those trends continue. We discuss
our overall outlook for our property casualty insurance operations in the Executive Summary,
Page 37.
Personal Lines of Business Analysis
We prefer to write personal lines coverage on an account basis that includes both auto and
homeowner coverages as well as coverages from the other personal business line. As a result,
we believe that the personal lines segment is best measured and evaluated on a segment basis.
However, we provide line of business data to summarize growth and profitability trends
separately for each line. The accident year loss data provides current estimates of incurred
loss and loss expenses and corresponding ratios over the most recent three accident years.
Accident year data classifies losses according to the year in which the corresponding loss
events occur, regardless of when the losses are actually reported, recorded or paid.
Personal Auto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Personal auto: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
320 |
|
|
$ |
332 |
|
|
$ |
359 |
|
|
|
(3.7 |
) |
|
|
(7.5 |
) |
Earned premiums |
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
385 |
|
|
|
(5.0 |
) |
|
|
(11.0 |
) |
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
225 |
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
266.3 |
|
|
|
(89.4 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
190.3 |
|
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
$ |
228 |
|
|
$ |
250 |
|
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
|
|
(8.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe losses |
|
|
69.4 |
% |
|
|
65.8 |
% |
|
|
61.7 |
% |
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(3.4 |
) |
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
(5.0 |
) |
|
|
1.1 |
|
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
(0.9 |
) |
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
67.2 |
% |
|
|
66.8 |
% |
|
|
65.0 |
% |
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
230 |
|
|
$ |
237 |
|
|
$ |
247 |
|
|
|
70.6 |
% |
|
|
69.2 |
% |
|
|
64.3 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.1 |
|
|
|
65.4 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.4 |
|
The decline in written and earned premiums slowed over the past three years as we continued to
modify pricing, improving retention and attracting new policyholders. New business activity is
nearing a level that would allow us to replace premiums lost due to price reductions and
normal attrition. We continue to monitor and modify selected rates and credits to address our
competitive position.
The calendar year loss and loss expense ratio rose slightly over the three-year period. In
recent years, we have seen generally higher costs for liability claims, including severe
injuries, and we have sought rate increases for liability coverages that partially offset
price decreases for physical damage coverages.
Pricing decreases and normal loss cost inflation also were primary drivers in the rise in the
accident year loss and loss expense ratio before catastrophe losses over the past three years.
In addition, the 2008 accident year loss and loss expense ratio rose by approximately 4
percentage points because of the refinements made to our IBNR reserve allocation by accident
year.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 62
Homeowner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Homeowner: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
277 |
|
|
$ |
284 |
|
|
$ |
290 |
|
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
Earned premiums |
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
(2.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe
losses |
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
20.5 |
|
|
|
(1.7 |
) |
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
416.6 |
|
|
|
(76.1 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(235.4 |
) |
|
nm |
|
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
nm |
|
|
|
(109.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
275 |
|
|
$ |
168 |
|
|
$ |
240 |
|
|
|
63.7 |
|
|
|
(30.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe
losses |
|
|
69.9 |
% |
|
|
56.5 |
% |
|
|
56.6 |
% |
|
|
13.4 |
|
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
32.1 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
24.9 |
|
|
|
26.1 |
|
|
|
(18.9 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(3.2 |
) |
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
(2.2 |
) |
|
|
(3.7 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
(1.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
99.2 |
% |
|
|
59.0 |
% |
|
|
83.0 |
% |
|
|
40.2 |
|
|
|
(24.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
283 |
|
|
$ |
177 |
|
|
$ |
226 |
|
|
|
102.0 |
% |
|
|
62.3 |
% |
|
|
78.2 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
229 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62.5 |
|
|
|
79.2 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81.5 |
|
Written and earned premium trends in 2008 and 2007 reflected improved new business levels
offset by higher reinsurance premiums in both years. Reinsurance premiums, including a
reinstatement premium of $8 million in 2008, were $33 million in 2008, $21 million in 2007
and $16 million in 2006. The pricing changes of the past several years have had a positive
effect on policyholder retention and new business activity. We continue to monitor and
modify selected rates and credits to address our competitive position.
The calendar year loss and loss expense ratio over the past three years fluctuated with
catastrophe losses. Catastrophe losses have been above our expected range in recent years,
averaging 24.7 percent of homeowner earned premium from 2006 to 2008, compared with a
five-year average of 20.9 percent.
The current accident year loss and loss expense ratio before catastrophe losses rose
significantly in 2008, in part because of the decline in earned premiums, which largely
reflected rate changes we made to keep our retention rate and new business at acceptable
levels. Non-catastrophe weather-related losses contributed about 5 percentage points to the
2008 ratio. In addition, the refinements made to our IBNR reserve allocation by accident
year and a lower estimate of salvage and subrogation reserves raised the ratio by about 2
percentage points.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 63
Other Personal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Other personal: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
Earned premiums |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
Loss and loss expenses from: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe
losses |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
8.6 |
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
271.0 |
|
|
|
(73.6 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
8.4 |
|
|
|
(28.3 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expenses |
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
|
32.5 |
|
|
|
(21.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
Pt. Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios as a percent of earned premiums: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current accident year before catastrophe
losses |
|
|
89.9 |
% |
|
|
82.9 |
% |
|
|
81.0 |
% |
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
Current accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
(5.1 |
) |
Prior accident years before catastrophe losses |
|
|
(34.4 |
) |
|
|
(37.6 |
) |
|
|
(29.0 |
) |
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
(8.6 |
) |
Prior accident year catastrophe losses |
|
|
(0.2 |
) |
|
|
(0.2 |
) |
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss and loss expense ratio |
|
|
62.2 |
% |
|
|
47.0 |
% |
|
|
59.4 |
% |
|
|
15.2 |
|
|
|
(12.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident year loss and loss expenses incurred and ratios to earned premiums:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident Year: |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
as of December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
85 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
61 |
|
|
|
96.8 |
% |
|
|
76.1 |
% |
|
|
69.6 |
% |
as of December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84.8 |
|
|
|
75.7 |
|
as of December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88.0 |
|
Other personal written premiums were essentially unchanged over the three-year period. The
decline in the number of homeowner and personal auto policies over the past several years
hindered growth in this business line since most of our other personal coverages are
endorsed to homeowner or auto policies.
The calendar year loss and loss expense ratio for other personal deteriorated in 2008 after
improving in 2007. Variations in catastrophe losses and favorable development on prior
period reserves accounted for this result. Savings from favorable development on prior
period reserves is high for this business line because personal umbrella losses, which are a
major component of other personal losses, can fluctuate significantly.
Life Insurance Results Of Operations
Overview Three-year Highlights
Performance highlights for the life insurance segment include:
|
|
Revenues Driven by higher term life insurance premiums, earned premiums have
grown over the past three years although separate account management fees have
fluctuated, primarily reflecting a net realized capital loss sharing agreement between
the separate account and the general account. Life insurance premiums have driven the
increase in gross in-force policy face amounts to $65.888 billion at year-end 2008 from
$61.875 billion at year-end 2007 and $56.971 billion at year-end 2006. |
|
|
|
Profitability The life insurance segment frequently reports only a small profit
or loss on a GAAP basis because most of its investment income is included in investment
segment results. We include only investment income credited to contract holders
(interest assumed in life insurance policy reserve calculations) in life insurance
segment results. The segment reported a $4 million profit in 2008. |
|
|
|
At the same time, we recognize that assets under management, capital appreciation and
investment income are integral to evaluation of the success of the life insurance
segment because of the long duration of life products. For that reason, we also evaluate
GAAP data,
including all investment activities on life insurance-related assets. Due to realized
investment losses in 2008, the life insurance company reported a GAAP net loss of $19
million compared with net profit of $65 million in 2007 and $63 million in 2006. The
life insurance company portfolio had after-tax realized investment losses of $58 million
in 2008, including $66 million in other-than-temporary impairment charges. For 2007 and
2006, realized investment losses were minimal, and we reported after-tax realized
investment gains of $26 million and $29 million in those years. Realized investment
gains and losses are discussed under Investments Results of Operations, Page 66. |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 64
Life Insurance Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(In millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Written premiums |
|
$ |
185 |
|
|
$ |
167 |
|
|
$ |
161 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned premiums |
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
115 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
9.0 |
|
Separate account investment management fees |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(56.0 |
) |
|
|
25.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract holders benefits incurred |
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
|
9.2 |
|
Investment interest credited to contract holders |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
5.2 |
|
|
|
9.8 |
|
Operating expenses incurred |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(12.8 |
) |
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total benefits and expenses |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
|
5.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life insurance segment profit (loss) |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life Insurance Growth
We market term, whole and universal life products, fixed annuities and disability income
products. In addition, we offer term, whole and universal life and disability insurance to
employees at their worksite. These products provide our property casualty agency force with
excellent cross-serving opportunities for both commercial and personal accounts.
Earned premiums increased slightly in 2008 largely because of growth in our term insurance
business. Total statutory life insurance net written premiums rose in 2008 to $185 million,
compared with $167 million and $161 million in 2007 and 2006. Total statutory written
premiums for life insurance operations for all periods include life insurance, annuity and
accident and health premiums. The increase in total statutory life insurance written
premiums primarily was due to sales of term life insurance and annuity products.
Earned premiums for universal life products declined because fee income decreased 21 percent
in 2008, principally reflecting an increase in our liability for unearned front-end loads,
an actuarial adjustment.
Separate account investment management fee income contributed $2 million to total revenue in
2008, compared with a $4 million contribution in 2007 and $3 million in 2006. These fees
declined primarily because of a net realized capital loss sharing agreement between the
separate account and the general account.
Over the past several years, we have worked to maintain a portfolio of simple, yet
competitive products, primarily under the LifeHorizons banner. Our product development
efforts emphasize death benefit protection and guarantees. Distribution expansion within our
property casualty insurance agencies remains a high priority. In the past several years, we
have added life field marketing representatives for the western, southeastern and
northeastern states. Our 30 life field marketing representatives work in partnership with
our more than 100 property casualty field marketing representatives. Approximately 71
percent of our term and other life insurance product premiums were generated through our
property casualty insurance agency relationships.
Life Insurance Profitability
Life segment expenses consist principally of:
|
|
Contract holders (policyholders) benefits incurred related to traditional life and
interest-sensitive products accounted for 75.7 percent of 2008 total benefits and
expenses compared with 71.9 percent in 2007 and 73.8 percent in 2006. Total benefits
and expenses rose due to net death claims that increased but remained within our range
of pricing expectations. |
|
|
|
Operating expenses incurred, net of deferred acquisition costs, accounted for 24.3
percent of 2008 total benefits and expenses compared with 28.1 percent in 2007 and 26.2
percent in 2006. Operating expenses declined on an absolute and percentage basis
principally because of the level of deferred acquisition costs associated with new term
life insurance policies. |
Life segment profitability depends largely on premium levels, the adequacy of product
pricing, underwriting skill and operating efficiencies. Life segment results include only
investment interest credited to contract holders (interest assumed in life insurance policy
reserve calculations). The remaining investment income is reported in the investment segment
results. The life investment
portfolio is managed to earn target spreads between earned investment rates on general
account assets and rates credited to policyholders. We consider the value of assets under
management and investment income for the life investment portfolio as key performance
indicators for the life insurance segment.
We seek to maintain a competitive advantage with respect to benefits paid and reserve
increases by consistently achieving better than average claims experience due to skilled
underwriting. Commissions paid by the life insurance operation are on par with industry
averages.
During the past several years, we have invested in imaging and workflow technology and have
significantly improved application processing. We have achieved process efficiencies while
improving our service. These
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 65
efficiencies have played a significant role in cost containment
and in our ability to increase total premiums and policy count over the past 10 years with
minimal headcount additions.
Life Insurance Outlook
The life insurance industry faced a difficult year as broad and deep dislocations in the
financial markets led to investment losses. While our investments also suffered, Cincinnati
Life finished 2008 with very strong statutory capital and surplus and risk based capital
ratios.
The difficulties have been most acute for writers of variable and equity-indexed products.
In addition to losing significant amounts of fee income, such writers must draw down on
capital to establish additional reserves for product guarantees and they must pay a higher
cost for hedging programs as the markets have declined and become more volatile. We have not
entered the variable or equity-indexed market, so we are not subject to the severe costs
associated with these products.
Companies writing competitively priced term life insurance also must deal with very
conservative statutory reserves and the associated heavy capital requirements. Many term
life writers have used capital market solutions to move redundant reserves off their balance
sheets. The increased cost of these solutions has decreased their viability as a method for
relieving reserve strain. Because of our financial strength, we have not had to employ these
solutions, and their unavailability is not curtailing our ability to continue offering
competitively priced term life insurance.
Some life companies are adopting new rules and/or requesting permitted practices from their
domiciliary state that allow them to strengthen their statutory balance sheets by reducing
their reserve and/or capital requirements. In view of our strong capital, we have elected
not to follow such a course of action. Even in the current difficult business and economic
environment, we believe that we are in a good position to grow at reasonable and profitable
levels in 2009.
Investments Results Of Operations
Overview Three-year Highlights
The investment segment contributes investment income and realized gains and losses to
results of operations. Investments provide our primary source of pretax and after-tax
profits.
|
|
Investment income Pretax investment income declined 11.6 percent in 2008,
primarily because of dividend reductions by common and preferred holdings, including
reductions during the year on positions subsequently sold or reduced. Investment income
rose 6.6 percent to a record high in 2007 on strong cash flow for new investments,
higher interest income from the healthy fixed-maturity portfolio and increased dividend
income from the common stock portfolio. |
|
|
|
Realized investment gains and losses We reported realized investment gains in all
three years, largely due to investment sales that were discretionary in timing and
amount. In 2008, those sales were offset by $510 million of other-than-temporary
impairment charges for the writedown of 126 securities. |
Investment Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
2008-2007 |
|
|
2007-2006 |
|
(In millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Change % |
|
|
Investment income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
|
$ |
326 |
|
|
$ |
308 |
|
|
$ |
300 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
Dividends |
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
(30.5 |
) |
|
|
12.1 |
|
Other |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
(4.5 |
) |
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
Investment expenses |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
(18.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment income, net of expenses |
|
|
537 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
(11.6 |
) |
|
|
6.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment interest credited to contract holders |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
(9.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized investment gains and losses summary: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized investment gains and losses |
|
|
686 |
|
|
|
409 |
|
|
|
678 |
|
|
|
67.6 |
|
|
|
(39.6 |
) |
Change in fair value of securities with
embedded derivatives |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(243.8 |
) |
|
nm |
|
Other-than-temporary impairment charges |
|
|
(510 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
nm |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total realized investment gains and losses |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
|
|
(64.0 |
) |
|
|
(44.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment operations income |
|
$ |
612 |
|
|
$ |
931 |
|
|
$ |
1,200 |
|
|
|
(34.2 |
) |
|
|
(22.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment Income
The primary drivers of investment income were:
|
|
Interest income rose again in 2008. Purchases of new fixed maturity securities over
the course of 2008 served to offset market value declines generally driven by macro
factors. At year-end 2008, the fixed maturity portfolio was trading at 96.2 percent of
book value compared with 101.1 percent at year-end 2007. |
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 66
|
|
Dividend income declined 30.5 percent in 2008 after rising in 2007 and 2006. Because
our equity portfolio was heavily concentrated in the financial sector at the beginning
of 2008, we experienced dividend reductions by many common and preferred holdings,
including reductions during the year on positions subsequently sold or reduced. |
We are investing available cash flow in both fixed income and equity securities with yields
that we believe are likely to be more secure. This may slow the return to growth in
investment income although we believe year-over-year comparisons may turn positive in the
second half of 2009.
Net Realized Investment Gains and Losses
Net realized investment gains and losses are made up of realized investment gains and losses
on the sale of securities, changes in the valuation of embedded derivatives within certain
convertible securities and other-than-temporary impairment charges. These three areas are
discussed below.
Investment gains or losses are recognized upon the sales of investments or as otherwise
required under GAAP. The timing of realized gains or losses from sales can have a material
effect on results in any quarter. However, such gains or losses usually have little, if any,
effect on total shareholders equity because most equity and fixed maturity investments are
carried at fair value, with the unrealized gain or loss included as a component of other
comprehensive income. Impairment charges are recorded for other-than-temporary declines in
value if, in the asset impairment committees
judgment, there is little expectation that the value may be recouped within a designated
recovery period. Other-than-temporary impairment losses represent non-cash charges to
income.
Realized Investment Gains and Losses
As appropriate, we buy, hold or sell both fixed-maturity and equity securities on an ongoing
basis to help achieve our portfolio objectives.
Pretax realized investment gains in the past three years largely were due to the sale of
equity holdings. In 2008, most of the gain was due to sales of holdings of common and
preferred stocks of financial services issuers, reflecting our historical weighting in
financial sector securities. The majority of these holdings were sold following reductions
or elimination of their cash dividends to shareholders. Because of our low cost basis, we
were able to record gains on many of these sales despite the decline in overall stock market
values during 2008. Realized gains were lower in 2007, although we chose to take gains from
partial sales of selected holdings and to sell other holdings because of general credit
concerns that began in the subprime mortgage market and spread to other areas in the
homebuilding and related industries over the course of 2007. The gain in 2006 largely was
due to the sale of our entire Alltel common stock holding.
During the past three years, fixed maturity securities were divested as a result of calls or
as outright sales executed to either improve yield prospects or in response to adverse
credit concerns. Although we prefer to hold fixed-maturity investments until they mature, a
decision to sell reflects our perception of a change in the underlying fundamentals of the
security and preference to allocate those funds to investments that more closely meet our
established parameters for long-term stability and growth. Our opinion that a security
fundamentally no longer meets our investment parameters may reflect a loss of confidence in
the issuers management, a change in underlying risk factors (such as political risk,
regulatory risk, sector risk or credit risk), or a strategic shift in business strategy that
is not consistent with our long-term outlook.
Change in the Valuation of Securities with Embedded Derivatives
We have a small portfolio of convertible preferred stocks and bonds, which have an embedded
derivative component under GAAP accounting rules. In 2008 and 2007, we recorded $38 million
and $11 million in fair value declines compared with $7 million in fair value increases in
2006. In 2008 and 2007, these changes in fair value were due to the application of SFAS No.
155, which allows us to account for the entire hybrid financial instrument at fair value,
with changes recognized in realized investment gains and losses. In 2006, these changes in
fair value were due to the application of SFAS No. 133, which required measurement of the
fluctuations in the value of the embedded derivative features in selected convertible
securities. The changes in fair values are recognized in net income in the period they
occur. See the discussion of Derivative Financial Instruments and Hedging Activities in Item
8, Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements, Page 98, for details on the accounting
for convertible security embedded options.
Other-than-temporary Impairment Charges
In 2008, we recorded $510 million in write-downs of 126 securities that we deemed had
experienced an other-than-temporary decline in fair value versus $16 million in 2007 and
$1 million in 2006. The factors we consider when evaluating impairments are discussed in
Critical Accounting Estimates, Asset Impairment, Page 45. The other-than-temporary
impairment charges in 2008 represented 5.7 percent of our total invested assets at year-end.
Other-than-temporary impairment charges also include unrealized losses of holdings that we
had identified for sale but not yet completed a transaction.
Cincinnati Financial Corporation 2008 Annual Report on 10-K Page 67
Other-than-temporary impairment charges from the investment portfolio by the asset class we
described in Item 1, Investments Segment,
Page 17, are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Taxable fixed maturities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment amount |
|
$ |
(162 |
) |
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
New book value |
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
46 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
Percent to total owned |
|
|
6 |
% |
|
|
1 |
% |
|
|
0 |
% |
Number of securities impaired |
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Percent to total owned |
|
|
10 |
% |
|
|
2 |
% |
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax-exempt fixed maturities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment amount |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
New book value |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
Percent to total owned |
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
0 |
% |
Number of securities impaired |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Percent to total owned |
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
0 |
% |
|