Description: Increased attention was paid to regulatory capital with the global financial crisis in 2008. Whilst companies may not have the incentives to retain a large amount of capital in the absence of regulatory capital requirements, overcapitalized entities can have drawback such as its impact on competitiveness. There are other weaknesses in the regulatory capital model such as its limitation in facilitating risk-based decisions as regulatory capital does not necessarily reflect the economic reality and risks an entity faces. Nonetheless, there are ways for regulators and/or companies to handle the weaknesses in the regulatory capital model. For instance, granularity can be introduced in determining regulatory capital. Economic capital can be used to encourage entities to implement risk management controls and facilitate risk-based business decisions (e.g., risk-adjusted performance assessment and risk-based capital allocation). Ultimately, hav ing effective risk management and risk-based capital determination are ways to prevent company failures and bankruptcies.

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: Research projects in pension - Pension Risk Management: Derivatives, Fiduciary Duty and Process.

Description: This session is about the methods of projecting long-run stock returns using inflation rates from bond yield curves with incremental returns for risk taking based on historical data and the relationship between concurrent, expected and unexpected inflation rates and the rates of return on common stocks and U.S. government bonds and notes. From Record of Society of Actuaries Vol. 5, No. 4.

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: Quarterly update on regulatory trends of interest to financial reporting actuaries.

Description: An exploration of risk management challenges in the Middle East, including historical overcapitalization, inadequate data and governance issues.

Description: The article provides a summary of the Drake Risk & Opportunity Forum held on October 21, 2022. The forum was a hybrid conference that attracted more than 200 attendees from 17 states, two countries, 48 employers, and five universities. Following an introduction by the Zimpleman College of Business Dean, the forum held six sessions. First was an insurance company CRO panel followed by a panel of non-insurance company CROs. Gary Zhu shared his outlook for interest rates and capital markets. The fourth panel discussed insurance capital models. The fifth panel discussed environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria when building insurance company investment portfolios. The final session of the day was a discussion about the NAIC, how they operate, and their priorities for the coming year.