GREENLIGHT CAPITAL RE LTD

Estimating our loss and LAE reserves involves a considerable degree of judgment, and our estimates as of any given date are inherently uncertain. Estimating loss and LAE reserves requires us to make assumptions regarding reporting and development patterns, frequency and severity trends, claims settlement practices, potential changes in legal environments, inflation, loss amplification, foreign exchange movements, and other factors. These estimates and judgments are based on numerous considerations and are often revised as (i) we receive changes in loss amounts reported by ceding companies and brokers; (ii) we obtain additional information, experience, or other data; (iii) we develop new or improved methodologies; or (iv) we observe changes in the legal environment.

Our loss and LAE reserves relating to short-tail property risks are typically reported to us and settled more promptly than those relating to long-tail risks. However, the timeliness of loss reporting can be affected by such factors as the nature of the event causing the loss, the location of the loss, whether the loss is from policies in force with primary insurers or with reinsurers, and where our exposure falls within the cedent’s overall reinsurance program.

Our loss and LAE reserves are composed of case reserves (based on claims reported to us) and IBNR reserves, including the associated claims handling costs.

We determine case reserve estimates based on loss reports received. We determine our IBNR reserve estimates using standard actuarial methods and a combination of our own historical and current loss experience, insurance industry loss experience, assessments of pricing adequacy trends, and our professional judgment. In estimating our IBNR reserve, we estimate the total ultimate loss and LAE we expect to incur and subtract paid claims and case reserves.

The nature and extent of our judgment in the reserving process depend in part upon the type of business. Some of our property treaty reinsurance contracts represent business with a low frequency of claims occurrence and a high potential loss severity, such as claims arising from natural catastrophes. Given the nature of these events, traditional actuarial reserving methods may not be reliable indicators of the final outcome. As such, for contracts or losses of this type, we estimate the ultimate cost associated with a single loss event rather than perform analysis on the historical development patterns of past events to estimate the ultimate losses for an entire accident year. We estimate our reserves for these large events on a by-contract basis by reviewing policies with known or potential exposure to a particular loss event.

For non-catastrophe losses, we apply standard actuarial methodologies in setting reserves, including paid and incurred loss development, Bornheutter-Ferguson, burning cost, and frequency and severity techniques. We supplement our analysis with industry loss ratio and development pattern information in conjunction with our own experience. The weight given to a particular method will depend on many factors, including the homogeneity within the class of business, the volume of losses, the maturity of the accident year, and the length of the expected development tail. For example, the expected loss ratio method assumes that the ratio of premiums and losses remains constant. In contrast, development methods rely on observable patterns within reported losses, both historical and newly reported, to establish a view of the ultimate loss incurred. Therefore, as an accident year matures, we may migrate from an expected loss ratio method to an incurred development method.

As a predominantly broker-market reinsurer for both excess-of-loss and proportional contracts, we rely on loss information reported to brokers by primary insurers who, in turn, must estimate their losses at the policy level, often based on incomplete and changing information. The information we receive varies by cedent and may include paid losses, estimated case reserves, and an estimated provision for IBNR reserves. Reserving practices and data-reporting quality differ among ceding companies, which adds further uncertainty to our estimation of ultimate losses. The nature and extent of information received from ceding companies and brokers also vary widely depending on the type of coverage, the contractual reporting terms (which are affected by market conditions and practices), and other factors. Due to the lack of standardization of the terms and conditions of reinsurance contracts, the differences in coverage provided to individual clients, and the tendency of those coverages to change rapidly in response to market conditions, we cannot always reliably measure the ongoing economic impact of such uncertainties and inconsistencies.

Time lags are inherent in loss reporting, especially in the case of excess-of-loss reinsurance contracts. The time lags, coupled with the combined characteristics of low claim frequency and high claim severity on such contracts, make the available data less useful for predicting ultimate losses.

In the case of proportional contracts, we rely on an analysis of a cedent’s historical experience, industry information, and the underwriters’ professional judgment in estimating reserves. We also utilize ultimate loss ratio forecasts when reported by cedents and brokers, which are ordinarily subject to three to six-month lags for proportional business. Due to our reliance on ceding companies for claims reporting, our reserve estimates are highly dependent on ceding companies’ judgment. Furthermore, during the loss settlement period, which may last several years, additional facts regarding individual claims and trends will often become known, and case law may change, affecting ultimate expected losses.

Since we rely on ceding company data in establishing our loss and LAE reserves, we maintain procedures designed to mitigate the risk that such information is incomplete or inaccurate. These procedures include: (i) comparisons of expected premiums to reported premiums, which helps us to identify delinquent client periodic reports; (ii) ceding company audits to identify inaccurate or incomplete reporting of claims and ensure that claims are actively and appropriately managed in line with agreed protocols and settlement authority limits; and (iii) underwriting reviews to ascertain that the losses ceded are covered as provided under the contract terms. These procedures are incorporated in our internal controls and are regularly evaluated and amended as market conditions, risk factors, and unanticipated areas of exposure develop.

We engage an independent third-party actuarial firm to perform a quarterly reserve review and annually opine on the reasonableness and adequacy of the aggregate loss reserves. We provide the third-party actuarial firm with our pricing models, reserving analysis, and other data. The actuarial firm may also inquire about the various assumptions and estimates used in the reserving analysis. The actuarial firm independently creates its own reserving models based on industry loss information, augmented by client-specific loss information and independent assumptions and estimates. Based on various reserving methodologies that the actuarial firm considers appropriate, it creates a loss reserve estimate for each segment in the portfolio. It recommends an aggregate loss reserve, including IBNR. In the event of material differences between our aggregated booked reserves and the actuarial firm's recommended reserves, the reserving committee would be notified, with the reserves adjusted as deemed appropriate. To date, there have been no material differences resulting from the external actuary’s reviews requiring adjustments to our booked reserves.

We monitor the development of our prior-year losses during subsequent calendar years by comparing the actual reported losses against previous estimates and current expectations. The analysis of this loss development is important to the ongoing refinement of our reserving assumptions. Each additional year of loss experience with a given cedent provides additional insight into the accuracy and timeliness of previously reported information.

Estimating loss reserves for our book of longer-tail casualty reinsurance business, which we write on both a proportional and non-proportional basis, involves further uncertainties. In addition to the uncertainties described above, casualty business is generally subject to longer reporting lags than property business, and claims often take several years to settle. During this period, additional factors and trends will be revealed, and we may adjust our reserves accordingly. Therefore, any factors that extend the time until our cedents settle claims add uncertainty to the reserving process.

The uncertainties inherent in the reserving process and the potential for unforeseen developments, including changes in laws and the prevailing interpretation of policy terms, may result in our loss and LAE reserves being materially greater or less than the loss and LAE reserves we initially established. We reflect adjustments to our loss and LAE reserves in our financial results during the period they are determined. Changes to our prior year loss reserves will impact our current underwriting results by improving our results if the prior year reserves prove redundant or impairing our results if the prior year reserves prove insufficient.

We believe that our reserves for loss and LAE are sufficient to cover losses that fall within the terms of our policies and agreements with our insured and reinsured customers based on the methodologies used to estimate those reserves. However, we can provide no assurance that actual losses will not (i) be less than or (ii) exceed our total established reserves.

Please refer to Notes 2 “Significant Accounting Policies - Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves and Recoverable” and 7 “Loss and Loss Adjust ment Expense Reserves” of our consolidated financial statements for a more detailed explanation of our loss reserving methodology and the loss development tables by accident year, respectively, as required under U.S. GAAP.