Decomposing diversification effect: evidence from the U.S. property-liability insurance industry

  • Received March 25, 2017;
    Accepted May 16, 2017;
    Published May 29, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Xin Che , Andre P. Liebenberg , Ivonne A. Liebenberg , Lawrence S. Powell
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ins.08(1).2017.02
  • Article Info
    Volume 8 2017, Issue #1, pp. 16-28
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    3 articles
  • 1267 Views
  • 314 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Prior literature suggests that diversified property-liability (P/L) insurers underperform their focused counterparts. While most studies focus on insurers’ overall performance, there is an absence of evidence regarding whether the underperformance is driven by underwriting or investment profitability. The authors develop and test hypotheses of diversification’s separate effect on underwriting and investing in the U.S. property-liability (P/L) insurance industry. It is found that diversified insurers outperform their focused counterparts in terms of investment return, but that they underperform in terms of underwriting profitability. The results are robust to corrections for endogeneity bias and a matched sample analysis.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Summary statistics
    • Table 2. Diversification effect on underwriting performance
    • Table 3. Diversification effect on investment performance
    • Berger, A. N., Cummins, J. D., & Weiss, M. A. (2000). Conglomeration versus Strategic Focus: Evidence from the Insurance Industry. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 9, 323-362.
    • Berger, P. G., & Ofek, E. (1995). Diversification’s Effect on Firm Value. Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 39-65.
    • Berry-Stölzle, T. R., Liebenberg, A. P., Ruhland, J. S., & Sommer, D. W. (2012). Determinants of Corporate Diversification: Evidence from the Property-Liability Insurance Industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 79, 381-413.
    • Campa, J. M, & Kedia, S. (2002). Explaining the Diversification Discount. Journal of Finance, 57, 1731-1762.
    • Che, X., & Liebenberg, A. P. (2017). Effects of Business Diversification on Asset Risk-Taking: Evidence from the U.S. Property-Liability Insurance Industry. Journal of Banking and Finance,77, 122-136
    • Chidambaran, N. K., Pugel T. A., & Saunders A. (1997). An Investigation of the Performance of the U.S. Property-Liability Insurance Industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 64, 371-381.
    • Cummins, J. D., & Nini, G. (2002). Optimal Capital Utilization by Financial Firms: Evidence from the Property-Liability Insurance Industry. Journal of Financial Services Research, 21, 15-53.
    • Cummins, D., & Sommer, D. (1996). Capital and Risk in Property-Liability Insurance Markets. Journal of Banking and Finance, 20, 1069-1092.
    • Cummins, J. D., Weiss, M. A., & Zi, H. (1999). Organizational Form and Efficiency: The Coexistence of Stock and Mutual Property-Liability Insurers. Management Science, 45, 1254-1269.
    • Elango, B., Ma, Y., & Pope, N. (2008). An Investigation into the Diversification-Performance Relationship in the U.S. Property-Liability Insurance Company. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 75, 567-591.
    • Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. (1990). Strategic Groups and Performance: The U.S. Insurance Industry, 1970-84. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 197-215.
    • Grant, R. M., Jammine, A. P., & Thomas, H. (1988). Diversity, Diversification, and Profitability among British Manufacturing Companies. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 771-801.
    • Hoyt, R. E., & Trieschmann, J. S. (1991). Risk/Return Relationships for Life-Health, Property-Liability, and Diversified Insurers. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 58, 322-330.
    • Insurance Information Institute. (2015). Facts and Statistics: Property/Casualty Insurance Cycle.
    • Laeven, L., & Levine, R. (2007). Is There a Diversification Discount in Financial Conglomerates? Journal of Financial Economics, 85, 331-367.
    • Lee, S., Mayers, D., & Smith, C. W. (1997). Guaranty Funds and Risk-Taking Evidence from the Insurance Industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 44, 3-24.
    • Lewellen, W. G. (1971). A Pure Financial Rationale for the Conglomerate Merger. Journal of Finance, 26, 521-537.
    • Liebenberg, A. P., & Sommer, D. W. (2008). Effects of Corporate Diversification: Evidence from the Property-Liability Insurance Industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 75, 893-919.
    • Martin, J. D., & Sayrak, A. (2003). Corporate Diversification and Shareholder Value: A Survey of Recent Literature. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9, 37-57.
    • Markides, C. C. (1992). Consequences of Corporate Refocusing: Ex Ante Evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 398-412.
    • Mayers, D., & Smith, C. W. (1981). Contractual Provisions, Organizational Structure, and Conflict Control in Insurance Markets. Journal of Business, 54, 407-434.
    • Mayers, D., & Smith, C. W. (1988). Ownership Structure Across Lines of Property-Casualty Insurance. Journal of Law and Economics, 31, 351-378.
    • Mayers, D., & Smith, C. W. (1990). On the Corporate Demand for Insurance: Evidence from the Reinsurance Market. Journal of Business, 63, 19-40.
    • Montgomery, C. A. (1985). Product-Market Diversification and Market Power. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 789-798.
    • Rajan, R., Servaes, H., & Zingales, L. (2000). The Cost of Diversity: The Diversification Discount and Inefficient Investment. Journal of Finance, 55, 35-80.
    • Pottier, S. W. (2007). The Determinants of Private Debt Holdings: Evidence from the Life Insurance Industry. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 74, 591-612.
    • Scherer, F. M. (1980). Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Chicago: Rand McNally.
    • Schrand, C. M., & Unal, H. (1998). Hedging and Coordinated Risk Management: Evidence from Thrift Conversions. Journal of Finance, 53, 979-1013.
    • Sommer, D. W. (1996). The Impact of Firm Risk on Property-Liability Insurance Prices. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 63, 501-514.
    • Teece, D. J. (1980). Economics of Scope and the Scope of the Enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 223-247.
    • Weiss, M. A. (2007). Underwriting Cycles: A Synthesis and Further Directions. Journal of Insurance Issues, 30, 31-46.
    • Yu, T., Lin, B., Oppenheimer, H. R., & Chen, X. (2008). Intangible Assets and First Risk-taking: An Analysis of Property and Liability Insurance Firms. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 11, 157-178.
    • Yuengert, A. M. (1993). The Measurement of Efficiency in Life Insurance Estimates of a Mixed Normal-Gamma Error Model. Journal of Banking and Finance, 17, 483-496.
Related Articles

  • The role of foreign direct investment and trade on carbon emissions in Turkey

    Gizem Kaya , M. Özgür KayalicaORCID Researcher ID, Merve Kumaş , Burc Ulengin doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.08(1).2017.01
    Environmental Economics Volume 8, 2017         Issue #1         pp. 8-17 Views: 1912 Downloads: 959 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    This study aims to observe the long run and short run effects of gross domestic product, foreign direct investment inflows and trade on CO2 emissions and causality relationships between these factors, using annual data for the period of 1974-2010. The empirical results demonstrate that the inverted U-shaped relationship of environmental Kuznets curve is valid for Turkey. In addition, there are positive long run effects of foreign direct investment and trade openness on CO2 emissions. The authors also find a bidirectional causality relationship between CO2 emission and FDI.

  • Modeling of FinTech market development (on the example of Ukraine)

    Alina BukhtiarovaORCID Researcher ID, Arsen HayriyanORCID Researcher ID, Nikol BortORCID Researcher ID, Andrii SemenogORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.14(4).2018.03
    Innovative Marketing Volume 14, 2018         issue #4         pp. 34-45 Views: 1799 Downloads: 255 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    FinTech startups and services are one of the most dynamic segments of the modern economy. New financial technologies have already attracted many investors and form millions of budgets. Changing the traditional financial services concept, FinTech companies formed a new niche within the financial services market, the dynamic development of which determines the relevance of the development and implementation of an effective regulatory and oversight system.
    The purpose of the article is to develop an economic and mathematical model for forecasting the development of the FinTech market on the example of Ukraine. In order to study the development of the FinTech industry, a multiple regression model was presented. The model describes the dependence of the total investment value of FinTech from venture investments in financial technology, venture investments in other technologies and venture investments in online lending. Based on this model, the effect of attracting investments with new FinTech projects on the total volume of investments in the industry was clarified. According to the model, with a change in investments in FinTech by 1%, the total rate of venture investments decreases by 0.03, funds in new projects of other companies grow by 0.05, and venture investments in online lending increase by 0.89. According to the analysis of regulatory legislation in the foreign countries of the FinTech services sphere, it was found that the regulation of most of the risks associated with the development of FinTech services falls within the competence of different supervisory authorities, requiring cross-sectoral cooperation between public institutions.

  • Test of capital market integration using Fama-French three-factor model: empirical evidence from India

    Neeraj SehrawatORCID , Amit KumarORCID , Narander Kumar NigamORCID , Kirtivardhan SinghORCID , Khushi GoyalORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.17(2).2020.10
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 17, 2020         Issue #2         pp. 113-127 Views: 1768 Downloads: 747 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Integration or segmentation of markets determines whether substantial advantages in risk reduction can be attained through portfolio diversification in foreign securities. In an integrated market, investors face risk from country-specific factors and factors, which are common to all countries, but price only the later, as country-specific risk is diversifiable. The aim of this study is two-fold, firstly, investigating the superiority of the Fama-French three-factor model over Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and later using the superior model to test for integration of Indian and US equity markets (a proxy for global markets). Based on a sample of Bombay Stock Exchange 500 non-financial companies for the period 2003–2019, the data suggest the superiority of Fama-French three-factor model over CAPM. Using the Non-Linear Seemingly Unrelated Regression technique, the first half of the sample period (2003–2010) shows evidence of market segmentation; however, the second sub-period (2011–2019) shows weak signs of market integration, which is supported by the Johansen test of cointegration, suggesting that Indian market is gradually getting integrated with global markets.

Download Preview
Close
Insurance Markets and Companies
Insurance Markets and Companies