Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Contents
Overview
Definitions and practices
Impact of EV reporting bases on the business
Overview
Overview
Asian Embedded value results
Overview
How did we get here?
Why MCEV?
European
Embedded Value
(EEV)
Traditional
Embedded Value
(TEV)
Introduced in May
2004 by the CFO
Forum
Market
consistent
Embedded
Value
Increase in
transparency for
investors
Improve
consistency of
information
reported
A shareholders
perspective on
value
A market consistent
approach to
financial risk
(MCEV)
Introduced in June
2008 by the CFO
Forum(*)
Overview
A trend toward MCEV reporting globally?
In accordance with VIGs goal of continually improving the GEV reporting, the methodology
has changed to a Market Consistent Embedded Value (MCEV) for the first time.
Vienna Insurance Group Supplementary information on the Group Embedded Value Results
MCEV
12
(MC)EEV
12
13
Vienna
Insuranc
e Group
14
14
Generali
Achmea
12
11
15
11
EEV
2010
2011
2012
2013
Source: 2011, 2012 and 2013 Milliman EV publication based on a sample of 27 companies
6
Overview
A dominating TEV framework in Asia ?
Group Domicile
Asian MNC
European MNC
North American MNC
China
Hong Kong
India
South Korea
Taiwan
Thailand
Total
TEV
2
1
6
1
1
4
6
2
23
EEV
4
1
5
IEV
2
2
MCEV
3
1
4
Total
2
7
1
6
1
5
4
6
2
34
Asian MNCs and domestic insurers outside of India tend to report on a TEV basis,
while European and Japanese insurers favour EEV or MCEV reporting.
Apart from European MNCs and Japanese insurers, the only insurers operating in
Asia reporting EEV, IEV, or MCEV are Indian insurers. However, none of the Indian
insurers reporting EEV/IEV/MCEV currently presents externally reviewed EV results
to the extent specified in the disclosure requirements of the EEV, IEV, or MCEV
principles.
7
Overview
A dominating TEV framework in Asia ?
Some of the key multinational companies in the region
EV Reporting basis
TEV
EEV
TEV
TEV
China
MCEV
India
Hong
Kong
Thailand Philippines
EEV / MCEV
TEV/IEV(*)
TEV
Indonesia
Singapore
EEV / MCEV
(*) IEV: Indian Embedded Value
Embedded value
reporting generates
a mixed response
from equity
analysts. This might
have something to
do with the
terminology
VIF
10
Present
value of
future
profits
(PVFP)
Required
capital
Free
surplus
Cost of
capital
Expense
overrun
Value of
in force
(VIF)
Adjusted
net
worth
(ANW)
11
Required capital
Principle 5: Required capital is the market value of any
assets, attributed to the covered business over and above
that required to back liabilities for covered business, whose
distribution to shareholders is restricted
12
Illustration
(+) Free surplus
(+) VIF
(=) MCEV
100
90
1
13
TVOG
Cost of
capital
(CoC)
EEV
Projection of future profits using
real-world investment return
assumptions, discounted using
a curve based on risk-free
rates, adjusted using a risk
margin which reflects any risks
not allowed for elsewhere in the
valuation.
Mandatory calculation using
stochastic models for material
guarantees.
Mandatory, calculated as the
difference between required
capital held at calculation date
and the present value of the
projected releases of the
required capital, allowing for
future investment return on that
capital.
Disclosed as part of required
capital.
MCEV
Projection of future profits using
market-consistent risk-neutral
investment return assumptions,
discounted using a curve based
on risk-free rates.
Discount rates can be adjusted
to include an illiquidity premium.
Consistent with PVFP
methodology, market-consistent
risk-neutral calculation using
stochastic models.
14
EEV
MCEV
A bottom-up approach is
mandatary, and the curve is
typically on swap rates with
adjustments for illiquidity and
risk margin.
A risk-neutral approach is
typically used, where assets are
assumed to earn returns based
on a risk-free curve.
Investme
nt return
Expenses
15
Liquidity premium
Extrapolation
16
Liquidity premium
Extrapolation
Expected
cost of
defaults
of the
issuer
Risk due to
the un
expected
cost of
defaults Other risks
linked to
the
illiquidity
of the
asset
Liquidity premium
17
Liquidity premium
Extrapolation
Model fits
input prices
Extrapolation
towards Ultimate
Forward Rate
(UFR)
18
Financial
options and
guarantees
Stochastic
techniques
Economic
assumptions
internally
consistent
and in line
with market
Stochastic valuation
Participating product
based on an asset
share process
Deterministic valuation
(2 stochastic scenarios)
IR
Investment
return (IR)
2.5%
2.5%
Stochastic
actuarial
model
Dividend
payout
Dividend
payout
Scen1
Scen2
100
100
70
70
70
10
20
20
20
Profit
20
14
Premiums (+)
Asymmetry in the
impact on the
distributable
earnings
Mean
17
Deterministic
100
20
12
Profit
20
20
Source: Lifenet European Embedded Value for the first-half year ended September 20,2012
21
Source: Lifenet European Embedded Value for the first-half year ended September 20,2012
22
23
Impact on profitability
The EEV / MCEV spectrum in Asia
EEV
In-betweeners
MCEV
24
Impact on profitability
Illustration Universal life sold in Singapore
Illustration
60000
50000
40000
TEV basis
MCEV Basis
30000
20000
10000
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
-10000
-20000
TEV Basis
MCEV basis
Underwriting
profit at outset
due surrender
value being less
than account
value
Stability where
interest rates and
crediting rates are
similar between the
products
25
Impact on profitability
Illustration Universal life sold in Singapore
Illustration
TEV Results
In USD
MCEV Results
97,634
TVFOG
Cost of Capital
Cost of non-hedgeable risk
RDR @ 5.75%
RDR @ 6.75%
RDR @ 7.75%
93,092
86,150
(21,469)
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
(34,552)
(42,560)
(48,052)
(51,451)
81,089
N.A
N.A
N.A
VNB
24,714
58,541
43,590
33,037
44.9%
106.4%
79.3%
60.1%
20.4%
Payback period
3 years
5.0%
4.5%
Yield Curves
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MCEV - Interest Rate
TEV - Investment Return
10
11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MCEV - 10 year forward rate
TEV - Crediting Rate
20
21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
MCEV - Crediting Rate
29
30
26
Impact on business
Moving to MCEV
Impact on business
Moving to MCEV
28
The primary advantage that EEV and MCEV have over TEV is the greater
standardisation of assumptions, methodologies, and disclosures, leading to better
comparability from an investors viewpoint.
However, the same standardisation can lead to a relative loss of EV being a
reflection of managements viewpoint of future potential, e.g., future investment
returns assumptions in MCEV reporting.
Insurers reporting on an EEV or MCEV basis will typically experience greater
volatility in EV results, especially if a market-consistent basis is used. This can
complicate reporting and investor disclosures and is one of the reasons often cited
by industry insiders as to why some companies have not yet moved from TEV to
EEV or MCEV.
Another key reason put forward is the increased capabilities required to
implement EEV or MCEV. For example, the implementation of TVOG calculations
requires the use of stochastic models to value embedded policy options and
guarantees.
29
Thank you!
Q&A session
Disclaimer
This presentation is intended solely for educational purposes and
presents information of a general nature. It is not intended to
guide or determine any specific individual situation and persons
should consult qualified professionals before taking specific
actions. Neither the presenters, nor the presenters employer,
shall have any responsibility or liability to any person or entity
with respect to damages alleged to have been caused directly or
indirectly by the content of this presentation.
Contact information
Clement Bonnet
Consulting Actuary
+852 2152 3287 ( office )
+852 9867 0776 ( mobile)
Email: clement.bonnet@milliman.com