Description: In this article, we summarize inflationary factors that may result in a sharp increase in interest rates and implications for life insurer convexity risk exposure, most notably to dynamic policyholder lapsation. We further provide insights into potential ALM strategies to mitigate this convexity risk. Due to the prolonged low-interest rate environment and low minimum interest rate guarantees offered to policyholders, liability convexity is higher than prior historical periods, which results in life insurers’ ALM positions being extremely vulnerable to short-term interest rate spikes. Convexity mismatches cause issues for life insurers under both rising and declining interest rate scenarios. This means that life insurers are not compensated for taking convexity risk and, therefore, convexity matching should always be considered in the asset optimization process. There are mixed signals from policymakers and financial markets regarding potential inflationary and sharply rising interest rate scenarios. The key takeaway is that life insurers are not compensated for taking convexity risk and it is the right time for insurers to review convexity exposure. There are different approaches available to mitigate convexity exposure through rebalancing of asset positions and hedges within each life insurer’s risk limits.

Description: In this article, we summarize inflationary factors that may result in a sharp increase in interest rates and implications for life insurer convexity risk exposure, most notably to dynamic policyholder lapsation. We further provide insights into potential ALM strategies to mitigate this convexity risk. Due to the prolonged low-interest rate environment and low minimum interest rate guarantees offered to policyholders, liability convexity is higher than prior historical periods, which results in life insurers’ ALM positions being extremely vulnerable to short-term interest rate spikes. Convexity mismatches cause issues for life insurers under both rising and declining interest rate scenarios. This means that life insurers are not compensated for taking convexity risk and, therefore, convexity matching should always be considered in the asset optimization process. There are mixed signals from policymakers and financial markets regarding potential inflationary and sharply rising interest rate scenarios. The key takeaway is that life insurers are not compensated for taking convexity risk and it is the right time for insurers to review convexity exposure. There are different approaches available to mitigate convexity exposure through rebalancing of asset positions and hedges within each life insurer’s risk limits.

Description: The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) continues its development of the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) with the introduction of ICS 1.0 in summer 2017 and plans for ICS 2.0 in 2019. This session will provide updates on the development of the standards and summarize insights from Field Testing and ICS Consultations. This session will deliver an overview of the framework and provide industry and regulatory perspectives on potential implications and next steps.

Description: The Market Cost of Capital approach has emerged as the standard for estimating risk margins for insurers' fair value balance sheets. This paper takes some of the ideas developed for valuing life insurance liabilities and applies them to the problem of valuing credit risky bonds. The basic idea is that credit spreads should cover the cost a) best estimate defaults plus the cost of holding capital for b) contagion risk (e.g. a credit crunch) and c) parameter risk, this risk that the best estimate is wrong and must be revised. We argue that the margins required for parameter risk can capture liquidity issues. In addition, the models developed here allow the cost of capital rate itself to be a random variable which allows credit spreads to open and close stochastically. Finally, the paper argues that it is reasonable to include something like AA best estimate default rates and liquidity spreads when valuing insurance liabilities. The main rationale for doing so is the idea that there are elements of the total credit risk issue that can be hedged between the assets and liabilities.

Description: The purpose of this paper is to build a bridge between the traditional methods of looking at financial risk and insurance risk. The paper starts by explaining the concepts behind VaR models of economic capital used in banking. Differences between actuarial and financial views of risk are reviewed and explained. The paper concludes with proposing, developing, and parameterizing a true VaR model of insurance loss reserve risk, which combines several lines of business. From 2006 Enterprise Risk Management Symposium, M-AS06-1.

Description: This presentation is a panel discussion, session number 43PD, from the 2002 Valuation Actuary Symposium, held September 19-20 in Lake Buena Vista, FL. The panelists provide an overview of the current risk-based-capital [RBC] requirements for life insurers, as well as recent and potential changes to RBC. They discuss reinsurance, including off shore solutions. Recent changes they discuss include Phase I C-3, interest-rate risk for annuities and single premium life, common stock changes, and deferred-tax recognition. The panelists also discuss the proposed stochastic modeling standard C-3 Phase II for variable annuities. Discussion from participants is included.

Description: This panel will discuss the current status of NAIC activities with respect to risk-based capital RBC. The potential impact on financial reporting with respect to health products, specifically, indemnity, HMO, disability, and nontraditional products will also be discussed. From the Record of the Society of Actuaries, Vol.21, No. 4a.