Solvency II: Recalculation of the Transitional Measure on Technical Provisions

For many firms, year-end 2017 will be the first time that they need to recalculate the Transitional Measure on Technical Provisions (TMTP relief), although some firms have already applied and received approval for a recalculation following a material change in their risk profile.

Milliman consultants have experience in recalculating the TMTP relief for a number of clients, performing independent reviews of recalculated TMTP relief, and have provided assistance with the development and review of firms’ recalculation policies.

This update by Milliman’s Oliver GillespieEmma Hutchinson, Marie-Lise Tassoni, and Stuart Reynolds summarises findings from these exercises, along with our own views on different potential approaches to recalculating the TMTP relief and associated key issues and challenges.

Lapses in concentration

A range of factors interact to influence lapse behaviour as it relates to long-term insurance. Yet, this is not typically taken into account directly when setting assumptions. This report by Neil Cantle and Jennifer Smith sets out the methodology and results of Milliman’s research investigation into the use of advanced systems mining techniques to determine how lapse experience for long-term insurance business might change according to the prevailing dynamics within the business and due to uncontrollable external factors.

Judging the appropriateness of the Standard Formula under Solvency II

The Standard Formula (SF) aims to capture the risk that an average European (re)insurance company is exposed to. The SF may not be appropriate for all (re)insurance companies, but the majority of European insurers currently uses it. In this article, Milliman’s Steven Hooghwerff, Sinéad Clarke, and Roel van der Kamp provide a short overview of the SF’s structure. They also present a suggested framework and worked examples, and discusses challenges and pitfalls to be considered.

Annual Milliman survey reveals a staged approach in implementing recent regulatory changes for UL/IUL products

Results from participants in Milliman’s annual comprehensive study of universal life (UL) and indexed universal life (IUL) issues indicate a staggered approach in implementing recent regulatory changes. Principle-based reserves (PBR) may be implemented as early as January 1, 2017, and 27 survey participants reported they expect to implement PBR for all of their UL/IUL products spread over the three-year phase-in period allowed. Resource issues, time needed, financial impact/cost/benefits, clarification/finalization of PBR/IRS regulations, and PBR implementation of other products first were cited as factors impacting the rationale for implementation plans.

Similarly, the earliest effective date for the use of the 2017 Commissioner’s Standard Ordinary (CSO) mortality table was January 1, 2017. The 2017 CSO is the new valuation mortality table to be used in the determination of CRVM, net premium reserves, tax reserves, nonforfeiture values, etc. Twenty-two survey participants reported that they would implement this table for all of their UL/IUL products spread over the three-year phase-in period allowed. Ten participants reported implementation of the 2017 CSO would be product dependent; implementation will be immediate for some products and over the three-year phase-in period for others.

“It’s not surprising that these regulatory changes are not being implemented immediately, given the complexity of the regulations, the potential impact on pricing and the bottom line, and the strain on resources, especially for smaller carriers,” says Sue Saip, consultant in Milliman’s Chicago office.

The 10th annual Milliman study, “Universal Life and Indexed Universal Life Issues”, focuses on current topics relative to universal life with secondary guarantees (ULSG), cash accumulation UL, current assumption UL, and the corresponding indexed UL (IUL) versions. Thirty-two carriers of universal life and indexed universal life products participated in this annual survey.

In addition to PBR and the 2017 CSO information, the survey also indicates that the use of new underwriting approaches is gradually gaining popularity. Scoring models are being used by 11 survey participants to underwrite their UL/IUL policies. Eight of the 11 use these models for fully underwritten policies, one uses them for simplified issue policies, and the final two use them for both fully underwritten and simplified issue business. Eight participants reported using scoring models with automated rules. The types of scoring models used include lab scoring models, credit scoring models, and scoring models relative to motor vehicle records. The survey also revealed that 10 of the 32 participants utilize fluid-less underwriting programs at face amounts where they previously would require fluids.

The study includes detailed information on product and actuarial issues, such as sales, profit measures, target surplus, reserves, risk management, underwriting, product design, compensation, pricing, and illustrations.

The “Universal Life and Indexed Universal Life Issues – Detailed Report” is available for purchase here  or by calling Gina Ritchie at (312) 499-5605.

Emerging risk analytics: Application of advanced analytics to the understanding of emerging risk

This report by Milliman’s Neil Cantle uses advanced machine learning algorithms, such as deep neural networks, to analyse social media conversations about Brexit. The purpose of the study was to examine whether useful information could be extracted from social media in what is effectively real time on a key topic in a political economy.

Milliman analysis indicates majority of single-family homes in FL, TX, LA could see cheaper premiums with private flood insurance

Milliman has announced the results of a first-of-its-kind study to assess the feasibility of a private flood insurance market in several key states across the U.S. The study, which was conducted in collaboration with risk modeling firm KatRisk, set out to model private flood insurance risk and potential premiums for all single-family homes in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana – which combined account for 56% of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in-force nationwide. The study includes all single-family homes in those states, not only those who are currently purchasing flood insurance from the NFIP, and the modeled NFIP premiums do not include the effects of grandfathering. The estimated private insurance premiums were developed using reasonable assumptions selected by Milliman.

Key findings include:

• For all single-family homes, 77% in Florida, 69% in Louisiana, and 92% in Texas could see cheaper premiums with private insurance than with the NFIP.
• In Florida, 44% of homes modeled could see premiums less than one-fifth that of the NFIP, while the same holds true for 42% of homes in Louisiana and 70% of homes in Texas.
• Conversely, private insurance would cost at least double the NFIP premium for 14% of single-family homes in Florida, 21% in Louisiana, and 5% in Texas.
• Across Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) – the high-risk zones in which flood insurance is mandatory – private insurance could offer cheaper premiums than the NFIP for 49% of single-family homes in Florida, 65% in Louisiana, and 77% in Texas.

The catastrophic rainstorms in Louisiana in 2016 are one example of the devastating financial effect flood can have on communities outside mandatory purchase areas. “A thriving private insurance market would provide wider and in many cases less expensive options that could protect more U.S. consumers, expand the awareness of the need for flood insurance, and spread the risk beyond the NFIP.”

To view the complete report including additional findings and critical assumptions, click here.