Tag Archives: accounting

Modernizing Insurance Accounting — Finally!

Modernization of insurance accounting is finally here. The FASB issued its final guidance on enhanced disclosures for short duration contracts in May 2015 and published an exposure draft in September 2016 on targeted improvements to the accounting for long-duration contracts.

After literally decades of deliberations, the IASB has completed its most recent exposure draft and plans to issue a final comprehensive accounting standard in the first half of 2017. Moreover, additional changes in the statutory accounting for most life insurance contracts are coming into effect; a company can elect to have Principles Based Reserving (PBR) effective on new business as early as Jan. 1, 2017. Companies have three years to prepare for PBR, with all new business issued in 2020 required to be valued using PBR.

The impact of these regulatory changes is likely to be significant to financial reporting, operations and the business overall. Instead of approaching accounting modernization as a compliance exercise, companies instead should view the changes holistically, with an understanding that there will be impacts to systems, processes, profit profiles, capital, pricing and risk. Planning effectively and building a case for change can create efficiencies and enhanced capabilities that benefit the business more broadly.

Financial reporting modernization will affect the entire organization, not just the finance and actuarial functions. Operations and systems; risk management; product development, marketing and distribution; and even HR will need to change.

FASB’s Targeted Changes

In May 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2015-09, Disclosures about Short-Duration Contracts.

Rather than changing the existing recognition and measurement guidance in U.S. GAAP for short-duration contracts, the FASB responded to views from financial statement users by requiring enhanced disclosures for the liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expenses. The disclosures include annual disaggregated incurred and paid claims development tables that need not exceed ten years, claims counts and incurred but not reported claim liabilities for each accident year included within the incurred claim development tables, and interim (as well as year-end) roll forwards of claim liabilities.

The enhanced disclosures will be effective for public business entities for annual reporting periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2015 (i.e., 2016 for calendar year end entities) and interim reporting periods thereafter. The new disclosures may require the accumulation and reporting of new and different groupings of claims data by insurers from what is currently captured for U.S. statutory and other reporting purposes. Public companies are currently preparing now by making changes to existing processes and systems and performing dry runs of their processes to produce these disclosures. Non-public business entities will have a one-year deferral to allow additional time for preparation.

See also: Who Is Innovating in Financial Services?  

In September 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU on targeted improvements to the accounting for long-duration contracts. Proposed revisions include requiring the updating of cash flow assumptions and use of a high-quality fixed-income discount rate that maximizes the use of market observable inputs in calculating various insurance liabilities, simplifying the deferred acquisition costs amortization model and requiring certain insurance guarantees with capital market risk to be reported at fair value. The FASB also proposed enhanced disclosures, which include disaggregated roll forwards of certain asset and liability balances, additional information about risk management and significant estimates, input, judgments and assumptions used to measure various liabilities and to amortize deferred acquisition costs (“DAC”). No effective date was proposed, and transition approaches were provided with the recognition that full retrospective application may be impracticable.

IASB to issue a new comprehensive standard

The IASB’s journey to a final, comprehensive insurance contracts standard is nearly complete. After reviewing feedback from field testing by selected companies in targeted areas, the IASB completed its deliberations in November 2016.

The IASB staff is proceeding with drafting IFRS 17 (previously referred to as IFRS 4 Phase II) with a proposed effective date of Jan. 1, 2021. Three measurement models are provided for in the standard: 1) Building Block Approach (“BBA”); 2) Premium Allocation Approach (“PAA”); and 3) the Variable Fee Approach (“VFA”).

The default model for all insurance contracts is the BBA and is based on a discounted cash flow model with a risk adjustment and deferral of up-front profits through the Contractual Service Margin (CSM). This is a current value model in which changes in the initial building blocks are treated in different ways in the P&L. Changes in the cash flows and risk adjustment related to future services are recognized by adjusting the CSM, whereas those related to past and current services flow to the P&L. The CSM amortization pattern is based on the passage of time and drives the profit recognition profile. The effect of changes in discount rates can either be recognized in other comprehensive income (OCI) or P&L.

The IASB has also allowed for the use of the PAA for qualifying short-term contracts, or those typically written by property and casualty insurers. This approach is similar to an unearned premium accounting for unexpired risks with certain differences such as deferred acquisition costs offsetting the liability for remaining coverage rather than being reflected as an asset. The claims liability, or liability for incurred claims, is measured using the BBA without a CSM.

Discounting of this liability for incurred claims would be required, except where a practical expedient applies for contracts in which claims are settled in one year or less from the incurred date. Similar to the BBA model, the effect of changes in discount rates can either be recognized in other comprehensive income (“OCI”) or the P&L.

The VFA is intended to be applied to qualifying participating contracts. This model was subject to extensive deliberations, considering the prevalence of such features in business issued by European insurers. This model recognizes a linkage of the insurer’s liability to underlying items where the policyholders are paid a substantial share of the returns, and a substantial proportion of the cash flows vary with underlying items. The VFA is the BBA model but with notable differences in treatment including the changes in the insurer’s share of assets being recognized in the CSM, accretion of interest on CSM at current rates, and P&L movements in liabilities mirroring the treatment on underlying assets with differences in OCI, if such an option is elected.

The income statement will be transformed significantly. Rather than being based on premium due or received, insurance contract revenue will be derived based on expected benefits and expenses, allocation of DAC and release of the CSM and risk adjustment. The insurance contracts standard also requires substantial disclosures, including disaggregated roll forwards of certain insurance contract assets and liability balances.

Forming a holistic strategy and plan to address accounting changes will promote effective compliance, reduce cost and disruption, and increase operational efficiency, as well as help insurers create more timely, relevant, and reliable management information.

Statutory accounting: The move to principles-based reserving

The recently adopted Principles-Based Reserving (“PBR”) is a major shift in the calculation of statutory life insurance policy reserves and will have far-reaching business implications. The former formulaic approach to determining policy reserves is being replaced by an approach that more closely reflects the risks of products. Adoption is permitted as early as 2017 with a three-year transition window. Management must indicate to their regulator if they plan on adopting PBR before 2020.

PBR’s primary objective is to have reserves that properly reflect the financial risks, benefits and guarantees associated with policies and also reflect a company’s own experience for assumptions such as mortality, lapses and expenses. The reserves would also be determined assessing the impact under a variety of future economic scenarios.

PBR reserves can require as many as three different calculations based on the risk profile of the products and supporting assets. Companies will hold the highest of the reserve using a formula-based net premium reserve and two principle-based reserves – a Stochastic Reserve (SR) based on many scenarios and a Deterministic Reserve (DR) based on a single baseline scenario. The assumptions underlying principles-based reserves will be updated for changes in the economic environment, for changes in company experience and for changes in margins to reflect the changing nature of the risks. A provision called the “Exclusion Tests” allows companies the option of not calculating the stochastic or deterministic reserves if the appropriate exclusion test is passed. Reserves under PBR may increase or decrease depending on the risks inherent in the products.

PBR requirements call for explicit governance over the processes for experience studies, model inputs and outputs and model development, changes and validation. In addition, regulators will be looking to perform a more holistic review of the reserves. Therefore, and as we noted in the 2015 edition of this publication, it is critical that:

  • The PBR reserve process is auditable, including the setting of margins and assumptions, performing exclusion tests, sensitivity testing, computation of the reserves and disclosures;
  • Controls and governance are in place and documented, including assumption oversight, model validation and model risk controls; and
  • Experience studies are conducted with appropriate frequency and a structure for sharing results with regulators is developed.

PBR will introduce volatility to life statutory reserving, causing additional volatility in statutory earnings. Planning functions will be stressed to be able to forecast the impact of PBR over their planning horizons because three different reserve calculations will need to be forecast.

There is no “one size fits all” approach to addressing the FASB’s and IASB’s changes. Each company will likely be starting from a different place and may have different goals for a future state.


A company’s approach to addressing these changes can vary depending on a variety of factors, such as the current maturity level of its IT architecture and structure, potential impact of proposed changes on earnings emergence and regulatory capital and current and planned IT and actuarial modernization initiatives. In other words, there is no “one size fits all” approach to addressing these changes.

Each company likely will be starting from a different place and may have different goals for a future state. A company should invest the time to develop a strategic plan to address these changes with a solid understanding of the relevant factors, including similarities and differences between the changes. In doing so, companies should keep in mind the following potential implications:

Accounting & Financial Reporting

  • Where accounting options or interpretations exist, companies should thoroughly evaluate the implications of such decisions from a financial, operational and business perspective. Modeling can be particularly useful in making informed decisions, identifying pros and cons and facilitating decisions.
  • Financial statement presentation, particularly in IFRS 17, could change significantly. Proper planning and evaluation of requirements, presentation options, granularity of financial statement line items and industry views will be essential in building a new view of an insurer’s financial statements.
  • Financial statement disclosures could increase significantly. Requirements such as disaggregated roll forwards could result in companies reflecting financial statement disclosures, investor supplements and other external communications at lower levels than previously provided.
  • Change is not limited to insurance accounting. Other areas of accounting change include financial instruments, leasing and revenue recognition. For example, the impact of changes in financial instruments accounting will be important in evaluating decisions made for the liability side of the balance sheet.

See also: The Defining Issue for Financial Markets  


  • Inherent in each of these accounting changes is a company’s ability to produce cash flow models and use data that is well-controlled. Companies should consider performing a current state assessment of their capabilities and leverage, to the extent possible, infrastructure developed to comply with other regulatory changes such as Solvency II and ORSA and identify where enhancements or new technology is needed.
  • Given the increased demands on technology, computing and data resources that will be required, legacy processes and systems will not likely be sufficient to address pending regulatory and reporting changes. However, this creates an opportunity for these accounting changes to possibly be a catalyst for finance and actuarial modernization initiatives that did not historically have sufficient business cases and appetite internally for support.
  • As these accounting changes are generally based on the use of current assumptions, there will be an increased emphasis on the ability to efficiently and effectively evaluate historical experience on products by establishing new or enhancing existing processes. Strong governance over experience studies, inputs, models, outputs and processes will be essential.
  • As complexity increases with the implementation of these accounting changes, the impact on human resources could be significant. Depending on how many bases of accounting a company is required to produce, separate teams with the requisite skill sets may be necessary to produce, analyze and report the results. Even where separate teams are not needed, the close process will place additional demands on existing staff given the complexity of the new requirements and impact to existing processes. Companies may want to consider a re-design of their close process, depending on the extent of the impacts.


  • Product pricing could be affected as companies consider the financial impacts of these accounting changes on profit emergence, capital and other internal pricing metrics. For instance, the disconnect of asset yields from discounting used in liabilities under U.S. GAAP and IFRS could result in a different profit emergence or potentially create scenarios where losses exist at issuance.
  • Companies may make different decisions on asset and liability matching or choose to hedge risk on products differently. Analysis should be performed to understand changes in the measurement approach with respect to discount rates and financial impacts of guarantees such that an appropriate strategy can be developed.
  • The move to accounting models where both policyholder behavior and market-based assumptions are updated more frequently will likely result in greater volatility in earnings. Management reporting, key performance indicators, non- GAAP measures, financial statement presentation and disclosure and investor materials will need to be revisited such that an appropriate management and financial statement user view can be developed.
  • The impact from a human resources perspective should not be underestimated. Performance-based employee compensation plans that are tied to financial metrics will likely need to change. Employees will also need to receive effective training on the new accounting standards, processes and systems that will be put in place.

Forming a holistic strategy and plan to address these changes will promote effective compliance, reduce cost and disruption and increase operational efficiency, as well as help insurers create more timely, relevant and reliable management information. Given the pervasive impact of these changes, it is important that companies put in place an effective governance structure to help them manage change and set guiding principles for projects. For example, this involves the development of steering committees, work streams and a project management office at the corporate and business group level that can effectively communicate information, navigate difficult decisions, resolve issues and ensure progress is on track.

Each company has a unique culture and structure, therefore governance will need to be developed with that in mind to ensure it works for your organization. Companies that do not plan effectively and establish effective governance structures are likely to struggle with subpar operating models, higher capital costs, compliance challenges and overall lack of competitiveness.

How to Assess Costs of Business Interruption

As a professional loss accountant with more than 20 years of experience with business interruption (BI) valuation, I can understand why policyholders struggle with finding a repeatable, efficient system that produces an accurate measurement of their BI exposure. Over the years, some of my clients recognized the issues with the traditional BI values approach, and decided to make a change. Unfortunately, too many companies continue doing what they have always done, even when there is a better way available.


Consider for a moment, just how important BI information is to your underwriter. The numbers you report give the underwriter the basis for writing coverage and calculating premium. Each renewal provides policyholders the opportunity to present their unique BI exposure. Unfortunately, this opportunity is often squandered because of a misunderstanding of business interruption values and the exposures they represent. The point of this article is to share a proven, alternative approach.

Understanding BI Values

First, there’s the ratable value. It is the “big number” that is calculated for the business as a whole, assuming a 12-month, total shutdown of all revenue-generating operations. This worst-case and often unrealistic scenario is the information requested by the insurance company, usually in the form of a one-page worksheet. Without additional information, the underwriter will use this information to set limits and charge premium.

The ratable value calculated is somewhat meaningless, except that it establishes the base assumption that is used as the BI value in all other scenarios, such as unincurred cost categories. The ratable value is seldom a reflection of your exposures. Better ways to assess your exposures are to examine your maximum foreseeable loss (MFL) and probable maximum loss (PML) scenarios.

What Is Maximum Foreseeable Loss?

The MFL, as the name indicates, is the worst-case scenario. This is not as extreme as the ratable value scenario, but pretty close. The assumptions used here include a complete breakdown of protection and loss mitigating factors while you are hit where it hurts at the worst possible time. An example would be the loss of a unique distribution center to a retailer during the holiday shopping season — say the distribution center that handles online orders goes up in smoke on Cyber Monday.

The factors used to measure the ratable value would be used in this scenario to determine the business interruption value. Certain assumptions may change depending on the duration of the loss scenario. For example, labor expense may be considered completely saved in the ratable value scenario because of the assumption that there is nothing left, but only partly saved in an MFL scenario.

What About the Probable Maximum Loss?

The PML is the same as the MFL, except that loss mitigation efforts and protections work properly. The PML also takes into account pure extra expenses used to retain customers. The PML can help with decision making on purchasing extra expense coverage.

What Happens in Underwriting?

Although I’m not an underwriter, I’ve typically seen insurance companies take an engineer’s approach to MFL and PML scenarios that vary only in duration. This singular perspective does not account for the rest of the pieces of the puzzle. The other pieces are the finer details that actually occur during a claim. In a real claim, topics like seasonality, make-up and outsourcing would surely come up, but you won’t see them on any BI worksheet.

The MFL and PML should be based on realistic loss scenarios and measured as if they were a claim. Simply applying the ratable value to loss-period assumptions produces misleading and inflated numbers. This is precisely why it is in your best interest to develop your own valuation method based on real scenarios.

Why Create Exposure Scenarios?

If BI values are based on assumptions, and you are using the worksheet, then the assumption is a 12-month loss scenario. Can you imagine a scenario in which your operations would only be affected for six months? The worksheet makes a blanket assumption of 12 months whether realistic or not. Coming up with various loss scenarios by location would flesh out a more realistic representation of the impact of each particular loss. The scenarios would also highlight high-risk locations along your supply chain, which could improve your business continuity planning.

An exposure analysis project is not only an accounting project; it’s an integrated business exercise offering multiple benefits to an organization. The goal is to identify and examine loss scenarios and the resulting ripple effects.

It isn’t necessary, nor is it practical, to anticipate every possible loss scenario. It’s better to prioritize by perceived risk and probability. Then, develop a good sampling of loss scenarios from which you can determine the impact to operations and the mitigating actions that would be taken. Depending on the exposure, involve the appropriate internal personnel, e.g., operations, sales, business continuity, IT and accounting. The external experts you may involve are your broker, legal counsel and, of course, a forensic accounting firm that specializes in insurance work. Additionally, your company’s business continuity plan (BCP) and incident response plan should be factored in. However your scenarios play out, the loss accountants can calculate the business interruption as though it were an actual claim.

As you can see, this approach would produce a more accurate BI value by location and overall. It’s the right way to look at business interruption, so make it a part of your approach with underwriters.

Why Independence Matters for Claims

Policyholders insure against business risks to protect their financial integrity. When these risks become a reality, claim recovery is the return on investment. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that easy. Claim recovery is a process that requires expertise to secure a fair settlement. As you know, your carrier has experts assigned to adjust and audit your claim, so, in turn, you should have experts to help you quantify your losses and prepare a well-documented claim. But expertise is not enough. If you want the best chance to be made whole, independence matters.

Many companies promote themselves as focused on client needs, but, in claim preparation, it has to be more than a slogan. When it comes to preparing claims, true independence isn’t as common as you might think.

Is your loss accountant independent? The most common claim preparers are forensic accountants. Let’s take a look at where they exist in the insurance industry:

  • Insurance company forensic accountants
  • Insurance broker forensic accountants
  • Consulting firms with forensic accounting service offering
  • Accounting firms with forensic accounting service offering
  • Independent loss accounting firms

It should go without saying that the firms that are hired by the insurance companies cannot provide independent and unbiased service to policyholders, but many still do rely on the insurers’ accountants to measure their losses. If asked, the insurers’ accountants would likely recommend the insured retain an independent firm to assist them, yet there are those who don’t know and don’t ask. For the policyholders in this category, I hope you see the light after reading this article.

Broker-owned accounting firms have their own set of potential conflicts, starting with the strategic relationship they have with insurance companies. As a former broker, I can tell you these relationships are sacred. The carrier’s profitability is directly related to claims paid, and the carrier will reward brokers for profitable accounts with a bonus commission, aka contingent commissions. If you are on a fixed-fee arrangement, it does not mean there’s no contingent commission in play. Your broker wants to serve your needs and will work hard for you, but, when you have a loss, the broker has a conflict of interest.

It’s also important to remember that your claim can last longer than your broker agreement. It’s hard enough to end a relationship with your broker, but if the broker is preparing an outstanding claim it will prolong your dealings with the broker. If you change carriers and your broker at the same time, the situation can be harder to resolve. If you are using your broker for claim preparation, consider an independent option that only serves one master, you.

The large accounting firms with consulting practices will scale back their consulting activities when faced with financial debacles that cause regulators to scrutinize their independence. The inherent conflict of an auditing firm preparing a claim for a client should be obvious. The audit firm will have a direct impact on creating an asset or revenue stream, which the firm would then audit as part of the financial results. Those two activities need to remain separate to maintain independence.

Also consider what it means if your claim preparation firm is also the auditor for your insurer. As you can see, there are potential conflicts on both sides. Why not avoid potential conflicts and work with an independent specialist?

Hiring consulting firms presents similar conflicts to consider. Is it a provider of another service to your company? Does it also serve your carrier in some capacity? Making this determination can be time-consuming, and conflicts can be easily missed. Any firm you consider should be clear about possible conflicts, but it’s your recovery at stake, so it’s best to do the proper vetting.

In the insurance industry, it’s the policyholders’ right and obligation to value their own losses for submission to their insurer. Your insurer may be more than willing to help, but is that’s what is best for your business? Claim recovery is the reason policyholders invest in insurance, so be sure to hire a firm that knows how to prepare a claim and is working on your behalf. Loss accounting is a specialized craft that comes as a result of experience and expertise with insurance claims. Seeking an independent, third-party valuation of your losses is not only smart business but may be a fiduciary responsibility, especially with a large property and business interruption claim.

Why to Simplify Corporate Structures

With their variety of business strategies and product innovations, financial services organizations often have very complex corporate structures. The mix of regulated operating, distribution, investment, holding and dormant companies – together with various special-purpose vehicles – means that few employees fully know the complexity of an enterprise’s legal entity structure.

Generally, management prefers simplicity and accountability. Accordingly, it typically organizes enterprises into distinct, separately managed, strategic business units (SBUs), which are overlaid on top of the existing legal entity structure, with the SBUs sharing various legal entities. This management approach creates a simplified internal view of financial performance relative to the legal entity structure; however, it often masks the considerable extra work (and therefore potentially avoidable cost) associated with the corporate structure within an organization’s corporate accounting, tax and other back-office functions.

Few organizations start off with a complex corporate structure or seek to achieve one, but a combination of factors can lead to complexity:

  • Growth by acquisition – Entities inherited as part of an acquisition and entities (such as holding companies) formed to make acquisitions;
  • Tax strategies – Entities formed to minimize multi-jurisdictional taxation, preserve the utility of tax attributes (such as basis, losses and credits) or effectively manage product state taxes;
  • Historical regulatory requirements – Companies formed to facilitate various regulated pricing tiers (particularly in property and casualty (P&C) insurance); and,
  • Business line expansion and reorganization – Organic growth into new product areas, alignment within different market segments (sometimes under reinsurance pooling arrangements), discontinued business, etc.

Complexity adds to administrative costs and can slow production of management information. In the capital structure work that PwC performs, we frequently find that a company’s structure is out of date; for example, the original rationale for a tax planning structure is no longer applicable because of a change in law, or a legal entity structure established to facilitate a line of business has survived even though the line of business has not. As another example, an entity that was established before the advent of the entity classification election regime (i.e. “check the box” rule) now may be unnecessary to achieve the intended tax benefits. Accordingly, organizations should examine the costs and benefits of maintaining current structures.

The complexity of corporate structures in financial services is evident in the insurance industry’s use of legal entities. As the table below shows, among P&C and life and health (L&H) insurers, the top 25 insurance groups hold a majority of industry capital (69% in P&C, 58% in L&H). Despite this concentration, there is evidence that inefficiencies exist: There is a high number of dormant entities relative to total legal entities and the number of domiciles some groups are managing. The number of domiciles tends to be five or fewer for most insurers, but in some extreme cases there are as many as 12 domiciles for P&C companies and 31 for L&H companies (primarily because of health maintenance organization (HMO) entities). When factoring in the potential costs (real and opportunity costs) of maintaining unused or underutilized legal entities, the impact on the industry as a whole is very real.

Insurance industry capital is relatively concentrated
Groups ~330 ~250
Legal entities ~2,700 ~1,800
Capital in top 25 groups 69% 58%

But there are indications of inefficiency

Dormant entities 150+ 300+
Fronting entities 500+ 100+
Range of domiciles/groups 1-12 1-31

Source: SNL, PwC Analysis

Legal entity cost

Organizations rightly consider the costs of administering legal entities a normal part of doing business. Such frictional costs vary by organization and entity usage and typically include:

  • Financial reporting costs – Licensed insurance companies require separate annual and quarterly financial statement preparation in their state of domicile. The time spent on statement preparation correlates to complexity. The greater the number of legal entities, the greater the complexity and the higher the risk
    of misstatement.
  • Auditing costs – These costs will vary with the size and complexity of the balance sheet. Again, costs tend to be correlated with complexity (e.g., degree of intercompany transactions, complex reinsurance structures, investments/financial products, etc.).
  • State assessments – Premium or loss-based assessments for a variety of state programs will vary in size relative to the business written in the legal entity. It is important to recognize that minimum assessments also can apply even when business is no longer written on a direct or net basis.
  • Regulatory exams – State regulators conduct both market conduct exams and financial exams of insurance companies domiciled in their respective jurisdictions. Market conduct exams occur on an as-needed basis and relate to examination of operational (sales, underwriting, claims) business practices. Certain domiciles are more challenging than others. Financial exams occur every three to five years, at the insurance company’s expense.
  • Tax – Each legal entity in the structure adds to the company’s overall compliance burden, as insurance companies are required to prepare and file forms with state and federal tax authorities on a periodic basis even when dormant. A company also may be required to respond to periodic inquiries about its activities, or lack thereof, and may be subject to minimum taxes and filing fees. Active operating companies must monitor and manage the interplay of premium tax rates and retaliatory taxes, which arise when states in lower tax jurisdictions increase state taxes to match the level of the domicile state, if it is higher.
  • Management time – Spans all of the above areas. The more complex a legal entity structure, the more time middle management and, in some cases, senior management have to spend on issues related to excess legal entities.

In light of these frictional costs, the expense of administering an overly complex legal entity structure can be considerable. Eliminating redundant or unused entities through merging companies, outright sale of the insurance company (or companies) or clearing out the liabilities and selling a “shell” company can result in significant savings.

Improving access to capital

Moving capital through legal entities can be complicated by regulatory constraints and often involves frictional costs such as sub-optimal tax consequences (e.g., withholding taxes on dividends from a foreign subsidiary and excise taxes on premiums paid to a foreign affiliate). Capital trapped in dormant or underutilized entities will provide sub-optimal returns and therefore serve as a drag on the overall group return on equity. For example, an organization with a 15% corporate required rate of return and a 5% average investment portfolio rate of return has a 10% opportunity cost of maintaining the capital in a redundant legal entity. Accordingly, one of the few positive outcomes of the financial crisis has been insurers’ streamlining their corporate structures to simplify internal access to capital and gain capital efficiency.

One method of improving capital deployment in a dormant or underutilized entity is through merger with a continuing entity. However, before merging a licensed company out of existence, insurers need to consider the marketability of the unwanted entity in terms of the number and location of state licenses, the degree to which the company has gross liabilities, the type of liabilities (e.g., excluding asbestos and environmental), the domicile state, the credit quality of the counterparty backing the reinsurance contract or contracts used to create the shell, etc. In light of the regulatory hurdles and time delays that accompany the obtainment of state licenses, there is a market for selling licensed companies as “shell” companies. The process typically requires transferring insurance liabilities out of the legal entity through indemnity – or preferably assumption – reinsurance. This market has yielded significant value to its customers. That said, it is critical to gain proper restructuring advice before entering into these transactions because undesirable accounting and risk-based capital outcomes can result from poorly structured reinsurance transactions.

Simplifying corporate structure: Opportunities & challenges

Eliminating unnecessary organizational complexity and reducing associated frictional expenses are the main reasons to undertake a corporate simplification program. The benefits of corporate simplification are:

  • Streamlined financial management across a manageable number of entities;
  • Removal of unnecessary frictional costs;
  • Reduced overall state tax burden, leading to competitive advantages in market pricing;
  • Consolidation of entities within favorable state regulatory environments;
  • Identification of alternative capital structures or mechanisms to free trapped capital for the top-tier company to use for other purposes;
  • Generation of capital through the sale of unnecessary licensed companies as “shell” companies.

However, the simplification program does present some challenges:

  • Internal resource constraints may limit design and implementation of the simplification;
  • Regulatory approvals for material changes may prolong implementation;
  • Product filings may need to be updated;
  • Re-domestication of entities may present political or regulatory issues (including perceived or real job losses or transfers, closed block regulatory requirements, etc.) that can delay the process;
  • Changes in legal entity structure can affect near-term business operations and supporting technology platforms. For example, changes in legal entities used by the insurance underwriting organization may require process changes in the distribution channel as new and renewal business is mapped to different entities;
  • Selling or merging active operating companies can also present challenges for management, including: identifying intercompany accounts between merged entities; updating intercompany agreements, such as intercompany reinsurance pooling agreements, to reflect the changes; cleaning up outstanding legal entity accounting reconciliations, if any; re-mapping ledgers for historical data; re-mapping upstream company eliminations; creating and maintaining merged company historical financials for statutory and GAAP/IFRS financial statements; locating and analyzing details of historic tax attributes (such as basis and earnings and profits) and studying qualification for tax-free reorganization; potential reversal of subsidiary surplus impacts from asset purchase/sale transactions within the holding company structure; and potential scrutiny over differing methodologies, if any, used for accounting (e.g., deferred acquisition cost) or actuarial reserve methodologies used by the entities to be merged.

The corporate simplification process

Many large insurance organizations have some level of corporate simplification on their annual to-do list, but the initiative often gets pushed aside because of gaps between corporate and business priorities and available resources. The corporate simplification process requires a champion who can take into account and balance varying points of view, call upon required resources, facilitate project management and authorize access to subject-matter expertise. Moreover, a corporate simplification program must balance corporate (tax, regulatory, governance and financial reporting costs) and business (customer, distribution, products, process and technology) needs and considerations. Depending on the complexity of the organization and underlying challenges, a simplification initiative can take several months to well over a year.

The three stages of such an initiative include:

  1. Assess – The ultimate goal of a corporate simplification process is a streamlined corporate structure that corresponds to business core competencies and strategy. This structure will have an efficient balance of cost, risk, regulatory, tax, capital, governance and operational parameters that aligns business operations with the legal entity structure. In the initial phase of the initiative, representatives from corporate and business areas must come together to review the current use of legal entities and create the desired future organizational structure, as well as take into account the existing corporate environment (rather than what existed in the past). If the simplification effort is part of a broader business unit re-alignment, the assessment and design phase will require a significant commitment of time and effort to redefine the desired business strategy. If the simplification is taking place within a well-defined business unit structure, then the focus can be limited to streamlining and reducing overall cost within the existing business unit strategies.

A complete inventory of legal entities should be created outlining information such as the business use, applicable business unit, domicile, direct and net business written (for insurance companies only), required/minimum capital, actual capital, potential for elimination, and other information as defined by the group. Furthermore, to complete the assessment of the simplification effort, a business impact analysis that includes a premium tax analysis by state domicile and a regulatory domicile analysis should occur at this stage. Companies also need to carefully look at their portfolio of companies to ensure they have the entities they need today and for the near future.

  1. Design – As the plan starts to take shape, the project team must conduct a deeper analysis of accounting, business and technology transition issues. The deliverable will be a proposed road map that:
  • Outlines a streamlined legal entity organization structure with greater capital efficiency and alignment with business strategy;
  • Identifies the proposed combinations/eliminations of insurance and non-insurance entities;
  • Describes the proposed movement of capital (including extraordinary dividends required) and reinsurance transactions to effectuate the change (if applicable); and
  • Establishes a communication plan within a high-level timeline.

This outline of proposed changes must be well vetted internally before the organization approaches regulators, rating agencies and other constituents.

  1. Implement – Once the design is ready, project management and subject-matter expert resource requirements must be confirmed. Program and change management and associated governance structures are critical throughout the planning and implementation phases as the number of work streams, constituents, interdependencies and issues can be substantial for larger-scale simplification programs. Once the team is in place, it must create detailed implementation project plans, identify quick wins, establish an effective communication plan and establish an issue/dependency management process. Communication to all constituents – employees, sales force/agents, regulators, rating agencies and policyholders – is vital in any simplification initiative.

Following the design phase, those entities that have common activities, objectives, operational process or customer segmentation can be merged, which should effectively align business and legal entity structure. The remaining, redundant legal entities should be eliminated, sold as-is or sold as a shell. This final step will result in cost savings and the raising of new capital through the sale of licensed shell companies.

chart 2

Conclusion: Corporate simplification is a priority

In light of the need to be nimble while reducing costs, corporate simplification should be at the top of the corporate to-do list. A well-managed corporate simplification program provides strategic alignment of entities, reduces costs and facilitates more efficient use of capital. The companies that execute an effective corporate simplification process and maintain a commitment to simplification over time will succeed in reducing costs and be able to devote their time and attention to valuable activities.

Decision Dysfunction in Corporate America

Nancy Newbee is the newest trainee for LOCO (Large Old Company). She was hired because she is bright, articulate, well-educated and motivated. She is in her second week of training.

Her orders include: “We’ll teach you all you need to know. Sammy Supervisor will monitor your every action and coordinate your training. Don’t take a step without his clearance. When he’s busy, just read through the procedures manual.”

Nancy is already frustrated by this training process but is committed to following the rules.

Upon arriving at work today, Nancy discovers the kitchen is on fire! As instructed, she rushes to Sammy Supervisor. Interrupting him, she says, “There’s a major problem!”

Sammy is obviously disturbed by this interruption in his routine. “Nancy, my schedule will not allow me to work with you until this afternoon; go back to the conference room and continue studying the procedures.”

“But, Mr. Supervisor, this is a major problem!” Nancy pleads.

“But nothing! I’m busy. We’ll discuss it this afternoon. If it can’t wait, go see the department head,” Sam says.

Nancy rushes to the office of Billy Big and shouts, “Mr. Big, we have a major problem, and Mr. Sam said to see you!” Mr. Big states politely, “I’m busy now …,” all the while wondering why Sam hires these excitable airheads.

“But, Mr. Big, the building…,” Nancy interrupts.

“Nancy, see my secretary for an appointment or call maintenance if it’s a building problem,” Mr. Big says impatiently, thinking, “Where does Sam find these characters?”

Near panic, Nancy calls maintenance. The line is busy. As a last resort, Nancy calls Ruth Radar, the senior secretary in the accounting department. Everyone has told her that Ruth really runs this place. She can get anything done.

“Ruth Radar, may I help you?” is the response on the phone.

“Miss Radar, this is Nancy, the new trainee. The building is on fire! What should I do?” Nancy shouts through her tears.

“Nancy, call 911!” Ruth says calmly.

Of course, this dysfunction is a ridiculous example. Or is it?

Assuming you are the boss, try this eight-question test:

  1. In your business, do you hire the best and brightest and then instruct them not to think, act or do anything during their training except as you tell them to do?
  2. Do you promise training but substitute reading of procedure manuals?
  3. Do you create barriers to communications, interaction and effectiveness by scheduling the new employee’s problems and inquiries to the busy schedules of your other personnel?
  4. Do you and your staff ignore what new employees are saying?
  5. Is the process more important than the result? Does the urgent get in the way of the important?
  6. Do layers of bureaucracy between you, your employees and customers interfere with contact, communications and results?
  7. Is “Ruth Radar” running your shop?
  8. Do you have any fires burning in your office?

If you answered “no” to all of these questions, congratulations!

Now go back and try again. The perfect business would have eight “no” answers, but very few businesses are perfect. If you are like LOCO (a large old company), you might be so far out of touch with your trainees, employees and customers that you won’t hear about a fire until it starts to burn your desk.

Look back at IBM, GM and Sears in the late 1980s. These were kings of their jungles. Yet all nearly burned to the ground. Many thousands of employees were terminated, profits ended and stock values fell. If you would have talked to any of these terminated employees you would have learned that the fire had burned for a long time and that many people had tried to sound the alarm.

Remember the large old insurance companies that are no longer here – Continental, Reliance, etc. Did their independent agents smell the smoke? Did the leadership of these carriers ignore the alarm?

Sam Walton, who had reasonable success in business during his lifetime, once said, “There is only one boss – the customer. Customers can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending their money somewhere else.”

Sam was right. In your business, do you or Nancy have the most direct contact with the customer – the ultimate boss? If Nancy has the most contact, is she adequately trained, motivated and monitored? Is she providing feedback to you? Are you listening?

Take one minute to draw a picture of your organization. Are you, as the boss, at the pinnacle? Are Nancy and her fellow trainees at the base? Is it prudent to have the least experienced personnel closest to the customers?

Your organization was formed to meet the needs of customers. You exist to serve these same customers. Where are these customers in the organizational chart? Did you forget them? How much distance is there between you (as boss) and the customers?

Does this pyramid model facilitate the free flow of information between you and the customers or does it buffer you from the thoughts and feelings of the real boss (the customer)? In your business, is the customer and her problem seen as an interruption of the work or the very reason for your existence?

If your customers voted tomorrow, who would be retained? Who would be fired?

Think about it! Do you dare to ask?