Enterprise risk management (ERM) has been the topic of increased media attention in recent years. The objective of this study is to measure the extent to which specific firms have implemented ERM programs and, then, to assess the value implications of these programs. We focus our attention in this study on U.S. insurers in order to control for differences that might arise from regulatory and market differences across industries. We simultaneously model the determinants of ERM and the effect of ERM on firm value. We estimate the effect of ERM on Tobin's Q, a standard proxy for firm value. We find a positive relation between firm value and the use of ERM. The ERM premium of roughly 20 percent is statistically and economically significant.

Using a sample of property-liability insurers over the period 1995-2004, we develop and test a model that explains performance as a function of line-of-business diversification and other correlates. Our results indicate that undiversified insurers consistently outperform diversified insurers. In terms of accounting performance, we find a diversification penalty of at least 1 percent of return on assets or 2 percent of return on equity. These findings are robust to corrections for potential endogeneity bias, alternative risk measures, alternative diversification measures, and an alternative estimation technique. Using a market-based performance measure (Tobin's Q) we find that the market applies a significant discount to diversified insurers. The existence of a diversification penalty (and diversification discount) provides strong support for the strategic focus hypothesis. We also find that insurance groups underperform unaffiliated insurers and that stock insurers outperform mutuals. Copyright (c) The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2008.

This article analyzes variations in line-of-business diversification status and extent among property-liability insurers. Our results show that the extent of diversification is not driven by risk pooling considerations; insurers operating in more volatile business lines do not diversify more. Diversification can rather be explained by the benefits of internal capital markets and barriers to business growth like market size and concentration. In our analysis, we distinguish between related and unrelated diversification. Using a measure of unrelated line-of-business diversification we find the first support for the diversification prediction of the managerial discretion hypothesis that mutual insurers should be less diversified than stock insurers. While mutual insurers tend to exhibit higher levels of total diversification, they engage in significantly less unrelated diversification than do stock insurers.

Prior research suggests that neither the choice to own life insurance nor the amount purchased is consistently related to the presence of children in the household. While these perplexing findings are based on a static framework, we alternatively examine life insurance demand in a dynamic framework as a function of changes in household life cycle and financial condition.Our results indicate both a statistically and economically significant relation between life events, such as new parenthood, and the demand for life insurance. We also provide new evidence in support of the emergency fund hypothesis: households in which either spouse has become unemployed are more likely than other households to surrender their whole life insurance.