Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:05:27.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catastrophes and Insurance Stocks – A Benchmarking Approach for Measuring Efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2011

Jason West
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses the numeraire portfolio to benchmark insurance stock returns as a natural measure for detecting abnormal insurance stock returns from catastrophic events. The assumptions underlying the efficient markets hypothesis using a numeraire denominated returns approach hold for catastrophic insurance events whereas other more traditional methods such as the market model and Fama-French three factor model often fail, typically due to the accumulation of estimation errors. We construct a portfolio of Australian insurance firms and observe the market reaction to major insured catastrophic events. Using the numeraire denominated returns approach we observe no particular trend in the cumulative abnormal returns of insurance securities following a catastrophic event. Using both the traditional market model and the Fama-French three factor model however, we observe significantly positive cumulative abnormal returns following an insured catastrophic event. The errors inherent in the market model and three factor model for event studies are shown to be eliminated using the numeraire denominated returns approach.

Keywords

Event StudyBenchmark ModelEfficient Markets HypothesisMarket ModelFactor ModelsGrowth Optimal Portfolio

JEL classification

G10: General G13: Contingent Pricing • Futures Pricing
Type
Papers
Information
Annals of Actuarial Science , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , 16 January 2012 , pp. 103 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahern, K. (2009). Sample selection and event study estimation. Journal of Empirical Finance, 16, 466–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aktas, N., de Bodt, E., Cousin, J. (2007). Event studies with a contaminated estimation period. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(1), 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholdy, J., Olson, D., Peare, P. (2007). Conducting event studies on a small stock Exchange. European Journal of Finance, 13(3), 227–252.Google Scholar
Beard, R., Pentikainen, T., Pesonen, E. (1984). Risk Theory. third edn. Chapman and Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer, E., Musumeci, J., Poulsen, A. (1991). Event study methodology under conditions of event-induced variance. Journal of Financial Economics, 30, 253–272.Google Scholar
Brenner, M. (1979). The sensitivity of the efficient market hypothesis to alternative specifications of the market model. Journal of Finance, 34(4), 915–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S., Warner, J. (1985). Using daily stock returns: The case of event studies. Journal of Financial Economics, 14, 3–32.Google Scholar
Bühlmann, H., Platen, E. (2003). A discrete time benchmark approach for insurance and finance. ASTIN Bulletin, 33(2), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carhart, M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52, 57–82.Google Scholar
Chandra, R., Balachandran, B. (1990). A synthesis of alternative testing procedures for event studies. Contemporary Accounting Research, 6, 611–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, K., Grinblatt, M., Titman, S., Wermers, R. (1997). Measuring mutual fund performance with characteristic-based benchmarks. Journal of Finance, 52, 1035–1058.Google Scholar
Davidson, W., Chandy, P., Cross, M. (1987). Large losses, risk management and stock returns in the airline industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 54, 163–172.Google Scholar
Fama, E. (1976). Foundations of Finance. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Fama, E. (1998). Market efficiency, long term returns and behavioural finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 49, 283–306.Google Scholar
Fama, E., French, K. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 3–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E., French, K. (1996). Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. Journal of Finance, 51, 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E., French, K. (1997). Industry costs of equity. Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 153–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of non-stationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica, 57, 357–384.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. (1956). A new interpretation of information rate. Bell Systems Technology Journal, 35(1), 917–926.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H., Ginsberg, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Borkan, B., Katz, N. (1978). Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Long, J. (1990). The numeraire portfolio. Journal of Financial Economics, 26, 29–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, M.A., Brailsford, T., Gaunt, C. (2009). Interaction of size, book-to-market and momentum effects in Australia. Accounting and Finance, 50(1), 197–219.Google Scholar
Platen, E. (2002). Arbitrage in continuous complete markets. Advances in Applied Probability, 34, 540–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, P., Gaunt, C. (2011). Price and earnings momentum in Australian stock returns. Accounting and Finance forthcoming, 1–23.Google Scholar
Sharpe, W. (1963). A simplified model of portfolio analysis. Management Science, 9(2), 277–294.Google Scholar
Shelor, R., Anderson, D., Cross, M. (1992). Gaining from loss: property-liability insurer stock values in the aftermath of the 1989 California earthquake. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 59(3), 476–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G., Cochran, W. (1967). Statistical Methods. Ames Iowa State University Press, Iowa.Google Scholar
Sprecher, C., Pertl, M. (1983). Large losses, risk management and stock prices. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 50, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar