life risk-based capital (e) working · pdf filelife risk-based capital (e) working group ....

© 2016 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

Date: 11/22/16

2016 Fall National Meeting Miami, Florida

LIFE RISK-BASED CAPITAL (E) WORKING GROUP

Saturday, December 10, 2016 10:00 – 11:00 a.m.

Fontainebleau Miami—Glimmer 1-3—Level 4

ROLL CALL Philip Barlow, Chair District of Columbia Fred Andersen Minnesota Kerry Krantz, Vice Chair Florida William Leung Missouri Steve Ostlund Alabama Felix Schirripa New Jersey Perry Kupferman California William Carmello New York Debra Zadzilko Connecticut Frank Stone Oklahoma Chris Buchanan Kansas Mike Boerner Texas

AGENDA 1. Consider Adoption of its Nov. 8 Minutes—Philip Barlow (DC) Attachment A 2. Receive an Update from the Longevity Risk (A/E) Subgroup—Felix Schirripa (NJ) Attachment B

3. Receive an Update from the C-3 Phase II/AG 43 (E/A) Subgroup—Philip Barlow (DC)

4. Receive an Update from the Operational Risk (E) Subgroup—Alan Seeley (NM)

5. Discuss the American Council of Life Insurers’ (ACLI) Proposal on Federal Home Loan Bank

(FHLB) Collateral—John Bruins (ACLI) Attachment C

6. Consider Adoption of its Working Agenda—Philip Barlow (DC) Attachment D

7. Discuss Any Other Matters Brought Before the Working Group—Philip Barlow (DC) 8. Adjournment W:\National Meetings\2016\Fall\TF\CapAdequacy\LifeRBC\Agenda LRBC Fall 2016.docx

1

Attachment Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force

12/--/16


Draft: 11/25/16

Life Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group Conference Call

November 8, 2016

The Life Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group of the Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force met via conference call Nov. 8, 2016. The following Working Group members participated: Philip Barlow, Chair (DC); Kerry Krantz, Vice Chair (FL); Steve Ostlund (AL); Perry Kupferman (CA); Mike Colburn (CT); Chris Buchanan (KS); William Leung (MO); Felix Schirripa (NJ); William Carmello (NY); Joel Sander and Frank Stone (OK); and Mike Boerner (TX).

1. Discussed the Bond Expansion Proposal

Mr. Barlow asked Julie Garber (NAIC) to provide an update on the status of this project. Ms. Garber said there are two basic issues the Investment Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group is looking at with respect to the bond proposal: 1) whether or not the granularity in the life RBC formula should be increased and 2) the actual factors to be applied. She said the Investment Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group has agreed that the granularity should be increased to twenty categories, plus the current exempt category, based on the American Academy of Actuaries’ (Academy) Aug. 2015 report. In developing factors for these categories, she said the Academy recommends these be based on the NRSRO rating so the Working Group sent a referral to the Valuation of Securities (E) Task Force asking for consideration of potential impacts on its processes and those of the SVO. She said discussion of the actual factors is still in progress as well as the structure as it applies to the property & casualty and health formulas.

Mr. Barlow said this is a large project that will ultimately be before this working group for implementation. He encouraged members to familiarize themselves with the work being done and to offer any input or concerns while it is still under consideration by the Investment Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group in order to make the implementation smoother.

John Bruins (American Council of Life Insurers—ACLI) expressed ACLI’s previously stated support for the expanded granularity. He said the ACLI is concerned with the timing because it is a major programming effort to make the necessary changes to company accounting systems. He said the Academy has done an extensive amount of modeling on the proposed factors but the ACLI has raised some concerns that he hopes will be discussed to get to factors that everyone believes are supported by the experience that has emerged. Mr. Bruins asked the Working Group to also consider the capital impact on the industry as a whole and to individual companies, know before its implemented what it’s going to do and to consider the possibility of a phase-in. Taking the Academy’s factors, as proposed, he said life RBC will likely go up by more than 10% which is a major change in the level of RBC. He asked that final decisions not be made in May or June for that yearend implementation as this would really upset capital planning for the industry. Mr. Barlow said this has the potential to be a fairly significant change to the RBC ratios reported by life companies and it’s important for Working Group members understand how this is going to impact the calculations. Mr. Krantz said it would be good to ask the software vendors how long they believe it would take to implement these changes. Ed Toy (NAIC) said there was a poll of the software vendors and they indicated that, if they are given a solid year, it is not a problem because it’s the kind of thing they do all the time. Mr. Bruins said he did not believe that considers the companies accounting systems or if that is solely the vendors for the annual statement and RBC which come at the end of the accounting process. Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Bruins if ACLI members were ready to estimate the time frame necessary to make the changes. Mr. Bruins said he had estimates from a number of companies that it will take, basically, a year to get systems up to speed but that is a year from when final specifications are available but those have not been determined yet.

2. Heard an ACLI Proposal on Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) Collateral

Mr. Bruins said several years ago discussions began at the Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force about RBC charges on restricted assets. Since then, he said the Statutory Accounting Principles (E) Working Group formed the Restricted Asset (E) Subgroup which has done work to provide greater information in the annual statement about the various types of restricted assets. The ACLI has been doing some work on the different types of restricted assets and they found that restricted assets are not treated in a uniform fashion throughout RBC. Mr. Bruins said, for most restricted assets, there are two levels of RBC. There is a C-1 charge on the asset held and a C-0 charge on the restricted asset. Mr. Bruins cited conforming securities lending programs as an example where there are assets set up as collateral where the asset gets a C-1 charge and the collateral gets a C-0 charge. He said Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) is unique in that most of the FHLB borrowings are classified as funding

Attachment A

3

Attachment Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force

12/--/16


agreements which results in an additional C-3 charge. If it was only a pure funding agreement, he said it would only get the C-1 and C-3 charges, if it was pure collateral, it would get C-1 and C-0 but, for some reason, FHLB gets all three charges. Don Messier (National Life Group) said the FHLB is a government sponsored enterprise, created in 1932, and brought liquidity to the housing market as well as community and economic development. There are eleven FHLBs and they provide low cost liquidity and term funding to about 7500 members, including insurance companies. He presented a simple FHLB transaction involving a life insurance company where, for a $100 funding agreement, the insurance company would pledge collateral to the FHLB of $105. The insurance company remains the beneficial owner of that collateral and the FHLB will give $100 in cash to the insurance company. Mr. Messier said there is a C-1 charge on the $100 received, a C-3 interest rate charge on the $100 funding agreement liability and a C-0 charge on the $105. He said the proposal is for the collateral pledged, up to the advanced amount of $100, have a C-0 RBC charge of zero. It’s important to note that the FHLB has no right to collateral in excess of the $100. However, because the collateral pledged is more than $100, Mr. Messier said they recognize that there is some risk on the excess collateral pledged that, they believe, should be based on a credit-based C-0 charge that looks at the credit rating of the FHLB. He said the proposal is asking for a correction by retaining the C-1 and C-3 components but modifying the C-0 component. Mr. Schirripa said it would be helpful to see some analysis that shows the incremental risk of these funding agreements versus other similar funding agreements. 3. Heard Updates from the American Academy of Actuaries Wayne Stuenkel (Academy) provided an update on items the Academy is working on related to life RBC. He said, as noted earlier, the Academy has been working on the proposed C-1 bond charges a long time and that work continues in support as the NAIC proceeds. He said there was discussion a year or two ago about the inclusion of various types of annuities with payout benefits in C-3 Phase1 or C-3 Phase II and the possible harmonization of the phases and, while this is not currently active, the Academy remains ready to assist in this area. As the work of the Variable Annuities Issues (E) Working Group is finalized, the Academy is ready to assist with considerations of the changes proposed for both AG 43 and life RBC. Mr. Stuenkel said, with respect to the general discussion of economic scenario generators, there has been discussion within the Academy of the current generator and the need to maintain it. He said the Academy would be in favor of, as much as possible as regulators permit, the use of proprietary generators with proper calibration and parameters. He said the Academy has supported the generator for a long time and there could be issues if there are desires for enhanced functionality of the Academy generator. With respect to whether there should be changes made to RBC in light of principle-based-reserving (PBR), he said the conclusion of the Academy is that, presuming the reserves, in the current regime and the PBR regime, are statutorily adequate, there is no reason driven by that to change RBC. He said this could also involve a review or update of the C-2 risk for life insurance. He noted the work being done by the Operational Risk (E) Subgroup and stated the Academy’s desire, if a capital add-on approach is taken, there be explicit consideration of the current C-4 charge as an offset to any operational risk charge. He said the Academy is also working on longevity risk in conjunction with the work of the Longevity Risk (A/E) Subgroup. Having no further business, the Life Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group adjourned. w:\national meetings\2016\Fall\tf\CapAdequacy\LifeRBC\Att Life RBC 2016-11-8.doc

Attachment A

4

Joint Longevity Risk (A/E) Subgroup* Update *Members: IA, MN, NE, NJ, NY, OH

• Reflect longevity risk in two components: A+BA: Recognize statutory reserve shortfall from locked-in/outdated valuation tables via AAT (i.e., update reserves using tables applicable to new issues)

B: RBC (C2) charge (calibrated based on “stressed” mortality rates)

• Academy Longevity Risk Task Force– Recommend “stressed” mortality assumption

• Level stress = f(Qx Current Stat mortality) ,and• Trend stress = f(G2)

– Seek to simplify calculation process

• Next steps

1

Attachment B

5

2

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Mor

talit

y R

ate

(mal

e)

Age

Level vs. Stressed Level Mortality - Illustration 2012 IAM (Level) 0.90 * 2012 IAM (Stressed)

Attachment B

6

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Impr

ovem

ent F

acto

r

Age

Trend vs. Stressed Trend - Illustrated G2 (Trend) 1.5*G2 + 0.5% (Stressed)

3

Attachment B

7

Life Expectancy Estimates Under Selected Mortality Tables (Male)

Age Now

71 IAM 83 IAM 96 IAM 2012 IAM + G2

2012 IAM +G2 + Illustrated Stresses

50 28.8 30.0 31.8 37.2 39.8

60 20.8 21.7 23.2 27.3 29.0

70 13.8 14.2 15.4 18.3 19.3

80 8.0 8.3 9.3 10.5 10.9

90 3.9 4.6 5.2 5.1 5.2

100 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.5 4

Attachment B

8

Extra Years of Life Added by “Illustrated Stress” Table vs Indicated Table

Age Now

71 IAM 83 IAM 96 IAM 2012 IAM + G2

50 10.9 9.8 8.0 2.6

60 8.2 7.4 5.9 1.7

70 5.5 5.1 3.9 1.0

80 2.9 2.6 1.7 0.4

90 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.1

100 0.9 0.1 -0.2 0.0

5

Attachment B

9

2016 National Association of Insurance Commissioners

Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force RBC Proposal Form

[ X ] Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force [ ] Health RBC (E) Working Group [ X ] Life RBC (E) Working Group

[ ] Catastrophe Risk (E) Subgroup [ ] Investment RBC (E) Working Group [ ] Operational Risk (E) Subgroup

[ ] C3 Phase II/ AG43 (E/A) Subgroup [ ] P/C RBC (E) Working Group [ ] Stress Testing (E) Subgroup

DATE: June 7, 2016

CONTACT PERSON: John Bruins

TELEPHONE: (202) 624-2169

EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]

ON BEHALF OF: ACLI

NAME: John Bruins

TITLE: VP & Senior Actuary

AFFILIATION: ACLI

ADDRESS: 101 Constitution Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20001

FOR NAIC USE ONLY

Agenda Item #

Year

DISPOSITION

[ ] ADOPTED

[ ] REJECTED

[ ] DEFERRED TO

[ ] REFERRED TO OTHER NAIC GROUP

[ ] EXPOSED

[ ] OTHER (SPECIFY)

IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCE AND FORM(S)/INSTRUCTIONS TO BE CHANGED

[ ] Health RBC Blanks [ ] Property/Casualty RBC Blanks [ ] Life RBC Instructions

[ X ] Fraternal RBC Blanks [ ] Health RBC Instructions [ ] Property/Casualty RBC Instructions

[ X ] Life RBC Blanks [ ] Fraternal RBC Instructions [ ] OTHER ______________

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE(S) Life RBC currently has a C-0 charge for collateral held for FHLB advances of 1.30% computed on LR017. ACLI proposes that this be changed to be 0 for the collateral equal to the amount advanced, and a factor based on the risk of the FHLB for any excess collateral. Attached as Appendix B is a mark-up of LR017 and Appendix C outlines the instructions to show the specific changes needed.

REASON OR JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE ** A detailed description of this proposal and the background is included as Appendix A This proposal is specific to Life RBC. Health and P&C insurers may be FHLB members, and the RBC formulas may have parallel issues for which a parallel change may be appropriate. This proposal also references where FHLB advances are included in the C-3 component, which is unique to Life RBC.

Additional Staff Comments:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ** This section must be completed on all forms. Revised 11-2013

Attachment C

11

Appendix A

2

Federal Home Loan Bank Pledged Asset RBC Proposal Executive Summary: When an insurer obtains an advance from a Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB), collateral is posted using assets from the insurer’s balance sheet. The pledged assets remain on the insurer’s balance sheet and generate an RBC amount based on the credit risk of that asset. The advance may be recorded as either borrowing (Liability, Page 3 Line 20) or as a Funding Agreement (Exhibit 7 – Deposit type contracts). It is generally included in the insurer’s C-3 modeling to generate an RBC amount for asset – liability mismatch. Additionally, since these assets are classified as ‘Non-controlled assets’, there is an RBC factor of 1.3% applied to the collateral in addition to any other RBC amounts for those assets and liabilities. This memo outlines a proposal that this ‘Non-controlled assets’ charge be revised in light of the risks and the other components of RBC. Specifically, we propose that there be a factor of zero for the collateral up to the amount of the advance, and a factor for the excess collateral that is equal to the C-1 Bond factor based on the credit rating of the FHLB. FHLBs and Insurance Companies As participants in the mortgage investment industry, many insurance companies have formed a synergistic relationship with the FHLB. The companies can become members of their local FHLB after satisfying underwriting review, demonstrating housing and mortgage market involvement and support, and purchasing membership stock. As members, they have access to FHLB funding and other banking products and receive dividend returns on the stock. The FHLB system’s mandate is to provide liquidity and promote stability in the mortgage industry by providing cost effective products to its members. As federally chartered, government-sponsored banking cooperatives, the FHLBs are able to access the capital markets at extremely favorable interest rates and are thus able to offer attractive rates to their members. FHLB products provide insurers with a diversified low-cost form of funding, with flexible structuring terms to match their investment funding and capital structuring needs. The programs can be an important and stable source of liquidity for many life insurers even during uncertain economic times. In order to keep funding costs for its members low, the FHLBs mitigate their overall credit risk by lending only on a secured basis. Members are required to pledge assets as collateral to secure their outstanding obligations. Given their specialized expertise in mortgage assets, the FHLBs can even accept as collateral life insurer commercial mortgage loans, which tend to be less liquid and not suitable for other collateral purposes. The collateral is managed, not as specific assets backing any single obligation, but rather as a substitutable collateral pool managed in aggregate. All beneficial interests (investment income, gains/losses on sales, etc) remain with insurers and the assets remain available for the insurers’ use as long as the minimum collateral levels are sustained. These characteristics increase the insurer’s liquidity by freeing up other assets for general liquidity purposes and diversifying its sources and uses of liquidity. Finally, advances from the FHLB are generally pre-payable. It is beneficial to insurers’ long-term economic strength as well as their short- and long- term liquidity, to be able to prudently utilize FHLB products, without punitive risk capital charges. The risk charges

Attachment C

12

Appendix A

3

should recognize the relative risks inherent in the funding and the low counterparty risk of the FHLBs, as well as the pooled and unrestricted nature of the collateral pledged.

FHLBs are strong counterparties The FHLB system was established in 1932 and has been making advances to savings and loans, banks, and insurance companies for over 80 years. Unlike commercial lenders that tend to restrict advances when faced with tight liquidity markets, the FHLBs, as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), maintain access to the global capital markets and are able to continue making advances to their members across business cycles. During the global liquidity crisis that peaked in 2008, insurance company members increased advances from $28.7 billion in 2007 to $54.9 billion in 2008.

FHLBs have implicit US government support, are regulated by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and are highly rated by the rating agencies. The FHLBs also have a unique structure whereby its borrowers are also its stockholders, leading to a strong alignment of interests. The counterparty risk associated with pledging assets to the FHLBs is minimal.

Insurers’ Usage of Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) Programs

In general, insurers use FHLB funding to provide funding for spread lending purposes or to support general business operations. When used for spread lending purposes, the liabilities are matched by a suitable portfolio of invested assets in order to earn a spread return as an integral part of its insurance business activities. The nature of these two activities is different, as was recognized by the NAIC Emerging Accounting Issues (E) Working Group when it issued INT 08-081.

SSAP 52 requires that funding used for spread lending purposes is in substance similar to other insurance activities and should be treated as a funding agreement and reported in the statutory financial statements as an insurance liability whose activity is subject to risk management practices, such as asset-liability management and cash-flow testing adequacy. This is consistent with how rating agencies view FHLB funding agreements; rating agencies treat this form of funding as operating leverage rather than financial leverage. Since the primary risk for this use is the asset liability mismatch, which is being measured by the C-3 component of RBC, the ‘non-controlled asset’ RBC charge is an excess and redundant charge.

The FHLBs provide flexible structures that allow insurers to tailor the funding products to better match the characteristics of asset portfolios. Common structures range from overnight and short-term advances to term advances with maturities out to 15 years. Interest crediting options include adjustable rates, with periodic call options without prepayment penalty, or fixed rates with option to amortize. Certain FHLBs also allow for partial terminations of contracts. Such optionality is important to investors in mortgage related assets which often exhibit variability in cash flows.

1 This INT was subsequently nullified, and the guidance incorporates directly into SSAPs 15, 50, and 52.

Attachment C

13

Appendix A

4

SSAP 15 requires that when FHLB advances are used to support general business operations, it is in substance a form of debt financing and is required to be reported as borrowed money. Because these liabilities are not necessarily matched by a specific pool of assets, the risk of default may not be mitigated by the insurers’ typical asset-liability management processes. Rather, repayment of the obligations depends on the residual cash flows of the insurer, like other forms of debt financing.

FHLB Programs can Enhance Financial Strength of Insurers

The prudent usage of FHLB products can enhance the immediate and on-going financial strength of the company, by providing low cost and flexible funding to match insurers’ investment management and capital structuring needs. The rating agencies acknowledge this benefit in their reviews of insurer financial strength. See recent rating agency comments in the Appendix below. The new annual statement disclosures help regulators and other financial statement users understand how an insurer is using and managing its FHLB business. Even if the insurer enters rehabilitation, the FHLBs have demonstrated in the past a willingness to work with the insurers and rehabilitators, to reach a successful outcome that involved no loss to either the guaranty association or the FHLB in connection with the insurers’ obligations.

Multiple-tier Risk Based Capital (RBC) structure

FHLB obligations, and the associated collateral, generate RBC amounts in three different parts of the RBC formula.

Assets that are pledged as collateral remain as part of the insurer’s balance sheet and are assessed an RBC charge for C-1 asset risk. The fact that the assets are pledged as collateral does not remove them from this requirement, and the insurer continues to have the risk of a reduction in value of these assets.

Risks associated with specific liability characteristics and asset-liability mismatches flow through the C-3 risk charges and the associated C3P1 scenario analyses usually in the following categories:

• Deposit-Type Contract liabilities based the risk classification of each liability: 77-115 bps (lowrisk); 154-231 bps (medium risk); 308-462 bps (high risk)

• Debt with GIC-like characteristics: 308-462 bps (high risk)

The assets pledged as collateral are also reported as a non-controlled asset within General Interrogatory 25, and they receive an additional 1.30% RBC charge similar to many other non-controlled asset items.

However most other items reported through Interrogatory 25, such as assets loaned to others under securities lending programs, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, are not necessarily subject to the asset-liability risk management practices discussed above, do not allow the insurer to freely substitute the collateral, do not provide options to prepay the liabilities to release the collateral or do not have a GSE quality counterparty.

Attachment C

14

Appendix A

5

Certain categories of non-controlled assets do receive a lower RBC charge. Securities lending programs that conform to appropriate operational and investment risk guidelines are assessed a 0.2% ‘non-controlled asset’ risk charge. The guidelines for conforming programs recognize that such programs are designed to match the liabilities with a suitable portfolio of invested assets. The lower charge reflects the reduction in risk to the pledged assets from risk of default on the securities lending transactions. In another example, assets pledged under the federal TALF program receive a zero ‘non-controlled asset’ risk charge.

Certain rating agencies have recognized the relatively lower risks for assets pledged in support of FHLB advances. S&P’s capital model has a non-controlled asset risk charge but assets pledged as collateral to the FHLB are specifically excluded from that charge.

Assessing a high risk charge of 1.3% on FHLB pledged assets makes it more costly for insurers to access this low cost and flexible funding source and constrains their sources of liquidity by forcing them to move away from pledging more illiquid assets with higher haircuts and creating competition for uses of liquid assets, particularly in light of the new Dodd-Frank regulations.

Excess collateral is defined to be the amount of pledged collateral greater than the FHLB advance. Since collateral equal to the liability poses no net financial risk to the insurer, we propose that the collateral equal to the FHLB advance have an RBC factor of zero. An argument can be made that any collateral in excess of the FHLB advance does have an additional risk based on the credit standing of the FHLB that is holding the collateral. We propose that this excess amount be assessed an RBC factor based on the credit standing of the FHLB. The excess amount could be calculated as the aggregate book value of FHLB pledged assets less the aggregate book value of FHLB advances.

Other “Non-controlled Assets”

To understand the context of this proposal, discussion of RBC for non-controlled assets was raised at the NAIC Capital Adequacy Task Force in October of 2012. Based on a regulatory review of insurer balance sheets, concern was expressed about companies having excessive amounts of restricted or non-controlled assets. Industry has worked with regulators and several actions have occurred.

• The NAIC established a working group under SAPWG to design additional disclosures aboutnon-controlled assets. These resulted in the Interrogatory 25 disclosures discussed above.

• Information was provided regarding the non-controlled assets relating to reinsurance, and whysuch arrangements did not create any additional risk

• Educational material has been developed and presented to regulators about the repurchase andreverse repurchase agreements.

• RBC for collateral on conforming Securities Lending programs was revised to 20 bps• ACLI identified FHLB collateral as an issue of concern and has worked with its members to

develop this proposal

Attachment C

15

Appendix A

6

Appendix: Rating Agency comments on Insurers’ FHLB membership

Moody’s Investor Service, Sector Comment, June 25, 2015 “Insurers’ Access to Federal Home Loan Banks Lending Capacity is Credit Positive”

“» Access to an alternative, low-cost funding source is credit positive. The FHLBs offer eligible insurers access to low-cost, collateralized borrowing capacity for both their ordinary operating needs and emergency liquidity. This availability is credit positive for insurers when traditional bank credit facilities and the capital markets are no longer available, are unfavorable, or are tapped out. The ability to use less-liquid mortgage related assets on the balance sheet as collateral reduces potential pressure on operating liquidity. » Injudicious or excessive use of FHLB borrowing is credit negative - Poorly duration and/or cash-matched assets against FHLB advances (i.e., for acquisitions or spread lending) and/or borrowingthat materially increases a company’s financial leverage or credit risk will increase the insurer's riskprofile. In addition, because secured obligations to the FHLB structurally subordinate unsecuredpolicyholders, these borrowings could put downward pressure on a company's ratings if theybecome too sizable relative to total policyholder liabilities. However, we do not expect this tohappen.”

Fitch Ratings Special Report, June 12, 2013 “FHLB's Growing Role in the U.S. Life Insurance Industry”

“Membership in the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) system can enhance liquidity and financial flexibility for insurance companies, particularly those insurers with limited access to capital markets, according to a new report by Fitch Ratings. Further, many life insurers can make use of FHLB advances (loans) as a reasonable low cost source of funds to produce spread income, if done in a controlled manner.”

A.M. Best’s Ratings Methodology, January 12, 2012“A.M. Best’s Perspective on Operating Leverage”

“FHLB programs provide financial flexibility for insurance company members and are an attractive source of capital due to the low rate offered for advances.”

S&P Ratings Direct, May 15, 2013 “How Federal Home Loan Bank Funding Figures in Ratings on Insurers”

“All else being equal, a company that prudently manages its capital structure, investments underwriting, and risk management can enhance its financial flexibility from FHLB capital funding”

“We believe the FHLB will be able to meet members’ borrowing needs during the next market dislocation, providing relatively inexpensive funding for illiquid assets when members have few funding alternatives… in our view, pledged liquid assets would damage the stressed liquidity ratio, whereas pledged illiquid assets do not harm the stressed ratio.”

Attachment C

16

Appendix B

7

OFF-BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER ITEMS

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

Less Noncontrolled

Assets Funding

Guaranteed

Separate Accounts

RBC Yes/No

Annual Statement Source

Statement Value

or Synthetic GIC's

Subtotal

Factor

Requirement Response

Noncontrolled Assets

(1) Loaned to Others - Conforming Securities General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 24.05

X 0.002 =

Lending Program

(2) Loaned to Others - Securities Lending General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 24.06

X 0.013 =

Programs - Other

(3) Subject to Repurchase Agreements General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.21

X 0.013 = (4) Subject to Reverse Repurchase Agreements General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.22

X 0.013 =

(5) Subject to Dollar Repurchase Agreements General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.23

X 0.013 = (6) Subject to Reverse Dollar Repurchase General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.24

X 0.013 =

Agreements

(7) Placed Under Option Agreements General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.25

X 0.013 =

(8) Letter Stock or Other Securities Restricted as to sale - excluding FHLB Capital Stock General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.26

X 0.013 =

(9) FHLB Capital Stock General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.27

X 0.013 = (10) On Deposit with States General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.28

X 0.013 =

(11) On Deposit with Other Regulatory Bodies General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.29

X 0.013 =

(12.1) Pledged as Collateral - excluding Collateral Pledged to an FHLB General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.30

(12.2) Less Derivative Collateral Pledged

Schedule DB Part D Section 2 Column 7, Line 0199999

X 0.004 =

(12.3)

Pledged as Collateral - excluding Collateral Pledged to an FHLB Less Derivatives Collateral Pledged Line (12.1) - (12.2)

X 0.013 =

(13)

Pledged as Collateral to FHLB including Assets Backing Funding Agreements General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.31

† X 0.00413# =

(14) Other General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.32

X 0.013 =

(15) Total Noncontrolled Assets

Sum of Lines (1) through (11) Plus Lines (12.3) through (14)

Derivative Instruments

Attachment C

17

Appendix B

8

(16) Exchange Traded and Centrally Cleared Schedule DB Part D Section 1 Column 12, Line 0999999, in part

X 0.004 =

(17) Off-Balance Sheet Exposure NAIC 1

Schedule DB Part D Section 1 Column 12, Line 0999999, in part

X 0.004 =



X 0.013 =



X 0.046 =



X 0.100 =



X 0.230 =



X 0.300 =

(23) Total Derivative Instruments Off-Balance

Sheet Exposure Sum of Lines (16) through (22)

(24) Guarantees for Affiliates

Notes to Financial Statements Number 14A3c1

X 0.013 =

(25) Contingent Liabilities Notes to Financial Statements Number 14A1

X 0.013 =

(26) Long Term Leases Notes to Financial Statements Number 15A2a1

X 0.000 =

(27) Total Off-Balance Sheet Items Lines (15) + (23) + (24) + (25) + (26)

(pre-MODCO/Funds Withheld)

(28) Reduction in RBC for MODCO/Funds Withheld

Reinsurance Ceded Agreements Company Records (enter a pre-tax amount)

(29) Increase in RBC for MODCO/Funds Withheld

Reinsurance Assumed Agreements Company Records (enter a pre-tax amount)

(30) Total Off-Balance Sheet Items

(including MODCO/Funds Withheld.) Lines (27) - (28) + (29)

Other Items (31) Is the entity responsible for filing the U.S. "Yes", "No" or "N/A" in Column (6)

Federal income tax return for the reporting

insurer a regulated insurance company? (32) SSAP No. 101 Paragraph 11a Deferred Tax Assets Notes to Financial Statements Item 9A2(a)

X ‡ =

(33) SSAP No. 101 Paragraph 11b Deferred Tax Assets Notes to Financial Statements Item 9A2(b)

X 0.010 =

(34) Total Off-Balance Sheet and Other Items Line (30) + Line (32) + Line (33)

Attachment C

18

Appendix B

9

†

For Column (2) Line (13), include assets pledged as collateral other than assets related to the Federal Reserve’s Term Asset Loan Facility (TALF). For Column (2) include assets on deposit with an FHLB but not associated with a Funded Advance. For Column (2) also include assets pledged as collateral on FHLB Funded Advance Liabilities subject to C3 Asset/Liability Cash Flow Synchronization Testing, limited to the Statement Value of FHLB Liabilities Subject to C3 Testing.

‡

If Line (31) Column (6) is "Yes", then the factor is 0.005. If Line (31) Column (6) is "No", then the factor is 0.010. If Line (31) Column (6) is "N/A", then the factor is 0.000.

# Apply a factor based on the NAIC ratings category equivalent to an unsecured debt obligation of the FHLB. Denotes items that must be manually entered on the filing software.

Attachment C

19

Appendix C

© 1993-2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 10 8/28/2015

OFF-BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER ITEMS LR017

Basis of Factors The potential for risk exists in off-balance sheet items. For items other than derivative instruments and assets pledged as collateral to the Federal Home Loan Bank, a 1.3 percent factor was chosen on a judgment basis. The 1.3 percent pre-tax factor will differentiate between the companies that have small and large exposures to this risk. Since there is no firm actuarial basis for assigning the 1.3 percent pre-tax factor to these risks, off-balance sheet items are included in the sensitivity analysis using a factor of 3 percent, and leases are added as an additional off-balance sheet item. For securities lending programs, a reduced charge may apply to certain programs that meet the criteria as outlined below. For assets pledged as collateral on funded Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) liabilities included in the C3 Asset/Liability Cash Flow Synchronization Testing at LR027, the C3 calculation already provides adequate provision for potential risks up to the Statement Value of the associated FHLB liabilities tested therein. For any excess of assets pledged as collateral above this Statement Value (FHLB liabilities included in the C3 assessment) the potential exposure is proportionate to the credit risk assessed for the FHLB counterparty, making the bond factor associated with the NAIC designation assigned to the FHLB an appropriate risk provision. Assets on deposit with an FHLB but not associated with a Funded Advance, which can be recalled at will by the reporting entity, do not present non-controlled asset risk and should be excluded. For derivative instruments, the book/adjusted carrying value exposure net of collateral (the balance sheet exposure) is included under miscellaneous C-1o risks. Because collars, swaps, forwards and futures can have book/adjusted carrying values that are positive, zero or negative, the potential exposure to default by the counterparty or exchange for these instruments cannot be measured by the book/adjusted carrying values. Schedule DB, therefore, includes a calculation of the potential exposure that is based on the March 1987 research paper “Potential Credit Exposure on Interest Rate and Foreign Exchange Rate Related Instruments,” supporting the 1988 Bank of International Settlements framework for banks. The off-balance sheet exposure (Schedule DB, Part D, Section 1, Column 12) will measure this potential exposure for risk-based capital purposes. The factors applied to the derivatives off-balance sheet exposure are the same as those applied to bonds. Specific Instructions for Application of the Formula Column (2) Assets directly funding guaranteed separate accounts or synthetic GIC contracts should be excluded from the noncontrolled assets computation. Line (1) Securities lending programs that have all of the following elements are eligible for a lower off-balance sheet charge:

1. A written plan adopted by the Board of Directors that outlines the extent to which the insurer can engage in securities lending activities and how cash collateral received will be invested.

2. Written operational procedures to monitor and control the risks associated with securities lending. Safeguards to be addressed should, at a minimum, provide assurance of the following:

Attachment C

20

Appendix C


a. Documented investment guidelines, including, where applicable, those between lender and investment manager with established procedure for review ofcompliance.

b. Investment guidelines for cash collateral that clearly delineate liquidity, diversification, credit quality, and average life/duration requirements.c. Approved borrower lists and loan limits to allow for adequate diversification.d. Holding excess collateral with margin percentages in line with industry standards, which are currently 102% (or 105% for cross currency loans).e. Daily mark-to-market of lent securities and obtaining additional collateral needed to ensure that collateral at all times exceeds the value of the loans to

maintain margin of 102% of market.f. Not subject to any automatic stay in bankruptcy and may be closed out and terminated immediately upon the bankruptcy of any party.

3. A binding securities lending agreement (standard “Master Lending Agreement” from Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) is in writingbetween the insurer, or its agent on behalf of the insurer, and the borrowers.

4. Acceptable collateral is defined as cash, cash equivalents, direct obligations of, or securities that are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, thegovernment of the United States or any agency of the United States, or by the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan MortgageCorporation and NAIC 1-designated securities. Affiliate-issued collateral would not be deemed acceptable. In all cases the collateral held must be permittedinvestments in the state of domicile for the respective insurer.

Collateral included in General Interrogatories, Part 1, Line 24.05 of the annual statement should be included on Line (1).

Line (2) Collateral from all other securities lending programs should be reported General Interrogatories, Part 1, Line 24.06 and included in Line (2).

Lines (3) through (14) Noncontrolled assets are the amount of all assets not exclusively under the control of the company, or assets that have been sold or transferred subject to a put option contract currently in force. For Line (12.1) and (13) include assets pledged as collateral reported in the General Interrogatories Part 1 Line 25.30 and 25.31 other than assets related to the Federal Reserve’s Term Asset Loan Facility (TALF). For Line (12.2), include all collateral pledged, both cash and securities, to derivative counterparties and/or central clearinghouses for initial margin and variation margin. In addition, include securities collateral pledged as initial margin for futures. Line (12.2) should agree to Schedule DB Part D Section 2 Column 7, Line 0199999. Line (12.3) should equal Line (12.1) minus Line (12.2). For Line (13) column 2 include the amount of collateral equal to the FHLB Liabilities subject to C-3 testing and included in LR027. In addition, any collateral in excess of required collateral should be included.

Lines (16) through (23) The off-balance sheet exposure for derivative instruments reported on Schedule DB, Part D, Section 1, Column 12, Lines 0199999 through 0899999. Off-balance sheet exposure is reported for aggregate exchange traded derivatives, OTC – bilateral derivatives aggregated by counterparty brought into each individual NAIC designation 1-6, and aggregated centrally cleared derivatives. For 2015, derivative balances subject to central clearing are to be included in Line (16) regardless of the category they are included in for Schedule DB, Part D, Section 1.

Line (24) Guarantees for affiliates include guarantees for the benefit of an affiliate that result in a material† contingent exposure of the company’s assets to liability.

Attachment C

21

Appendix C


Line (26) The exposure amount for long-term leases is the annual rental amount of all leases that could have a material† financial effect. If the rent expense is shared with affiliates, it should be allocated by company.

Line (31) “Yes” means the entity which files the US Federal income tax return which includes the reporting entity is a regulated insurance company (including where the reporting entity is the direct filer of the tax return). “No” means the entity which files the US Federal income tax return which includes the reporting entity is not a regulated insurance company (e.g. a non-insurance entity or holding company makes the filing). “N/A” means the entity is exempt from filing a US federal income tax return; lines (32) and (33) should be zero in this case.

Lines (32) and (33) Apply a one-percent (1%) charge in the RBC formula, placed outside of the covariance adjustment, to admitted adjusted gross deferred tax assets (DTAs) as described in SSAP No. 101, paragraphs 11a and 11b (lesser of paragraph 11b(i) and 11b(ii)). For the period for which the paragraph 11a component is determined, the charge is reduced to one-half percent (0.5%) when the insurance company either filed its own separate Federal income tax return or it was included in a consolidated Federal income tax of which the common parent is an insurance company. The source for the DTA amounts to use in the calculation is found in the Annual Statement, Notes to Financial Statements, Note 9, Part A, Section 2, Admission Calculation Components for SSAP No. 101. Paragraph 11a is found in Section 2, subpart (a), Paragraph 11b is found in Section 2, subpart (b).

† The definition of “material” exposure or financial effect is the same as for annual statement disclosure requirements.

Attachment C

22

Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force

1

Priority 1 – High priority LIFE RISK-BASED CAPITAL (E) WORKING GROUPPriority 2 – Medium priority WORKING AGENDA ITEMS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2017Priority 3 – Low priority

Expected2017 2017 Completion

# Owner Priority Date Working Agenda Item Source Comments

Ongoing Items – Life RBC1 Life RBC

WGOngoing Ongoing Make technical corrections to Life RBC instructions, blank and /or methods to

provide for consistent treatment among asset types and among the various components of the RBC calculations for a single asset type.

2 Life RBC WG

1 2016 2017 or later

Evaluate RBC in light of PBR. Consider changes to RBC needed because of the changes in reserve values, including “right sizing” of reserves, margins in the reserves, any expected increase in reserve volatility, and the overall desired level of solvency measurement and other issues. Consider a total balance sheet approach (e.g. total asset requirement (TAR) type calculation and then subtracting out the PBR reserves) and application of stress scenarios. These charges should include appropriate consideration of international core principles.

Referral from PBR

Implementation (E) Task Force

Being addressed by the Stress Testing (E) Subgroup

3 Life RBC WG

1 2016 2017 or later

Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the C3 Phase 2 and AG 43 methodologies by conducting an in-depth analysis of the models, modeling assumptions, processes, supporting documentation and results of a sample of companies writing variable annuities with guarantees and to make recommendations to the Capital Adequacy Task Force or Life Actuarial Task Force on any changes to the methodologies to improve their overall effectiveness.

CATF Being addressed by the C-3 Phase II/AG43 (E/A) Subgroup

4 Life RBC WG

1 2016 2017 or later

Provide recommendations for recognizing longevity risk in statutory reserves and/or RBC, as appropriate.

New Jersey Being addressed by the Longevity (A/E) Subgroup

Carry-Over Items Currently being Addressed – Life RBC5 Life RBC

WG1 2016 2017 or

laterUpdate the current C-3 Phase I or C-3 Phase II methodology to include indexed annuities

AAA

6 Life RBC WG

1 2016 2017 or later

Consider proper treatment for business ceded to unauthorized reinsurers. Currently, in most cases some type of security is required for reserves that are ceded to unauthorized reinsurers but there is no similar handling of RBC. Another option could be a factor applied to the RBC release or some other base.

New York New York, Florida and Connecticut are working on this and plan to submit something for the Working Group to consider.

7 Life RBC WG

2 1 2016 2017 or later

Develop guidance, for inclusion in the proposed NAIC contingent deferred annuity (CDA) guidelines, for states as to how current regulations governing risk-based capital requirements, including C-3 Phase II, should be applied to contingent deferred annuities (CDAs). Recommend a process for reviewing capital adequacy for insurers issuing CDAs and prepare clarifying guidance, if necessary, due to different nomenclature then used with regard to CDAs. The development of this guidance does not preclude the Working Group from reviewing CDAs as part of any ongoing or future charges where applicable and is made with the understanding that this guidance could change as a result of such a review.

10/21/13 Referral from A

Committee

It is important to consider the implications of work being done by the CDA and VA Issues Working Groups to ensure consistency in addressing these charges. The Working Group is monitoring the progress of that work.

8 Life RBC WG

1 2016 2017 Review and evaluate 2016 company submissions for the RBC Shortfall schedule and corresponding adjustment to Total Adjusted Capital.

10/16/2015

9 Life RBC WG

1 2016 2017 Review and evaluate 2016 company submissions for the Primary Security Shortfall schedule and corresponding adjustment to Authorized Control Level.

10/16/2015

10 Life RBC WG

1 2016 Determine whether asset charges for the forms of “other security” used by insurers under the XXX/AXXX Reinsurance Model Regulation should be developed or otherwise accounted for in the RBC Shortfall calculation and address deferred issues with consolidated presentation.

10/16/2015

W:\QA\CADTF\ Working Agenda 2017 as of 11-21-2017.xls

Date Added to Agenda

Attachment D

23

life risk-based capital (e) working · pdf filelife risk-based capital (e) working group ....

Documents