Annuity capital risk managment ne act nov 2012

448 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
448
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Annuity capital risk managment ne act nov 2012

  1. 1. Annuity Capital Risk Management Actuaries’ Clubs of Boston and Hartford & SpringfieldKendrick Lombardo FSA, MAAANovember 15, 2012 © 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  2. 2. AGENDAAgenda Economic environment FIA capital risk management issues VA capital risk management issues Summary 2© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  3. 3. Economic Environment© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  4. 4. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTVery low interest rates are the most significant capitalrisk management challenge facing the industry Pressure on new products (all annuities) Risk increase on lapse supported products (e.g., GLWB) Increased cost of VA hedging and general account ALM challenges for FIA 4© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  5. 5. FIA Capital Risk Management© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  6. 6. FIA CAPITAL RISK MANAGEMENTThe risk management of FIAs is subject to multipleinputs and constraints Base Contract Riders  Cap management  ALM  ALM  Hedging?  Hedging Fixed Indexed Annuities U.S. GAAP U.S. Statutory  FAS 133 / 157  AG 33 / 35  SOP 03-1  State specific? GLWB statutory reserving in a low rate environment is a critical FIA capital management issue 6© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  7. 7. FIA CAPITAL RISK MANAGEMENTGuaranteed FIA GLWB income ratesAverage of effective withdrawal rates (includes impact of bonuses and rollups) for 1) issue age 55, wait 5 years, 2) issue age 65, immediate 3)Issue age 60, wait 5 years and 4) Issue age 60, wait 10 years 7© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  8. 8. FIA CAPITAL RISK MANAGEMENTGuaranteed FIA GLWB income rates reducedAverage of effective withdrawal rates (includes impact of bonuses and rollups) for 1) issue age 55, wait 5 years, 2) issue age 65, immediate 3)Issue age 60, wait 5 years and 4) Issue age 60, wait 10 years 8© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  9. 9. FIA CAPITAL RISK MANAGEMENTCapital management actions taken by FIA carriers Product changes  Commission decreases  Premium bonus decreases  Income rate decreases  Rollup rate decreases / making rollup simple interest Pursuing new statutory reserving regimes  AG 43 (standard scenario & stochastic)  Modified AG 33 (e.g., add low lapses) Enhancing ALM capabilities Improving GLWB assumptions  Refinement of dynamic lapses, withdrawals, waiting periods and mortality Modifying hedging programs  Account for GLWB at a macro level  Refinement of index hedge programs Merger & Acquisition (M&A) activity 9© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  10. 10. VA Capital Risk Management© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  11. 11. VA CAPITAL RISK MANAGEMENTCapital risk management issues in VA market Low interest rates  Impact on equity sensitivity of AG 43 reserves and C3P2 capital  Rho hedges can create exposure to rising interest rates on a statutory basis  Make impact of policyholder behavior more significant Companies are working on a number of fronts to improve their capital risk management  Reflection of hedging in financial projections  Reflection of statutory reserves / capital projections  Refining policyholder assumptions  Product designs changes Other developments  Benefit buyouts  Renewal premium limits  M&A 11© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  12. 12. VA CAPITAL RISK MANAGEMENT Reflection of hedging in financial projection models  Hedging approach generally impacted by a number of factors, including:  Accuracy of results  Complexity of implementation, validation, inputs and analysis  Computational demands (software and hardware)  Range of industry practice is shown below  We believe the industry has Explicit Projection of shifted towards using more Hedging Transactions explicit projections of hedging transactionsAccuracy Proxy for Hedging Transactions  Simpler methods still remains popular, given the complexity Change in Liabilities of projecting hedging Approach transactions, but they have their limitations Reinsurance Approach Sophistication 12 © 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  13. 13. VA CAPITAL RISK MANAGEMENTReflection of reserves and capital in projection models Factor Based Approaches Stochastic-on-Stochastic Less refined More refined  Develop set of factors  Real-world scenarios  May vary based on  Considerations  Product feature  Number of scenarios  Duration  Time steps  ITM Other possibilities:  Final analyses only?  Standard scenario only  Focus on TAR only  Advanced techniques 13© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  14. 14. VA CAPITAL RISK MANAGEMENTPolicyholder Behavior Policyholder behavior has caused large surprises Many companies are working on enhancing their capabilities  Data – Inforce extracts – Transaction/exposure data for experience analysis  Techniques – Predictive modeling  Granularity of financial models There is still significant variation in the industry A significant issues are  Interest rate related behavior for GLWBs  Dynamic lapse rate slopes  Floor lapse rates  Non-user withdrawal cohorts and their other behavior 14© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  15. 15. Summary© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  16. 16. SUMMARYSummary Low interest rates pose significant challenges on all fronts for both variable and fixed annuities Profitability is becoming more dependent on policyholder behavior  Enhancement of methods for measuring and monitoring experience is becoming critical for many Better financial modeling is required  More granularity for policyholder behavior assumptions  Projection of management actions (investments, hedging, credited rate setting) and their limits  Accurate refresh of balance sheet to understand capital risk exposures  Ability to refine attributions of actual results 16© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
  17. 17. SUMMARYQuestions 17© 2012 Towers Watson. All rights reserved.

×