Skip to main content
Log in

An analysis of post-demutualisation in the property–liability insurance industry

  • Published:
The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a quasi-natural experiment, we examine how demutualisation affects demutualised insurers’ capital, organisational flexibility and alignment of managerial incentives post-demutualisation. First, our results show demutualised insurers have faster surplus growth than matching insurers post-demutualisation. However, the surplus growth differs between demutualised insurers with and without surplus notes. Specifically, the evidence shows that demutualised insurers with surplus notes experience long-term surplus growth, while demutualised insurers without surplus notes experience short-term surplus increases. Second, we find that increased organisational flexibility facilitates merger and acquisition activities for demutualised insurers and helps them to pursue growth and diversification. We find that 51% of demutualised stock insurers become targets in the conversion year. Finally, we find that demutualised insurers have lower underwriting expenses and underwrite more in commercial lines post-demutualisation. Overall, our evidence shows that demutualisation has a positive impact on surplus growth, organisational flexibility and the alignment between managerial incentives and owners' interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Please note that the 157 demutualisations include reciprocals; 1920–1988: 98 cases (Mayers and Smith 2002); 1989–1990: 1 case (Best’s Insurance Report); 1991–1999: 34 cases (Viswanathan and Cummins 2003); 1997–2009: 45 cases in our sample.

  2. Except for investor surplus notes which are usually issued by financially strong insurers. There is only one insurer issuing investor surplus notes in our sample.

  3. Issuing surplus notes is the only way to raise equity capital externally for mutual insurers and the amount cannot exceed 15% of the insurer’s surplus (Belth 1996).

  4. Blockholders in the finance literature are generally defined as stockholders who hold more than 5% of the stock of a company.

  5. Since 2008, there have been some other demutualisation cases. For example, Federal Life Mutual Holding Company demutualised in December 2018. Economical insurance, a P–L insurer in Canada, is under the demutualisation process now and Dai-ichi Mutual Life Insurance Co., the second-largest life insurer in Japan, demutualised on 1 April 2010. Demutualisation does not occur only in the insurance industry but also in other financial industries (e.g. Mastercard, Visa, etc.) and stock exchanges (e.g. New York Stock Exchange).

  6. We focus on the prior two methods since we only observe these two in our sample.

  7. Some transactions are paid by a mixture of stocks and cash.

  8. It should be noted that we use cross-sectional regressions rather than panel data regressions.

  9. SNL Financial data has now joined forces with S&P Capital IQ to form S&P Global Market Intelligence.

  10. We start in 1996 because no electronic database is available before 1996. It would be very difficult to find matching firms without an electronic database.

  11. The sample includes reciprocals since they are now not distinguishable from mutuals (Cummins and Weiss 1993).

  12. The reason we match at t = − 1 is that treatment insurers (demutualised insurers) and non-treatment insurers (the matching mutuals) should have similar characteristics right before demutualisation.

  13. This study uses mutual insurers as matching insurers. One may suggest that we should use stock insurers. We believe that using stock insurers as matching firms may not be appropriate because we want to examine the differences with and without the benefits of demutualisation.

  14. We excluded eight demutualised insurers while doing the univariate and multivariate analyses due to missing data on the matching criteria.

  15. Two demutualised insurers drop out of the sample since year 3 and another one since year 4. We also use the sample of 28 demutualised insurers and the matching mutuals with five-year complete data and the results are similar. We do the same for both univariate and multivariate analyses.

  16. The dependent variables are cumulative. Surplus change (ΔSurplus− 1,t) is defined as Surplust/Surplus− 1–1, where t stands for years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. For example, ΔSurplus− 1,5 is defined as changes in surplus from t = − 1 to t = 5. Specifically, ΔSurplus− 1,5 = Surplus5/Surplus− 1–1. For each time period, we run a regression with the dependent variable ΔSurplus− 1,t. We run five regressions in total.

  17. It is observed that the demutualised insurers drop a large number of lines in year 5. The result is driven by one demutualised insurer, Milwaukee Insurance Company, who dropped 15 lines in year 5. It could be a strategic change in the line of business since it merges with another insurer and adds new lines in year 4.

  18. 10.35 is the sample average standard deviation of loss ratio for year 3.

  19. To address the concern about the PSM method, we conduct regression analyses with control variables. Pan and Bai (2015) review PSM and state that “propensity score matching plus regression with controlling for covariates in the outcome analysis will produce robust estimates of treatment effects regardless of the choice of propensity score matching methods.” Note that we try to include all important control variables. If we omit important variables, then PSM does not guarantee the correct result.

  20. The results are available upon request.

References

  • Belth, J. 1996. The looming controversy over capital notes. The Insurance Forum 64–68.

  • Belth, J. 2015. The Insurance Forum: A memoir. Ellettsville, Indiana: The Insurance Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boose, M.A. 1990. Agency theory and alternative predictions for life insurers: An empirical test. Journal of Risk and Insurance 499–518.

  • Butler, R.J., Y. Cui, and A. Whitman. 2000. Insurers’ demutualization decisions. Risk Management and Insurance Review 3 (2): 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, S.L., and S. Tennyson. 1998. Capital shocks and merger activity in the property–liability insurance industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance 563–595.

  • Cullen, J.B., and R.H. Gordon. 2007. Taxes and entrepreneurial risk-taking: Theory and evidence for the US. Journal of Public Economics 91 (7–8): 1479–1505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J.D., and G.P. Nini. 2002. Optimal capital utilization by financial firms: Evidence from the property-liability insurance industry. Journal of Financial Services Research 21 (1–2): 15–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J.D., and J. VanDerhei. 1979. A note on the relative efficiency of property-liability insurance distribution systems. In Foundations of insurance economics, 521–531. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Cummins, J.D., and M.A. Weiss. 1993. Measuring cost efficiency in the property-liability insurance industry. Journal of Banking & Finance 17 (2–3): 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J.D., and X. Xie. 2008. Mergers and acquisitions in the US property-liability insurance industry: Productivity and efficiency effects. Journal of Banking & Finance 32 (1): 30–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J.D., and X. Xie. 2009. Market values and efficiency in US insurer acquisitions and divestitures. Managerial Finance 35 (2): 128–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, L., and J. Kakes. 2010. Are non-risk based capital requirements for insurance companies binding? Journal of Banking & Finance 34 (7): 1618–1627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eling, M., and M. Luhnen. 2010. Efficiency in the international insurance industry: A cross-country comparison. Journal of Banking & Finance 34 (7): 1497–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erhemjamts, O., and R.D. Phillips. 2012. Form over matter: Differences in the incentives to convert using full versus partial demutualization in the US life insurance industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance 79 (2): 305–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C.L., G.C. Lai, and J.P. Lee. 2013. Organizational structure, board composition, and risk taking in the U.S. property casualty insurance industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance 80: 169–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, G.C., and P. Limpaphayom. 2003. Organizational structure and performance: Evidence from the nonlife insurance industry in Japan. Journal of Risk and Insurance 70 (4): 735–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamm-Tennant, J., and L.T. Starks. 1993. Stock versus mutual ownership structures: The risk implications. Journal of Business 29–46.

  • MacMinn, R., and Y. Ren. 2011. Mutual versus stock insurers: A synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research. Journal of Insurance Issues 101–111.

  • Mayers, D., A. Shivdasani, C.W. Smith Jr. 1997. Board composition and corporate control: Evidence from the insurance industry. Journal of Business 33–62.

  • Mayers, D., and C.W. Smith Jr. 1981. Contractual provisions, organizational structure, and conflict control in insurance markets. Journal of Business 407–434.

  • Mayers, D., and C.W. Smith Jr. 1986. Ownership structure and control: The mutualization of stock life insurance companies. Journal of Financial Economics 16 (1): 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayers, D., and C.W. Smith Jr. 1988. Ownership structure across lines of property-casualty insurance. The Journal of Law and Economics 31 (2): 351–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayers, D., and C.W. Smith Jr. 1990. On the corporate demand for insurance: evidence from the reinsurance market. Journal of Business 19–40.

  • Mayers, D., and C.W. Smith Jr. 1994. Managerial discretion, regulation, and stock insurer ownership structure. Journal of Risk and Insurance 638–655.

  • Mayers, D., and C.W. Smith. 2002. Ownership structure and control: Property-casualty insurer conversion to stock charter. Journal of Financial Services Research 21 (1–2): 117–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayers, D., and C.W. Smith. 2004. Incentives for managing accounting information: Property-liability insurer stock-charter conversions. Journal of Risk and Insurance 71 (2): 213–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayers, D., and C.W. Smith Jr. 2005. Agency problems and the corporate charter. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 21 (2): 417–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, M.J., and S.G. Rhee. 1992. Ownership structure and performance: the demutualization of life insurers. Journal of Risk and Insurance 221–238.

  • Myers, S.C., and N.S. Majluf. 1984. Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. National Bureau of Economic Research (No. w1396).

  • National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 1998. Mutual insurance holding company reorganizations.

  • Pan, W., and H. Bai. 2015. Propensity score analysis: fundamentals and developments. Guilford Publications.

  • Shiu, Y.M. 2011. Reinsurance and capital structure: Evidence from the United Kingdom non-life insurance industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance 78 (2): 475–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan, K.S. 2006. The pricing of insurer demutualization initial public offerings. Journal of Risk and Insurance 73 (3): 439–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan, K.S., and J.D. Cummins. 2003. Ownership structure changes in the insurance industry: An analysis of demutualization. Journal of Risk and Insurance 70 (3): 401–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, X. 2010. Are publicly held firms less efficient? Evidence from the US property-liability insurance industry. Journal of Banking & Finance 34 (7): 1549–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gene Lai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Demutualised insurers in the property–liability insurance industry

Property–liability mutual

Demutualisation year

Inc. state

Goschenhoppen-Home Mutual Insurance Co

1997

PA

Old Guard Mutual Fire Insurance Co

1997

PA

Old Guard Mutual Insurance Co

1997

PA

Patrons Oxford Mutual Insurance Co

1997

ME

Select Risk Mutual Insurance Co

1997

PA

Allegheny Mutual Casualty Co

1998

PA

Compensation Mutual Insurance Company

1998

ME

FCCI Mutual Insurance Co

1998

FL

Pioneer Mutual Insurance Co. (NY)

1998

NY

Farmers Casualty Company Mutual

1999

IA

Lakeland Mutual Insurance Company

1999

PA

Medical Inter-Insurance Exchange of New Jersey

1999

NJ

Michigan Educational Employees Mutual Insurance Co

1999

MI

Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Co

1999

PA

The Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co

1999

TX

FCCI Commercial Insurance Fund

2000

FL

Millers Mutual Insurance Company

2000

PA

Mutual Insurance Corporation of America

2000

MI

Florida Family Mutual Insurance Company

2001

FL

Attorneys Liability Protection Society, A Mutual RRG

2001

MT

Michigan Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company

2001

MI

First Commercial Mutual Company

2002

FL

First Nonprofit Mutual Insurance Company

2002

IL

Garrison Property and Casualty Association

2003

TX

Mercer Mutual Insurance Company

2003

PA

Millers Mutual Insurance Company

2003

IL

Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Company

2003

WI

Fremont Mutual Insurance Company

2004

MI

Le Mars Mutual Insurance Company of Iowa

2004

IA

Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, A Mutual Company

2005

NV

Petroleum Marketers Mutual Insurance Company

2005

IA

Farmers Home Mutual Fire Insurance Company

2006

AR

Louisiana United Businesses Self Insurers Fund

2006

LA

Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Company

2006

MN

American Physicians Insurance Exchange

2007

TX

IMT Insurance Company (Mutual)

2007

IA

Patriot Mutual Insurance Company

2007

ME

Sheboygan Falls Mutual Insurance Company

2008

WI

Commercial Mutual Insurance Company

2009

NY

Appendix 2: Variable definitions

Variable

Definition

I(Dem)

A dummy variable equal to 1 for demutualised insurers and 0 otherwise

I(DemSN)

A dummy variable equal to 1 for demutualised insurers with surplus notes in year − 1 and 0 otherwise

I(DemwoSN)

A dummy variable equal to 1 for demutualised insurers without surplus notes in year − 1 and 0 otherwise

I(DemSNACQ)

A dummy variable equal to 1 for demutualised insurers with surplus notes in year − 1 that are taken over post-demutualisation and 0 otherwise

I(DemSNwoACQ)

A dummy variable equal to 1 for demutualised insurers with surplus notes in year − 1 that are not taken over post-demutualisation and 0 otherwise

Size

The natural logarithm of net total assets in 1999 dollar value

Surplus/Assets

Surplus to net total assets ratio

Reinsurance ratio

Reinsurance ceded/(direct premiums written + reinsurance assumed)

% commercial lines premiums

Percentage of net premiums written in commercial lines

Line of business Herfindahl

Herfindahl index calculated based on net premiums written on each line, i.e. the sum of the square of net premiums written on each line divided by the square of the insurer’s net premiums written

ROA

Return on assets defined as net income to net total assets

Loss ratio

(Loss incurred + loss adjustment expenses)/net premiums earned

Risk

The standard deviation of the loss ratio

totRisk

Total risk is measured by the standard deviation of return on assets. Return on assets is defined as net income to net total assets

invRisk

Investment risk is measured by the standard deviation of return on investments, where the return on investments is defined as net investment gain or loss to investment assets

Tax rate

Federal income tax/taxable income

Expense ratio

Underwriting expense/premiums written

ΔSurplus

Surplust/Surplus− 1–1, where t stands for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years post-demutualisation and surplus is in 1999 dollar value

ΔDPW

DPWt/DPW− 1–1, where t stands for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years post-demutualisation and DPW stands for direct premiums written in 1999 dollar value

ΔReins

Reinst-Reins− 1, where t stands for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years post-demutualisation and Reins stands for reinsurance ratio defined as reinsurance ceded to direct premiums written and reinsurance assumed

Ave. tax rate

The average tax rate from year − 1 to t, where the tax rate is defined as federal income tax to taxable income

Ave. ROA

The average ROA from year − 1 to t, where ROA is defined as net income to net total assets

ΔNPW

NPWt/NPW− 1–1, where t stands for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years post-demutualisation and NPW is in 1999 dollar value

ΔComm

Commt-Comm− 1, where t stands for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years post-demutualisation and Comm is the percentage of NPW in commercial lines

ΔExpense

Expenset-Expense− 1, where t stands for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years post-demutualisation and Expense is the expense ratio defined as underwriting expense to premiums written

Group

A dummy variable equal to 1 if the insurer belongs to an insurance group and 0 otherwise

Operating ratio

The combined ratio minus the investment income ratio

Agent balance-to-DPW ratio

Agents’ balances/DPW

Ave. no. lines

The average number of lines that the insurer underwrites from year − 1 to t

Ave. admin exp

The average administrative expense ratio from year − 1 to t, where administrative expense ratio is defined as the administration and other expenses to NPW

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jin, L., Lai, G. & Ho, CL. An analysis of post-demutualisation in the property–liability insurance industry. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract 47, 279–320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-021-00231-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-021-00231-9

Keywords

Navigation