Problem Definition
SafeHarbor Re is a specialty reinsurer headquartered in Bermuda with $1.6 billion in gross written premiums (GWP), focused on natural catastrophe reinsurance across six geographic segments. The company has historically relied on 20-year actuarial loss models to price catastrophe risk, but climate change has fundamentally disrupted this approach. Over the past five years, SafeHarbor has experienced catastrophe losses three times higher than its models predicted, driven by intensifying hurricanes, flooding, and wildfire events.
The company's catastrophe portfolio now operates at approximately breakeven on an underwriting basis (combined ratio near 100%), sustained only by $80 million in annual investment income and a profitable book of non-catastrophe cross-sell business worth $448 million in premium. However, performance varies dramatically by geography. Some regions remain highly profitable while others are deeply underwater. The Chief Risk Officer has identified three potential responses: (a) implement aggressive rate increases of 40-60% to reflect true climate risk, (b) launch parametric insurance products that pay based on measurable triggers like wind speed or rainfall rather than assessed damage, or (c) exit the most climate-exposed geographies and concentrate on lower-risk markets.
The competitive landscape adds urgency. Two of SafeHarbor's larger competitors have already begun exiting Florida and Caribbean cat business, creating a short-term opportunity to capture displaced clients -- but only if SafeHarbor can price the risk sustainably. Meanwhile, InsurTech-backed parametric startups are entering the market with lower overhead and faster claims settlement, targeting precisely the climate-exposed segments where SafeHarbor is losing money. The CRO believes SafeHarbor has a 12-18 month window to act before market dynamics force the decision.
The CRO has asked your team: what combination of pricing, product, and portfolio actions should SafeHarbor pursue to restore sustainable profitability while retaining its market position?
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
- SafeHarbor's capital base is $2.4B; regulators require a minimum 1.5:1 premium-to-surplus ratio
- Investment income averages 5% on $1.6B of invested float ($80M annually)
- The global parametric insurance market is approximately $22B, growing at 12% CAGR
- Parametric product development requires $8-12M upfront and 18 months to launch
- Basis risk (mismatch between parametric trigger payout and actual client loss) averages 15-20% for well-designed products
- Industry-wide, reinsurers have raised catastrophe rates 25-50% since 2020; client fatigue is increasing
- SafeHarbor's top 15 clients represent 55% of total premium volume
- Florida represents 28% of cat premium but 38% of total incurred costs; it generated 90% of all underwriting losses across the portfolio over the past five years
- Competitors exiting climate-exposed regions saw 15-20% attrition in their remaining books within 18 months
- Parametric claims settle in 5-10 days vs. 6-18 months for traditional indemnity products
Question 1Structuring
"How would you structure your analysis to advise the CRO on the optimal combination of pricing, product, and portfolio actions?"
Hint · Structuring
Build 3–4 branches that are specific to this client and question, not a generic framework. Check they don't overlap and together cover the problem.
Provide Exhibit 1 after the candidate lays out their structure.
Exhibit 1Geographic Catastrophe Portfolio Performance (5-Year Average)
| Region | GWP ($M) | % of Total | Combined Ratio | Underwriting Result ($M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | 450 | 28% | 135% | (158) |
| Gulf Coast (ex-FL) | 286 | 18% | 94% | +17 |
| Caribbean | 160 | 10% | 112% | (19) |
| Northeast | 256 | 16% | 78% | +56 |
| West Coast | 224 | 14% | 83% | +38 |
| International | 224 | 14% | 72% | +63 |
| Total | 1,600 | 100% | 100% | (3) |
Combined ratio = (claims incurred + operating expenses) / gross written premium. Values above 100% indicate underwriting loss.
Source: SafeHarbor Re case file
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
A structured approach should address four workstreams:
-
Where is the problem? Segment profitability by geography and client tier to isolate the sources of underwriting loss. Not all regions or clients are equally unprofitable.
-
What are the pricing levers? Model rate increases by geography, testing different levels against retention curves. Determine the rate increase needed per region to reach target combined ratios, and cross-reference with client willingness to pay.
-
What does parametric add? Assess which geographies and peril types suit parametric triggers (high-frequency, measurable events). Evaluate whether parametric can serve as a retention tool for price-sensitive clients -- offering a lower-cost alternative to traditional indemnity at reduced coverage certainty.
-
What are the second-order effects? Map client-level dependencies across geographies and product lines. Determine the cross-sell impact of any geographic exit or aggressive repricing. Stress-test scenarios that combine multiple actions simultaneously.
Key clarifying questions to ask the interviewer:
- How correlated are cat losses across geographies? (Diversification value of keeping all regions)
- Do clients typically bundle cat coverage across multiple regions with one reinsurer?
- What is the current retrocession structure, and would portfolio changes affect retro pricing?
- Are there regulatory constraints on parametric product approval by jurisdiction?
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Identifies the three options and proposes evaluating each independently -- financial impact of rate increases, parametric opportunity sizing, and geographic exit analysis. Mentions client retention as a consideration. Covers basic profitability drivers (premium, claims, expenses).
Strong Candidate: Recognizes that the three options are not mutually exclusive and structures around portfolio-level optimization rather than option-by-option evaluation. Framework includes: (1) geographic profitability segmentation to isolate where the problem is concentrated, (2) client-level analysis to understand retention dynamics and cross-sell dependencies, (3) product-market fit assessment for parametric by geography, (4) scenario modeling combining selective rate action with parametric and geographic adjustment. Asks about client concentration and bundling behavior.
Excellent Candidate: All of the above, plus frames the core tension explicitly: climate pricing accuracy vs. market share retention. Notes that reinsurance is relationship-driven and clients buy portfolios, not individual policies -- so geographic decisions have cross-sell spillover effects. Structures analysis around client segments rather than just geographies, recognizing that a single cedant may have exposure in multiple regions. Asks about retrocession (SafeHarbor's own reinsurance purchases) and whether capital allocation rules differ by geography. Identifies that the real question is not "which option" but "which combination, applied differentially by region and client tier."
Question 2Numeracy
"Let us focus on Florida, the largest single geography. The CRO is considering a targeted 40% rate increase on Florida catastrophe business. Client surveys indicate SafeHarbor would retain 60% of Florida cat clients at this price point."
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Provide the following cost breakdown:
| Florida Cat Business | Current ($M) |
|---|---|
| Gross Written Premium | 450 |
| Claims Incurred | 450 |
| Variable Costs (commissions, acquisition) | 90 |
| Fixed Costs (operations, allocated overhead) | 68 |
| Total Costs | 608 |
| Combined Ratio | 135% |
"Assume claims and variable costs scale proportionally with retained client volume. Fixed costs remain constant. What is the new Florida underwriting result?"
Exhibit 2Client Retention Sensitivity to Rate Increases (Survey of Top 50 Cedants)
| Rate Increase | Expected Retention | Implied Premium After Increase ($M) |
|---|---|---|
| 10% | 95% | 1,672 |
| 20% | 87% | 1,670 |
| 30% | 74% | 1,539 |
| 40% | 62% | 1,389 |
| 50% | 48% | 1,152 |
Implied premium = current GWP x (1 + rate increase) x retention rate. Florida-specific retention runs 2-5 percentage points below company average at each price level.
Source: SafeHarbor Re case file
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1 -- New Florida premium $450M x 1.40 x 0.60 = $378M
Step 2 -- New claims (proportional to retained volume) $450M x 0.60 = $270M
Step 3 -- New variable costs (proportional to retained volume) $90M x 0.60 = $54M
Step 4 -- Fixed costs (unchanged) $68M
Step 5 -- New total costs $270 + $54 + $68 = $392M
Step 6 -- New combined ratio $392M / $378M = 103.7%
Step 7 -- New underwriting result $378M - $392M = -$14M (loss)
Change from current: underwriting loss improves from -$158M to -$14M, a $144M improvement. However, Florida remains unprofitable.
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Completes the calculation correctly and identifies that Florida remains unprofitable even after a 40% rate increase.
Strong Candidate: Notes the $144M improvement and contextualizes it against total company profitability. Observes that with proportional cost scaling and no attrition, the breakeven rate increase is exactly 35% ($608M / $450M = 1.35). But Exhibit 2 shows that the retention curve makes breakeven increasingly difficult -- higher rates cause more attrition, which strands fixed costs on a smaller premium base. Identifies the catch-22.
Excellent Candidate: Proactively questions the composition of the 40% of clients who leave. If the most loss-prone coastal accounts depart first (adverse selection in reverse), the remaining book may actually be more profitable than the average suggests. Conversely, if the most sophisticated and profitable clients leave (because they have alternatives), the remaining book worsens. Asks management which scenario is more likely based on the client survey data.
Follow-Up Probe
"The CRO asks: at what rate increase does Florida exactly break even, assuming no attrition?"
Answer: Breakeven requires total costs ($608M) to equal premium. Required premium = $608M. Rate increase = ($608M - $450M) / $450M = $158M / $450M = 35.1%. This is a useful benchmark -- but Exhibit 2 shows that at 30% increase, retention is 74%, and at 40%, it drops to 62%. Florida-specific retention at 35% would be approximately 66-68% (interpolating, then subtracting 2-5pp for Florida). With attrition factored in, the 35% rate increase that achieves breakeven without attrition actually produces a smaller book that still carries fixed cost drag.
Question 3Judgement & Insights
"Please review Exhibits 1 and 3. If SafeHarbor chose to exit Florida cat entirely, what would the total financial impact be?"
Hint · Judgement & Insights
Read the exhibit title, axes and units first. Lead with the ‘so what’, then back it with one or two numbers.
Provide Exhibit 3 if not already shared.
Exhibit 3Non-Catastrophe Cross-Sell Revenue by Primary Cat Client Region
| Primary Cat Region | Cross-Sell GWP ($M) | Combined Ratio | Underwriting Profit ($M) | Client Linkage Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | 192 | 60% | 77 | 85% |
| Gulf Coast | 80 | 68% | 26 | 40% |
| Caribbean | 32 | 72% | 9 | 75% |
| Northeast | 64 | 64% | 23 | 30% |
| West Coast | 48 | 66% | 16 | 25% |
| International | 32 | 70% | 10 | 35% |
| Total | 448 | 64% | 160 | -- |
Client Linkage Rate = percentage of cross-sell clients who indicated they would move all business to a competitor if SafeHarbor exited their primary cat geography. Cross-sell lines include directors & officers liability, professional indemnity, marine cargo, and cyber risk.
Source: SafeHarbor Re case file
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Exiting Florida entirely yields a net benefit of $93M ($158M cat loss saved minus $65M cross-sell profit lost), but at significant strategic cost:
- Scale reduction: Total premium drops from $2.05B to approximately $1.44B (a 30% decline), weakening SafeHarbor's market position and diversification
- Precedent effect: Competitors who exited climate regions saw 15-20% additional attrition in remaining books as clients questioned long-term commitment
- Caribbean comparison: Exiting Caribbean cat instead yields a cleaner $12M net benefit ($19M saved minus $7M cross-sell lost) with only $192M in premium at risk -- far less disruptive
- Preferred strategy: Restructure Florida selectively (reprice worst sub-segments, shift moderate-risk clients to parametric) rather than pursue a binary exit
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Identifies the $158M underwriting loss saved from exiting Florida cat. Recognizes that Exhibit 3 shows cross-sell revenue at risk. Calculates basic cross-sell impact: $77M profit x 85% linkage = $65M lost. Net savings: $158M - $65M = $93M.
Strong Candidate: All of the above, plus observes that the $93M net savings comes at the cost of losing $450M + (85% x $192M) = $613M in total premium volume -- a 30% reduction in company size. Notes that reinsurance is a scale-dependent business: smaller portfolios mean less diversification, higher per-unit retrocession costs, and reduced market relevance with key cedants. Questions whether the remaining portfolio's combined ratio improves or worsens without Florida's diversification benefit.
Excellent Candidate: Identifies the critical exhibit trap: Florida has the worst cat combined ratio (135%) but generates the highest cross-sell profit ($77M) at the best cross-sell combined ratio (60%). This is not coincidental -- Florida's large, sophisticated cedants have complex needs that create high-margin specialty coverage opportunities.
Contrasts with Caribbean: also unprofitable on cat (112% CR) with only $9M in cross-sell profit on $32M GWP. Caribbean exit saves $19M cat loss and costs only $9M x 75% = $7M in cross-sell, netting $12M with minimal scale disruption. The strategic insight: exit Caribbean cleanly, restructure Florida selectively.
Also notes that the cross-sell combined ratio pattern (Florida best at 60%, International worst at 70%) inversely correlates with cat exposure severity -- the most climate-exposed regions generate the most valuable client relationships, creating a natural trap for simple geographic exit strategies.
Question 4Synthesis
"The CRO needs your recommendation for tomorrow's board meeting. What should SafeHarbor do?"
Hint · Synthesis
Answer first: the recommendation, two or three reasons with numbers, then risks and next steps.
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Recommendation: "Restructure, don't retreat"
SafeHarbor should pursue a three-pronged strategy differentiated by geography and time horizon:
| Action | Geography | Timeline | Expected Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selective repricing (+25-30%) | Florida (coastal residential sub-segment) | 0-6 months | +$80-100M underwriting improvement |
| Clean exit | Caribbean | 0-6 months | +$12M net benefit |
| Capital reallocation | Northeast, International | 6-12 months | +$15-25M from growth in profitable regions |
| Parametric product launch | Florida, Gulf Coast | 12-18 months | $50-80M new premium by year 3 |
| Climate model modernization | All regions | 12-24 months | Improved pricing accuracy portfolio-wide |
Key risks to monitor: (1) basis risk complaints from early parametric adopters, (2) competitor response to Caribbean exit creating a price war for remaining clients, (3) regulatory approval timelines for parametric products varying by state.
Next steps: commission a client-level profitability analysis for the top 15 accounts (55% of premium) to identify which Florida relationships to prioritize for retention vs. repricing vs. parametric conversion.
Contributed by CaseDrill practice community
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Recommends a differentiated approach: raise rates selectively in Florida (below the full 40%), exit Caribbean, explore parametric. Provides directional rationale referencing the math from Q2 and the cross-sell trap from Q3. Acknowledges trade-offs between profitability and market position.
Strong Candidate: Structures the recommendation by time horizon:
- Immediate (0-6 months): Implement 25-30% rate increase on Florida cat, targeting the most loss-prone sub-segments (coastal residential) while preserving commercial and industrial clients who drive cross-sell. Exit Caribbean cat entirely ($12M net benefit, minimal disruption). Reallocate freed capital to Northeast and International expansion.
- Medium-term (6-18 months): Develop a parametric hurricane product for Florida as a retention tool -- offer clients a choice between traditional indemnity at higher rates or parametric at a modest increase with basis risk. This segments clients by risk preference rather than forcing a binary stay-or-leave decision.
- Long-term (18-36 months): Build proprietary forward-looking climate models to replace 20-year historical models. Use parametric trigger data to refine traditional pricing. Target a 95% combined ratio across the portfolio.
Quantifies expected impact: approximately $100-120M underwriting improvement in year one, with parametric revenue building to $50-80M by year three.
Excellent Candidate: All of the above, plus addresses three dimensions the CRO needs for the board:
-
Financial: Presents a clear path from 100% combined ratio to sub-95% within 24 months through selective repricing, Caribbean exit, and capital reallocation. Identifies that the true profit driver is the cross-sell engine -- cat pricing should sustain client relationships, not be optimized in isolation.
-
Strategic positioning: Parametric insurance is not just a retention tool -- it is a market positioning play. With the parametric market growing at 12% CAGR toward $39B by 2030, being early establishes SafeHarbor as an innovator, attracting clients leaving traditional-only reinsurers. This turns a defensive move (climate adaptation) into an offensive one (market share capture).
-
Risk management: The combined strategy creates a portfolio hedge. If climate losses continue worsening, parametric products have capped exposure via fixed trigger payouts. If losses moderate, the traditional book benefits from higher locked-in rates. The combination creates asymmetric upside.
Flags the key risk: basis risk in parametric products could damage client trust if a major hurricane causes significant damage but the trigger does not fire. Recommends a blended product (parametric base with a small indemnity top-up) to mitigate this risk while managing cost.