The Insurer’s Ledger: A Definitive Guide to Financial Analysis in the Insurance Sector

Part I: The Unique Financial Architecture of an Insurer

1.1 The Core Business: The Mechanics of Risk Transfer

The fundamental purpose of an insurance company is to facilitate the transfer of financial risk.¹

In essence, insurers eliminate or mitigate specific financial uncertainties for businesses and individuals by assuming the liability for those risks themselves.

This mechanism allows a policyholder to convert a potential, unpredictable, and potentially catastrophic loss into a known, manageable, and regular expense in the form of an insurance premium.¹

This core function positions the insurance industry as a critical pillar of a modern economy, enabling commercial activity and personal financial planning that would otherwise be untenable due to prohibitive risk.

Beyond this primary role as risk underwriters, insurance companies have evolved into significant financial intermediaries.

Their agents and distribution networks often market and sell a wide array of financial products, including mutual funds, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), annuities, and various investment securities.¹

Furthermore, insurers manage vast sums of capital through employee benefit programs, pension funds, and profit-sharing plans.

This dual function—as both risk managers and capital managers—cements their importance in the global financial ecosystem and underscores the imperative for meticulous financial management to ensure their own growth, profitability, and, most critically, their solvency.¹

At the federal level in the United States, regulations from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) mandate that for a company to be taxed as an insurer, its principal business activity must be the issuance of insurance, which is defined by the core tenets of risk transfer and loss distribution.¹

1.2 The Twin Engines of Profitability: Underwriting and Investment

An insurance company’s financial performance is driven by two distinct yet interconnected engines: underwriting operations and investment activities.

Understanding this dual-engine model is the foundational first step in any credible analysis of an insurer.

Underwriting Profit is the income generated directly from the core business of insurance.

It is realized when the premiums collected from policyholders exceed the sum of the claims paid out (losses) and the expenses incurred to acquire and service the policies.²

These expenses include commissions paid to agents, salaries for underwriters and claims staff, marketing costs, and other administrative overhead.

The primary metric for evaluating this engine is the

Combined Ratio.

Investment Income represents the second engine of profitability.

Insurers operate on a “collect-now, pay-later” model, receiving premiums upfront but paying claims over a future period, which can range from days to decades.³

The temporary pool of funds held between premium collection and claim payment is known as “float”.²

Insurers invest this float in a portfolio of assets—primarily high-quality bonds, but also stocks, real estate, and other securities—to generate investment income in the form of interest, dividends, and capital gains.²

The interplay between these two engines is crucial.

A combined ratio below 100% signifies an underwriting profit, meaning the insurer made money from its core insurance activities alone.

A combined ratio above 100% indicates an underwriting loss.

However, a company with an underwriting loss is not necessarily unprofitable overall.

The investment income generated from the float can be substantial enough to offset the underwriting loss and still produce a net profit for the company.²

This dynamic is central to the industry’s economics and strategy.

The dual-engine model creates a fundamental and often cyclical tension within an insurance company and the industry at large.

The pursuit of float for the investment engine can lead to a degradation of discipline in the underwriting engine.

The process begins with the recognition that float is a powerful source of capital for investment.²

The desire to grow this pool of investable assets leads to “intense competition” among insurers to write more premium volume.³

This competition frequently manifests as price wars, where insurers lower premiums to attract more business from individuals and corporations.

All else being equal, lower premiums for the same level of risk lead to higher loss ratios and, consequently, higher combined ratios, often pushing them above the 100% break-even point and resulting in underwriting losses.²

This reveals a critical relationship that every analyst must grasp: the strategy of the investment side of the business directly influences the risk profile and profitability of the underwriting side.

A company reporting aggressive growth in premiums may not be a sign of market strength but rather a red flag indicating a willingness to sacrifice underwriting discipline for the sake of generating more investable assets.

This strategy can become a precursor to financial distress if the anticipated investment returns fail to materialize or if underwriting losses spiral out of control.

This dynamic is a primary driver of the insurance industry’s well-documented “underwriting cycle,” characterized by alternating periods of “soft” and “hard” market conditions.

In a soft market, often correlated with high investment returns, insurers are more willing to compete on price and accept underwriting losses to grow their float.

Conversely, in a hard market, typically following a period of poor investment returns or large catastrophe losses, insurers are forced to re-emphasize underwriting profitability, leading to higher premiums, stricter underwriting standards, and less available coverage.

An analyst, therefore, cannot evaluate an insurer in a vacuum; its performance and strategy must be assessed within the context of this broader industry cycle.

1.3 The Power of Float: The Insurer’s Investment Engine

Insurance float is the capital an insurer holds from premiums paid by customers that has not yet been paid out to satisfy claims.⁴

This collect-now, pay-later business model provides insurers with a continuous stream of cash that they can invest for their own benefit until it is needed to pay policyholders.³

The concept was famously identified and masterfully exploited by Warren Buffett, who used the float generated by Berkshire Hathaway’s insurance subsidiaries, such as National Indemnity and GEICO, as the primary engine to fund investments and build one of the world’s largest conglomerates.³

To understand the power of float, it is best framed as a form of financing provided by policyholders.

Unlike a traditional loan from a bank, float does not typically carry an explicit interest cost.

Instead, the “cost of float” is determined by the insurer’s underwriting result.⁷

If an insurer achieves a combined ratio of 100%, it has broken even on its underwriting operations, and the float it holds is effectively an interest-free loan.

If the combined ratio is below 100%, for instance at 98%, the insurer has earned an underwriting profit of 2%.

In this scenario, the cost of float is negative 2%; the insurer is quite literally being paid to hold and invest its policyholders’ money.⁷

As Buffett has explained, this creates an “accounting irony”: though float is recorded as a liability on the balance sheet, it has a value to the company far greater than an equivalent amount of equity would have.³

This happy result of cost-free or even negative-cost financing attracts intense competition.

For much of the property and casualty (P&C) industry, this competition is so vigorous that it results in a collective underwriting loss, meaning the industry as a whole pays a price to hold its float.³

In years marked by major catastrophes, this cost can be substantial, more than consuming any investment income earned on the float.

The ability to consistently generate float at a low or negative cost is therefore a hallmark of a superior insurance operation and a key differentiator for an analyst to identify.

The duration of the float—the time between premium receipt and claim payment—is also a critical factor.

Insurers writing “long-tail” lines of business, such as workers’ compensation or general liability, where claims can take many years or even decades to be reported and settled, generate a more valuable and longer-lasting float than those writing “short-tail” lines like property insurance.⁶

Part II: The Two Languages of Insurance Finance: A Comparative Analysis of SAP and GAAP

2.1 The Existential Fork: Solvency vs. Going Concern

Analyzing an insurance company requires fluency in two distinct accounting languages: Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP) and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).⁹

These two frameworks are built on fundamentally different philosophies and are designed for different audiences, resulting in financial statements that can present starkly different views of the same company’s financial health.

Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP) are the set of accounting rules prescribed by state insurance regulators, such as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).¹¹

The primary and overriding objective of SAP is to monitor and measure an insurer’s solvency—its ability to meet all obligations to its policyholders.⁹

To this end, SAP employs a highly conservative methodology that values the company on a “liquidation basis.” It seeks to answer the critical regulatory question: “If this insurance company were to cease operations today, would it possess sufficient liquid assets to pay every claim owed to its policyholders?”.⁹

Insurers are required to file SAP-based financial statements with their state regulators on a quarterly and annual basis.¹¹

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), are the standard accounting rules for most U.S. businesses.

For publicly traded insurance companies, GAAP-based financial statements are required for filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).¹⁰

The objective of GAAP is to provide a “going-concern” view of the company, focusing on the measurement of earnings and providing a basis for comparing financial performance from one period to the next and between different companies.⁹

GAAP is designed to serve the needs of investors, analysts, and other capital market participants by providing a transparent and consistent picture of a company’s profitability and operational success over time.¹³

2.2 Key Differences in Practice: A Line-by-Line Examination

The philosophical divergence between SAP’s focus on solvency and GAAP’s focus on ongoing performance manifests in several critical differences in accounting treatment for key financial statement items.¹⁰

• Asset Valuation: SAP is systematically more conservative in how it values assets. For P&C companies, high-quality bonds, which constitute the bulk of their investment portfolio, are typically valued at amortized cost under SAP. This approach provides a stable asset value, insulated from the day-to-day volatility of the market, reflecting the insurer’s intent to hold these bonds to fund future claims.¹⁰ GAAP, in contrast, may require these bonds to be marked to market (fair value) if they are classified as “available for sale,” introducing more volatility into the balance sheet.¹⁰ Perhaps the most striking difference is SAP’s treatment of “nonadmitted assets.” Certain assets that are not easily convertible to cash to pay claims, such as office furniture, equipment, and premiums that are more than 90 days overdue, are assigned a value of zero under SAP. This directly reduces the insurer’s statutory surplus (the SAP equivalent of equity), enforcing a stricter measure of solvency.⁹ Under GAAP, these assets are recognized on the balance sheet at their appropriate value.
• Acquisition Costs: This is arguably the most significant and impactful difference between the two systems. When an insurer writes a new policy, it incurs upfront costs, primarily commissions to agents and brokers. Under SAP, these policy acquisition costs must be recognized as an expense immediately, in their entirety.⁹ This creates a mismatch, as the expense is recorded upfront while the corresponding premium revenue is earned gradually over the life of the policy. Under GAAP, these same costs are capitalized as an asset on the balance sheet, known as Deferred Policy Acquisition Costs (DPAC), and are then amortized (expensed) over the policy’s term. This GAAP approach aligns the recognition of expenses with the recognition of revenue, providing a smoother and more economically representative pattern of profitability.⁹
• Reserves and Liabilities: The principles of conservatism also extend to liabilities. SAP generally requires that loss reserves be stated at their full, undiscounted value. This means the future value of expected claim payments is recorded as the liability today.¹⁶ GAAP, under certain conditions, may permit the discounting of these future payments to their present value, which would result in a lower reported liability.¹⁶ Furthermore, life insurers under SAP are required to establish unique liability reserves that do not exist under GAAP, such as the Asset Valuation Reserve (AVR) and the Interest Maintenance Reserve (IMR). These reserves are designed to absorb and smooth fluctuations in investment income and capital gains or losses, further reinforcing the statutory focus on balance sheet stability.¹⁵

The accounting treatment of acquisition costs under SAP creates a dynamic often referred to as a “growth penalty,” which can obscure the true economic performance of a rapidly expanding insurer.

An analyst must be able to identify and quantify this accounting artifact to avoid misinterpreting a company’s financial trajectory.

The logic unfolds as follows: SAP mandates the immediate expensing of all costs associated with acquiring a new policy.⁹

These costs are paid at the inception of the policy, but the premium revenue that these costs generate is earned ratably over the policy’s life, typically one year.

The insurer’s statutory surplus must absorb this immediate and full expense hit before the corresponding revenue is fully recognized.

Consequently, an insurer that is successfully and profitably writing a large volume of new business will experience a significant, albeit temporary, depression in its reported SAP surplus.

An analyst who looks solely at the trend in statutory surplus might incorrectly conclude that the company’s financial position is weakening, when in fact the opposite is true—it is successfully growing its profitable book of business.

This is where the ability to analyze both SAP and GAAP statements becomes a critical skill.

The difference between an insurer’s GAAP equity and its SAP surplus provides a powerful diagnostic tool.

A major component of this difference is the value of the Deferred Policy Acquisition Cost (DPAC) asset that exists on the GAAP balance sheet but is expensed immediately under SAP.

This “wedge” between the two accounting bases is a direct, quantifiable measure of the statutory penalty associated with growth.

By tracking the change in this wedge over time, an analyst can model the true underlying profitability of new business and separate the accounting-driven impact on surplus from genuine changes in the company’s financial health.

Table 1: SAP vs. GAAP – A Comparative Summary of Key Accounting Treatments

Accounting Item	Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP) Treatment	Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Treatment
Primary Goal	Measure solvency and protect policyholders; liquidation basis. 9	Measure earnings and financial performance; going-concern basis. 10
Bonds	Typically valued at amortized cost to promote stability. 10	Valued at either amortized cost (if held-to-maturity) or fair market value (if available-for-sale or trading). 10
Stocks	Valued at market price. 10	Valued at fair market value. 10
Nonadmitted Assets	Certain illiquid assets (e.g., office furniture, overdue premiums) are assigned a value of zero, directly reducing surplus. 9	All assets are recognized at their appropriate value. 10
Acquisition Costs	Expensed immediately upon policy issuance, depressing surplus upfront. 9	Capitalized as a Deferred Policy Acquisition Cost (DPAC) asset and amortized over the policy’s life, matching expenses to revenues. 9
Loss Reserves	Generally stated at their full, undiscounted nominal value. 16	May be discounted to present value under certain circumstances. 16
Surplus/Equity	Focuses on Policyholders’ Surplus, a conservative measure of net worth.	Focuses on Shareholders’ Equity, reflecting a going-concern valuation.

Part III: Deconstructing the Insurer’s Liabilities: The Art and Science of Loss Reserving

3.1 The Iceberg Beneath the Surface: Defining Loss Reserves

On an insurance company’s balance sheet, the single largest liability is loss reserves.¹⁷

This accounting entry represents the company’s best estimate of the total amount it will ultimately need to pay for all claims that have already occurred as of the financial statement date, whether or not the company has even been notified of them yet.¹⁷

Because the precise amount is not known until claims are finally settled—a process that can take years or decades for certain lines of business—the loss reserve is a profoundly significant estimate, not a known figure.¹⁶

The accuracy of this estimate is paramount, as it directly impacts the reporting of an insurer’s profitability and its overall financial solvency.¹⁶

The total loss reserve is composed of two primary, conceptually distinct components ⁸:

• Case Reserves: These are reserves established for individual claims that have been reported to the insurance company but have not yet been settled or paid in full. A claims adjuster typically sets an initial case reserve for each reported claim based on the specific facts and circumstances known at the time. This reserve is adjusted over time as more information becomes available.²⁰ This component is also referred to as Reserves for Reported but Not Settled (RBNS) claims.
• Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) Reserves: This is a crucial and purely actuarial estimate. IBNR reserves are established to account for claims that have already happened but have not yet been reported to the insurer.² For example, a person injured in an auto accident on December 30th may not report the claim to their insurer until January. As of the December 31st balance sheet date, that claim has been incurred, and the insurer must set aside a reserve for it, even though it has no specific knowledge of the event. IBNR also includes a provision for the future development on known claims, anticipating that initial case reserves may prove to be inadequate as claims mature.¹⁷

3.2 The Actuary’s Toolkit: Methods of Estimation

Estimating loss reserves is a complex actuarial science that relies on analyzing historical data to forecast future payments.

Actuaries employ a variety of methods, often using several in conjunction to arrive at a reasonable range for the final estimate.¹⁸

The most common methods include:

• Chain-Ladder Method: Also known as the development method, this is one of the most widely used techniques. It assumes that the historical pattern of how claims are paid and reported over time will be a reliable guide for the future.⁸ Actuaries construct “loss development triangles” that track how losses for a given accident year mature over subsequent years. By calculating “loss development factors” from this historical data, they can project the ultimate cost of immature accident years.²¹
• Bornhuetter–Ferguson Method: This method is a hybrid approach that combines elements of the chain-ladder method with an independent, a priori estimate of what the ultimate losses are expected to be.⁸ This expected ultimate loss figure is often derived from a frequency-severity analysis or other pricing data. The Bornhuetter-Ferguson method is particularly useful for new lines of business or when historical data is sparse or unreliable, as it does not rely solely on past development patterns to project the future.
• Frequency-Severity Approach: This method deconstructs the problem into two parts: estimating the ultimate number of claims that will be filed (frequency) and estimating the average cost per claim (severity).⁸ The ultimate loss is then the product of these two estimates. This approach is valuable because it allows the analyst to examine the underlying drivers of loss trends separately. For example, it can help determine whether an increase in total losses is due to more accidents happening or if the cost of repairing damage from each accident is rising.

3.3 The Perils of Estimation: Challenges and Consequences

Setting accurate reserves is fraught with challenges.

The process is inherently an estimate of future events, influenced by a host of internal and external factors.

Data can be limited or not perfectly credible, especially for new or rapidly changing books of business.¹⁷

Internal factors like changes in claims handling procedures, case reserving adequacy, or shifts in the mix of business can distort historical patterns.¹⁷

External factors are even more unpredictable; changes in the legal and regulatory climate, social inflation (the trend of rising jury awards), and economic inflation can all dramatically impact the ultimate cost of claims in ways that past data cannot fully predict.¹⁷

The consequences of inaccurate reserving are severe and can threaten the viability of the company ¹⁶:

• Under-reserving: If a company sets its reserves too low, it is understating its liabilities. This has the immediate effect of overstating its profitability and its surplus. While this may look good in the short term, the company is creating a future problem for itself. As the true, higher cost of claims emerges over time, the company will be forced to recognize “adverse development,” which will depress future earnings and can erode capital. In severe cases, a history of under-reserving can lead to regulatory intervention and insolvency when the company is finally unable to meet its obligations.
• Over-reserving: If a company sets its reserves too high, it is overstating its liabilities and understating its current profitability and surplus. While this is a more conservative approach, it is not without negative consequences. It unnecessarily ties up capital that could have been invested or returned to shareholders. Furthermore, the systematic over-reserving of past claims can be used as a tool to illegally smooth income; the “release” of these redundant prior-year reserves in a future period can be used to mask poor underwriting performance in that period.¹⁶

The sensitivity of an insurer’s financial health to reserve accuracy cannot be overstated.

Because loss reserves are the largest liability, even a small percentage error can have a magnified impact on surplus.

An estimation error of just 5% in reserves can translate into a 10% to 25% impact on the company’s surplus, highlighting the razor-thin margin for error in this critical process.¹⁷

An insurer’s historical track record of loss reserve development is one of the most powerful diagnostic tools available to a financial analyst, serving as a reliable proxy for both the quality of a company’s reported earnings and the credibility of its management.

The logic is straightforward.

At the end of each accounting period, a company establishes a loss reserve for claims that occurred during that “accident year,” based on the best information available at the time.¹⁶

As time passes, more information about these claims becomes known, and the initial estimate is revised.

The pattern of these revisions is systematically tracked in a “loss development triangle,” a standard actuarial report.²¹

If a company consistently finds that its initial reserve estimates for prior accident years were too low and must repeatedly revise them upwards, this is known as “adverse development” or “reserve strengthening”.¹⁷

This pattern is a significant red flag.

It directly implies that the company’s reported earnings in those prior years were overstated, as the true cost of its claims was higher than what was initially reported.

Consistent adverse development suggests either a systemic weakness in the company’s actuarial function or, more worrisomely, a deliberate management bias toward aggressive reserving to artificially inflate current profits.¹⁶

Conversely, a pattern of consistent “favorable development,” where reserves consistently prove to have been set too high, may indicate an overly conservative management culture.

This analysis allows a sophisticated analyst to look beyond the surface of the reported calendar-year income statement.

By quantifying the amount of prior-year reserve development (whether adverse or favorable) and adjusting the current year’s reported earnings for this amount, one can calculate a more accurate “accident-year” profitability.

This figure represents the true underlying performance of the business that was actually written during the current year, stripped of the noise and distortions caused by estimation errors from past years.

This provides a much clearer and more reliable picture of the company’s core underwriting competency.

Part IV: A Practitioner’s Guide to Analyzing Insurer Financial Statements

4.1 The Core Ratios: Gauging Underwriting Performance

The financial analysis of an insurance company is heavily reliant on a set of specialized ratios that are designed to measure performance in its core underwriting operations.

These ratios, which are typically derived from vertical analysis of the income statement, provide a standardized way to assess profitability and efficiency.²

• Loss Ratio: This ratio measures the proportion of each premium dollar that is used to pay for claims and the costs associated with adjusting those claims. A lower loss ratio is indicative of stronger underwriting performance and risk selection. The formula is:
  
  Loss Ratio=Earned PremiumsIncurred Losses+Loss Adjustment Expenses​
• Expense Ratio: This ratio measures the company’s efficiency in acquiring and servicing its business. It captures costs such as agent commissions, employee salaries, marketing, and other underwriting expenses. A lower expense ratio indicates greater operational efficiency. The formula is:
  
  Expense Ratio=Written PremiumsUnderwriting Expenses​
  
  Note: The denominator is sometimes Net Premiums Written, which reflects the premium kept by the insurer after ceding some to reinsurers. Consistency in application is key.
• Combined Ratio: This is the single most important measure of an insurer’s underwriting profitability. It is the simple sum of the loss ratio and the expense ratio. A combined ratio below 100% means the insurer earned an underwriting profit, while a ratio above 100% means it suffered an underwriting loss.² The formula is:
  Combined Ratio=Loss Ratio+Expense Ratio
• Underwriting Ratio: This is simply the inverse of the combined ratio and represents the underwriting profit margin. A combined ratio of 95% equates to an underwriting ratio, or profit margin, of 5%.² The formula is:
  Underwriting Ratio=100%−Combined Ratio

4.2 Beyond Underwriting: Overall Profitability and Returns

While underwriting performance is critical, a complete analysis must incorporate the results of the insurer’s investment activities to assess overall corporate profitability.

• Investment Yield: This ratio measures the return generated by the insurer’s investment portfolio. It is typically calculated on a pre-tax basis. The formula is:
  
  Investment Yield=Average Invested AssetsNet Investment Income​
• Operating Ratio: This ratio provides a more comprehensive measure of pre-tax profitability by combining the underwriting result with the investment result. It subtracts the investment yield from the combined ratio. A ratio below 100% indicates an overall operating profit. The formula is:
  
  Operating Ratio=Combined Ratio−Investment Yield
• Return on Equity (ROE): This is the ultimate measure of profitability from the perspective of the company’s shareholders. It calculates the net income generated as a percentage of the shareholders’ equity base. The formula is:
  
  Return on Equity (ROE)=Average Shareholder′s EquityNet Income​

4.3 Analytical Techniques: Horizontal and Vertical Analysis

In addition to ratio analysis, standard financial statement analysis techniques are essential for uncovering trends and insights.¹³

• Vertical Analysis: This technique involves expressing each line item on a financial statement as a percentage of a base figure. For an insurer’s income statement, the base is typically net earned premiums. This is the foundation from which the core underwriting ratios are derived. On the balance sheet, items are expressed as a percentage of total assets. Vertical analysis is invaluable for comparing companies of different sizes and for benchmarking a company’s cost structure against industry norms.¹³
• Horizontal Analysis: Also known as trend analysis, this technique involves comparing financial statement line items over a series of multiple periods (e.g., quarter-over-quarter or year-over-year). This analysis, which looks at both absolute dollar changes and percentage changes, is critical for identifying growth patterns, seasonality, and potential red flags. For example, a trend of underwriting expenses growing at a faster rate than premium revenue is a clear warning sign of deteriorating operational efficiency.¹³

While the combined ratio is a powerful summary metric, a deeper diagnostic is achieved by decomposing it and analyzing the trends of its components—the loss ratio and the expense ratio—separately.

This decomposition can reveal crucial information about a company’s strategic choices and the sustainability of its performance.

For example, consider two insurance companies, A and B, that both report an identical, profitable combined ratio of 99%.

• Company A achieves this with a 60% Loss Ratio and a 39% Expense Ratio.
• Company B achieves this with a 70% Loss Ratio and a 29% Expense Ratio.

On the surface, their underwriting profitability is the same.

However, the underlying stories are vastly different.

Company A exhibits excellent underwriting discipline and risk selection, evidenced by its very low loss ratio.

However, it is extremely inefficient in its operations or pays very high commissions to its distribution partners, leading to a bloated expense ratio.

Company B, in contrast, is a lean, efficient operator with a low expense ratio, but its underwriting and pricing appear to be much weaker, resulting in a high loss ratio.

This analysis of the composition of the combined ratio reveals the strategic trade-offs each company is making.

Company A might be a direct-to-consumer brand that spends heavily on marketing, while Company B could be a low-cost provider that is less selective in the risks it is willing to insure.

An analyst must diagnose the source of the underwriting performance, not just its overall magnitude.

This decomposition is also critical for forecasting future performance.

An expense ratio problem, as seen in Company A, may be more tractable and fixable through targeted cost-cutting initiatives.

A persistently high loss ratio, as seen in Company B, points to a more fundamental and concerning flaw in the company’s core competency of pricing risk.

This is a much more difficult problem to solve.

The analyst’s valuation of the company, and any investment recommendation, would therefore differ significantly between Company A and Company B, despite their identical combined ratios.

Table 2: Key Financial Ratios for Insurer Analysis: Formulas and Interpretations

Ratio	Formula	What It Measures	What to Look For
Loss Ratio	(Incurred Losses + LAE) / Earned Premiums	The portion of premiums used to cover claims.	Lower is better. Indicates effective risk selection and pricing. 2
Expense Ratio	Underwriting Expenses / Written Premiums	The cost of acquiring and servicing policies relative to premiums.	Lower is better. Indicates operational and cost efficiency. 2
Combined Ratio	Loss Ratio + Expense Ratio	Overall underwriting profitability, excluding investment income.	Lower is better. A value below 100% indicates an underwriting profit. 2
Investment Yield	Net Investment Income / Average Invested Assets	The pre-tax return generated on the investment portfolio.	Higher is generally better, but must be assessed in the context of risk.
Operating Ratio	Combined Ratio – Investment Yield	Overall pre-tax profitability from both underwriting and investments.	Lower is better. A value below 100% indicates an overall operating profit.
Return on Equity	Net Income / Average Shareholder’s Equity	The after-tax return generated for the company’s owners.	Higher is better. The ultimate measure of shareholder value creation.

Part V: Assessing Financial Strength and Solvency: The Rating Agency Framework

5.1 The Role of the Rating Agency: A.M. Best

While internal financial analysis provides a detailed view of an insurer, external validation from a credible third party is critical for the industry.

In the insurance world, the preeminent credit rating agency is A.M. Best.

Founded in 1899, A.M. Best is a global rating organization with a unique and dedicated focus on the insurance sector.²²

Its Best’s Financial Strength Ratings (FSRs) are the industry’s benchmark for assessing an insurer’s financial strength and its ability to meet its ongoing obligations to policyholders.²²

For brokers, risk managers, and policyholders, an insurer’s A.M. Best rating is often a primary consideration when selecting an insurance partner.²³

5.2 The Building Block Approach to Ratings

A.M. Best’s rating methodology is a transparent, “building block” approach that provides a comprehensive assessment of an insurer’s creditworthiness.

The analysis is centered on four key pillars, which are evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively ²²:

1. Balance Sheet Strength: This is the foundational component of the rating analysis and is the most heavily weighted factor. It assesses the insurer’s ability to meet its current and future obligations to policyholders. Key elements include capital adequacy, asset quality, liquidity, and reserve adequacy.²²
2. Operating Performance: This pillar evaluates the stability, profitability, and diversity of the insurer’s earnings. A.M. Best views a track record of strong and stable operating performance as a leading indicator of future balance sheet strength, as profitable operations allow a company to generate capital internally and build its surplus over time.²²
3. Business Profile: This is a qualitative assessment of the insurer’s competitive position within the market. It considers factors such as market share, geographic and product line diversification, quality of management, and distribution capabilities. A strong and diversified business profile can lead to more stable and predictable earnings.²²
4. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM): This pillar assesses the insurer’s overall risk management framework. A.M. Best evaluates the company’s ability to identify, measure, manage, and mitigate the full spectrum of risks it faces—from underwriting and investment risk to operational and strategic risk. A strong ERM program is seen as critical for maintaining long-term financial stability.²²

5.3 Quantifying Capital: The Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio (BCAR)

Central to the assessment of Balance Sheet Strength is A.M. Best’s proprietary capital model, the Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio (BCAR).²²

BCAR is a sophisticated, risk-based capital model that serves as the primary quantitative tool for measuring an insurer’s capitalization.

The model works by:

1. Analyzing the specific risks on an insurer’s balance sheet, including investment risks (e.g., credit risk, equity risk), underwriting risks (e.g., reserving risk, catastrophe risk), and other business risks.
2. Calculating the amount of capital required to support these risks at various statistical confidence levels (e.g., 99.0%, 99.6%).
3. Comparing this required capital figure to the insurer’s available capital (its statutory surplus, adjusted for certain factors).

The resulting BCAR score provides a standardized measure of capital adequacy relative to the company’s specific risk profile.

This score is a key driver of the final Balance Sheet Strength assessment, which is categorized on a scale from “Very Strong” to “Very Weak”.²⁴

5.4 The Final Rating: Notching and Adjustments

The A.M. Best rating process culminates in the integration of the four building blocks to assign a final Financial Strength Rating.

The process begins with the baseline assessment derived from the Balance Sheet Strength analysis.

This baseline is then subject to adjustments, or “notching,” based on the assessments of the other three pillars.²⁴

For example, a company with a “Strong” balance sheet might see its rating notched upwards if it also has “Strong” operating performance and a “Favorable” business profile.

Conversely, a company with “Weak” operating performance or an inadequate ERM framework could see its rating notched downwards from its balance sheet-driven baseline.

The potential rating adjustment can be significant; for instance, operating performance can result in an adjustment ranging from a two-notch upgrade to a three-notch downgrade.²⁴

Finally, the analysis considers the context of an insurer’s position within a larger corporate group.

A subsidiary that is deemed “core” or “strategic” to its parent company’s overall strategy may receive “rating lift,” where its final rating is higher than its standalone profile would suggest, due to the implicit or explicit support of the stronger parent.²²

Conversely, a strong subsidiary could be subject to “rating drag” if it is part of a financially weaker group.

The transparent, building-block structure of the A.M. Best methodology provides a clear roadmap for how ratings are derived.

This transparency allows a sophisticated financial analyst to move beyond being a passive consumer of ratings and become a proactive predictor of them, creating a significant information advantage.

The process involves conducting an independent, in-depth analysis of an insurer’s performance across the four key pillars, using the very techniques described in the preceding parts of this report.

For example, if an analyst’s work on loss reserve adequacy (Part III) uncovers a significant deterioration in reserve strength, or if the analysis of underwriting ratios (Part IV) reveals a sharp and sustained spike in the combined ratio, these findings can be mapped directly onto the A.M. Best framework.

Since the rating agency’s methodology publicly discloses the potential impact of each pillar—for example, that weak operating performance can lead to a multi-notch downgrade ²⁴—the analyst can model the likely consequence of their findings on the company’s current rating.

This allows the analyst to identify companies that are “at risk” of a future downgrade or, conversely, those that are strong “candidates” for an upgrade, often before these changes are officially announced by the rating agency.

This predictive capability has profound market implications.

A rating downgrade is a major negative catalyst for an insurer, often leading to a sharp decline in its stock price, an increase in its borrowing costs, and a loss of business from risk-averse customers.

An analyst who anticipates this event can advise clients to sell the stock, purchase credit protection, or otherwise hedge their exposure

before the negative news becomes public, thereby capturing alpha or mitigating significant risk.

This is the essence of value-added, forward-looking financial analysis.

Table 3: The A.M. Best Financial Strength Rating (FSR) Scale

Rating	Descriptor	Category
A++	Superior	Secure
A+	Superior	Secure
A	Excellent	Secure
A-	Excellent	Secure
B++	Good	Secure
B+	Good	Secure
B	Fair	Vulnerable
B-	Fair	Vulnerable
C++	Marginal	Vulnerable
C+	Marginal	Vulnerable
C	Weak	Vulnerable
C-	Weak	Vulnerable
D	Poor	Vulnerable
E	Under Regulatory Supervision	–
F	In Liquidation	–
S	Suspended	–

(Source: Synthesized from A.M. Best documentation ²⁴)

Part VI: The Interplay of Risk, Capital, and Macroeconomics

6.1 Asset-Liability Management (ALM): The Great Balancing Act

Asset-Liability Management (ALM) is one of the most critical functions within an insurance company.

It is the continuous process of managing the company’s investment portfolio (its assets) to ensure that sufficient cash flow is generated to meet its policyholder obligations (its liabilities) as they come due.²¹

The primary goal of ALM is to manage the risks that arise from the potential mismatch between the assets and liabilities, particularly with respect to their duration, liquidity, and sensitivity to market movements.

The nature of this balancing act differs significantly based on the type of insurance business being written.

A Property & Casualty (P&C) insurer primarily writes policies with a one-year term.

Its liabilities are therefore considered “short-tail,” with claims expected to be paid out over a relatively short period.⁸

Consequently, its ALM strategy focuses on investing its float in high-quality, liquid, short-to-intermediate duration assets, such as government and corporate bonds, to ensure funds are readily available to pay claims from events like auto accidents or property damage.²

In contrast, a Life & Annuity (L&A) insurer sells products that can create liabilities stretching out for many decades, such as lifetime income annuities or whole life insurance policies.

These “long-tail” liabilities require a different ALM strategy.

L&A insurers must invest in long-duration assets, such as long-term corporate bonds and mortgages, to match the long-term nature of their obligations and lock in a rate of return sufficient to meet their future guarantees.¹⁰

6.2 The Shadow of Interest Rates and Inflation

The macroeconomic environment, particularly the behavior of interest rates and inflation, has a profound and direct impact on an insurer’s financial health, affecting both sides of its balance sheet.

• Interest Rates: Insurers are highly sensitive to interest rate movements, but the nature of that sensitivity depends on their business mix. A prolonged period of low interest rates, such as the one following the 2008 financial crisis, poses a significant challenge, especially for L&A insurers.²⁷ It squeezes the income they can earn on their investment portfolios, making it difficult to meet the high guaranteed rates promised on legacy policies sold in a higher-rate era. This pressure can erode profitability and solvency over time. A rapid
  rise in interest rates also presents risks. While it allows insurers to invest new cash flows at higher yields, it causes the market value of their existing portfolio of fixed-income bonds to fall. This creates large unrealized losses on the balance sheet, which can become realized losses if the insurer is forced to sell those bonds to meet unexpected liquidity needs.²⁷
• Inflation: Unanticipated inflation is a major threat, particularly for P&C insurers. Inflation directly increases the ultimate cost of settling claims. For example, inflation in auto parts and labor costs increases the cost to repair damaged vehicles, while inflation in building materials and construction labor increases the cost to rebuild damaged properties. This means that the loss reserves an insurer established based on past assumptions may prove to be woefully inadequate to cover the now-higher future costs, leading to adverse reserve development and a hit to earnings and surplus.²¹ Inflation also impacts the asset side of the balance sheet by influencing central bank policy, interest rates, and the valuation of various asset classes.

6.3 Reinsurance: The Insurer’s Insurer

Reinsurance is, simply put, insurance for insurance companies.

It is a critical risk management tool that allows a primary insurer (the “cedent”) to transfer a portion of the risks it has underwritten to another insurance company (the “reinsurer”) in exchange for a portion of the premium.

Reinsurance serves several vital capital management functions:

• Volatility Reduction and Catastrophe Protection: The most common use of reinsurance is to protect an insurer’s balance sheet from the financial impact of a single large loss or a large number of smaller losses from a single event, such as a major hurricane or earthquake. By ceding a portion of this catastrophe risk to reinsurers, a primary insurer can smooth its earnings and protect its surplus from being wiped out by an infrequent but severe event.²⁸
• Increased Underwriting Capacity: Reinsurance allows an insurer to write larger policies or take on more risk than its own capital base would otherwise permit. This enables it to serve larger clients and compete more effectively in the market.
• Financial Restructuring and Solvency Relief: For insurers facing financial distress, reinsurance can be a lifeline. Mechanisms such as “loss portfolio transfers” can be used to cede problematic blocks of reserves to a reinsurer. Additionally, “reinsurance commutations,” where a reinsurer pays a lump sum to extinguish its future obligations to a troubled cedent, can be used to provide an immediate infusion of capital to restore a company’s surplus and avoid insolvency.²⁹

The fundamental business models of P&C and L&A insurers create starkly different, and in many ways opposite, sensitivities to changes in the interest rate environment.

This is a crucial distinction that is often lost in broad-brush analyses of the insurance sector.

A P&C insurer’s liabilities are short-duration, tied to one-year policies, and its investment portfolio is similarly composed of short-to-intermediate term bonds.²

The business model is one of constant turnover, with maturing assets and new premium inflows being continuously reinvested.

For this reason, a

rising interest rate environment is generally a significant tailwind for P&C insurers.

It allows them to reinvest their large float at progressively higher yields, which directly boosts their future investment income and overall profitability.

The L&A insurer’s model is the inverse.

Its liabilities are extremely long-duration, often spanning multiple decades.²⁷

The primary ALM risk for an L&A insurer is a “negative duration gap,” meaning the duration of its assets is shorter than the duration of its liabilities.²⁷

In a

falling interest rate environment, the present value of these long-term liabilities (the amount needed today to fund them) increases by more than the value of their assets, which can severely erode the company’s solvency.

This exact dynamic was a primary cause of the wave of Japanese life insurer insolvencies in the 1990s and early 2000s.³⁰

Conversely, in a rapidly

rising rate environment, the market value of the L&A insurer’s massive portfolio of existing long-term bonds plummets.

If the company simultaneously faces a liquidity crunch—for instance, a “run” of policyholders surrendering their contracts to seek higher yields elsewhere—it could be forced to sell these bonds at a deep discount, crystallizing huge losses and potentially destroying its capital base.

This scenario was a key factor in the failure of U.S. life insurers like Mutual Benefit Life.³⁰

Therefore, an analyst cannot have a single “house view” on how interest rate changes will affect “the insurance industry.” The impact is segment-specific, and the outlook for one segment is often the opposite of the outlook for the other.

A forecast of rising interest rates that would be bullish for the P&C sector could be deeply bearish for the L&A sector.

This nuanced understanding of how a company’s specific business model and ALM posture interact with macroeconomic trends is a hallmark of expert-level analysis.

Part VII: Analytical Pitfalls and Lessons from Insurer Failures

7.1 Common Mistakes in Insurance Analysis

The unique financial structure and accounting of insurance companies create numerous potential traps for the unwary analyst.

Avoiding these common mistakes is crucial for producing a credible and accurate assessment of an insurer’s financial condition.³¹

• Not Reading the Footnotes: The footnotes to an insurer’s financial statements are not optional reading; they are essential. They contain critical details on the company’s reserving methodologies, assumptions used in actuarial calculations, the structure of its investment portfolio, the nature of its reinsurance agreements, and information on off-balance sheet liabilities. Ignoring this information is to analyze with one eye closed.³¹
• Analyzing Statements in Isolation: The three primary financial statements—the balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement—are deeply interconnected. A common error is to analyze them as separate documents without tracing the flow of value between them. For example, an analyst must be able to reconcile the change in loss reserve liabilities on the balance sheet with the incurred loss expense reported on the income statement. A failure to do so can miss significant accounting discrepancies or red flags.³¹
• Relying Solely on Historical Data: While historical data is the foundation of analysis, it is not a perfect guide to the future. An analyst must look forward and consider the potential impact of emerging trends and risks that are not yet fully reflected in past results. These can include the effects of climate change on catastrophe losses, the rise of cyber risk, changes in the legal environment, or new forms of competition.²¹
• Failing to Challenge Assumptions: It is a mistake to accept management’s narrative or its reported figures at face value. An effective analyst must maintain a healthy skepticism and critically question the key assumptions that underpin the financial statements. This is especially true for loss reserves, which are management’s estimate. The analyst should challenge whether the assumptions behind these estimates are reasonable and consistent with industry trends and the company’s own history.³²
• Misunderstanding Accounting Nuances: The most fundamental error is to apply generic financial analysis techniques to an insurance company without adjusting for the unique accounting principles that govern the industry. An analyst who does not understand the profound differences between SAP and GAAP, particularly regarding acquisition costs and asset valuation, will inevitably draw flawed conclusions about an insurer’s profitability and capital strength.³⁴

7.2 Case Study in Catastrophe: American International Group (AIG)

The 2008 near-collapse of American International Group (AIG), which required a massive government bailout, stands as the ultimate case study in multi-faceted risk management failure.³⁵

The common narrative often simplifies the cause to AIG’s exposure to credit default swaps (CDS), but the reality was a cascade of interconnected failures:

• Underwriting and Product Risk: AIG’s London-based Financial Products unit wrote hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of CDS contracts, effectively providing insurance on complex mortgage-backed securities. This was done on a massive, unhedged scale, with little understanding of the true “tail risk” embedded in these instruments.³⁵
• Liquidity Risk: The fatal flaw in these contracts was a provision that required AIG to post billions of dollars in collateral if its own credit rating was downgraded. When the major rating agencies downgraded AIG in September 2008 due to the deteriorating housing market, these collateral triggers were activated, creating a sudden, massive, and unmanageable demand for cash—a classic liquidity crisis.³⁵
• Systemic Failure: Because AIG was a counterparty to many of the world’s largest banks, its failure would have triggered catastrophic losses throughout the global financial system, transforming it from a company-specific problem into a systemic one. This demonstrated how the failure of a single, complex, and highly interconnected non-bank financial institution could pose a grave threat to global financial stability.³⁵

7.3 Case Studies in Interest Rate and Investment Risk: Executive Life & Mutual Benefit Life

The failures of Executive Life Insurance Company (ELIC) and Mutual Benefit Life (MBL) in 1991 provide classic examples of asset-side insolvencies driven by aggressive investment strategies.³⁰

Both companies pursued a strategy of offering aggressively priced life insurance and annuity products with high guaranteed interest rates.

To support these high promises, they abandoned the traditional conservative investment posture of a life insurer and invested heavily in the high-yield “junk bond” market of the 1980s.

When the junk bond market collapsed, the value of their asset portfolios plummeted, leaving them unable to meet their obligations to policyholders.

This created a crisis of confidence, leading to a “run” on the companies as policyholders rushed to surrender their policies and withdraw their cash.

This forced the companies to sell their now-devalued bonds into a falling market, realizing massive losses and sealing their insolvency.³⁰

These cases serve as a powerful real-world illustration of the dangers of asset-liability mismatch, the risks of chasing yield, and how investment risk can quickly morph into a fatal liquidity crisis.

The most catastrophic insurance failures are rarely, if ever, the result of a single, isolated mistake.

They are the product of a “doom loop,” a vicious cycle where multiple, seemingly distinct categories of risk—underwriting, investment, liquidity, and operational—become correlated under stress and amplify one another into a systemic cascade.

The AIG case is the archetypal example.

It was not just the CDS underwriting risk that felled the company; it was the toxic interaction of that risk with market risk (the housing collapse) and, most critically, liquidity risk, which was activated by the credit rating downgrade.

The downgrade was the hidden trigger that fused these disparate risks into a single, fatal blow.³⁵

Similarly, the failures of ELIC and MBL were not just about investment risk; they were about the interaction of product design risk (aggressive guarantees), investment risk (junk bonds), and liquidity risk (a policyholder run).³⁰

This reveals the ultimate task of the expert insurance analyst.

It is not merely to identify and quantify individual risks in their respective silos.

It is to function as a “systems analyst” for the insurance enterprise.

The most critical question is not “What is the loss ratio?” or “What is the investment yield?” but rather, “How do these risks interact under pressure?” An analyst must search for the hidden correlations and potential trigger points—like AIG’s credit rating collateral trigger—that can cause the entire system to fail.

This requires a level of stress testing and forward-looking scenario analysis that goes far beyond a simple review of historical financial statements.

It is the ability to understand the insurer not as a collection of parts, but as a complex, dynamic system that defines the boundary between competent and expert analysis.

Works cited

1. Financial Strategies and Analysis: Insurance | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/business-and-management/financial-strategies-and-analysis-insurance
2. Financial Statements for Insurance Companies – Corporate Finance Institute, accessed August 13, 2025, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/financial-statements-for-insurance-companies/
3. Float: How Insurance Companies Can Leverage Buffett’s Secret to …, accessed August 13, 2025, https://einvestingforbeginners.com/insurance-float-ahern/
4. What is Float? – SuperfastCPA CPA Review, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.superfastcpa.com/what-is-float/
5. www.superfastcpa.com, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.superfastcpa.com/what-is-float/#:~:text=Insurance%20Float%3A%20This%20term%20is,insurance%20company%20for%20a%20profit.
6. Berkshire Hathaway and the incredible power of float : r/investing – Reddit, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/ijnr09/berkshire_hathaway_and_the_incredible_power_of/
7. What Is Insurance Float? – YouTube, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3XfIfS00WY
8. Loss reserving – Wikipedia, accessed August 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_reserving
9. Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP) – Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.icrb.net/references/statutory-accounting-principles-sap/
10. Background on: Insurance Accounting | III, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.iii.org/publications/insurance-handbook/regulatory-and-financial-environment/background-on-insurance-accounting
11. Why Insurance Companies use Statutory Accounting (SAP) Instead of the GAAP – Blog, accessed August 13, 2025, https://blog.surgentcpe.com/why-insurance-companies-use-statutory-accounting-sap-instead-of-the-gaap
12. General Insurance Financial and Regulatory Enviorment Study Note – SOA, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/files/edu/2023/spring/study-note/fre-802-19.pdf
13. Financial Analysis: Definition, Importance, Types, and Examples – Investopedia, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-analysis.asp
14. Financial Statement Analysis: Techniques for Balance Sheet, Income & Cash Flow, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-statement-analysis.asp
15. GAAP vs STAT – YouTube, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2vQ7Qv6tSA
16. Loss Reserves: What They Are and Examples – Investopedia, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/loss-reserve.asp
17. CONSIDERATIONS IN SETTING LOSS RESERVES – Casualty …, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/old/clrstrans_1990_7.pdf
18. Loss Reserving – Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.pinnacleactuaries.com/loss-reserving
19. What is a Loss Reserve? – Definition from Insuranceopedia, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.insuranceopedia.com/definition/123/loss-reserve
20. Claims Reserve: Definition in Insurance, Purpose, and Example – Investopedia, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/claims-reserve.asp
21. Insurance Company Analysis Course | Fitch Learning, accessed August 13, 2025, https://fitchlearning.com/course/credit-risk-financial-institutions/insurance-company-analysis/
22. BEST’S CREDIT RATING METHODOLOGY (BCRM), accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.ambest.com/ratings/bcrmoverview.pdf
23. Ten Common Insurance Mistakes And How You May Be Able to Avoid Them, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.bbrown.com/us/insight/ten-common-insurance-mistakes-and-how-you-may-be-able-to-avoid-them/
24. Best’s Credit Rating Methodology (BCRM), accessed August 13, 2025, https://web.ambest.com/docs/default-source/events/bests-methodology-and-criteria—oct-2023.pdf?sfvrsn=3b2ac429_2
25. Best’s Credit Rating Methodology – AM Best, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www3.ambest.com/ambv/ratingmethodology/
26. Insurance Groups – AM Best, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.ambest.com/ratings/groupsmethod.pdf
27. Shifting landscapes: life insurance and financial stability – Bank for International Settlements, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt2409b.htm
28. Financial Analysis Handbook – NAIC, accessed August 13, 2025, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/publications-financial-analysis-hb.pdf
29. Alternative Mechanisms for Troubled Insurance Companie – NAIC, accessed August 13, 2025, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/alternative-mechanisms-troubled-companies.pdf
30. US and Japan Life Insurers Insolvencies Case Studies – Annual Report 2013/14 – THE GENEVA ASSOCIATION, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.genevaassociation.org/sites/default/files/research-topics-document-type/pdf_public//ga2015-insurance-resolution.pdf
31. The Top Five Accounting Mistakes Analysts Make – CFA Institute Enterprising Investor, accessed August 13, 2025, https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2015/05/12/the-top-five-accounting-mistakes-analysts-make/
32. 10 mistakes I made as an FP&A Analyst | Asif Masani – Finance Alliance, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.financealliance.io/10-mistakes-i-made-as-an-fp-a-analyst/
33. Top 3 Pitfalls to Avoid When Conducting a Financial Analysis – Paro, accessed August 13, 2025, https://paro.ai/blog/top-3-pitfalls-to-avoid-when-conducting-a-financial-analysis/
34. Transforming insurance financial planning – Deloitte, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/Industries/financial-services/articles/insurance-financial-planning.html
35. What Went Wrong at AIG? – Kellogg Insight, accessed August 13, 2025, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/what-went-wrong-at-aig
36. Insurance and Financial Stability, accessed August 13, 2025, https://www.iais.org/uploads/2022/01/Insurance_and_financial_stability.pdf.pdf