session 69 pd, pbr implementation - soa · session69: pbr implementation tuesday, may17 2016...

Session 69 PD, PBR Implementation

Moderator:

Jason E. Kehrberg, FSA, MAAA

Presenters: Michael W. Boerner, ASA, MAAA Timothy C. Cardinal, FSA, MAAA Jason E. Kehrberg, FSA, MAAA Leonard Mangini, FSA, MAAA

Session 69: PBR ImplementationTuesday, May 17 2016

Jason KehrbergTim CardinalMike BoernerLeonard Mangini

Anti‐Trust NoticeActive participation in professional meetings is an important aspect of professional education. However, any activity that arguably could be perceived as a restraint of

trade exposes professional actuarial societies and their members to antitrust risk. Accordingly, meeting participants should refrain from any discussion which may provide

the basis for an inference that they agreed to take any action relating to prices, services, production, allocation of markets or any other matter having a market effect.

These discussions should be avoided both at official meetings and informal gatherings and activities. In addition, meeting participants should be sensitive to other

matters that may raise particular antitrust concern: membership restrictions, codes of ethics or other forms of self‐regulation, product standardization or certification.

The following are guidelines the SOA has promulgated as a model of what should be followed at all professional actuarial meetings, informal gatherings and activities:

• DON’T discuss your own, your firm’s, or others’ prices or fees for service, or anything that might affect prices or fees, such as costs, discounts, terms of sale, or

profit margins and DON’T stay at a meeting where any such price talk occurs.

• DON’T make public announcements or statements about your own or your firm’s prices or fees, or those of competitors, at any professional actuarial society

meeting or activity.

• DON’T talk about what other entities or their members or employees plan to do in particular geographic or product markets or with particular customers.

• DO consult with your own legal counsel, the Society of Actuaries, or other professional actuarial society before raising any matter or making any statement that

you think may involve competitively sensitive information.

• DO be alert to improper activities, and don’t participate if you think something is improper.

If you have specific questions, seek guidance from your own legal counsel.

Source: Society of Actuaries Meeting Anti‐Trust Notice

2

Session 69: PBR Implementation

VM‐20 Practice Note UpdateTuesday, May 17 2016

Jason Kehrberg, FSA, MAAAVice President, PolySystems Inc.

The original VM‐20 practice note has been exposed since February 2014• The first and current exposure draft, “Life Principle‐Based Reserves Under VM‐20” is available at the Academy’s website (www.actuary.org)

• Several amendments to VM‐20• More companies have started to calculate VM‐20 to gauge its impact or as part of AG‐38 8D or AG‐48

• The Academy’s Life Principle‐Based Approach Practice Note Work Group began work to revise the draft early 2016 with the goal of exposing the revised draft sometime in the middle of the year

4

Practice note outline

− Summary and Calculation Schematic1. Products Covered2. Available Information on Common Practice3. VM‐20 Calculation Overview4. Net Premium Reserve5. Deterministic Reserve6. Stochastic Reserve7. Stochastic Reserve Exclusion Test8. Deterministic Reserve Exclusion Test9. Differences from Cash Flow Testing10. Performing Work on Other Than the Valuation Date

5

Practice note outline (continued)

11. Starting Assets and Asset Modeling12. Scenarios and Economic Assumptions13. Prudent Estimate Assumptions Overview14. Margins15. Mortality Assumptions16. Premium Assumptions17. Policyholder Behavior Assumptions Other than Premiums18. Expense Assumptions19. Non‐Guaranteed Element Assumptions20. Reinsurance21. Hedging / Derivative Programs

6

LATF has adopted a number of amendments to VM‐20• Policy loans, due premiums, pre‐tax IMF (2, 7, 18)• NPR Clarifications (3, 6)• Direct iteration method for deterministic reserve (4)• Credibility and margins (10, 17, 19)• Stochastic exclusion ratio test clarifications (11, 21)• Small company exemption (13)• Commercial mortgages (15)• Mortality tables (16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)• Underwriting criteria scoring tool (20)

7

Amendments and industry feedback will result in new practice note Q&A• Examples of the types of questions being added to the practice note

• What is the small company exemption? Is it optional? How is it elected? What happens if a company that was once exempt no longer qualifies?

• How is the direct iteration method different from the gross premium valuation method? What are its advantages? Can a company switch between the two methods?

• How can a company determine if their mortality experience is credible?

8

Questions?

Jason Kehrberg, FSA, MAAAVice President, PolySystems [email protected](312) 332‐5670

9

Tim Cardinal, FSA, MAAA, CERA, MBA

May 17, 2016

Resources

Resources: A New Trio

PBA Implementation Guide Revised PBA Implementation: Beginning Tales PBA Implementation: VM‐20 Calculation Examples

Original Guide

Picture of revised Guide cover

focus on processes and foundational infrastructures as a primer for high level planning

What’s new in VM: 11/2015 VM vs. 12/2012 VM Entire Guide revised to reflect 11/2015 language, retains 2013 time

orientation – what’s and implications Case Study 1 completely redone

Revised Guide

Travel Guide Book: 5 Days in Paris and Rome Interests, itineraries, things to doBrowse, jump around and revisit

User Manual: Steps Review Executive Overview Review Case Study Road Map Review Flow Charts Conduct Scoping Exercise Conduct Road Mapping Exercise Construct your Road Map

User Manual

Case Study 3

Flowcharts Product Decision Tree PBA Operational Flow Exclusion Tests Deterministic Exclusion Test Deterministic Reserve and Stochastic Reserve Assumptions (mortality, asset default and spreads, constraint)

Visual Glance

Requirements & Frameworks Product Decision Tree PBA Operational Flow Five Stages Considerations Self‐Assessment

Scoping and Mapping

Organized by Assumption Setting and Inputs Models and Uses Output Governance / Regulatory PBA Strategy / Planning

2013 vs. 2016: implementation changers Experiences. Where participants are in the process Common issues and pain points

Beginning Tales

2013 Operative date ‐ uncertainty Term passed DET → minimum reserve = NPR

2016 Operative date = 1/1/2017 Term fails DET Mitigates benefits of permitting AAT models for SERT Is minimum reserve = NPR or DR ???

AAT Asset Adequacy Testing NPR Net Premium ReserveDET Deterministic Exclusion Test SERT Stochastic Exclusion Ratio TestDR Deterministic Reserve

2013 vs. 2016: Implementation Changers

One word summary: time Beginning Tales, not Concluding Tales 2013 – 2015 activities Assumptions Experience studies Governance Models

Experiences

Setting assumptions Initial model build (to calculate reserves as of valuation date) Placeholders

Projecting VM‐20 modeled reserves Time and resource, more staff Product development

Common pain points Process to set mortality assumptions Underwriting Criteria Score. Credibility by amount rather than count

Process to set asset assumptions Developing margins and in particular on dynamic assumptions Model granularity e.g., individual asset defaults and spreads by weighted average life

Experiences / Where In Implementation?

VM-20 Calculation Examples Some examples adapted from the online Voyager m2Lab PBA

Training courses Mortality assumption Asset defaults and spreads Deterministic Exclusion Test Stochastic Exclusion Ratio Test Term NPR and Deterministic Reserve

Contact InformationTim [email protected]

Questions …


PBR StatusTuesday, May 17 2016

Mike Boerner, ASA, MAAAActuarial Office Director, Texas Dept. of Insurance

Chair: NAIC Life Actuarial (A) Task Force (LATF)NAIC PBR Review (EX) Working Group

PBR Status: Legislation & Operative Date Valuation Manual AmendmentsRegulatory Review

26

Adoption Status Source: NAIC as of 4/26/16

Legislative Session

# StatesPremiumThreshold Percentage

2013-4/11/16 Enacted

43 AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, ID, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WI, WV

76.170%

2016 Introduced 4 AL, MA, MN, PA 12.822%

Total of enacted & introduced

(Goal is 42 states & 75% premium)

47 88.992%

NAIC Substantially Similar Review The PBR Implementation (EX) Task Force adopted the NAIC

support review and recommendation summarized by Kay Noonan, NAIC, on their 5/2/16 call. This recommendation recognizes that the supermajority requirements have been met with the enactment of substantially similar requirements to make the Valuation Manual operative this 1/1/17. Pending the enactment of a particular change to the SVL in

Louisiana this recommendation and review will then be considered for adoption by the NAIC Plenary in early June. Enacting states can then make use of the NAIC determination

as appropriate in making their determination and communication to companies of the 1/1/17 VM operative date.

28

NAIC Spring Meeting Exec/Plenary Adoption of VM Amendments Included:

VM Amendments that implement the 2017 CSO: Provides use of the 2017 CSO for nonforfeiture. Shall be the minimum standard for policies issued on and after

1/1/20. May be used for policies issued prior to 1/1/20 and on or after 1/1/17, otherwise the 2001 CSO is to be used for these policies.

Conditions provided for use of these CSO tables. Preferred version of these tables is not to be used for minimum nonforfeiture.

Provides use of the 2017 CSO for valuation. Shall be the minimum standard for policies issued on and after

1/1/20. May be used for policies issued prior to 1/1/20 and on or after 1/1/17, otherwise the 2001 CSO is the minimum standard for valuation. Use of these CSO tables is subject to conditions.

Amendment providing VM-20 annual default costs based on 2014 data.

29

Status of VM-31 Changes Made in NAIC LATF Calls Prior to the Spring Meeting

LATF Spring meeting report summarized LATF adoptions of VM amendments in calls leading up to the meeting which included adoption of updates to clarify, reorder, and revise VM-31. Key revision to VM-31 is the removal of the tables previously

provided in VM-31. Instead VM-31 is to provide a copy of the PBR Blanks Supplement, Parts 1 & 2. Part 1 in particular was designed by the PBR Blanks (EX) Subgroup to be a replacement for these tables. LATF posted their adoption of the updated VM-31 on its website

but has not forwarded to its parent committee for adoption as other amendments are expected. Any additional amendments to VM-31 are to use the updated

version on the LATF website labeled as, “VM-31 Consolidated Changes 2/25/16”.

30

NAIC LATF Status of SignificantValuation Manual Amendments

VM Amendment Relating to Term Requires Deterministic Reserve (DR) when the VM-20,

Section 3, Term Net Premium Reserve (NPR) is applied. Addresses LATF NPR Drafting Group concerns that the

Term NPR may not be an adequate reserve if it were the only reserve.

Requires the DR by not allowing use of the Deterministic Reserve Exclusion Test.

LATF adopted this amendment on its call on April 28th.

31

NAIC LATF Status of SignificantValuation Manual Amendments

Exposure of VM Amendment to keep Term and ULSG Separate in the Determination of the Minimum Reserve This proposal relates to both “Minimum Reserve

Aggregation” in VM-20, Section 2, and relates to “PBR (Stochastic) Aggregation” in VM-20, Section 7. The terms, “Minimum Reserve Aggregation” and “PBR

Aggregation” are not defined terms in the Valuation Manual but are used here for convenience. More explanation for each of these terms along with issues

that the exposure alleviates is provided on the next few slides followed by a description of the exposure.

32

Minimum Reserve Aggregation

Minimum Reserve Aggregation: VM-20, Section 2 Explanation: Summing corresponding reserves for each

product (NPR, DR, SR), & taking the greatest based on totals. First Issue: Allocation formula to derive minimum reserve

per policy & per product is based on NPR which can allocate the PBR excess to products which did not generate the excess. Second Issue: Certain examples of such aggregation appear

to provide for a reduction in reserves where one product can subsidize another product’s PBR excess reserve as opposed to directly offsetting the other product’s risks.

33

PBR Aggregation

PBR Aggregation: VM-20, Section 7 Explanation: Following the guidance in VM-20, Section 7B3

to group policies together in running the Stochastic Reserve. Comment: Modeling products together may provide

Stochastic Reserve reductions versus modeling separately due to offsetting of risks. Further study may be needed to determine any additional guidance regarding appropriate grouping of policies for this modeling.

34

Summary of Exposure For “Minimum Reserve Aggregation” in VM-20, Section 2, Term

and ULSG must be kept separate from other products in taking their own NPR plus any PBR excess to determine the minimum reserve. For the Stochastic “PBR Aggregation” in VM-20, Section 7, there

are two options exposed for comment where the first is simply to keep term and ULSG separate and the second is to allow term and ULSG to be run together where a separate deterministic run for each product would be used to allocate the stochastic result proportionately to each product. This allows time to develop a more appropriate allocation method

and time to study concerns regarding “Minimum Reserve Aggregation” and any additional guidance that may be needed for “PBR Aggregation”. This proposal is exposed for comment thru April 25th.

35

Other Significant VM Efforts to Monitor There are two VM-G exposures to watch. One provides edits to

VM-G from an American Academy of Actuaries Work Group and the other provides edits to VM-G from the ACLI. Both were exposed for comment thru May 8th. Leonard Mangini will comment more on these in his portion of this presentation. The Life Actuarial (A) Task Force (LATF) is working with ACLI

and others to study and address any appropriate changes to the Term NPR. Efforts include an objective for the Term NPR to provide a reasonable progression of reserve patterns which serve as a floor to PBR. Some of the LATF concerns include zero terminal reserves for 10 year term through issue ages 55 and lower reserves with distortions in the pattern of later duration reserves due to post level term profits. There is an understanding that any adjustments require testing with

the deterministic reserve which takes time. Given this, timing for any appropriate changes is for 2018 valuations.

36

Regulatory ReviewNAIC Actuarial Support

Existing resources – 2 FSAs and 1 near ASA 2016: Adding 2 new FSA positions. Required expertise is

financial modeling, valuation, & financial reporting. Actuarial resources to support states and the Valuation

Analysis (E) Working Group (VAWG). NAIC acquired the GGY Axis modeling software.

37

Regulatory ReviewNAIC Modeling Software Training Strategy Includes: Coding Term, ART, UL, ULSG (12 – 15 products) Coding assets consisting of existing assets or assets to be

purchased with positive cash flows. Coding of new business &/or in-force model records to

generate liability cash flows. Coding all product, asset, & modeling assumptions &

generating economic scenarios. Upon completion of training the goal is to have coded a

standard portfolio that could be used for calibration of company models.

38

Regulatory Review2016 PBR Pilot

12 Participating Companies (names are confidential). All with term products with a few ULSG 12/31/15 valuation date assuming PBR in place then and for several years of

issue. Commences mid-April for four months. Deliverables:

1. Application of VM-20 (Using current Term NPR)2. Confidential VM-31 PBR Report (Consolidated version on LATF

website)3. PBR Blanks Supplement (As adopted by the PBR Review (EX)

Working Group) Regulators will review confidential VM-31 PBR Report from September thru

November with the domestic state and NAIC support using review procedures to date.

39

Regulatory Review2016 PBR Pilot

The Pilot is expected to provide benefits for both participating companies and regulators with a focus on the process versus the numbers.

In particular the Pilot will help NAIC support and regulators consider further development of review procedures and tools to support regulators in a consistent in depth review of PBR across states. The Pilot will further considerations regarding support for regulators which includes: NAIC acquisition of modeling software which will be tested during

the Pilot along with a consideration for an approach for model validation.

Disclosure in the PBR Blanks Supplement. Information in the confidential VM-31 PBR Report. Ongoing development of Financial Examination/Analysis procedures. Valuation Analysis (E) Working Group (VAWG) procedures.

40

PBR Survey & Training The SOA and NAIC are working for a PBR Survey to

companies focused on their planned use of PBR for 2017. This is a simplified survey that should take no longer than one hour to complete. The survey is planned to be sent out around July 1st. Survey responses will help regulators and the NAIC to gauge PBR resource needs for 2017. The American Academy of Actuaries is holding PBR

intensive training & case studies (Called PBR Boot Camp) on June 6th thru the 8th. Another intensive training is planned for September 21st as this one was completely filled at the beginning of early registration.

41


Governance and ImplementationTuesday, May 17 2016

Leonard Mangini, FSA, FRM, MAAAPresident, Mangini Actuarial and Risk Advisory LLC

Liability Disclaimer, Copyright, Use of SlidesAlthough I’ve attempted to capture the letter and spirit of the Valuation Manual, Code of Conduct, ASOPs, and Qualificationstandards faithfully‐ you have a personal professional duty to familiarize yourself with the original source material and applyprofessional judgment as to its specific application to your own work and those working under your direction as you performcovered Actuarial Services. The nature of your work, and other professional designations you hold, may require you to bebound by additional professional requirements from other organizations as well.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting,legal, tax, or other professional advice, nor is it an Actuarial Opinion by Leonard Mangini, or Mangini Actuarial and RiskAdvisory LLC. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice. The views expressed by the presenters are not necessarily thoseof Mangini Actuarial and Risk Advisory LLC.

Much of the original source material on VM‐20/PBR and Professionalism is copyrighted material of the American Academy ofActuaries, Society of Actuaries, or National Association of Insurance Commissioners. This presentation paraphrases these foreducational purposes to capture the intent of the regulations and standards of practice or results of SOA research, and everyattempt has been made to identify and cite original sources.

These slides may NOT be copied, redistributed, or otherwise furnished to any party without prior written consent of ManginiActuarial and Risk Advisory LLC other than as required to comply with an audit of the attendee’s annual CPE compliance.

43

Today’s Topics‐ Governance and Implementation

• Flexibility Requires New Governance‐ Guidance• Academy APF: VM Governance Roles/Responsibilities Changing• VM‐G: Board and Senior Management• VM‐G: Qualified and Appointed Actuaries• VM‐30: Changes in AOMR, “Reliance”• Model Audit Rule‐ Reporting Requirements

SOA Session 69 Mangini Actuarial and Risk Advisory LLC May 17, 2016

44

Flexibility Requires Governance: VM‐G as GuidanceAs written, responsibility for actuarial/financial assumptions with Company

As written, Guidance, not create new duties‐ just clarify existing duties

VM Principle align ERM/ORSA context natural roles of Board, Management, Staff

• PBR Assumptions, Methods, Models consistent with ERM

• Board: Oversight

• Management: Inform Board/Control

• One or More Qualified Actuaries (QA) Calculations, Appointed Actuary (AA) Opines

VM‐G Definitions:

• Board: Operating Insurer Level

• Senior Management (SM): Highest Ranking Officer for Profit/Risk/Reporting

• VM specifically includes CEO, CFO, Chief Actuary, CRO as part of SM


45

VM‐G: Board GuidanceBoard‐ Has Oversight and Decision Role

Board‐ Establishes Processes:• Receive and Review Reports on Internal Controls• Interactions with Management to Resolve Issues• Take Action‐> Ensure Ability to Rely on PBR Valuation Function

Board‐ General Oversight:• Senior Management Processes to Correct Material Weakness Internal Controls• Infrastructure Implement/Oversee PBR‐ Policies, Procedures, Controls, Resources• Documented Active Board Review‐ in Board Minutes


46

VM‐G: Senior Management‐ GuidanceSenior Management‐ Oversight and Process Role:• Adequate Infrastructure to Implement PBR• Review PBR Assumptions, Methods, Models• Consistency with Other Company Risk Assessment• Consistency with ERM Tolerances, Mitigation, Emerging Experience• Review and Address Material issues

Other Senior Management Responsibilities• Internal Controls that PBR Captures all Material Risks• Quality Implementation‐ Resources, Reserve Adequacy, Validate‐ Data, Assumptions, Models• Annual Board Report: Infrastructure, Valuation Risks, PBR Conservatism, SM Quality• Formal Certification of Effectiveness Required by SVL


47

Academy APF: Changes to Requirement for QA

Responsibility formally assigned to one or more QA‐ Creating Duties• Overseeing PBR Valuation

• Reviewing and Approving Assumptions, Internal Standards and Controls

• Disclosing Issues to External Audit and Regulators

• Preparing PBR Actuarial Report


48

VM‐G: Qualified and Appointed Actuaries

Discuss Implementation Implications of New Duties/Responsibilities


49

VM‐30, PBR ASOP: Changes in AOMR, “Reliances”

Scope and Qualifications• Opinions Issued on or after VM operative‐ i.e. impacts 12/31/2016 AOMR!• One Opinion for PBR /on‐PBR Business‐ AA must be familiar w/398 page VM

Significant Changes:• Inconclusive Opinion• Relying on Others• RAAIS‐ due 4/1/YY+1, only to domicile, others on request

PBR ASOP:• Detailed Static and Dynamic Model Validation


50

Model Audit Rule‐ Reporting Requirements

Model Audit Rule (MAR) Legislation‐ Effective 1/1/2010• Detailed Requirements‐ Controls, Reporting on Controls for Statutory Accounting• Section 17: $500 Million Threshold on Report on Controls• Must Report Material Weaknesses to Domicile‐ 60 Days of Audited Financials• Does NOT prescribe HOW Management Reviews/Evaluates Controls• QA inserted into this reporting requirement framework if Academy APF Adopted

Resources: NAIC Implementation Guide, Academy Practice Note• Implementation Guide‐ Clarifies MAR Content, Does Not Change Requirements• Practice Note‐ Guidance


51

Questions?

Leonard Mangini, FSA, FRM, FALU, MAAAPresident , Mangini Actuarial and Risk Advisory LLC [email protected](516) 418‐2549

52

session 69 pd, pbr implementation - soa · session69: pbr implementation tuesday, may17 2016...

Documents