SURETY PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONSTRUCTION MARKET. David M. Finkelstein June 2014

Transcription

1 SURETY PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONSTRUCTION MARKET David M. Finkelstein June 2014

2 Table of Contents Surety Results Market Situation Contractor Results Surety Perspective for 2014 & 2015 Conclusion 1

3 SURETY RESULTS 2

4 Surety Results Top 5 writers account for about 50% of industry-wide premium Gross written premium has declined from its peak in 2008 by an annual average of.76% 2008 GWP: $5.5B 2011 GWP: $5.2B Surety results driven by underwriting not expense management Surety is among the most profitable sectors in recent years but... 3

5 Surety Results Surety Industry Results 2011 GWP 2011 Loss Ratio 2012 GWP 2012 Loss Ratio 2013 GWP 2013 Loss Ratio Top 5 Sureties $2.7B 3.1% $2.5B 14.2% $2.6B 13.9% M 32.7% 732M 49.5% 751M 21.4% Balance Top B 19% 2.4B 29.1% 2.5B 18.7% Source: SFAA Contract market results have remained in an acceptable range Reasons for the differing results Top Five Stronger/larger, more financially solid contractors More mature relationships with customers Release of prior year(s) reserves Movement to balance premium by writing more commercial surety 4

6 Surety Results Year Direct Premium Written Direct Premium Earned Direct Losses Incurred Loss Ratio Difference BTW yr & avg L/R 12/31/1924 $ 44,163,367 $ 41,472,471 $18,164, % -1.7% 12/31/ ,170,432 44,471,399 22,458, % -8.4% 12/31/ ,746,362 49,187,148 18,937, % 3.6% 12/31/ ,892,512 49,992,009 17,247, % 7.6% 12/30/ ,927,853 50,731,096 24,300, % -5.8% 12/30/ ,536,664 51,636,460 19,673, % 4.0% 12/30/ ,192,977 51,243,293 26,800, % -10.2% 12/30/ ,369,692 45,523,471 33,596, % -31.7% 12/29/ ,216,655 35,384,008 36,657, % -61.5% 12/29/ ,877,874 28,454,510 30,332, % -64.5% 12/29/ ,556,570 32,110,085 30,697, % -53.5% 12/29/ ,085,553 34,516,527 28,855, % -41.5% 12/28/ ,147,041 38,040,845 16,890, % -2.3% 12/28/ ,022,963 39,742,296 12,677, % 10.2% 12/28/ ,213,310 39,352,667 10,349, % 15.8% 12/28/ ,231,166 43,202,032 9,979, % 19.0% 12/27/ ,266,272 42,944,688 12,840, % 12.2% 12/27/ ,650,454 47,852,225 9,953, % 21.3% 12/27/ ,893,162 56,735,288 9,701, % 25.0% 12/27/ ,657,381 48,439,896 8,912, % 23.7% 12/26/ ,816,557 36,784,172 3,531, % 32.5% 12/26/ ,039,867 34,888,087 4,744, % 28.5% 12/26/ ,589,182 38,103,167 1,790, % 37.4% 12/26/ ,494,785 46,008, , % 40.3% - Totals $ 1,036,758,651 $1,026,816,136 $ 409,921, % X 2 best/2 worse $879,580,155 $878,866,155 $340,312, % 5

7 Surety Results Year Direct Premium Written Direct Premium Earned Direct Losses Incurred Loss Ratio Difference BTW yr & Average L/R 12/31/1981 $1,088,709,460 $996,937,013 $278,371, % 3.2% 12/31/1982 1,215,380,500 1,075,645, ,290, % -2.8% 12/31/1983 1,479,477,801 1,200,436, ,529, % -2.3% 12/30/1984 1,911,118,190 1,406,060, ,760, % -15.5% 12/30/1985 2,454,556,004 1,588,774,470 1,234,472, % -46.6% 12/30/1986 1,573,740,541 1,566,262,616 1,045,978, % -35.7% 12/30/1987 1,730,364,335 1,652,031, ,220, % -24.4% 12/29/1988 1,866,159,159 1,806,265, ,476, % 4.3% 12/29/1989 2,862,868,983 1,985,103, ,355, % 0.0% 12/29/1990 2,154,321,062 2,134,329, ,307, % 8.2% 12/29/1991 2,189,219,980 2,167,284, ,511, % 9.0% 12/28/1992 2,234,558,735 2,201,973, ,004, % 1.3% 12/28/1993 2,328,666,553 2,282,002, ,762, % 8.6% 12/28/1994 2,456,824,256 2,386,214, ,919, % -1.5% 12/28/1995 2,711,907,435 2,678,279, ,692, % 0.1% 12/27/1996 2,767,034,998 2,659,163, ,421, % 4.7% 12/27/1997 2,884,636,736 2,681,720, ,072, % 5.9% 12/27/1998 2,988,236,615 2,880,147, ,033, % 4.4% 12/27/1999 3,327,875,945 3,052,492, ,099, % 2.5% 12/26/2000 3,453,655,276 3,384,757,272 1,530,885, % -14.1% 12/26/2001 3,485,062,065 3,320,197,154 2,733,027, % -51.2% 12/26/2002 3,639,289,660 3,495,935,923 2,251,942, % -33.3% 12/26/2003 3,727,457,146 3,707,551,357 1,833,156, % -18.3% 12/25/2004 4,265,934,319 4,081,720,567 2,432,747, % -28.5% 12/25/2005 4,476,977,419 4,346,275,972 1,304,591, % 1.1% 12/25/2006 5,007,980,206 4,722,379, ,474, % 13.6% 12/25/2007 5,401,780,316 5,156,647, ,592, % 12.9% 12/24/2008 5,465,151,031 5,359,054, ,999, % 17.8% 12/24/2009 5,142,385,351 5,260,642,180 1,031,934, % 11.5% 12/24/2010 5,145,134,689 5,230,707, ,789, % 17.6% 12/31/2011 5,121,352,141 5,127,954, ,663, % 17.8% 12/31/2012 5,035,544,691 5,136,705,629 1,109,388, % 9.5% 12/31/2013 5,245,677,500 5,174,838, ,022, % 14.9% Total $106,839,039,098 $101,906,491,801 $31,703,496, % X 2 best/2 worse $90,315,751,240 $86,513,634,719 $26,343,019, % 6

8 Surety Results U.S. SURETY INDUSTRY CYCLE % 18.2% 13.3% 19.6% 13.5% 13.3% 21.6% 16.3% 27.9% 36.4% 32.4% 28.8% 29.4% 23.9% 26.2% 24.2% 30.1% 30.5% 25.9% 32.4% 40.2% 36.2% 43.3% 33.0% 45.9% 27.9% 33.9% 33.4% 46.6% 26.8% 31.1% 22.9% 22.1% 29.8% 22.6% 32.6% 31.1% 26.4% 25.2% 26.7% 28.6% 30.0% 45.2% 49.4% 55.5% 61.2% 61.3% 59.6% 66.8% 64.4% 77.7% 82.3% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% LOSS RATIO 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% YEAR Source: SFAA

9 Surety Results Historical Premium & Loss Ratio Trends 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% $6,000 $5,000 Millions 60.0% $4, % 40.0% $3, % $2, % 10.0% $1, % $- Source: SFAA Direct Written Premium Loss Ratio 8

10 MARKET SITUATION 9

11 Market Situation Current Surety Market Since 1990 s consolidation has narrowed the surety field considerably Subguard and Subcontractor Insurance Taking surety premium and losses away from the surety industry Shifting losses from surety companies onto contractors Reduces premium efficiency on subcontract accounts Adverse selection Contract market is engaged in conservative, defensive underwriting Contract line loss activity has become more frequent due to several large headline claims Contract surety remains a competitive landscape Responsible underwriting and credit selection is beginning to erode for premium growth Insurance market share mentality 10

12 Market Situation Surety & Fidelity Association of America Top 15 Surety Writers 1994 vs Surety ($millions) Premium Surety ($millions) Premium 1 Reliance Travelers TRAVELERS BOND USF&G St. Paul Travelers LIBERTY MUTUAL GRP F&D Zurich ZURICH INSURANCE GRP St Paul Group Travelers CNA INSURANCE GRP AIG AIU Holdings Chartis CHUBB & SON INC GRP Aetna Travelers IFIC SURETY GRP Continental CNA HCC SURETY GRP Fireman's Fund Out of surety HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP CNA Insurance Companies ACE LTD GROUP Safeco Liberty Mutual RLI INSURANCE GRP Chubb GREAT AMERICAN INS COMPANIES Hartford LEXON/BONDSAFEGUARD Amwest Gone NAS SURETY GRP Capsure CNA THE HANOVER INSURANCE GRP CIGNA Group ACE MERCHANTS BONDING CO GRP 76.2 Companies that are gone are in RED Companies that merged or were sold are in BLUE Companies that merged or were sold a second time are in GREEN 11

13 Market Situation Top 20 Surety Companies Attributes Analysis Rank Company 2013 DWP 2013 DLR 3 year average DLR 1 Travelers $ 778, % Liberty Mutual $ 738, % Zurich $ 492, % C N A $ 408, % Chubb $ 210, % IFIC $ 167, % HCC $ 166, % Hartford $ 160, % ACE $ 143, % RLI $ 110, % Great American $ 110, % Lexon/Bond Safeguard $ 96, % NAS $ 79, % Hanover $ 77, % Merchants Bonding $ 76, % Arch Insurance $ 74, % American International $ 64, % WR Berkley $ 64, % Suretec $ 54, % Alleghany $ 53, % 22.0 Contract attributes Jumbo Very Large Large Middle Market Smaller Middle Market Small Account Specialty International Fronting Reverse Flow Foreign Foreign Strong Market Perception Moderate Market Perception Unknown Source: SFAA Contract Definitions Jumbo Work Programs > $1B Very Large - $500MM to $1B Large Middle Market - $100MM to $500MM Smaller Middle Market - $25MM to $100MM Small Account - $25MM and less Specialty Trade contractors International Definitions Fronting Ability to write incidental bonds for US Accounts in Foreign jurisdictions Reverse Flow Ability to write US bonds for foreign companies Foreign-Foreign Ability to write foreign bonds for foreign companies 12

14 CONTRACTOR RESULTS 13

15 Contractor Results Industry Trends Overall terms and conditions in contract and bond forms are more onerous Preference contracts for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contractors are reducing work available to standard contractors Public budget reductions, private lending restrictions, and project delays are resulting in work schedule uncertainties 14

16 Contractor Results Financial Conditions Approximately 82% of contractors profitable in 2013 Balance sheets have deteriorated Working capital and liquidity adversely effected Many subcontractors are a bad receivable away from bankruptcy Operating leverage has increased Total debt to net worth Interest bearing debt to net worth 15

17 Contractor Results 2013 Profitability by Business Type 16

18 Contractor Results 2013 Profitability by Region Contract Accounts 17

19 SURETY PERSPECTIVE FOR

20 Surety Perspective for 2014 & 2015 Measuring the Contribution of Construction to the Slow Recovery Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) Economic activity and employment have continued to expand at a moderate rate The slow recovery has kept the economy from growing at a historical average of 2.5% of GDP At the existing rate of recovery, FOMC is predicting that the historical average will be attained in 2015 Recovery of the construction sector is a necessary ingredient for a strong recovery 19

21 Surety Perspective for 2014 & 2015 Economic Interconnections of Construction Production of homes and commercial structures requires purchases of intermediate goods and services These purchases include not only steel, wood, and electrical, but also insurance bonds, legal, and banking services The vertically integrated contractor has been strained due to their own internal connections (e.g. highway contractor owns the quarry, and general contractors own electrical and mechanical) 20

22 Surety Perspective for 2014 & 2015 Housing 21

23 Surety Perspective for 2014 & Projected Growth by Region Construction Put in Place Source: Federal Reserve of St. Louis 22

24 Surety Perspective for 2014 & 2015 Are Contractors Ready for an Uptick? Balance sheet strength Ability to internalize cash flow operations Subcontractor relationships: Do they still exist? Surety relationships? Banking relationships? 23

25 Surety Perspective for 2014 & 2015 Create a flexible plan Examine overhead Equipment utilization Alternate delivery systems Continuity 24

26 CONCLUSION 25