I N S U R A N C E   /   R E I N S U R A N C E

B E R M U D A         I R E L A N D         U N I T E D   S T A T E S

MAX CAPITAL GROUP LTD.

Nasdaq: MXGL

Multi Peril Crop Insurance

June 2008

Exhibit 99.1

2

INFORMATION CONCERNING

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This presentation includes statements about future economic performance, finances,

expectations,

plans

and

prospects

of

the

Company

that

constitute

forward-looking

statements for purposes of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities

Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are subject to certain

risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those

suggested by such statements.

For further information regarding cautionary statements and factors affecting

future

results,

please

refer

to

the

Company’s

most

recent

Annual

Report

on

Form 10-K

,

Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed subsequent to the Annual Report

and other documents filed by the Company with the SEC. The Company undertakes

no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statement whether

as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

3

Multi-Peril Crop Insurance –

The Basics

What is multi-peril crop insurance (MPCI)?

MPCI has been administered by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), an agency of USDA, 

since the 1930s and provides the American farmer with a comprehensive insurance-based risk

management tool

Major legislation was enacted in 1980 enlisting, for the first time, private insurance companies to sell, 

service and share MPCI risk under what is now known as the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA)

Coverage is provided for loss of yield and/or revenue due to any act of nature

Losses due to drought or excessive rainfall/flood are the biggest concern

Major products:

Cat:

loss

of

yield

excess

of

a

large

deductible

-

50%

of

production

history

Buy-up:

loss

of

yield

excess

of

a

smaller

deductible

-

15%

to

50%

Revenue:

loss of revenue due to loss of yield and/or change in price

Government Subsidies

Subsidizes premium paid by farmers

Reimburses insurer for most of its administrative and operating costs

Provides attractive proportional and non-proportional reinsurance (SRA)

4

Why Crop Insurance?

Controlled

environment

–

Government

(FCIC)

oversees

all

aspects

of

MPCI

business

Policy forms

Underwriting

Rates

Loss adjustment, etc.

Short

tail

–

Nearly

all

claims

settled

within

90

days

following

the

contract

year

Excellent statistical base

Does not aggregate with other property lines

SRA –

Government reinsurance program provides framework for risk selection

Good industry results

What is the Standard Reinsurance Agreement?

SRA –

A reinsurance contract between the government (FCIC) and the private insurance company 

The SRA allows ceding companies to cede or designate each MPCI policy to one of the following

seven funds:

Assigned Risk

Developmental

–

Cat

Developmental

–

Buy-up

Developmental

–

Revenue

Commercial

–

Cat

Commercial

–

Buy-up

Commercial

–

Revenue

Ceding companies utilize historical experience, market knowledge and underwriting models to

determine fund allocation and net risk exposure

Multi-Peril Crop Insurance –

The Basics

5

What are the most common causes of MPCI losses?

Multi-Peril Crop Insurance –

The Basics

Multiple Peril Crop Insurance

Drought, 40%

Excess Moisture, 24%

Hail, 8%

Freeze, 5%

Heat, 4%

Disease, 4%

Other, 15%

6

U.S. Multi-Peril Crop insurance industry results have been good:

Multi-Peril Crop Insurance –

Industry Results

Most

recent

significant

industry

loss

years

were

1988

(drought)

and

1993

(excess

moisture)

Underwriting Profit Net of SRA is before deduction of Administrative and Operating (A&O)

and other expenses.  Industry A&O and other expenses net of government reimbursement

are estimated to be approximately 5% of net retained premium

Figures in Millions

Retained

Loss Ratio

Underwriting

Gross

Premium

Gross of

Profit

Year

Premium

Net of SRA

SRA

Net of SRA

1998

1,876

1,592

92%

18%

1999

2,312

1,837

103%

15%

2000

2,537

1,894

102%

15%

2001

2,978

2,373

100%

15%

2002

2,910

2,294

139%

-2%

2003

3,434

2,606

95%

15%

2004

4,186

3,140

79%

22%

2005

3,946

3,044

59%

32%

2006

4,708

3,684

75%

23%

2007(est)

6,550

5,158

52%

33%

2008(est)

8,800

7,000

7

Is 2008 = 1993? –

It’s Too Early To Tell

While the press has declared that 2008 is 1993 there are important differences

The excess moisture problem was far more widespread in 1993 than today

Portfolios are geographically diverse, losses in multiple areas needed for loss ratios >110%

In

1993

moisture

problems

persisted

and

worsened

into

July

and

August

Additionally low temperatures in July and August 1993 prevented ripening of crops

If the flooding remains mainly in Iowa, we would expect 2008 to be less severe than 1993

If

floods

begin

to

recede

and

the

summer

is

warm,

early

losses

may

be moderated

8

2008 Compared To 1993 -

June

9

How 1993 Progressed

10

What If 2008 Is 1993 (Floods) Or 1988 (Drought)

Due to the mechanics of the SRA and geographic dispersion, losses to insurers tend to be

more subdued

A 500% gross loss ratio in Iowa becomes a 200% net loss ratio to insurers

If Iowa is 10% of the portfolio this adds only 11 loss ratio points to the expected loss cost

Looking at previous severe events, if Max runs its current crop

portfolio against the actual

1993 (floods) or 1988 (drought) results / events:

1993

yields

a

net

loss

ratio

of

approximately

120%

or

a

loss

of

approximately

$20

million

1988

yields

a

net

loss

ratio

of

approximately

135%

or

a

loss

of

approximately

$35

million

External modeling services have estimated that a repeat of 1993 would be less costly

to the industry

The differences arise from several factors including:

premium levels,

the impact of increased commodity prices on coverages,

broader geographic spread, and

increased farmer participation levels

11

Recent Press Articles Have Missed Some Of The Facts

Several statements in the media seem to be overstating the potential for loss:

“The flood is shaping up to be as bad as it was in 1993, when insurers in Iowa lost almost $5 for

every $1 they made in premium”

-

Business Week Online –

June 17, 2008

In

actuality

any

one

state

could

run

a

maximum

500%

gross

loss

ratio

however

as

stated

above, due to the government reinsurance programs, insurers net loss ratios in those states

would likely be in the 200% range.  Additionally portfolio diversification (i.e. many states may still be profitable)

would likely reduce the overall portfolio net loss ratios into the low 100s

“The

loss

ratio

for

crop

insurance

was

219%

in

1993…

If

the

loss

ratio

is

similar

to

1993’s,

it

would

mean

an

$18

billion

payout

[at

2008

industry

premiums

of

$8

billion].”

-

Bloomberg

–

June

16,

2008

The gross loss ratio in 1993 was 219%, but with the current SRA, the net loss ratio would have     

been closer to 120%.  At $8 billion of industry premium, this equates to a net loss of only $1.6

billion to the industry