1 Reinsurance Market Outlook

Contents

Executive Summary: Reinsurance Capital Continues to Support Current and Future Demand 1

Reinsurer Supply Remains More than Adequate 2

Insurer Capital Remains Stable 3

Regulatory Developments Reshape Reinsurance Market in China and India 5

A.M. Best’s New Stochastic-Based BCAR Model May Increase Demand to Protect Tail Risk 7

First Quarter 2016 Catastrophe Bond Transaction Review 8

First Quarter Catastrophe Losses Low Despite Above Average Number of Events 10

Contact Information 12

Aon Benfield 1

Executive Summary: Reinsurance Capital Continues to

Support Current and Future Demand

In line with January 2016, April renewals continued the positive trend in the reinsurance

value proposition for insurance companies. Ceding companies found ample capacity

to meet risk transfer needs as well as support geographic and product growth goals.

Demand for reinsurance increased slightly in major markets in the US and Japan, with

more significant demand growth in India.

Reinsurance capital ended 2015 at USD565 billion, unchanged from Q3 2015 but down two percent from

year end 2014. Strong operating performance of insurers and reinsurers through the year was offset by

strengthening of the US dollar and rising interest rates. Alternative market capacity increased 12 percent

year over year to USD 72 billion and now contributes 12 percent of the global reinsurance capital with the

strongest movement continuing for collateralized reinsurance.

Reinsurers continue to invest in capabilities to support ceding company growth from diversifying

exposures including US mortgage credit risk, life and annuity risk and other emerging risks such as

cyber liability and corporate giga-liability risks. Evidence of demand increases from tactical reinsurance

transactions is also emerging. Demand for Florida risk transfer remains fluid heading into the key June

and July renewals and is likely to result in a net increase. Continued depopulation and potential

opportunistic purchases will drive additional private market demand, though demand changes from

government entities remain less clear.

Finally, regulatory changes and rating agency capital model adoption are expected to result in targeted

demand increases. Most notably, A.M. Best has released a draft update to their its rating methodology,

and has started communicating the need for some highly rated companies to enhance capital adequacy.

Additional reinsurance, properly structured, will provide a meaningful component of this capital increase.

Our outlook for the June and July 2016 renewals period remains positive, with insurers likely to achieve

improvements in pricing, terms and conditions similar to those achieved for Q1 2016 renewals.

Note: This reinsurance market outlook report should be read in conjunction with our firm’s views on rate on line, capacity and

retention changes for each cedent’s market. Our professionals are prepared to discuss variations from our market sector outlook

that apply to individual programs due to established trading relationships, capacity needs, loss experience, exposure management,

data quality, model fitness, expiring margins and other factors that may cause variations from our reinsurance market outlook

2 Reinsurance Market Outlook

Reinsurer Supply Remains More than Adequate

Aon Benfield estimates that global reinsurer capital totalled USD565 billion at December 31, 2015,

a reduction of two percent since the end of 2014, reflecting two main factors in the period. The first was

the strengthening of the US dollar, resulting in a reduction of capital on conversion from other currencies.

Most notably, the euro declined 10 percent relative to the US dollar. The second factor affecting capital

was the impact of rising interest rates on bond valuations, contributing to unrealized investment losses.

Despite these issues, the operating performance of major insurers and reinsurers remained solid,

aided by below average insured catastrophe losses, economic recovery in the US and exposure growth

in emerging markets. Reinsurance supply remains ample to cover demand for reinsurance capacity.

Exhibit 1: Change in global reinsurer capital

Source: Individual company reports, Aon Benfield Analytics

Alternative capital continues strong growth

Continued increases in collateralized reinsurance placements helped pushed total alternative capital to

USD72 billion, up 12 percent compared to year end 2014. Nearly USD6 billion of additional alternative

market reinsurance capacity was secured. Sidecar and collateralized ILW capital also increased to nearly

USD8 billion and USD4 billion respectively. While the actual total capital attributed to both of these

segments remains well below collateralized reinsurance, the percentage increase in both was well into

double digits for 2015. Catastrophe bond capacity for the industry remains strong, ending the year

relatively flat compared to 2014 at USD24.4 billion.

$410B $340B

$400B $470B $455B

$505B $540B $575B $565B

-17% 18% 18%

-3% 11% 7%

6% -2%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Aon Benfield 3

Exhibit 2: Bond and collateralized market development

Source: Aon Securities Inc.

Insurer Capital Remains Stable

Insurer capital decreased by two percent compared to year end 2014, driven by strengthening of the US

dollar relative to other currencies. Operating results were generally solid, as insurance companies

globally benefited from low catastrophe loss activity.

Exhibit 3: Change in insurer capital

Source: Aon Benfield Analytics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

US

D b

illio

ns

Col Re Col ILW Sidecars Bonds

$3.4T

$2.4T

$3.2T $3.5T $3.6T $3.8T $4.0T $4.2T $4.1T

-29% 34%

12% 1%

7% 4%

6% -2%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

4 Reinsurance Market Outlook

Peak zone demand outlook remains fluid for upcoming renewals

A number of different factors will have positive and negative influences on overall demand for peak zone

Florida, and while some of these are undefined for upcoming renewal, in the aggregate, we believe that

potential reductions in demand from Florida Citizens and / or from the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe

Fund (FHCF) could outweigh additional demand from takeout activity, FHCF privatization, and other

opportunistic purchases.

Depopulation from Florida Citizens has continued with a decrease of nearly 90,000 policies since

September 30, 2015 to 485,000. According to summary depopulation materials produced by Citizens, the

portfolio is estimated to reach 450,000 policies at some point in 2016. While insurers active in

depopulation continue to improve their capital positions aided by 10 years of no hurricane loss activity,

they still rely on private reinsurance to maintain adequate catastrophe capacity which will translate to

additional demand from this segment for 2016 capacity. We estimate that Citizens depopulations along

with other opportunistic purchasing will increase demand by USD 500 million to USD 1 billion, prior to any

potential offsetting Citizens and FHCF reductions.

As rate pressure for private reinsurance in the region continues, we estimate that Florida Hurricane

Catastrophe Fund privatization reinsurance could double for the 2016 hurricane season to approximately

USD2 billion. That said, the source of this capacity remains unclear as cedents continue to evaluate

alternative market options for this capacity.

For Florida Citizens, which had outstanding capacity totaling more than USD 4billion in 2015, a reduction

may be in store for 2016. March Board of Directors materials for Florida Citizens included a projected risk

transfer program that included only the subsequent year protection or previously purchased multi-year

transactions. The multi-year purchases provide a total of approximately USD2.25 billion in private market

limit for the 2016 hurricane season. Should Florida Citizens elect to forgo securing additional capacity for

the 2016 season, this would represent a net decrease of approximately USD1.8 billion.

Lastly, the FHCF, a newcomer to the private reinsurance market in 2015, securing USD1 billion in

capacity continues to evaluate its potential purchase for 2016. While some external comments have been

made signaling a potential purchase, the final decision has yet to be made.

Aon Benfield 5

Regulatory Developments Reshape Reinsurance Market

in China and India

A number of regulatory actions in Asia are changing the market landscape. Key regions like China and

India are seeing reform implemented that will likely bring new market players and potential create

reinsurance supported opportunities for insurers in the market.

China

In China, the most significant regulatory change is C-ROSS, the second-generation solvency regime. It

was formally implemented in January 2016, after a transition period that started in February 2015. Under

C-ROSS, reinsurance impacts an insurer’s solvency through the capital requirement on premium risk,

reserve risk, catastrophe risk, and credit risk. Some cedants have started research on how reinsurance

decisions impact solvency, and this may have an influence on the future major renewals, especially for

those whose solvency position is not strong. That said, more specifics on implementation of C-ROSS are

still forthcoming. A topic of particular interest is the choice between domestic reinsurers and off-shore

reinsurers. Credit risk factors differ significantly between reinsurance assets associated with domestic

reinsurers and off-shore reinsurers. Off-shore reinsurers providing collateral may narrow the gap, and as

such, we may see the use of collateralization in China in future renewals.

Another new regulation that took effect in January 2016 is the reinsurance registration system. Going

forward, China cedants can only deal with reinsurers and reinsurance brokers that are valid in the

reinsurance registration system built and maintained by the regulator. Only those reinsurers who have

required international rating can write business from China cedants (certain exemptions may apply).

This regulation helps strengthen the market security and mitigate the credit risk. Some reinsurers may

be filtered out if they cannot meet the registration requirement or do not regularly update their profile as

required.

Encouraged by the central government’s policy of “more reinsurance players” and the new regulations

which may favor domestic reinsurers, more reinsurers are now entering China. In the first quarter of 2016,

the regulator approved Taiping Re China, PICC Re, and Qianhai Re. Prior to these, the only China local

reinsurer was China Re. Other local reinsurers are being expected as off-shore reinsurers are applying

to open branches/subsidiaries in China, and Lloyd’s syndicates are utilizing Lloyds China’s platform. As

a result, capacity from the domestic market will increase and cedants will have more choices.

Another pending regulatory change that may prove relevant to the market is taxation reform. The central

government has clearly communicated that business tax will be changed to value-added-tax (VAT)

from May 1, 2016. While the detailed rules for reinsurance are not available yet, the central government

vowed that tax burden will not increase after the reform.

In other growth markets of Asia, Hong Kong is also expected to embrace risk-based-capital (RBC). It is

anticipated that the detailed RBC rules will be revealed in 2016 and the quantitative-impact-study (QIS)

will begin. To date, Hong Kong has been a fragmented market with many insurers. Whether the RBC

regime will cause capital pressure, and the potential for reinsurance to be actively utilized to mitigate

such pressure, remains unclear.

6 Reinsurance Market Outlook

India

The impending opening of India’s reinsurance market to foreign reinsurers is expected to provide

significant benefits to the domestic insurance industry in the form of additional capital and expertise.

As a result of insurance laws passed in March 2015, overseas reinsurers are allowed to establish local

branches in the country. As per the Insurance Regulatory and Development Agency IRDA, there will be

three categories of reinsurers that will be allowed to operate in India. Under the first and highest category,

a branch office is required to maintain a minimum retention of 50 percent of the Indian reinsurance

business. Reinsurers in this category are given priority over reinsurers in lower categories. Meanwhile,

reinsurers under the second category will have to maintain a minimum retention of 30 percent of the

Indian reinsurance business. The final category is for reinsurers that set up operations in one of India’s

special economic zones. In addition to the three-tier plan, the regulator also issued regulations for Lloyd’s

syndicates, members and services firms to establish operations in India. The rules are similar to those of

the reinsurance branches ‘each syndicate shall maintain a minimum retention of 50 percent of the Indian

reinsurance business,’ putting limitations on retrocessional arrangements. While reinsurance branches

will have priority over reinsurers based outside of India, the national reinsurer will still have priority over

branches.

The insurance regulator has given initial approval to four major reinsurers Munich Re, Swiss Re,

Hannover Re and Scor to open branches in the country and it is expected that the final approval should

be granted by the end of April. RGA and XLCatlin have also applied to open branches and it is expect

others will also apply shortly.

With a physical presence in the country, the market expects that foreign reinsurers will be able to better

assess risk be able to reinsure risks beyond their current scope in the region creating real opportunities

for reinsurers. Beyond improved underwriting of currently reinsured risks, it is anticipated that reinsurer

expertise and support will play a key role in insurance companies being able to broaden insurance

offerings in the market, particularly looking to increase penetration in the midmarket and lower income

segments. Availability of increased capital inflow will also enable insurers to increase penetration of

insurance and social security, particularly in the rural sector, informal workers and for untapped

population in urban areas.

Beyond reinsurance market changes, India decided to raise the foreign direct investment cap to 49

percent from 26 percent in insurance business in March 2015. Along with related changes, this potential

increase in foreign investment will likely have a significant effect on the insurance industry.

Aon Benfield 7

A.M. Best’s New Stochastic-Based BCAR Model May

Increase Demand to Protect Tail Risk

On March 10, A.M. Best released two major draft criteria papers: one for the US P&C stochastic-based

BCAR model and the other on Best’s Credit Rating Methodology (BCRM). The BCRM applies globally to

all rated insurers. It is intended to increase transparency and provide insights on how companies are

rated. Criteria for the US Life & Health, Canadian, Title, and Universal BCAR models are expected to be

released by third quarter 2016. All BCAR models will be adopted concurrently in early 2017.

While the overall structure of the model is not changing materially, risk factors will be determined using

stochastic simulations from probability curves at various confidence intervals. At each successive

confidence interval, risk factors for bond default, stock volatility, reinsurer default, pricing risk, and

reserving risk are increasingly conservative. In addition, the catastrophe charge will vary based on higher

return periods, and will be applied on an All Perils, occurrence VaR basis rather than by peril. Exhibit 4

provides the confidence intervals and related catastrophe return periods.

Exhibit 4: New BCAR confidence intervals

Confidence interval 95.0% 99.0% 99.5% 99.8% 99.9%

Catastrophe PML 20yr 100yr 200yr 500yr 1,000yr

Source: A.M. Best

The current catastrophe charge is based on the greater of 100-year wind or 250-year earthquake. The

change in catastrophe charge may encourage insurers to buy more catastrophe cover to mitigate the

impact on net required capital. A.M. Best plans to publish BCAR scores for all five confidence intervals

and consider all of the results in determining a rating, which will have implications for insurer capital

management.

8 Reinsurance Market Outlook

First Quarter 2016 Catastrophe Bond Transaction Review

A new record for first quarter catastrophe bond issuance was established in the alternative capital

reinsurance market in 2016. During this period, catastrophe bond issuance totaled USD2.22 billion,

representing a robust 31 percent growth over the prior record, set in Q1 2015. Such year-over-year first

quarter growth contributed to overall market expansion, pushing outstanding catastrophe bond limit to a

new market high of USD25.0 billion, as of March 31, 2016.

This significance of this quarter’s issuance in the context of the calendar year remains to be seen, given

that market volume is typically more concentrated around the important reinsurance renewals periods

of Q2 and Q4. The strong start to 2016 is, however, a welcome sign to the catastrophe bond market

following the more moderate volumes of Q4 2015, where issuance contracted in response to the

prevailing competitive (re)insurance landscape. Interestingly, the combined weighted average initial

expected loss of 2016 transactions was 2.46 percent—more than 30 bps above the prior year,

demonstrating the competitiveness of alternative markets at higher risk levels.

The chart below shows catastrophe bond issuance by quarter since 2012.

Exhibit 5: Catastrophe bond issuance by quarter

Source: Aon Securities Inc.

All sponsors of Q1 2016 issuances were repeat issuers, exemplifying the consistent value offered by the

alternative capital market to insurers and reinsurers. The record issuance provided investors with a wide

range of expected losses (0.01 to 11.41 percent) and corresponding risk interest spreads (2.15 to 16.25

percent) across the 10 transactions that closed during the quarter. The varied transactions demonstrated

ILS’ ability to offer a wide spectrum of risk-return profiles to investors in this diversifying alternative

asset class.

1,493 670

1,410 1,694 2,215

2,095 3,303

4,492 2,962

804

1,621

250

700 1,888

1,877

2,075

1,525

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

D m

illio

ns

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Aon Benfield 9

In regard to the placed risk, US named storm and earthquake dominated the market, as did to a lesser

extent, Japan typhoon. Additional placed perils included US severe thunderstorm, winter storm, wildfire,

volcanic eruption and meteorite impact; the latter four, typically viewed as add-ons to multi-peril coverage,

are gaining prevalence in ILS transactions. Canada earthquake and US medical benefits ratio coverage

were also part of the Q1 2016 risk transfer. The inter-ILS diversification benefit seen in health, New

Madrid earthquake and Japan typhoon exposures was evidenced in that all such transactions priced at

or below an initial risk interest spread of 2.50 percent. This was in contrast to the rest of the transactions,

which all priced at or below an initial risk interest spread of 5.50 percent. This dynamic demonstrates

investors’ demands to both balance portfolio exposures across geographies and seek higher returns.

Of further note, only one transaction received a rating, as many repeat sponsors continue to opt out of

ratings for new issuances.

The table below summarizes the terms of the 10 catastrophe bond transactions that closed during the

first quarter.

Exhibit 6: First quarter 2016 catastrophe bond issuance

Beneficiary Issuer Series Class Size

(millions) Covered

perils Trigger Rating

Expected loss

1

Interest spread

First Quarter

SCOR Global P&C SE Atlas IX Capital DAC

2016-1 A $300.0 US HU, US/CAN EQ

Industry Index

Not Rated

3.29% 7.50%

XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd

Galileo Re Ltd. 2016-1

A $100.0 US HU & EQ, EU Wind

Industry Index

Not Rated

9.52% 13.50%

B $100.0 4.96% 9.00%

C $100.0 3.09% 7.00%

Aetna Life Insurance Company

Vitality Re VII Limited

2016-1 A $140.0

US MBR Indemnity

BBB+ (S&P)

0.01% 2.15%

B $60.0 BB+

(S&P) 0.18% 2.65%

Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Zephyr Insurance Company, Inc.

Citrus Re Ltd. 2016-1

D-50 $150.0

FL/HI HU Indemnity Not

Rated

3.31% 7.50%

E-50 $100.0 6.29% 10.50%

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Caelus Re IV Limited

2016-1 A $300.0 US HU, EQ, ST, WS, WF, VE, MI

Indemnity Not

Rated 1.94% 5.50%

United Services Automobile Association

Espada Reinsurance Limited

2016-I 20 $50.0 US HU, EQ, ST, WS, WF, VE, MI, OP

Indemnity Not

Rated 2.25% 5.75%

Safepoint Insurance Company

Manatee Re Ltd. 2016-1 A $75.0

FL/LA HU Indemnity Not

Rated

1.15% 5.25%

C $20.0 11.41% 16.25%

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., Ltd

Akibare Re Ltd. 2016-1 A $200.0 JP TY Indemnity Not

Rated 1.19% 2.50%

Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Inc.

Aozora Re Ltd. 2016-1 A $220.0 JP TY Indemnity Not

Rated 0.90% 2.20%

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Merna Re Ltd. 2016-1 A $300.0 US (New Madrid) EQ

Indemnity Not

Rated 0.41% 2.25%

Total Closed During Q1 2016 $2,215

Legend:

CAN — Canada EQ − Earthquake

EU – Europe HU – Hurricane FL – Florida OP – Other Perils HI – Hawaii ST − Severe Thunderstorm LA – Louisiana MI – Meteorite Impact JP – Japan WF – Wildfire US – United States WS – Winter Storm VE – Volcanic Eruption

1 Expected loss represents initial one-year annualized figures

with WSST sensitivity when applicable Source: Aon Securities Inc.

10 Reinsurance Market Outlook

First Quarter Catastrophe Losses Low Despite Above

Average Number of Events

Preliminary data for the first quarter of 2016 indicates that despite an above average number of events1,

global insurers registered lower than expected catastrophe losses. Through the first three months, the

industry has sustained losses of USD6.0 billion based upon our estimates. This is 57 percent below the

recent 10-year average of USD13.9 billion. However, when analyzing the losses on a median basis, the

2016 losses are 34 percent lower. The median comparison drops to an even lower five percent if looking

at first quarter insured losses dating to the year 2000. Using a median analysis helps to provide a more

accurate depiction of losses and eliminates any potential skew of outlier years.

Nearly three-quarters of the insured losses were sustained in the United States. Most of the losses were

attributed to the most active start for tornadoes in the country since 2012, and a series of major hail

events that pelted densely populated areas in Texas. Other costly events included a significant January

nor’easter that brought snow and coastal flooding to the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, plus separate

atmospheric river events that prompted flooding in parts of California and the Lower Mississippi Valley.

Based on the early data, of the top 10 costliest insured events, only two occurred outside of the United

States: Windstorm Jeanne (Katie) in Western Europe, and a major thunderstorm and flash flood outbreak

in the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

While not a significant event from an insured loss perspective, perhaps the most meteorologically

noteworthy individual catastrophe in Q1 2016 was February’s Tropical Cyclone Winston. The Category 5

storm—the strongest ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere—left catastrophic damage across multiple

islands of the Fiji archipelago. It was estimated that less than 10 percent of the economic losses (USD470

million) were covered by insurance.

Exhibit 7: First quarter global insured losses

Source: Aon Benfield Analytics

1 An event must meet at least one of the following criteria to be classified as a natural disaster: economic loss of USD50M, insured

loss of USD25M, 10 fatalities, 50 injured or 2,000 homes or structures damaged.

2.4

9.4 8.7 10.1

19.6

59.8

6.2 5.6 10.7

6.8 6.0

13.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

US

D b

illio

n

Aon Benfield 11

First quarter global catastrophe losses are usually the lightest of the year, with the outlier exception of

2011 given the historic Asia Pacific earthquake losses. Exhibit 8 shows that preliminary Q1 insured losses

were above the recent 2006-2015 average in the United States, but below average for the other regions

of the globe. Public and private insurance entities in the United States are estimated to have paid out

more than USD4.5 billion in claims, which comprised 76 percent of the global total. EMEA represented

13 percent, while Asia Pacific equaled nine percent of the losses. The rest of the Americas incurred

two percent.

Exhibit 8: First quarter insured losses by region

Source: Aon Benfield Analytics

It is worth noting that despite Q1 insured losses being below the recent global average in 2016, the

overall economic cost—at nearly USD28 billion—was the highest first quarter total since 2011. Many of

these losses were driven by the drought peril, which has been particularly intense across portions of

Southeast Asia and Africa. This point further highlights the dearth of not just property and casualty

insurance in these parts of the world, but also that crop and agriculture insurance remain an emerging

opportunity.

Updates to the provided numbers are expected to continue throughout the year as losses are further

developed. Aon Benfield will provide additional information in forthcoming Reinsurance Market Outlook

documents.

To find the most up-to-date global catastrophe loss data for 2016, and other historical loss and climate

data, please visit Aon Benfield’s Catastrophe Insight website: www.aonbenfield.com/catastropheinsight

4.2

0.5

1.6

0.6

4.5

0.1 0.8 0.6

3.4

1.1

2.3

7.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

United States Americas (Non-US) EMEA APAC

US

D b

illio

n

2015 2016 Average (2006-2015)

12 Reinsurance Market Outlook

Contact Information

Bryon Ehrhart

Chairman of Aon Benfield Analytics

Chairman of Aon Securities

+1 312 381 5350

bryon.ehrhart@aonbenfield.com

Paul Mang

Global Chief Executive Officer of Analytics

Aon Center for Innovation and Analytics, Singapore

+1 312 381 5193

paul.mang@aon.com

George Attard

Head of Analytics, International

Aon Benfield

+65 6239 8739

george.attard@aonbenfield.com

Greg Heerde

Head of Analytics & Inpoint, Americas

Aon Benfield

+1 312 381 5364

greg.heerde@aonbenfield.com

Tracy Hatlestad

Chief Operating Officer

Aon Benfield Analytics

+65 6512 0244

tracy.hatlestad@aonbenfield.com

Aon Benfield 13

About Aon Benfield

Aon Benfield, a division of Aon plc (NYSE: AON), is the world’s leading reinsurance intermediary and full-

service capital advisor. We empower our clients to better understand, manage and transfer risk through

innovative solutions and personalized access to all forms of global reinsurance capital across treaty,

facultative and capital markets. As a trusted advocate, we deliver local reach to the world’s markets, an

unparalleled investment in innovative analytics, including catastrophe management, actuarial and rating

agency advisory. Through our professionals’ expertise and experience, we advise clients in making

optimal capital choices that will empower results and improve operational effectiveness for their business.

With more than 80 offices in 50 countries, our worldwide client base has access to the broadest portfolio

of integrated capital solutions and services. To learn how Aon Benfield helps empower results, please

visit aonbenfield.com.

© Aon Benfield 2016. | All rights reserved.

This document is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as advice or opinions on any specific facts or

circumstances. The comments in this summary are based upon Aon Benfield’s preliminary analysis of publicly available information. The

content of this document is made available on an “as is” basis, without warranty of any kind. Aon Benfield disclaims any legal liability to any

person or organization for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any reliance placed on that content. Aon Benfield reserves all rights to

the content of this document.

© Aon Securities Inc. 2016 | All Rights Reserved

Aon Securities Inc. is providing this document and all of its contents (collectively, the “Document”) for general informational and discussion

purposes only, and this Document does not create any obligations on the part of Aon Securities Inc., Aon Securities Limited or their affiliated

companies (collectively, “Aon”). This Document is intended only for the designated recipient to whom it was originally delivered and any other

recipient to whose delivery Aon consents (each, a “Recipient”). This Document is not intended and should not be construed as advice,

opinions or statements with respect to any specific facts, situations or circumstances, and Recipients should not take any actions or refrain

from taking any actions, make any decisions (including any business or investment decisions), or place any reliance on this Document

(including without limitation on any forward-looking statements).

This Document is not intended, nor shall it be construed as (1) an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security or any other

financial product or asset, (2) an offer, solicitation, confirmation or any other basis to engage or effect in any transaction or contract (in

respect of a security, financial product or otherwise), or (3) a statement of fact, advice or opinion by Aon or its directors, officers, employees,

and representatives (collectively, the “Representatives”). Any projections or forward-looking statements contained or referred to in this

Document are subject to various assumptions, conditions, risks and uncertainties (which may be known or unknown and which are inherently

unpredictable) and any change to such items may have a material impact on the information set forth in this Document. Actual results may

differ substantially from those indicated or assumed in this Document. No representation, warranty or guarantee is made that any transaction

can be effected at the values provided or assumed in this Document (or any values similar thereto) or that any transaction would result in the

structures or outcomes provided or assumed in this Document (or any structures or outcomes similar thereto). Aon makes no representation

or warranty, whether express or implied, that the products or services described in this Document are suitable or appropriate for any sponsor,

issuer, investor, counterparty or participant, or in any location or jurisdiction.

The information in this document is based on or compiled from sources that are believed to be reliable, but Aon has made no attempts to

verify or investigate any such information or sources. Aon undertakes no obligation to review, update or revise this Document based on

changes, new developments or otherwise, nor any obligation to correct any errors or inaccuracies in this Document. This Document is made

available on an “as is” basis, and Aon makes no representation or warranty of any kind (whether express or implied), including without

limitation in respect of the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or sufficiency of the Document.

Aon does not provide and this Document does not constitute any form of legal, accounting, taxation, regulatory, or actuarial advice.

Recipients should consult their own professional advisors to undertake an independent review of any legal, accounting, taxation, regulatory,

or actuarial implications of anything described in or related to this Document. Aon and its Representatives may have independent business

relationships with, and may have been or in the future will be compensated for services provided to, companies mentioned in this Document.

14 Reinsurance Market Outlook