3. Broadly speaking, two major types of insured events could give rise to losses covered by insurance contracts:

Events that actuarial analysis could assess and predict with a high level of accuracy across a large number of contracts (for example, events covered by automobile insurance).

Catastrophes, which were generally adverse natural events such as earthquakes and hurricanes, but which could also be human-induced events such as terrorist attacks. Catastrophes were considered "low probability-high consequence" events. They were uncertain and very difficult to predict in terms of timing and extent of damage. For the coming year, the company had estimated that expected losses across all its automobile insurance contracts would amount to 70% of premiums.

With respect to catastrophes, the CEO had concluded that the average expected losses would be 12% of premiums, but that any scenario between 4% and 20% was equally likely.

Question: What accounting treatment would you choose for expected losses (a) associated with automobile contracts and (b) associated with catastrophes? From a shareholder's perspective, what concerns do you think could arise with respect to the accounting treatment of expected losses?