Insurers and the financial crisis of 2007-2008 & more recent performance
The life insurance industry performed well while the stock markets and the economy performed
well during the mid 2000s. As the crisis began insurers experienced losses on mortgage-backed
securities, commercial loans, particularly commercial real estate, and on corporate bonds. With
dropping equity markets, insurers also collected lower fees on their variable annuity products
which are largely equity based. This means that insurers with large amounts of separate account
activity had more extensive losses than other insurers. The very low interest rate environment
meant that insurers could not lower crediting rates on new policies. This encouraged existing
policyholders to surrender their policies if they were already at the minimum crediting rate.
There were also large losses on common and preferred stock holdings in their own investments.
The result was very large profit declines in 2008 (over 50% declines from 2007) and continuing
poor conditions in 2009 on more losses on investments. AIG received government assistance
worth $127 billion. The breakdown consisted of $45 billion from TARP, $77 billion to buy
collateralized debt and mortgage backed securities and a $44 billion bridge loan. Hartford
Financial Services Group, Prudential Financial, Lincoln National and Allstate all received TARP
funds.
Industry conditions improved in 2010 through 2012. In 2012 premium income stopped falling,
net income reaching $40.9 billion, up from $28 billion in 2010. Low interest rates have
compressed spreads and hurt sales of interest bearing products such as annuities however. In
2013, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) designated AIG, Metlife and Prudential
as systemically important non-banks. This is likely to lead to higher capital requirements and
lower profitability rates as well as additional regulations on some of their non-traditional
business lines such as credit default swaps.
c. Regulation
The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 left regulation of life insurers up to individual states.
Chartering is entirely at the state level and different states may allow different activities. The
National Association of Insurance Companies (NAIC) has created a national examination system
used by state regulators to examine insurers. There was a bill before Congress as early as 2004
to introduce federal oversight of both life and P&C insurers. During the financial crisis Congress
considered adding a federal regulator of the insurance industry, but left regulation to the states.
However the Dodd-Frank bill did create the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) that reports to
Congress and the President on the insurance industry. Regulators are supposed to identify
systemic risks arising from insurers, monitor international insurance events, eliminate state
regulatory gaps and encourage offering insurance to underserved segments.
The industry wants to allow markets to set insurance prices. Currently, states regulate the
premiums and probably do not update rates as frequently as changing conditions warrant. The
industry also wants a dual regulatory system at the state and federal level so that they can choose
their regulator.
In 2004 Conseco was accused of providing special investment privileges to large investors that
were denied to small investors. Conseco allegedly allowed certain important clients to shift
funds between variable annuities while limiting similar attempts to move funds by smaller
investors.