We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Alternative Capital Is Set to Double Down on the U.S. Life Insurance Sector

    June 16, 2018 by Deep Banerjee

    S&P Global Ratings believes that the involvement of alternative capital in the U.S. life insurance sector could double over the next two to years.
    The most recent merger and acquisition (M&A) announcements in the U.S. life insurance sector has seen increased involvement of alternative capital investors. This is not the first time we have seen interested acquirers who aren’t traditional insurers (i.e., alternative capital), nor do we believe it will be the last. All major stakeholders, including insurers, insurance agents, brokers and regulators will have to adapt to this new paradigm.

    At the end of 2017, we estimate over $100 billion in insurance liabilities were held by insurers where alternative capital owned a majority equity stake. This is slightly less than 5% of the total life insurance liabilities in the U.S. We believe this level could grow meaningfully, mostly due to the seeming increase in the alternative investors’ risk appetite and the available supply of relatively riskier, longer-tailed liabilities.

    Click HERE to read the original story via ThinkAdvisor.

    Alternative capital is usually attracted to insurance products or liabilities that accumulate assets. In the past, most of the acquisitions have involved liabilities such as fixed annuities. But, the two recently announced acquisitions by investor consortiums—Voya Financial Inc. ‘s closed block of variable annuities (VA) and Hartford Financial Services Group’s run-off life and annuity block—demonstrate that outside money is now willing to take on more-complex legacy liabilities.

    Both Voya’s and Hartford’s blocks contain VAs with guaranteed living benefit. Such VAs are generally more complex, more difficult to hedge, and have more potential for capital and earnings volatility than its fixed annuity cousin. This very riskiness perhaps makes pricing more favorable for the alternative investors. We also believe the prospect for inorganic growth is much greater, since the industry definitely has plenty of such complex legacy blocks that they would be happy to divest.

    But, the question is, does the increased involvement of alternative capital help or hurt the credit quality of the U.S. life insurance sector?

    We view alternative capital as providing much-needed breathing room, at least in the short-term, for a sector where certain legacy risks are coming home to roost. Many years of historically low interest rates, coupled with policyholder behavior not being in-synch with pricing assumptions, haven’t made things any easier. Even when managed well, such risks can exacerbate capital strain and increase volatility in earnings. Our ratings are generally constrained on insurers that have meaningful exposure to such legacy risks. Shedding these risks can help insurers focus their capital and resources on their core businesses. Additionally, equity valuations for publicly traded insurers could also see an uptick, since public markets generally discount for these kinds of legacy risks. This derisking path, which is likely credit positive for these insurers, has been made possible to a great extent by alternative capital.

    Such near-term breathing room is a boon for the sector. But, what about longer-term credit implications? Just because the liabilities have changed hands, doesn’t mean that they have left the insurance industry. Policyholders still expect to receive their guaranteed benefits no matter which insurance entity is holding their policies.

    The longer-term credit quality question is a bit more complicated. It involves market conditions, knowing both the investment strategy and exit strategy of each alternative capital investor, and appreciating the contagion effect of an insurance entity’s failure.

    Depending on the level of market stress, the strength of reserves at the point of sale, and ongoing hedging strategy, we think the new owners will likely be able to manage these legacy risks successfully. Of course, the return timeframe for the investors will have to be longer, and a well-planned exit strategy or a patient dividend plan is needed to support any return expectations. In a benign-to-moderately stressed environment, we believe the illiquidity premiums for taking on these complex risks should be available to the alternative investors.

    But, then there is always the low-probability, but high-severity “fat-tail” scenario. These legacy risks are sensitive to tail risks and are exposed to policyholder behavior assumptions that can’t be hedged. If not appropriately hedged and adequately reserved, such tail events will likely require an infusion of additional capital. Under this scenario, not only do alternative investors not get their expected returns, they now need to put up additional capital. If they are unwilling or unable to make the additional commitment, their fast—perhaps damaging—exit could leave the industry vulnerable to contagion risk. Unlike corporate entities that are able to file for bankruptcy, a failing insurance company is taken over by the state regulator. This is followed by a long process that results in healthy insurers having to pitch in to pay the failed insurers’ policyholder liabilities.

    As alternative capital spends more capital and time in this sector, learnings from their longer-term involvement will have a meaningful impact on analyzing sector credit risk, regulatory oversight of such transactions, and ongoing interactions between insurance agents, brokers and policyholders. Armed with these learnings, their interest in complex risks will evolve. For now, without any fat-tails wagging, we believe alternative capital is set to double down on the life insurance sector.

     


     

    Deep Banerjee is a director and sector lead with S&P Global’s Financial Services Ratings Group.

    Originally Posted at ThinkAdvisor on June 16, 2018 by Deep Banerjee.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency