Loss Reserve Errors, Income Smoothing and Firm Risk of Property and Casualty Insurance Companies

Transcription

1 Loss Reserve Errors, Income Smoothing and Firm Risk of Property and Casualty Insurance Companies Chunyan Zhang Department of Actuarial Science, Risk Management and Insurance Wisconsin School of Business University of Wisconsin-Madison 975 University Avenue Madison, WI Mark J. Browne Department of Risk Management, Insurance and Actuarial Science The Tobin College of Business St. John s University 101 Murray St, New York, NY mbrowne@bus.wisc.edu 1

2 Abstract Income smoothing is one of the central topics in the finance and accounting literature. A firm manager may mask fluctuations in a business s income to increase firm value, to avoid regulatory scrutiny, or to minimize taxes, among other reasons. Income smoothing has been identified in the literature as a motivation for accounting manipulation. Loss reserving in the insurance industry has been identified as a means by which accounting manipulation can occur. Prior literature is not strongly supportive of the hypothesis that managers manipulate reserve levels to smooth income. We test this relationship in the current study while specifically controlling for the risk level of the firm. We argue that the firm s level of risk has influence on both the estimation of loss reserves and income fluctuations. An implication of our study is that if insurers manage reserves to smooth income, posted loss reserves are also a function of insurer investment strategy. The study uses data of U.S. property and casualty insurance companies from 1996 to 2007 to test whether insurers manage reserves to smooth income and to test whether reserve errors are associated with the investment risk profile of insurers. Our models control for associations between reserve errors and firm factors that have been reported in prior literature. Among others, these include taxes, financial distress, and reinsurance purchases. 2

3 1. Introduction Accurate accounting reveals important information about the real performance of a firm to shareholders, investors and analysts, and helps them make the correct decisions on investments. However, a firm can mask the fluctuations of income by changing its operation/production process or by doing accounting tricks. The latter is a practical choice because, under current accounting rules, firms have certain flexibilities in their financial statement reporting. Thus it is very likely that the reported income is intentionally smoothed by firms. Income smoothing behavior is defined as the repetitive selection of accounting measurement or reporting rules in a particular pattern, the effect of which is to report a stream of income with a smaller variation from trend than otherwise would have appeared (Copeland 1968). It is a common practice in all industries (Grace 1990) and is one of the topics that are intensively discussed by the media, investors and researchers. For insurance companies with sizable reserve balances, loss reserve has a great potential to act as an income smoother. In good years, when the profit is abundant, the insurer may tend to over-reserve, retaining the profit in loss reserve funds and enhancing the actual solvency of the insurance company. In bad years, when the profitability is lower, the insurer may tend to under-reserve, releasing some of the stored resource into the earnings. Loss reserves in the insurance industry provide a good opportunity to investigate income smoothing. One big challenge of studying income smoothing is how to measure the magnitudes of smooth. In order to obtain the measure of how much the reported value is away from the actual value, one needs to find the truth which might be unobservable. Fortunately, the statutory annual statement requires insurer display information on the losses incurred and payments over the past 10 years in its Schedule P, thus we can use the losses incurred or cumulative payments 3

4 developed several years later as a proxy to measure the "actual" level of loss reserve, thus solving the "actual value" problem. However, the income smoothing measurement in previous literature may not be valid because they are based on the ex-post results of the earnings. In this paper, we investigate income smoothing by examining the relationship between loss reserve errors and the investment of P/C insurance companies. More specifically, we find a significant relationship between the loss reserve errors and investment risk profiles of the firm while controlling risk related to underwriting financial weakness and tax deferral incentives. Our results show that loss reserve errors are not only significantly associated with underwriting but also connected to investment profiles. The results suggest income smoothing via loss reserves are related to both the level and volatility of investment income. When the volatilities of investment income in the past years are higher, insures tend to make greater reserve errors. And there are less loss reserve errors when the average investment income of the past five years is higher. We also find a positive and significant relationship between loss reserve errors and exposure of default risk in bonds investments. The relationship between loss reserve errors and investment performance also suggests that if loss reserves are used as a smoothing tool, the smoothing targets are not only the underwriting income but also the overall income. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Next section is an introduction of the background of the paper. Section 3 is a literature review and problems in previous literature when testing income smoothing. Section 4 states the hypotheses. Section 5 is the variables selections, and method. Data descriptions are presented in Section 6. Section 7 discusses the empirical results, and the final section is a summary of the study. 4

5 2. Background Two-thirds of a typical property and casualty (P/C) insurance firm s liabilities are loss and loss adjusted expense (LAE) reserves 1 (See Figure 1). The estimation of loss reserves can materially impact a firm s financial condition, including its surplus level, reported profit level, tax payments, pricing, capital allocation and financial ratios, which may place the firm under stringent regulatory attentions and affect the strategies that firms are able to pursue(anderson 1971). Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles (SSAP) No. 55 requires that management s best estimate of the liability for these items be recorded in the company s statutory financial statements. The best estimate that insurers make frequently misses the mark. Their loss reserve errors emerge when claims are closed, which may be years after the reserve for a claim is initially posted. There are two main reasons why reserve errors may occur: non-discretionary misestimating and manipulation (discretionary). Non-discretionary misestimating may occur for a variety of reasons. These include, but are not limited to, delays in the reporting of claims, changes in claims patterns, increases in claim settlement costs due to inflation, the effects of new regulatory or judicial decisions on loss amounts, and limitations in actuarial modeling techniques. The claim process of a typical non-life insurer can be illustrated as in Figure 2 (Wütheich and Merz, 2008). As shown below, the insurance company is usually unable to settle a claim immediately: the reporting of the claim may be delayed by years, and for the reported claims, it may take years to settle the claim. The claim may also be reopened due to unexpected developments. The stochastic nature of the claim process makes it difficult to estimate the future 1 In this paper, for simplicity, the term "losses" represents "losses and loss adjusted expenses", and loss reserves represents the total of loss and loss adjusted expenses reserves. 5

6 payment of claims and loss reserves. On the other hand, insurers may intentionally over-reserve or under-reserve to achieve certain firm objectives. The calculation of loss reserve levels may not be just a process of actuarial estimation. A growing body of research on insurance company operations provides evidence that insurers strategically manage their reserves. Since the 1970s, there have been numerous studies that have tried to identify the incentives and potential impact of loss reserve errors. The incentives including income smoothing, tax deferral, financial distress, rate regulation, and executive compensation, as we will see in the literature review section. There are connections between the uncertainty of the loss claim and the degree of manipulation. For some types of lines of business, there are more uncertainties in the future unpaid losses, for example, liability lines usually take longer time to settle the claims and the liability claims are more complicated than property lines. Due to the complexity of the loss claim process, insurance firms have a greater degree of flexibility in reporting their reserves when there is higher uncertainty in the claim process. Thus, non-discretionary estimating has both direct and indirect effects on the estimation of loss reserves, and it must be controlled if we want to identify the effects of various incentives on loss reserve estimation. Over-reserving errors and under-reserving errors impact insurers differently. With an overreserving error, the estimated future liability is higher than the actual ultimate payment, which reduces the reported policyholders surplus and profit level. Policyholders surplus is an indicator of an insurance company s financial strength. If an insurer over-reserves during prosperous years, the over-reserve may not materially and negatively impact a regulator s assessment of its financial strength; but if the insurer over-reserves in lean years, a resulting low surplus level may draw a regulator s attention and action (Petroni 1992). Over-reserving errors result in tax deferral, allowing the company to "borrow" money from the government for free. 6

7 However, this may bring the attention of tax regulators and the possibility of punishment by the IRS will increase. The IRS punishes those who over-reserved beyond a certain extent but takes no action if an insurer under-reserves. Under-reserving increases the level of policyholders surplus and reported profits, and reduce the attention from regulators. Petroni (1992) finds that under-reserve strictly improves five IRIS 2 (Insurance Regulatory Information System) ratios, generally improves one ratio, but negatively affects only one ratio. She finds that financially weak insurers are more likely to under-reserve, to mask their financial difficulties, although under-reserving decreases the tax deferral benefits. There are still risks of regulatory scrutiny when the insurer is under-reserving, because insurers are required to be examined at least once every five years or more frequently as deemed appropriate by the U.S. Insurance Company Financial Solvency Requirements. The more severe the degree of under-reserving, the more likely it is that an accounting manipulation will be discovered. In addition, if market information about the profitability of the company is negative, but the company s financial statement offers favorable profit level, outside investors can reasonably suspect that the insurer is greatly under-reserving (Grace and Leverty 2012). 2 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Insurance Regulatory Information System (IRIS) has been used since 1972 to help insurance regulators evaluate the financial condition of insurance companies. More than 5,000 companies file their financial statements with the NAIC each year. (Per the description of the publication Ratio Results for the IRIS on the NAIC and The Center for Insurance Policy and Research, NAIC Store, Financial Regulation Publication on IRIS) 7

8 3. Literature Review Many of the early research find that loss reserves are either over-stated or under-stated in different time period in the insurance industry. In an early study, Anderson (1971) examined a sample of 36 stock companies over the years 1955 to He found that there was a distinct tendency for the sample companies to move from a heavily over-reserved position in the early years of his analysis to a less over-reserved or even under-reserved position in later years. Beaver and McNichols (1998) find evidence that the reported loss reserves do not reflect all available information and they conclude that the accrual reporting is intentionally managed by the insurers. Bierens and Bradford (2005) also find that in the period from 1983 to 1993 the property and casualty insurers in the U.S. were systematically overstating their reserves. There has been considerable research on the causes of reserve errors and the strategic incentives for insurers to manage loss reserves. Prior research has focused on the following loss reserve manipulation incentives: income smoothing (Anderson 1971; Smith 1980; Weiss 1985; Grace 1990; Petroni 1992; Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson 2003), tax incentives (Grace 1990; Petroni 1992; Nelson 2000), solvency/regulatory incentives (Forbes 1970; Petroni 1992; Nelson 2000; Gaver and Paterson 2004), rate regulation (Cummins and Harrington 1987; Nelson 2000; Grace and Phillips 2008; Grace and Leverty 2010), and executive compensation incentives (Browne, Ma, and Wang 2009; Eckles and Halek 2010; Hoyt and McCullough 2010), and reinsurance purchase (Browne, Ju, and Lei 2012). A recent paper by Grace and Leverty(2012) investigates all the incentives discussed by prior literature. Many authors agree that insurance companies can adjust reserve levels to manipulate their financial statements and do so as a response to unfavorable/favorable underwriting periods or for purposes of tax deferral and avoidance of regulatory scrutiny. And The incentives to manage reserves may change over time. Grace (1990) 8

9 showed that prior to 1972, reserving practices aided in the reduction of tax bills subject to uncertain future claims costs; and from 1972 through 1979, reserve errors were related to taxable income and income smoothing, as well as inflation rate changes. Taxes Accurate estimation of loss reserve is sought by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Reserve errors may arise as the insurer tries to reduce its federal tax bill, for loss estimates are associated with the determination of tax liabilities. By overestimating future losses attributable to current premiums, the insurer increases its reserves and incurred losses, and reduces its current tax liability. The insurer does not eliminate any taxes with reserve errors, but the insurer does postpone the payment of taxes until future periods when ultimate claim costs are known. On the other hand, the regulators and tax institutions try to lessen the tax incentives. The Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986 requires insurers to report the present value of future claim costs on their tax returns, lessening the degree to which taxes are affected by reserve errors. If the IRS feels the insurer is manipulating earnings through reserves, the insurer will be penalized by an increase in federal tax (Grace 1990). However, deferral of the tax bill still works as an important incentive to over-reserve. The empirical test of Grace (1990) reveals that tax is significantly associated with loss reserve errors. Cummins and Grace (1994) construct a model which predicts that property-casualty insurers will use loss reserves to shelter taxable investment. Their empirical findings are consistent with the theoretical model. Bradford and Logue (1999) also find that tax rules, especially the changes of tax rules, created a relatively strong incentive to overstate reserves from 1985 to In fact, the over-reserving became more severe after TRA (1986). From the view of implicit discount, Nelson (2000) finds some evidence that is consistent with tax 9

10 reduction hypothesis: insurers with a high marginal tax rate discount at a lower rate than other insurers. Financial distress and regulator intervention avoidance The regulators set up a series of ratios to monitor the financial conditions of the insurers. For example, the Insurance Regulatory Information System (IRIS) sets the usual range of 11 ratios for P/C insurers. Eight of these are non-reserve ratios, and the other three are reserve-related ratios. If a ratio is outside of the usual range predetermined by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), it is considered unusual. If the insurer has more than three unusual ratios, it may receive special regulator attention and intervention: A team of specialists will examine the statutory statement of the firm and decide if the firm is in need of immediate regulatory attention or targeted regulatory attention by state regulators. More unusual ratios will induce more stringent suppression from the regulators. Financially troubled insurers have stronger incentives to mask their financial status in their financial statement so as to avoid penalties or intervention from the regulators. The empirical tests by Petroni (1992) suggest that managers of financially weak insurers bias down their estimates of claim loss reserves relative to other insurers after controlling for exogenous economic factors. Evidence also reveals that managers of insurers close to receiving regulatory attention understate reserve estimates to an even larger degree. Gaver and Paterson (2004) also achieve a similar conclusion that firms manage loss reserves to avoid violating certain test ratio bounds that are used by regulators for solvency assessment. By adjusting loss reserve, two-thirds of their sampled companies that are close to receiving regulation intervention successfully limit the number of unusual ratios to less than four, which is the cut-off number to receive stringent intervention by IRIS. 10

11 Rate regulation For certain lines of business, the state regulators may place restrictions on the underwriting and pricing policies of the insurers. In some states with a non-competitive rating (NCR) law, the regulator may restrict discriminative pricing based on certain characteristics, such as age, race, and some pre-existing conditions. This is especially common for certain lines of business such as health insurance, auto insurance, workers compensation, and other lines in which universal coverage, mandatory coverage or social influence are the concerns of the regulators. Such regulations may motivate the insurers to strategically manage their reserves. Previous literature on the impact of rate regulation on reserve management can be divided into two groups. One group maintains that stringent rate regulation is positively correlated with under-reserve behavior, while the other group suggests the other side over-reserve. The first group assumes that insurers implicitly discount their loss reserves to account for the time value of money (Lowe and Philbrick 1986; Nelson 2000). Nelson (2000) hypothesizes that the P&C industry is highly competitive. Using data from the statutory annual reports of 755 P&C insurers, he finds evidence that insurers tend to report the present value of expected future claim payments by implicitly discounting, in order to satisfy the requirement of regulators while competing with other companies, making profit, and winning more customers and market share. And this incentive is stronger if the rate regulation is more stringent. The implicit discount results in lower reported loss reserve levels on the firms financial statements. That is, under more stringent rate regulation, the insurers are more likely to under-reserve. Alternatively, stringent rate regulation may also drive the reported loss reserve upward. Grace and Leverty (2010; 2011; 2012) find evidence that if regulation suppresses rates below the economic cost of writing business, then stringent rate regulation will create an incentive for managers to overreserve in an attempt to reduce the effect of rate suppression. 11

12 Other studies Other theories supplement the literature on reserve manipulations, such as the managerial compensation, the choice of audit firms and actuarial firms, and the purchase of reinsurance. Manages may manage loss reserves to maximize the value of their compensation. Lin and Lai (2008) find evidence that the managers who are rewarded with a great amount of stocks and options tend to under-reserve when they have the opportunity to sell the stocks or exercise the options in the next period. Browne, Ma, and Wang (2009) test whether the awarding of stock options to insurance company executives is associated with the loss-reserving practices. They find that the greater sensitivity of option-based compensation on stock prices is associated with more under-reserving errors or less over-reserving errors. Eckles and Halek (2010) find that managers who receive bonuses that are capped or no bonuses tend to over-reserve for currentyear incurred losses. However, managers who receive bonuses that are not capped tend to underreserve for current-year incurred losses. They also find that managers who exercise stock options tend to under-reserve in the current period. Auditors and actuaries are external monitors of insurers. Reputational monitors may have more ability and a stronger sense of responsibility to report accurate reserve. Empirical findings in the literature support that bigger auditors and/or actuaries are associated with more accurate reserve estimates for financially weak insurers. Petroni and Beasley (1996) explore whether the audit firm type is associated with to accuracy of insurers' estimation of loss reserves. Although in the model based on the entire sample they find no significant difference of accuracy of reserving or conservativeness among insurers with different types of auditors, they do find that the subset of financially stressed insurers that use Big Eight auditors are reserving much more conservatively. Similarly, Gaver and Paterson (2001) find that the financially distressed insurers that use auditors and actuaries from the Big Six accounting firms are less likely to under-reserve. Moreover, the 12

13 usage of non Big Six actuaries (regardless of whether the auditor is a member of the Big Six) is associated more with under-reserving by weak insurers. They conjecture that these results are related to the fact that Big Six actuaries are more conservative in loss reserving and they are more attuned to the liability exposure of the auditor. Grace and Leverty (2011) find that high reputation actuaries can significantly improve the loss reserve accuracy, but the effect is not significant for high reputation auditor firms. Browne, Ju, and Lei (2012) find that purchase of reinsurance and payment of contingent commissions to intermediaries by property and casualty insurers are associated with smaller over-reserving errors, but the association is insignificant for under-reserving errors. They suggest that smaller over-reserve errors help insurers obtain better terms from reinsurers and maintain better relationship with broker /agents. Income Smoothing Income smoothing has been studied in finance, accounting and risk management literatures for more than one hundred years; income-smoothing behavior by factories, mines and industrial undertakings was first identified in the 1890s (Matheson 1893; Dicksee 1895, 1903). Many studies find evidence of income smoothing (Copeland and Licastro 1968; Simpson 1969; Dascher and Malcom 1970; White 1970; Barefield and Comiskey 1972; Jones 1991; Liu and Ryan 2006; Shuto 2007). Income smoothing is motivated by reducing tax payments, projecting a better managerial image (Hepworth 1953), attracting investors, increasing stock price, lowering the cost of financing, reducing the risk premium of capital assets, and all of which increase firm 13

14 value. 3 Some other researchers find income smoothing is associated with the income-based compensation package of the executives (Watts and Zimmerman 1978; Ronen and Sadan 1981). Many empirical studies have found a negative relationship between earnings volatility and firm value (e.g. Lambert 1984; Minton and Schrand 1999; Rountree, Weston, and Allayannis 2008). Lambert (1984) shows that a risk-averse manager who cannot access the capital markets has the incentive to smooth reported income. Trueman and Titman (1988) show that in their economic model setting, even if managers are not risk-averse and the firm cannot borrow/lend from capital markets, income smoothing still increases the firm s market value. A study conducted by Graham, Harvey, and Rajgopal (2005) indicates that most CFOs believe that earnings are the key metric considered by outsiders, and seventy-eight percent of the 400 executives in their sample would rather sacrifice the long-term value to smooth reported earnings. When the manager of a firm has the option to choose the time when income is recognized, he or she may prefer the accounting measurement and reporting rules that are expected to result in more smoothed income streams. Recent empirical work by Rountree, Weston, and Allayannis (2008) suggests that earnings volatility decreases firm value. Executives perceive that smaller earnings volatility can bring good benefits to the firm, while high income variation decreases the firm value mainly for the following reasons. First, low income volatility increases firm value because it is preferred by both individual and institutional investors, as it enhances the reputation and credibility of the firm, thus maintaining or increasing a firm s stock price. High earning volatility increases the likelihood of negative earnings surprises, which may hurt the stock price of the company, as investors overreact if the firm fails 3 Some researchers such as Imhoff (1875, 1981) argue that income smoothing can only increase firm value temporarily. Shareholders, investors and analysts will not be fooled in the long run. 14

15 to meet benchmark earnings (Graham, Harvey, and Rajgopal 2005; Brav et al. 2005). The investors may suspect there are hidden problems in the operation of the company and become less optimistic toward its future performance. Studies also show that low earnings volatility is especially attractive to institutional investors (Ronen and Sadan 1981; Badrinath, Gay, and Kale 1989), as low earnings volatility is perceived as a signal of the robust operation of a company. Income smoothing can mask the volatility of underlying earnings, thus lowering the perceived probability of bankruptcy, and lowering the cost of borrowing and otherwise bringing favorable terms to the transactions of the firm (Titman 1984). Consequently, outside investors may overevaluate the price of the firm s stock because the volatility is masked, thus artificially increasing the stock price of the firm. Second, many researchers suggest that low earnings volatility increases firm value by reducing the firm s dependence on costly external finance (Shapiro and Titman 1985; René M 1990; Lessard 1991; Froot, Scharfstein, and Stein 1993). Earnings-volatility reducing activities, such as hedging, add value to the extent that they help ensure that a corporation has sufficient internal funds available to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities. Geczy, Minton, and Schrand (1997) find empirical evidence that firms with high value investment opportunities and low access to internal and external financing are more likely to reduce variations in cash flow or earnings. In another study, Minton and Schrand (1999) suggest that higher income volatility not only increases the firm s need to access expensive external capital market, but also forces the firm to forgo valuable investment opportunities. Third, low earning volatility decreases the probability and magnitude of forecast errors, thus making the firm more attractive for investment analysts to follow. A larger number of analysts following a firm implies more resources are spent on private information acquisition about the firm (Bhushan 1989) and increases investors perception of the firm value. Lang, Lins, 15

16 and Miller (2003) find that the number of analysts following a firm and forecast accuracy are positively associated with firm market valuations. Some researchers find that income smoothing activities are associated with the managers compensation (e.g. Watts and Zimmerman 1978; Ronen and Sadan 1981; Koch 1981; Lambert 1984; Fudenberg and Tirole 1995). Managers may also smooth the income for other concerns. Fudenberg and Tirole (1995) show that managers prefer to smooth income when they are concerned about keeping their position or avoiding interference. Koch (1981) finds that smoothing is greater when the management is more diverse, and the income reported by ownercontrolled firms shows more variations than manager-controlled companies. To smooth income, a firm may either change the real incomes by changing the investment strategies, modifying productions, or playing accounting tricks: the identified "smoothers" include realization of depreciation, cost/expenses for manufacture industry, provisions for loan losses and loan charge-offs for banks (Ma 1988; Liu and Ryan 2006) and other discretionary accruals. This paper will examine the "artificial" income smoothing practices, which are performed by the manipulation of the reserves reported by P/C insurers. Unexpected fluctuation of income is not favorable to insurers, especially the publicly traded companies. When there is a dramatic drop of income, it is a signal of the company s bad performance; when there is a dramatic jump of income, the company will find it might be difficult to maintain such a high level of income in subsequent years, and they would rather defer the reporting of the big extra income increase. This incentive has been discussed in many papers, for example, Anderson(1971), Smith(1980), Weiss (1985), Grace (1990), Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson (2003), Grace and Leverty (2012). 16

17 Anderson (1971) analyzes the effects of reserve errors on policyholders surplus and finds that reserve errors have a stabilizing effect on underwriting income. Balcarek (1975) and Ansley (1979) further relate inadequate loss reserving to a dismal underwriting experience in the 1970s. Smith (1980) also concludes that insurers manage loss reserves to smooth underwriting results as he observes that the incidence of over- and under-reserving errors was not random for a sample of property-liability insurers in the auto liability line. Tests by Weiss (1985) provide significant evidence to support the hypothesis that exogenous economic developments and smoothing activity significantly affect loss reserving errors in the automobile liability insurance line. Grace (1990) develops a general model in which she hypothesizes that income smoothing is an important constraint when an insurer maximizes discounted cash flow. And she finds negative association between the average income of past years and loss resreve error. Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson (2003) document that property-casualty insurers with small positive earnings are more motivated to understate loss reserves than insurers with small negative earnings; for firms with high earnings, the income-decreasing reserve accruals are commonly reported, and for firms with small profits, income-increasing reserve accruals are more likely to be reported. Problems in Previous Research on Income Smoothing The previous studies (e.g. Anderson, 1971; Smith, 1980; Weiss, 1985; Grace, 1990; Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson, 2003) investigating income smooth through loss reserves are all subject to limitations. Grace (1990) uses the average net income of the past three years scaled by the net premium earned for auto insurers. She finds that the insurers will under-reserve if the past income is high for the insurers who write business on auto liability, other liability, and/or workers' compensation policies. However, as pointed out by Grace and Leverty (2012), that after 3 years of high income, the 4th year may still be a good year thus it is not necessary for the insurer to under-reserve to maintain the income level. Similar to Beaver, et al. (2003) and 17

18 Browne et al. (2009), Grace and Leverty measure the smooth incentive by using indicator variables based on the profit distribution in the industry. Different from Beaver, et al. (2003) and Browne et al. (2009), they do not find evidence of income smoothing when controlling variables tested in most previous literature. However, the smooth measures based on reported income distribution may not work properly because the reported underwriting income or overall income of the firm is the ex-post result after potential manipulation. The income reported in an annual statement is the sum of the underwriting income, investment income and other income. And underwriting income (gain/loss), which is a major source of the overall income, is greatly influenced by the level of reserve errors. The underwriting income is reported as the difference between net premiums earned and underwriting deductions (including loss incurred, loss adjusted expensed incurred and other deductions), while loss incurred is calculated as the net paid loss plus the unpaid losses in current year subtract the unpaid losses in prior year. Since the unpaid losses in prior year are a given fact in current year, under-stating the unpaid losses in current year will increase the underwriting income, and vice versa. So the measurements which involve the current year s underwriting income would be misleading. For instance, considering an insurer that makes less profit than it normally did in the past, it may intentionally under-state its loss reserve to increase the accounting income. The consequence is that it may change its position in the income distribution to the profit or small profit category. Thus the authors may find some companies make good profit but under-reserve; while for the real profitable companies, they may over-reserve to smooth the income. This may help explain the insignificant results found in Grace and Leverty s 2012 paper. 18

19 If we want to measure the "true" income that is not masked by loss reserve manipulation, one possible way is correcting it using reserve errors: we can add the error back to the underwriting income or total pre-tax income, just as Anderson (1971) and Smith (1980) did in their research. However, this may bring new problems if regression methods are used because the independent variable will contemporaneously correlate with the independent variable: loss reserve errors. The methods used in Anderson (1971) and Smith (1980) are non regression analyses based on comparison of the underwriting results reported and the results corrected by reserve errors. They do not consider various firm characteristics and other important incentives such as tax shield and financial distress. So the dilemma is: if we want to include the "true" underwriting or overall income measurement in our research to test income smoothing while controlling other firm demographic measures and incentives explored in other studies, we will have the problem of contemporaneous correlation and regression methods will be not appropriate; if we use non regression methods (such as univariate analysis) it is difficult to simultaneously control so many factors that relate to loss reserve errors. 19

20 4. Hypothesis Our solution towards the problems above is: testing income smoothing from another angle by focusing on the investment income, which is also an important component of an insurer's income. Theoretically, loss reserving process is independent of the investment income of the property/ casualty insurer if there is no manipulation. Under Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP), the loss reserve is defined as an insurer s estimated liability for unpaid claims on all losses that occurred prior to the balance sheet date. Thus the error in loss reserve is embedded in the uncertainty in the future losses (and limitations in actuarial modeling techniques, of course). The practices of loss reserving are based on either the incurred losses or payments run-off triangles of claims. Different from life insurance industry, investment income is barely considered when estimating unpaid losses (Brown 1994). The SAP also requires P/C insurers to report loss reserve on an undiscounted basis, thus the interested rate has little influence on the estimation of unpaid losses 4. Loss reserves do have certain influence on investment, but the influence of loss reserve errors on rate of investment return is limited. The investment income is generated from two sources: investment income from policyholders' surplus and investment income from funds attributable to insurance transactions (including loss reserves, unearned premium reserves). So the understatement of loss reserves will decrease the investment income from one part (reserve), but it will increase investment income from surplus (although not as much considering tax, surplus distribution and other factors). The understatement or overstatment of reserve only changes the 4 Statutory accounting practices (SAP) require that, with a few exceptions, loss reserves should be reported at the nominal value rather than the present value in the statutory financial statements. It makes an exception to this rule for workers compensation loss reserves related to pension and long-term disability benefits, and for insurers who receive authorization from their domiciliary state to discount the loss reserves for other lines of insurance. 20

21 distribution of the errors in the liability and surplus, without significant influence on the overall investment. The influence may further be mitigated when investment income is scaled by assets. Thus, a significant relationship between loss reserve error and investment income level and investment risk implies that loss reserve is used as an income smoothing tool. And our study also contributes to the literature on whether the insurers are only trying to smooth underwriting income or the overall income of the company. Our main hypothesis is: Ha 1: The magnitude of loss reserve error is positively associated with the risk in investment activities of insurers, after controlling firm characteristics and underwriting related risks. The first measurement we use to evaluate the risk in investment is the volatility of the investment income. Figure 3 illustrates the linkage between volatility and income smoothing. Higher firm risk is associated with larger variations of income around the target income, thus it has a wider range of possible income outcomes and more smoothing are needed to achieve the target income level. If an insurer uses loss reserves to smooth income, larger reserve errors are expected. Since the investment is a major source of an insurer's income, if loss reserve is used to smooth the overall income, then incentive will be stronger when the volatility in investment income is larger. Furthermore, as we have discussed in Section 2, the non-discretionary loss reserve error is associated with underwriting risk and discretionary loss reserve error is associated with both underwriting risk and investment risk. Thus, if the relationship between loss reserve error and income volatility is not significant, we fail to find evidence of income smoothing towards overall income, but it is still possible that insurers over or under reserve to smooth underwriting income. 21

22 However, if there is a significant relationship between loss reserve error and volatility of investment income and the risk in investment activities, then we find strong evidence of income smoothing of the overall income of the insurers. Thus the sub-hypothesis of the main hypothesis is: Ha 1.1: The magnitude of loss reserve error is positively associated with the volatility of investment income of insurers, after controlling firm characteristics and underwriting related risks. One potential problem with the above hypothesis is that the volatility of investment income and volatility of underwriting income might be strongly correlated. They may be influenced by the same factor such as interest rate and inflation in the market. We tested the correlation between the standard deviation of investment income of the past five years and the standard deviation of the underwriting income in the past five years. And considering the underwriting income is influenced by reserve error 5, we also add the reserve error back to get the error-adjusted underwriting income and its volatility in the past five years. The reported underwriting income volatility is significantly correlated with investment income volatility, but all the coefficients of correlation are very small 6 : only 1.2% of the variation in investment income volatility can be explained by the volatility of underwriting income. Another important aspect of the investment income is the level of investment income. When the investment income is higher than normal, an insurer might have less incentive to do manipulation because the high investment income relieves the stress of low or negative overall 5 The reserve error used here is the difference between the original reported reserve and the developed reserves five years later, scaled by total assets, following KFS model ((Kazenski, Feldhaus, and Schneider 1992). 6 The correlation between variance of the two incomes is even smaller. 22

23 income. Figure 4 shows that given two firms with same volatility of income but different income level (income is scaled by total asset to eliminate the effects of size). The firm with higher income level has less incentive to smooth its income because it has less probability to suffer from the unexpected low income. So we hypothesis that: Ha 1.2: The magnitude of loss reserve error is negatively associated with the level of investment income of insurers, after controlling firm characteristics and underwriting related risks. In addition to the level and volatility of investment income, we also want to find out if reserve errors are related to the investment portfolios, such as higher risk bonds, investment in affiliates. So the sub-hypothesis is: Ha 1.3: The magnitude of loss reserve error is positively associated with the risk in the investment portfolio of insurers, after controlling firm characteristics and underwriting related risks. We also test some of the factors that have been reported in prior literature. The secondary hypotheses tested in this paper include: Ha 2: Insurers with high tax over-reserve more than those with low tax rate (e.g. Grace 1990; Petroni 1992; Nelson 2000). Ha 3: Insurers with higher amount of reinsurance purchase tend to have smaller over-reserving errors (e.g. Forbes 1970; Petroni 1992; Nelson 2000; Gaver and Paterson 2004). Ha 4: Financially weaker insurers tend to have more under-reserving errors (e.g. Petroni 1992; Browne, Ju, and Lei 2012). 23

24 5. Methodology Loss Reserve Error Several ways have been developed to measure the reserve errors. Basically, an error (bias) is defined as the difference between the estimate and its actual (or realized) value. For loss reserves, it is the difference between the initial estimate and the ultimate payment. The basic non-scaled reserve error is defined as: Error = Reserve Estimate True Reserve (1) In this formula, Reserve Estimate is the value of the estimate of losses incurred in the current year to be paid in the future, and True Reserve is the value of the actual amount of losses incurred in the current year to be paid in the future (Grace 1990). The "Reserve Estimate" is the difference between losses incurred estimates and cumulative paid losses by the end of the current year. The incurred losses of each accident year are revised in each calendar year to reflect new information about the losses. The revised losses incurred are called "developed losses incurred". There are two methods that are commonly used to measure the "True Reserve". The commonly method used is the Kazenski, Feldhaus, and Schneider method (1992), or "KFS" method. The "True Reserve" value is estimated using the difference between developed losses incurred five years later and the cumulative loss payments by the end the current year. The development of losses incurred and cumulative payments are shown in Schedule P Part 2 and Part 3 of NAIC Annual Statement. Because the cumulative loss payments of the current year are the minuend of the "Reserve Estimate" and "True Reserve" proxies, the method is simplified as shown in Equation (3): Reserve i,t = Losses Incurred i,t Cumulative Payments i,t (2.1) 24

25 Developed Reserve i,t+j = Developed Losses Incurred i,t+j Cumulative Payments i,t (2.2) ERROR i.t = Reserve i,t Developed Reserve i,t+j = Losses Incurred i,t Developed Losses Incurred i,t+j (3) In these equations, the value most commonly used for j is 4 or 5. And the errors are usually scaled by initial loss reserve estimate, developed loss reserve estimate, net premiums earned or total assets to catch the size effect. Investment Income The average investment income in the past five years (INVMEAN) is included in our model to see how the loss reserve errors are related to the level of the investment income in the past. The investment income volatility (INVSTD) is measured by the standard deviation of the rate of return on total assets (ROA) in the previous five years of the reporting year t. INVSTD i,t = 5 (Investment ROA i,t j Investment j=1 ROA i,t 1 to t 5 ) 4 (4) When the history of a company is less than five years, a four year standard deviation is used. We also construct a variable which standardize the investment income of current period based on the Z-score with mean of INVMEAN and standard deviation of INVSTD. SMOOTHINV i,t = Investment ROA i,t Investment ROA i,t 1 to t 5 INVSTD i,t (5) 25

26 Investment Portfolio The major investments of a property-casualty insurer reported in the annual statement are listed in Figure 5. Among the investments, bonds are the largest for the property and casualty insurance industry. Figure 5 shows that about 65% of the cash and invested assets are in the form of bonds. By the end of 2012, 67.21% of total admitted assets were invested in bonds, followed by investments in common stock (17.04%) for the property and casualty insurance industry (NAIC). For the income earned, our data shows that from 1996 to 2012, averagely about 72% of the income earned in the property/casualty insurance industry are generated by bonds, and only 10% are from common stocks. The riskiness in bonds represents a majority of the investment risks. NAIC SVO (Securities Valuations Office) Designation categorizes the bonds owned by insurers into six credit quality groups: rating from the highest credit rating Class 1 to lowest Class 6 (Appendix 2). Among the six classes, Class 3 to Class 6 are of lower credit quality and regarded as non-investment grade bonds. To measure the risk in bonds and common stocks, we applied the risk factors used in the Risk- Based Capital Formula provided by NAIC Risk-Based Capital Report Including Overview and Instructions (Table 3). The risk factors differ by NAIC SVO designation. The factors are set based on the statistical analysis of the default risk of each NAIC designation. We construct the risk measure for unaffiliated bonds ("BONDCHARGE") using: BONDCHARGE = (bondclass bondclass bondclass bondclass bondclass bondclass6 0.30)/ TotalAsst 100 Given that real estate and mortgage are assets with lower liquidity, we also include the percentage of real estate and mortgage loans in total assets (RLMRTG). Both NAIC Risk Based 26

27 Capital Formula and rating agencies such as A.M. Best apply higher risk charge for investments in affiliates than that of unaffiliated because the risk of default is higher for affiliated investments (A.M. Best, ). The percentage of investment to affiliates is included in our model (AFFIINV). Real estate and mortgage are invested assets with less liquidity, and the investments in affiliated institutions are subject to higher market risk due to the dependence between the insurer and its affiliates. Underwriting Related Risk The underwriting related risk will make it more difficult to estimate the ultimate payment thus more reserve error may occur. On the other hand, it gives the insurers more room to conduct reserve manipulation. We control the underwriting risk through the risk characteristics in different lines of business. The traditional way used in most literature is the net premiums written in long tail lines of business similar to Sommer (1996). The long-tailed lines include: auto liability, other liability, farmowners/homeowners, commercial multiple peril, medical malpractice, workers compensation, ocean marine, aircraft, boiler and machinery 8. However, the actual lengths of tails are quite different within this classification. As noted by Nelson (2000), some lines of business have much shorter lines than others. For example, about 90% of the farmowners/homeowners losses incurred are paid within the first three years. And some of the long-tailed lines are liability and property combined lines, such as farmowners/homeowners, commercial multiple peril, ocean marine, aircraft, and boiler and machinery. Thus, we further 7 For example, A.M. Best apply a baseline risk charge of 100% to the investment in affiliates, regardless of which investment schedule it is recorded in (i.e. surplus notes recorded as other investments in Schedule BA, etc.). Source: Best's Credit Rating Methodology(BCRM). Aug.10, This classification is also consistent with Schedule P of statutory annual statement: Homeowners, Farmowners, Private Passenger Auto Liability, Commercial Auto Liability, Workers' Compensation, Commercial Multiple Peril, Medical Malpractice (occurrence policies and claims-made policies), Special Liability (Ocean Marine, Aircraft (All Perils), Boiler and Machinery), Other Liability (occurrence and claims-made), International, Products Liability (occurrence and claims-made). 27