On this page
A catastrophe bond transfers a defined disaster risk to investors, whose principal can fund a payout when the contract’s trigger fires. The trigger may use the sponsor’s own claims, an industry loss figure, a physical event measurement or modelled losses. To distinguish them, ask what observation activates the payout, then ask how closely it matches the sponsor’s actual loss.
What sits behind the bond
The investor supplies principal for a defined risk period, while the sponsor pays for protection. If the specified event and trigger conditions are met, some or all of the principal is used for the protection payment; otherwise it is returned under the bond terms. The World Bank’s description of catastrophe bonds confirms the central principal-at-risk mechanism. CAIA Association lists insurance-linked strategies within its curriculum overview.
The four trigger tests
| Indemnity | The sponsor’s qualifying claims | Claims take time to establish |
| Industry loss | A reported industry-wide loss measure | The sponsor’s losses can differ from the industry measure |
| Parametric | An agreed physical event measurement | Damage can occur without the threshold being met |
| Modelled loss | A model’s estimate from event data | The model estimate can differ from claims |
An indemnity test follows the sponsor’s losses most directly, so it can align protection closely with claims but depends on claims assessment. An industry loss test uses a wider pool’s losses, so the sponsor may experience a different share. A parametric test uses observable facts such as storm intensity; it can be resolved without waiting for every claim, but the physical reading need not track damage at the insured properties. A modelled test turns event data into an estimated financial loss and retains model error. This mismatch between the contract payout and the sponsor’s realised loss is basis risk. The BIS discussion of parametric cover describes the speed and basis-risk trade-off.
An illustrative trigger comparison
Suppose an invented sponsor suffers £60 million of qualifying storm claims. Consider a simplified bond that pays £40 million if the chosen trigger is met. Under an indemnity version set to pay when those claims exceed £50 million, the reported £60 million crosses the threshold and the sponsor receives £40 million. Under a separate parametric version, suppose the agreed wind reading falls just short of its threshold: that bond pays nothing, although the same £60 million of claims occurred. The £40 million difference in bond recovery comes from the trigger definition, not from a change in the storm’s insured loss.
These are invented, deliberately simple binary terms; real contracts may specify layers or partial principal reductions. The example shows why a trigger can be clear and quick yet still leave basis risk. A sponsor choosing a physical measure would test how often it diverges from the actual covered portfolio. The BIS account of catastrophe risk transfer explains the contrast between assessed claims and predefined physical parameters.
The exam mistake to avoid
Do not identify the trigger from the disaster itself: a hurricane could support any of the four structures. Identify the data source that determines principal reduction. Also keep investor loss separate from the sponsor’s loss; the bond can pay less than the sponsor’s claims, or pay under a specified event measure when claims are relatively small. The CAIA programme page gives programme context, while Omni’s methodology explains its study approach.
Sources
- Explore the Curriculum · caia.org · Retrieved
- Disaster Risk Management · projects.worldbank.org · Retrieved
- Uncertain waters: can parametric insurance help bridge NatCat protection gaps? · bis.org · Retrieved
- Protecting Asia from natural catastrophes · bis.org · Retrieved
