IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Catastrophic Events, Parameter Uncertainty and the Breakdown of Implicit Long-term Contracting in the Insurance Market: The Case of Terrorism Insurance

Listed author(s):
  • J. David Cummins
  • Christopher M. Lewis

Following Hurricane Andrew (1992) and the Northridge earthquake (1994), insurance companies expended considerable resources on the measurement and management of the risk of natural catastrophes. Unfortunately, the next major “catastrophic loss” that the industry would face would be a man made event. After all losses are accounted for, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11th, 2001 will be the costliest insured property loss in history, with current estimates of insured losses ranging from $40-$70 billion. Although the insurance industry appears to have the financial resources to absorb the WTC losses, this event has placed enormous stress on the insurance industry, created structural changes in how the market evaluates risk and return, and exposed fissures within the industry structure. Faced with a significant increase in uncertainty about the frequency and severity of future terrorist events, international reinsurers responded to the event by excluding or significantly restricting terrorism coverage from most reinsurance policies. This in turn motivated primary insurers to exclude terrorism coverage from most commercial lines insurance policies or forced primary insurers to cover terrorism risk without the benefit of reinsurance for some regulated insurance lines. At first glance, the response of insurance and reinsurance markets to the World Trade Center attacks seems to parallel the industry’s response to earlier unanticipated loss shocks, including natural disasters such as Andrew and Northridge as well as the 1980s crisis in commercial liability insurance (see, for example, Berger, Cummins, and Tennyson 1992, Cummins and Danzon 1997, Froot and O’Connell 1999, and Cummins and Weiss 2000). Following those unexpected loss events, insurance prices rose sharply and supply was restricted, an outcome that is usually explained in terms of probability updating and capital market imperfections (Gron 1994, Winter 1994, Cummins and Danzon 1997, and Froot and O’Connell 1997). Although the insurance market response to the WTC attacks exhibits similarities with the market disruptions caused by earlier large loss events, there are also indications that the WTC response may not represent merely a temporary market disequilibrium. The tendency of insurers and reinsurers to exclude terrorism coverage altogether rather than offering coverage at higher prices hints at least at a quantitative difference between this and previous catastrophic events. The nature of the event, a deliberate attack by terrorists, suggests that it will be more difficult to reduce parameter uncertainty through scientific and statistical modeling than in the case of natural catastrophes. Moreover, the mitigation of terrorism does not lend itself to domestic legal and contractual reform as in the case of the U.S. tort system. The objective of this paper is to provide evidence regarding the similarities between terrorist attacks and other types of catastrophic events by comparing the response of the U.S. equity markets to the WTC attack and earlier large loss shocks. Specifically, we conduct an eventstudy analysis of the response of equity markets to three large loss events – the WTC attack, Hurricane Andrew, and the Northridge earthquake. We differentiate the impact of eventinduced uncertainty (e.g., parameter uncertainty) and flight to quality in determining the market’s valuation of different insurance companies in an attempt to better understand the process by which the industry moves towards a new market equilibrium following a crisis. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 develops hypotheses based on a theoretical explanation of the relationship between loss shocks and insurance market disequilibria, drawing upon the prior literature on insurance market disequilibria. Section 3 presents an historical review of prior terrorism losses to shed light on the nature of the information communicated to the market from the WTC attacks. Section 4 discusses the sample of insurers used in the analysis and our event-study methodology. The empirical results are presented in section 5, and section 6 concludes with a discussion of implications of our findings for proposed Federal intervention in the market for terrorism reinsurance.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania in its series Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers with number 02-40.

in new window

Date of creation: Jul 2002
Handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:02-40
Contact details of provider: Postal:
3301 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, 3620 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104.6367

Phone: 215.898.1279
Fax: 215.573.8757
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. repec:bla:joares:v:6:y:1968:i::p:67-92 is not listed on IDEAS
  2. David Cummins & Christopher Lewis & Richard Phillips, 1999. "Pricing Excess-of-Loss Reinsurance Contracts against Cat as trophic Loss," NBER Chapters,in: The Financing of Catastrophe Risk, pages 93-148 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Cummins, J. David & Danzon, Patricia M., 1997. "Price, Financial Quality, and Capital Flows in Insurance Markets," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 3-38, January.
  4. Ohlson, James A. & Penman, Stephen H., 1985. "Volatility increases subsequent to stock splits: An empirical aberration," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 251-266, June.
  5. Pound, John & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1990. "Clearly Heard on the Street: The Effect of Takeover Rumors on Stock Prices," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(3), pages 291-308, July.
  6. Berger, Lawrence A & Cummins, J David & Tennyson, Sharon, 1992. "Reinsurance and the Liability Insurance Crisis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 253-272, July.
  7. Boehmer, Ekkehart & Masumeci, Jim & Poulsen, Annette B., 1991. "Event-study methodology under conditions of event-induced variance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 253-272, December.
  8. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1985. "Using daily stock returns : The case of event studies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-31, March.
  9. Cagle, Julie A B & Harrington, Scott E, 1995. "Insurance Supply with Capacity Constraints and Endogenous Insolvency Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 219-232, December.
  10. Christie, Andrew A., 1982. "The stochastic behavior of common stock variances : Value, leverage and interest rate effects," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 407-432, December.
  11. Winter Ralph A., 1994. "The Dynamics of Competitive Insurance Markets," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 379-415, September.
  12. Anne Gron, 1994. "Capacity Constraints and Cycles in Property-Casualty Insurance Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(1), pages 110-127, Spring.
  13. Froot, Kenneth A & Scharfstein, David S & Stein, Jeremy C, 1993. " Risk Management: Coordinating Corporate Investment and Financing Policies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(5), pages 1629-1658, December.
  14. A. Craig MacKinlay, 1997. "Event Studies in Economics and Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 13-39, March.
  15. Giaccotto, Carmelo & Sfiridis, James M., 1996. "Hypothesis testing in event studies: The case of variance changes," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 349-370, October.
  16. Ross, Stephen A, 1989. " Information and Volatility: The No-Arbitrage Martingale Approach to Timing and Resolution Irrelevancy," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-17, March.
  17. Mikkelson, Wayne H. & Partch, M. Megan, 1988. "Withdrawn Security Offerings," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(02), pages 119-133, June.
  18. Dravid, Ajay R, 1987. " A Note on the Behavior of Stock Returns around Ex-dates of Stock Distributions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 42(1), pages 163-168, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:02-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.