Case Studies | News & Reports | Global Risk | About Us | Contact Us | Home

News & Reports Archives

These bulletins are emailed to clients and friends prior to being posted online. If you would like to be on our mailing list, please send us a request via email. Thank you.


A RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH CFOs
(AND THEIR ACCOUNTANTS) CAN LOVE
A New Way to Talk to Your Banker

Firms that manage risk are a better deal for lenders. Some VCs and investment bankers are aware of and use finance techniques that measure and account for risk. The concepts are:

Economic Capital (defined as Operational Capital PLUS Risk Capital)
and
Risk Adjusted Return on Capital

The principles captured by the above are intuitive but are not reflected in financial statements and, until now, have not been quantified in any way. An opportunity missed. A dialogue based on these concepts represents a new way to talk to your banker.

ECONOMIC CAPITAL
A firm needs capital to finance its daily operations -- to cover payroll, rent, consulting fees and all the other corporate activities. This is called Operational Capital. This is measured by traditional financial statements.

A firm also needs capital to finance risk -- to pay for things that unexpectedly go wrong like fire, theft and lawsuits. This is called Risk Capital and is not measured by traditional financial statements. (There are other kinds of risks too such as risks that competitors will steal market share, the products will not be popular among the target market, etc. But this is business risk which is tightly wrapped up with the core mission of the company. This risk may or may not be included in risk capital, but often it is not and should not. It is part and parcel of the essence of the firm, not peripheral like the other kind of risk (pure risk).

The total of operational capital plus risk capital is called Economic Capital. We'll get back to this definition below.

Consider three sources of risk capital:

1. Risk capital can come from cash that the firm has on hand. To be sufficient, it would have to be an awfully significant amount, and it would probably not survive because of competing demands for its use.

2. Risk capital can also be off-balance sheet capital such as a credit line which would be tapped in the event of a loss which had to be financed. Of course, the loan would have to be paid back, however.

3. Another off-balance sheet source is insurance. With insurance the financial consequences of loss are transferred to an insurer in return for the premium.

Additionally, risk management is broader that just insurance. Losses can be prevented by safety or quality control efforts, and risk can be transferred to customers, business partners, subcontractors, etc. via contract. This reduces the need for risk capital.

The risks that the firm (and its lender or equity partner) are subject to are potentially catastrophic. The entire facility could be destroyed, or the company could owe $50 million to a plaintiff at the whim of a jury. How is management of these risks reflected in financial statements? Hardly at all!

Banks and equity partners generally do not consider the need for risk capital. A cursory look at an insurance schedule comprises the due diligence. Whether limits are adequate in relation to actual exposure and whether terms and conditions (the actual policy language -- all 50 plus pages) are adequate is a crap shoot. In a contest, scenario #1 above would probably receive the most favorable rating because of the abundance of cash, whereas in reality it is the most tenuous. The other elements of a risk management program -- the loss control and contractual transfer -- would not be factored in at all. Bottom line: it's not even considered on a qualitative basis - not to mention quantitative.

When the convention of economic capital is not used to make comparisons between firms, they all look alike as respects risk -- the financials do not reflect the difference. Risk always uses capital. If it is not funded it creates a deficit. Only after a disaster does the deficit finally surface -- while to the contrary the company is under water.

RISK ADJUSTED RETURN ON CAPITAL

RAROC is to the income statement what economic capital is to the the balance sheet.

Consider two companies that generate a 15% return on equity. One manages risk completely, while the other floats along at the whim of the gods. Until something happens they appear to be equal according to the financial statements. Mysteriously, there is an abundance of notes to the financials, but none on risk management or the lack thereof.

The true measure is return on economic capital. Firm activities will generate risk and a certain amount of capital is required to handle that risk. To the extent risk is prevented or transferred to other parties, less risk capital is required. If risk is financed via insurance, that is utilizing off-balance sheet capital and that reduces the need for on-balance sheet capital.

If both firms generate $.15 for every dollar of capital that is measured by the financials, then the rate of return on equity is 15% (.15/1.00) for each. If Company A manages risk completely via loss control and insurance, then risk capital required is zero. The risk adjusted rate of return for Company A is truly 15%. Company B, though, doesn't even attempt to manage risk. By default
loss will have to be paid out of cash or loans. Assume risk capital of $.75 is required for every dollar of operational capital. The risk adjusted rate of return for Cpmpany B, then, is .15/(1+.75) = 8.5%.

In the marketplace Company B is competing with Company A for funds. In our world, funds are not unlimited -- they are rationed. Educate your lender and/or equity partner about how risk management should be accounted for -- and BE Company A.

Given the inevitability of losses, you'll be judged not by whether you were the victim of an event, but by how well you planned for it.

(C) 2003 Licata Kelleher Risk and Insurance Advisers, Inc. Permission granted for distribution as is (with full attribution).

Contact us for risk management strategy and implementation.

Licata Kelleher is a risk management and insurance advisory firm. The firm does not sell insurance, but does counsel clients on the effectiveness of insurance, on reducing the cost of insurance and on the risk management process.

The above is intended to be general information, and should not be construed as specific recommendations.

For more information, contact Debora Wu, at DWU@LicataRisk.com

News & Reports Archives

More News

May 8, 2008 THE STATE OF COMPUTER SECURITY

February 1, 2008 TERRORISM PROGRAM RENEWED

November 27, 2007 GLOBAL WARMING PANEL IN BOSTON RAISES KEY ISSUES

October 19, 2007 GLOBAL WARMING SYMPOSIUM

August 29, 2007 HURRICANE DEAN AN OMEN?

April 25, 2007 WHO'S LIABLE FOR PET FOOD CONTAMINATION-THE RISK OF PRODUCT LIABILITY

Reports

Fall 2005 INTERNATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT
 
Spring 2004 EMPLOYMENT LAW MORPHS INTO A MONSTER

Fall 2004 INSURANCE BROKER SUED BY NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL

Summer 2004 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF THE INSURANCE MARKET

Winter 2004 WORLD TRADE CASE UNVEILS INNER WORKINGS OF INSURANCE BROKER

 Fall 2003 A RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH CFOs (AND THEIR ACCOUNTANTS) CAN LOVE

Summer 2003 PRESERVING COVERAGE FOR INNOCENT INSUREDS

Spring 2003 LEAVING TERRORISM COVERAGE ON THE TABLE

Winter 2003 COMPUTER SECURITY IS NOT A BLACK HOLE

Fall 2002 "LET'S BE CAREFUL OUT THERE

Spring/Summer 2002 WHAT WARREN BUFFET KNOWS ABOUT INSURANCE COMPANY FINANCIALS

Spring 2002 OPPORTUNITIES ABOUND IN DEVELOPMENT OF CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES

Winter 2001 "YOU CAN'T PAY US THIS MONTH? WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'NEW DEVELOPMENTS?"

Fall 2001 WORLD TRADE TERRORISM -- REPERCUSSIONS FOR INSURANCE MARKET

Summer 2001 ENERGY AVAILABILITY: CURRENT REALITY OR FOND MEMORY?

Spring 2001 "HOLD THAT BALLOT UP TO THE LIGHT"