However, many exceptions to this 7% to 11% range exist. For example, insurance covering losses to crops from hail damage produces virtually no float at all. Premiums on this kind of business are paid to the insurer just prior to the time hailstorms are a threat, and if a farmer sustains a loss he will be paid almost immediately. Thus, a combined ratio of 100 for crop hail insurance produces no profit for the insurer.
当然7%到11%的范围还是有许多例外情况，例如保险业者承保谷物冰雹伤害损失几乎没有浮存金的贡献，保险业者通常是在冰雹即将来临之前才收到保费收入，而只要其中有任何一位农夫发生损失就要马上支付赔偿金，因此即使谷物冰雹保险的综合比率为100，保险业者也赚不了半毛钱。
At the other extreme, malpractice insurance covering the potential liabilities of doctors, lawyers and accountants produces a very high amount of float compared to annual premium volume. The float materializes because claims are often brought long after the alleged wrongdoing takes place and because their payment may be still further delayed by lengthy litigation. The industry calls malpractice and certain other kinds of liability insurance "long- tail" business, in recognition of the extended period during which insurers get to hold large sums that in the end will go to claimants and their lawyers (and to the insurer"s lawyers as well).
另外一个极端的例子，执行业务过失保险-一种专门提供给医师、律师与会计师分散可能责任风险的保险，较之每年收到的保费收入，这部份险种的浮存金就很高，这种浮存金之所以很重要的原因在于理赔申请案通常会在业务过失发生很长一段时间之后才会提出，而且真正理赔的时点也会因冗长的法律诉讼程序结束后才会执行，保险业界统称业务过失保险与其它特定种类的责任保险为"长尾巴业务"意思是说保险业者在将理赔金支付给申请人跟他的律师(或甚至是保险公司的律师)之前，可以持有这一大笔的资金相当长的一段时间。
In long-tail situations a combined ratio of 115 (or even more) can prove profitable, since earnings produced by the float will exceed the 15% by which claims and expenses overrun premiums. The catch, though, is that "long-tail" means exactly that: Liability business written in a given year and presumed at first to have produced a combined ratio of 115 may eventually smack the insurer with 200, 300 or worse when the years have rolled by and all claims have finally been settled.
像这种长尾巴业务，通常即使综合比率高达115(或更高)都还可能有获利，因为在索赔与费用发生之前的那一段时间利用浮存金所赚的利润甚至会超过15%，但重点是所谓的长尾巴顾名思义，就是在某一年度承接的责任保险保单之时，假设会有115的综合比率，但结果到最后尾大不掉，经过多年的纠缠，终于和解的结果，有可能让保险业者承担200、300或是更糟的综合比率。
The pitfalls of this business mandate an operating principle that too often is ignored: Though certain long-tail lines may prove profitable at combined ratios of 110 or 115, insurers will invariably find it unprofitable to price using those ratios as targets. Instead, prices must provide a healthy margin of safety against the societal trends that are forever springing expensive surprises on the insurance industry. Setting a target of 100 can itself result in heavy losses; aiming for 110 - 115 is business suicide.
这项业务一定要特别注意一项时常令人忽略的经营原则的陷阱，虽然部份长尾巴业务在110到115的综合比率之间仍可以获利，但若是保险业者依此比率来订定保费价格的话很可能会亏大钱，所以保费价格必须要有一个安全的边际空间以防止当今总是会让保险业有昂贵的意外蹦出来的社会趋势，将综合比率设在100一定会产生重大的损失，将目标锁定在110-115之间则无异是自杀的行为。
All of that said, what should the measure of an insurer"s profitability be? Analysts and managers customarily look to the combined ratio - and it"s true that this yardstick usually is a good indicator of where a company ranks in profitability. We believe a better measure, however, to be a comparison of underwriting loss to float developed.
说了那么多，到底该如何衡量一家保险公司的获利能力呢? 分析师与经理人通常习惯性的会去看综合比率，当然在我们要看一家保险公司是否赚钱时，这项比率是一个很好的正确指针，但我们认为还有一项数字是更好的衡量标准，那就是承保损失与浮存金的比率。
This loss/float ratio, like any statistic used in evaluating insurance results, is meaningless over short time periods: Quarterly underwriting figures and even annual ones are too heavily based on estimates to be much good. But when the ratio takes in a period of years, it gives a rough indication of the cost of funds generated by insurance operations. A low cost of funds signifies a good business; a high cost translates into a poor business.
这种损失/浮存金比率跟其它保险业常用的绩效衡量统计数字一样，必须要有一段相当长的时间才有意义，单季或甚至是单一年度的数字，会因为估计的成份太浓而无参考价值，但是只要时间一拉长，这个比率就可以告诉我们保险营运所产生浮存金的资金成本，若资金成本低就代表这是一家好公司，相反地就是一家烂公司。