Considerations in the Valuation of Segregated Fund Products
description
Transcript of Considerations in the Valuation of Segregated Fund Products
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Considerations in the Valuation of Segregated Fund Products
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
• Sub-Committee of CLIFR formed late in 2005
• Members of Sub-Committee:– Jacques Boudreau, Byron Corner, Greg
Lawrence, Dale Mathews
• Mandate– Review areas where additional guidance could be
provided to ensure compliance with standards and to narrow the range of practice
• Status – early draft, looking for feedback• Expected Completion – Spring 2007
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Content of note– Methodology – Bifurcated versus Whole
Contract– What is a PFAD?– Discount rate– Term of the Liability – Issues
• Hedging
• Level of Aggregation
– Recoverability Testing for AAE– Policyholder Behaviour
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology– There is currently a range of practice
across the industry– We’re reviewing the general approaches
in use
– The main differentiation is bifurcated versus whole contract approaches
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Bifurcated vs. Whole Contract– Bifurcated
• Revenue is allocated between recoverability testing of the Allowance for Acquisition Expense (AAE) and the liability for the guarantee
• Allocation does not change from period to period
• Policy liability for the guarantee is calculated separately using revenue based on this allocation
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Bifurcated vs. Whole Contract
– Bifurcated• Allocation of revenue to the guarantee
would generally be related to the additional charge priced into the product for the guarantee
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Bifurcated vs. Whole
Contract
Whole Contract – Approach 1• Total policy liability is determined using all net
cashflows available• Deterioration in market conditions could cause
liability to increase and DAC implicitly written down
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Bifurcated vs. Whole
Contract
Whole Contract – Approach 1• Future market improvements could result in
reduction of liability and implicit writing up of AAE which is inconsistent with standards
• This method should not be used for Canadian GAAP purposes
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Bifurcated vs. Whole Contract
- Whole Contract Approach 2 – DAC Focus• AAE is first tested to ensure recoverability
using all fee income• In order to calculate the liability for the
guarantees, the AAE balance is added to the stochastic result
• Mathematically equivalent to backing out a PV of fee income equal to the AAE balance
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Bifurcated vs. Whole
Contract
- Whole Contract Approach 2 – DAC Focus• This method is consistent with Standards• For the remainder of the presentation we will
simply call this the whole contract approach
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Bifurcated vs. Whole Contract
Under both methods• If the AAE becomes unrecoverable it is written
down to the extent it is recoverable• Future amortization is reduced accordingly and
locked in consistent with SOP Section 2320.24 • Once the AAE is written down it may not be
written back up.
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Bifurcated vs. Whole
Contract
Under both methods a zero floor on the liability is generally applied at some level of aggregation.
• Reflection of SOP section 2320.25 which suggests that the term ends at the balance sheet date unless extending the term increases the liability
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Example
- Cohort of variable annuity policies with an initial AAE of $50
– Policies priced with 5 basis points of revenue plus additional charge of 2 basis points for a 10 year maturity guarantee
– Bifurcated Method• Recoverability testing for the AAE is done assuming 5
basis points of revenue. The liability for the guarantee is calculated assuming 2 basis points of revenue.
• Allocation doe not change period to period.
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Example
-Whole Contract Method• The entire 7 basis points is first made available to
recover the AAE.• To the extent it is not entirely required, the excess is
reflected in the liability for the guarantee.
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Lia
bilit
y
100% 90% 80% 70%
MV/GV
Bif AAE Bif Gtee Whole AAE Whole Gtee
Methodology ExampleMethodology Example
Total
-43.44
3.42
0.04
-40.0
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Considerations
• Total liability under Whole Contract method will be less than or equal to that under the Bifurcated method
• Whole Contract method will defer possible writing down of the AAE as long as possible as the AAE has first priority on future revenue.
• Once the liability for the guarantee has become positive the liability may become more volatile under the Whole Contract method as the allocation of revenue can change period to period.
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Methodology – Considerations
• At this time CLIFR is not recommending one method over the other
• Both methods consistent with standards• Currently the whole contract method is more
commonly used• Direction of international standards appears to
be toward bifurcated approach• When the direction of international standards
becomes clearer we will move in that direction.
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
What is a PfAD?
•We are responding to members’ request for guidance as per the OSFI survey requested guidance •Essentially a disclosure issue
•SOP Section 1110.39: “Provision for adverse deviations is the difference between the actual result of a calculation and the corresponding result using best estimate assumptions.”
•The term of the liability for segregated fund products has resulted in different interpretations as to the period over which the calculation extends
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
What is a PfAD?
•CLIFR’s initial thinking done in the context of quantification of PfADs in AAR•Issue has been elevated with companies starting to disclose PfADs externally•This has now been identified as an issue by the Committee on the Role of the Appointed Actuary and we will be working with them on this.
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Term of the Liability
Section 2320.27• “…the term of the liability ends at the balance sheet
date for….the general account portion of a deferred annuity with segregated fund liabilities but without guarantees;”
Section 2320.23• “The actuary would extend such term solely to permit
recognition of cash flow to offset acquisition or similar expenses whose recovery from cash flow that would otherwise be beyond such term was contemplated by the insurer in pricing…
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Term of the Liability
• Add Guarantee:
– 2320.22 => term ends at the earlier of:• First renewal or adjustment date at or after B/S date
at which there is no constraint
• Renewal / adjustment date after the B/S date which maximizes policy liabilities
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Term of the LiabilityWhat to Conclude
• The phrase “maximizes policy liabilities” suggests the term reduces to zero if liabilities would otherwise be negative.– Assuming product is continually renewable and no
AAE
• Corollary to this is the liability for the guarantees has a floor of zero– With the addition of a guarantee, additional revenue
may be recognized, but only enough to cover additional costs
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006 Term of the Liability: Practical
Challenges
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Challenge 1 – Hedging
• Segregated funds have significant insurance risk and are often hedged
• Hedging is managed on a portfolio basis– Trading in options is costly
• Zero floor can disrupt parity between asset and liability sides of the balance sheet
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Hedging Example
• Description– Example reflects the guarantee reserve only, no AAE
– Hedging is accomplished via short position in futures
– Initial calculated liability is negative on both hedged and unhedged basis, so zero floor is applied
– Expected market growth over the length of the contract is around 10%
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Hedging Example
• Earnings on a hedged basis areFee income – claims + interest on reserve+ change in FMV of derivative – change in reserve
• Change in reserve isChange in CTEx (liability cashflows + hedge g/l)
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Hedging Example - Emergence of Earnings Year 1
Market
Growth
HedgedZero floor
Hedged
No floor
UnhedgedZero floor
0% 110 62 85
10% 34 74 92
20% -48 74 93
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Hedging Example - Emergence of Earnings
Details – 20% Growth
Hedged
Zero floor
Hedged
No floor
Unhedged
Zero Floor
Fee Income 93 93 93Investment Income
-141 -149 0
Claims 0 0 0Change in liability
0 -130 0
Total pre-tax -48 74 93
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Challenge 1 – Hedging
– Summary
• Change in FMV goes though income on asset side
• Expect offsets (not exact) on liability side but this may not occur if constrained by zero floor
• CLIFR believes is would be appropriate to allow liability for guarantee to become negative in the context of hedging
– Subject to avoiding capitalizing more future profit than in the absence of hedging
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Challenge 2 – Cashflow Asymmetry / Level of Aggregation
• Claims from segregated fund guarantees can come in waves
–Depends on when sold and where market was at that time
–Also depends on product design
–Magnified if sales pattern is “chunky”
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Level of Aggregation
• Term of the liability reads literally as a seriatim concept
• Common/accepted practice thought to be at portfolio-wide or product level
• However, care must be taken if the level of aggregation combines blocks with significantly different risk profiles..
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Example
• Two cohorts– Cohort 1 sold in 1999 (S&P 500 = 1,455)
– Cohort 2 sold in 2002 (S&P 500 = 975)
• Current S&P 500 = 1,250– Cohort 1 is deep in the money with 1 year left to maturity
– Cohort 2 is deep out of the money with 4 years left to maturity
• What should the total liability be?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Example (cont’d)
• Cohort 1 will likely pay out significant claims next year (assume no hedging)Assume claims are imminent at 1,000 (reserve = 1,000)How does total liability account for this?
• What impact does zero floor have here?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Example (cont’d)
• Scenario 1: Cohort 2 liability deeply negative before zero floor– Cohort 1 liability = 1,000– Cohort 2 liability = -1,200
• Scenario 2: Cohort 2 liability slightly negative before zero floor– Cohort 1 liability = 1,000– Cohort 2 liability = -300
Cohort/Seriatim Aggregate No Floor
Scenario 1 0 -1,000 0
Scenario 2 0 -300 0
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Level of Aggregation
• Conclusion– An important consideration in
determining the appropriate level of aggregation is the homogeneity of policies
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Recoverability TestingNon economic assumptions
• Use MfADded assumptions
• Direction chosen appropriate in aggregate– High lapse favours guarantee– Low lapse favours AAE
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Choice of CTE Level
CTE 0 •Accounting view?
•Compare with similar accounting items subject to impairment testing
CTE 60 •Actuarial view?
•Divorces considerations for AAE recoverability from those for guarantees
CTE X •Aligns considerations for AAE recoverability from those for guarantees
•Whole contract view?
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Choice of CTE Level (cont’d)
CTE 80 •In range of SOP
•Awkward (?) if CTE level for guarantees is lower than 80
CTE 95 •Solvency-oriented
Expect Ed. note will endorse two methods:– CTE 60– CTE X where X is between 60 and 80
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Policyholder Behaviour – Summary
• Policyholder behaviour an important assumption for segregated funds:– Full and Partial Withdrawal – Resets– Fund transfers– Annuitizations if material
• Consider interrelationships, particularly reaction to the scenario– Must combine experience data with common sense /
intuition when modelling dynamic behaviour– Consider higher MfADs for these
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
2006
Gen
eral
Mee
ting
Ass
embl
ée g
énér
ale
2006
Guiding Principles
• Option exercise correlated with in-moneyness
• Anti-selection
• Consider reasonable expectations
• PH sophistication & perceived financial interest in policy
• < 100% efficiency