Nonetheless, despite any seminal market shifts brought on by the storms, certain risk calculations are undergoing important changes, according to Grahame Millwater, chairman of London-based Willis Re.

“Sources of risk are increasing, the frequency and severity of catastrophes seem to be rising, and the values at risk increase not only with urbanization and infrastructure, but with increased penetration of the insurance product,” he said.

A report published earlier this month by the New York-based Guy Carpenter reinsurance brokerage said that while in some instances reinsurers pressed for and received substantial rate increases in the aftermath of the storms, their impact was more indirect.

“All key players in the marketplace–insurers, reinsurers, modeling and rating agencies–recognized that the existing viewpoint grossly underestimated both the frequency and severity of the North Atlantic hurricanes,” the report stated.

“However, the Jan. 1, 2006 renewals were just the first act in a drama that will play out over the next year, as models get revised, rating agencies implement new rating methodologies for catastrophes, and primary insurers engage regulators in contentious struggles for rate adequacy,” the report added.

Steven Bolland, president of the New York-based reinsurance broker Gill and Roeser, said the main impact of the catastrophe losses fell on U.S. insurers.

“Outside the U.S., we really were not seeing increases unless the company specifically had some losses themselves–say, for example, the storm losses in Northern Europe,” he noted.

Opinions differed on just how sharp the rate increases were for those companies without Gulf losses on the book, with many saying they were pretty much spared the worst.

But Larry Spoolstra, the Barrington, Ill.-based chief underwriter for North America property and casualty reinsurance at GE Solutions, said in regard to those carriers “it's possible from a modeled perspective it did not look like a rate increase for them,” due to upward model revisions in expected losses brought on by the storms.

“Don't be fooled into believing those companies did not get price increases,” he added.

As for the so-called “Class of 2005″–those primarily Bermuda-based startups looking to capitalize on the price increases anticipated after record storm losses–the pot at the end of the rainbow proved a little bit disappointing.

“When you looked at all their Private Placement Memorandum and startup documents, they were looking to get rate increases on average of between 30 percent and 40 percent,” according to Mr. Bolland. “I think they got closer on average to 20 percent, because if certain parts of the world are flat in their catastrophe pricing, then it is very difficult to get 40 percent.”

David Small, senior property-casualty analyst for Bear Stearns, said that with many of the startups not yet fully operational, the full impact of their new capital will not be felt until the midyear renewal season.

“So what you have this January is really peak pricing,” said Mr. Small, keeping with his general thesis that any catastrophe-related price firming expectations might not come to fruition.

On the one hand, analysts such as V.J. Dowling, managing partner for Dowling & Partners and Securities LLC, said the ultimate $10 billion factor of the startups will not prove to be all that significant one way or the other this year.

Indeed, the general consensus was that capacity proved to be adequate for this year's renewals.

“Not only was there the Class of '05, but a lot of the other reinsurers, particularly in Bermuda, raised additional capital,” according to Mr. Bolland. “We like to say they reloaded.”

The Guy Carpenter report agreed. “Capacity was adequate but expensive for most renewing programs. The biggest price change was in the upper layers,” the brokerage said.

However, for the largest programs there was a reduction in the maximum available limit from prior years. “The impact of the rating agencies' higher capital charges has reduced the maximum per-program commitments that the reinsurers are willing to make,” according to Guy Carpenter's report.

Reinsurers thus have decided to scale down their per-program commitments rather than write fewer deals, the report added.

Particularly in the case of Katrina, the years it takes to settle claims will also delay the impact of the storms, despite all the modeling and estimates of potential losses and subsequent reserving.

“It is said of both insurers and reinsurers that they really don't feel the pain until they lose the case,” Mr. Bolland observed.

Chuck Hewitt, executive vice president for London-based Benfield, said that pricing was pushed up dramatically on comparable layers.

At the same time, primary companies retained more risk, “and that was a combination of reinsurers deciding they did not want to sell it at that level anymore and clients deciding the rate increases at that level did not make sense,” he added.

Thus total reinsurance premium has not gone up by as much as the reinsurance rate increases, according to Benfield's Mr. Hewitt, as retentions move up and clients buy more coverage at upper levels.

“But they have indeed gone up quite a bit, particularly on loss-affected programs,” he said. “For example, a $50 million retention might go to $75 million or $100 million, but the company would then buy $100 million to $200 million on top.”

Both the tightening by rating agencies of capital requirements and the cost of replenishing capital served to limit capacity somewhat, according to Mr. Hewitt, “and so a dollar of incremental capital did not generate a dollar of incremental capacity.”

In addition, those reinsurers with storm-related downgrades faced new capital costs for the renewal season. “The rating agencies' actions indicated this was serious, and all the reinsurers are treating it as serious,” he said.

Mark Rouck, Chicago-based analyst for Fitch Ratings, said it was too difficult at this point to determine what impact the rating agencies' rules-tightening had on the market this January, although it existed.

As for the casualty market, Jim Bradshaw, executive vice president at Willis Re, said it remains to be seen just what impact the catastrophe losses of 2005 will have in this arena.

“The admitted casualty market appeared to hold the line on price, terms and conditions in 2005, especially on programs covering highly volatile lines of business,” he noted.

However, tougher exposures continued to be pushed out of the industry, and were either held net or reinsured within the facultative market, he added.

The large-account umbrella and excess market witnessed the greatest movement, with price reductions for some reaching 25 percent as companies aggressively competed to maintain the larger accounts, according to Mr. Bradshaw.

As for large public company directors and officers insurance, the Jan. 1 season saw a reduced reinsurance commitment and a tightening of treaty terms, said Chip Lalone another executive vice president at Willis Re.

“Reinsurers are not convinced that premium levels are commensurate with exposure to inherent volatility and mushrooming severity of settlements,” he said.