Recent studies have analyzed optimal reinsurance contracts within the framework of profit maximization and/or risk minimization. This type of framework, however, does not consider reinsurance as a tool for capital management and financing. In the present paper, we consider different proportional reinsurance contracts used in life insurance (viz., quota-share, surplus, and combinations of quota-share and surplus) while taking into account the insurer's capital constraints. The objective is to determine how different reinsurance transactions affect the risk/reward profile of the insurer and whether factors, such as claims severity, premiums, and insurer's risk appetite, influence the choice of a proportional reinsurance coverage. We compare each reinsurance structure based on actual insurance company data, using the risk–return criterion. This criterion determines the type of reinsurance that enables insurer to retain the largest underwriting profits and/or minimize the risk of the retained claims while keeping the insurer's risk appetite constant, assuming a given capital constraint. The results of this study confirm that the choice of reinsurance arrangement depends on many factors, including risk retention levels, premiums, and the variance of the sum insured values (and therefore claims). As such, under heterogeneous insurance portfolio single type of reinsurance arrangement cannot maximize insurer's returns and/or minimize the risk, therefore a combination of different reinsurance coverages should be employed. Hence, future research on optimal risk management choices should consider heterogeneous portfolios while determining the effects of different financial and risk management tools on companies' risk–return profiles.
