This paper studies the performance of publicly held firms in the US property-liability insurance industry by analyzing companies that issued initial public offerings (IPOs) from 1994 to 2005, using private firms as the benchmark. I investigate ex ante determinants and ex post effects of IPOs on firm efficiency, operating performance, and other financials. I also analyze stock returns and follow-on SEO and acquisition activities to provide further information on IPO motivation. The paper finds that the likelihood of an IPO significantly increases with firm size and premium growth. IPO firms experience no post-issue underperformance in efficiency, operations, or stock returns; register improvement in allocative and cost efficiency; and reduce financial leverage and reinsurance usage. Moreover, IPO firms are active in follow-on SEO issues and acquisition activities. The findings are mostly consistent with the theory that firms go public for easier access to capital and to ease capital constraints.

This paper analyzes the productivity and efficiency effects of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in the US property-liability insurance industry during the period 1994–2003 using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and Malmquist productivity indices. We seek to determine whether M&As are value-enhancing, value-neutral, or value-reducing. The analysis examines efficiency and productivity change for acquirers, acquisition targets, and non-M&A firms. We also examine the firm characteristics associated with becoming an acquirer or target through probit analysis. The results provide evidence that M&As in property-liability insurance were value-enhancing. Acquiring firms achieved more revenue efficiency gains than non-acquiring firms, and target firms experienced greater cost and allocative efficiency growth than non-targets. Factors other than efficiency enhancement are important factors in property-liability insurer M&As. Financially vulnerable insurers are significantly more likely to become acquisition targets, consistent with corporate control theory, and we also find evidence that M&As are motivated to achieve diversification. However, there is no evidence that scale economies played an important role in the insurance M&A wave.

This paper investigates economies of scope in the US insurance industry over the period 1993–2006. We test the conglomeration hypothesis, which holds that firms can optimize by diversifying across businesses, versus the strategic focus hypothesis, which holds that firms optimize by focusing on core businesses. We analyze whether it is advantageous for insurers to offer both life-health and property-liability insurance or to specialize in one major industry segment. We estimate cost, revenue, and profit efficiency utilizing data envelopment analysis (DEA) and test for scope economies by regressing efficiency scores on control variables and an indicator for strategic focus. Property-liability insurers realize cost scope economies, but they are more than offset by revenue scope diseconomies. Life-health insurers realize both cost and revenue scope diseconomies. Hence, strategic focus is superior to conglomeration in the insurance industry.

Cash holdings of financial institutions, especially private firms, have been understudied in existing literature. This paper fills that gap by examining the cash holdings of US property-liability insurers in order to analyze the difference in cash holdings and cash adjustments between public and private stock insurers and between mutual and stock insurers within the private insurer category. We find that public insurers hold much less cash than private stock insurers, which differs from the findings for non-financial firms. Additionally, we find that mutual insurers hold less cash than private stock insurers. Public insurers adjust their cash holdings much faster toward their target cash levels than private stock insurers do when facing an extreme cash shortfall, but their adjustment speed is indifferent from that of private stock insurers when both having excess cash. Mutual insurers are able to adjust cash holdings slightly faster than private stock insurers when there is an extreme cash shortfall but are indifferent in adjustment speed from private stock insurers when having excess cash in hand. Overall, our results are more consistent with the financing frictions hypothesis of cash holdings and are inconsistent with the owner-manager agency problems of free cash flow.