Targeted improvements to the accounting for long-duration contracts

Similar documents
FASB Makes Targeted Improvements to the Accounting for Certain Long- Duration Insurance Contracts

FASB Proposes Targeted Improvements for Long-Duration Insurance Contracts

IASA Conference US GAAP Technical Update. Deloitte & Touche LLP September 14, 2016

The role of an actuary in a Policy Administration System implementation

Observations From a Review of Public Filings by Early Adopters of the New Revenue Standard

Effects of the New Revenue Standard: Observations From a Review of First- Quarter 2018 Public Filings by Power and Utilities Companies

FASB Targeted Improvements

The New Revenue Standard State of the Industry and Prevailing Approaches for Adoption Where are we today and what s to come?

IFRS17 Implementation A new reporting framework comes with significant challenges

Questions to EFRAG TEG 3 Do EFRAG TEG members have comments on the comparison between US GAAP requirements for insurance and IFRS 17?

New Guidance for Long-Duration Insurance Contracts

The next step forward Can one actuarial system do it all?

Long-duration contracts

Applying the new revenue recognition standard

IFRS 4 Phase II Operational impacts

GAAP and SEC Updates. Ed Chanda John Snoble

Financial Reporting for Taxes Current Developments

Session 67, Implementing FASB s Targeted Improvements: Short Duration Contracts Disclosures and Beyond. Moderator: Eve Simone Pastor

FASB's new credit impairment model: At a loss for what to do The Dbriefs Financial Executives series

June 30, Technical Director Financial Accounting Standards Board 401 Merritt 7 PO Box 5116 Norwalk, CT Dear Ms.

Power & Utilities Spotlight Generating a Discussion About the FASB s New Revenue Standard

Record ID:

Unlocking the potential of Finance for insurers

STAT / GAAP Update. April 26, 2018

Revenue Recognition: FASB s New Standard Is No Longer Near It s Here 2017 Engineering and Construction Conference

Media & Entertainment Spotlight Navigating the New Revenue Standard

Using Solvency II to implement IFRS 17

ASC 606 Is Here How Do Your Revenue Disclosures Stack Up?

Joint Project Watch. IASB/FASB joint projects from an IFRS perspective. December 2011

Session 73 PD, Predictive Modeling for the Marketing Actuary. Moderator: Maria Patricia Marcelo Arellano, FSA, CERA, MAAA

Transition to the new revenue standard

by Joe DiLeo and Ermir Berberi, Deloitte & Touche LLP

FASB Proposes Targeted Improvements to Hedge Accounting Relief Is Coming. Heads Up September 14, 2016 Volume 23, Issue 25. In This Issue.

Session 30, Latest GAAP Developments/Hot Topics in GAAP Reporting. Moderator: Thomas Q Chamberlain, ASA, MAAA. Presenter:

FASB Simplifies the Accounting for Share-Based Payment Arrangements With Nonemployees

Company: Disclosure Requirements for Insurance Entities GAAP Balance Sheet Date: December 31, 2017

FASB Proposes Improvements to the Accounting for Share-Based Payment Arrangements With Nonemployees

FASB Insurance Contracts

December 14, Technical Director Financial Accounting Standards Board 401 Merritt 7, PO Box 5116 Norwalk, CT

Revenue Recognition: A Comprehensive Update on the Joint Project

Joint Regional Seminar Financial Reporting Development. U.S. GAAP and SOX 404

Article from: Taxing Times. May 2011 Volume 7 Issue 2

Quarterly accounting roundup: An update on Q important developments The Dbriefs Financial Reporting series

Financial Reporting Considerations Related to High Court of Justice Ruling on Equalization of U.K. Pension Benefits

Accounting Update: ASU Charles Lenz, Perr & Knight Sean Nakamura, Accuity LLP Gordon Tom, KMH LLP

Voya Financial, Inc.

Heads Up. One Model, Two Models, Red Model, Blue Model FASB Issues Exposure Draft on Insurance Contracts. In This Issue: Scope

IASB Projects A pocketbook guide. As at 31 March 2013

Actuaries and the Art of Communication. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Session 79 PD, FASB Targeted Improvements and IFRS 17. Moderator: Kyle Baxter Stolarz, FSA, MAAA

Life Sciences Spotlight Effectively Treating the Impacts of the Converged Revenue Recognition Model

An Impact Analysis of Proposed Targeted Improvements

Credit impairment under ASC 326

Session 111 PD, GAAP Long Durational Contracts and Short Durational Contracts. Moderator/Presenter: Lo Linda Chow, FSA, MAAA

IFRS Insights Achieving a global standard

GAAP Insurance Contracts Project - Life

Accounting for Profits Followed by Losses in Long-Duration Contracts Practice Note

IASA Texas Chapter. Summer Conference Insurance Accounting Update July 29, 2016

Future GAAP. Doug Van Dam, FSA, MAAA Principal Consultant msg global solutions, Inc.

FASB Begins to Address Long- Duration Insurance Contracts

Briefing on IASB TRG papers for 2 May meeting

IFRS4 Phase 2 OVERVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

Session 51 TS, Hot Topics in GAAP Reporting. Moderator: Thomas Q. Chamberlain, ASA, MAAA

Swiss Reinsurance Company Consolidated 2015 Annual Report

Year-End Update From the SEC, PCAOB and FASB. January 19, 2016

Summary of Key Changes

IFRS 17: recent developments and main implications

Framework. by Stuart Moss and Tim Kolber, Deloitte & Touche LLP

Application of ASU to the Sale of Trade Receivables to Multi-Seller Commercial Paper Conduit Structures

Financial Reporting Considerations Related to Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits

Practical insights on implementing IFRS 9 and CECL

Getting up to speed with IFRS 17 for insurance contracts. Implications for Malaysian insurers. Volume 5 - Issue 3-19 June 2017

Defining Issues. FASB Issues Two More Simplification Exposure Drafts. October 2014, No Key Facts. Key Impacts

Revenue from contracts with customers (ASC 606)

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Comment Letter No. 29. December 15, 2016

IASB Projects A pocketbook guide. As at 31 December 2011

XBRL and Accounting Update. Presented by Avi Alpert

Year End GAAP Update. Erin Murphy Ernst & Young

World Bank / IFC Global Insurance Conference. Challenging aspects of Solvency II and the Own Risk Solvency Assessment (ORSA)

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Update Life

Technical Line FASB final guidance

IASB Exposure Draft Insurance Contracts

Hedge accounting: Simplifying the accounting for hedging activities

Aerospace & Defense Spotlight The Converged Revenue Recognition Model Has Landed

Are You IFRS Ready? Frank Brod Corporate Vice President, Finance & Administration Chief Accounting Officer Microsoft Corporation

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Principle Based Reserves Ohio Chapter IASA. November 21, 2016 Columbus, OH

Swiss Reinsurance Company Consolidated 2014 Annual Report

Proposed Statement of Financial Accounting Standards

The Financial Reporter

Swiss Reinsurance Company Consolidated Annual Report 2017

Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) for Mortgage Banking

Defining Issues. Revenue from Contracts with Customers. June 2014, No

New Disclosures for Insurance Contracts

by Rob Morris and Abhinetri Velanand, Deloitte & Touche LLP

Swiss Reinsurance Company Consolidated Annual Report 2018

A Roadmap to Pushdown Accounting

EY IFRS 16 leases survey. March 2018

IFRS Insurance Contracts. The state of play or, what is really going on?

Transcription:

Targeted improvements to the accounting for long-duration contracts The 1-2-3s of the implementation journey In August 2018, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update 2018-12 (the ASU ), amending the accounting model under US GAAP for certain long-duration insurance contracts and requiring insurers to provide additional disclosures in annual and interim reporting periods. ASU 2018-12 introduces new reporting complexities and will require more integration of finance and actuarial teams across processes and systems. Meeting the standard will be a challenging multiyear effort, but as with any major change, the ASU presents opportunities to achieve business goals and improvements. Insurers should consider the relative merits of minimum viable compliance versus a more strategic implementation that delivers value to the organization over and above meeting mandatory requirements. The FASB believes that the ASU s targeted improvements will provide more timely and useful information to financial statement users in addition to simplifying how insurers apply certain aspects of the accounting model for some long-duration contracts. Specifically, the board believes the changes will result in the following improvements: 1 Contents Four key changes from current guidance...3 Five areas your ASU 2018-12 implementation preparation should focus on...4 Three ways your organization may need to change...5 Four opportunities to add value with ASU 2018 12...6 Where to start your journey...7 1. FASB In Focus: issued by insurance companies, https://www.fasb.org/cs/contentserver?c=fasbcontent_c&cid=1176171063168&d=&pagename=fasb%2ffasbcontent_c%2fgeneralcontentdisplay

A more current measure of the insurance liability. The liability for future policy benefits for traditional and limited-payment contracts will be regularly refined for actual experience and updated future assumptions. Also, the liability will be discounted at an uppermedium-grade (low-credit-risk) fixed-income instrument yield that reflects the characteristics of the liability rather than the invested assets supporting the liability. A more uniform and current measure of market-based options or guarantees. Market risk benefits will be measured at fair value, with the effect of changes in the insurance entity s credit risk recognized in other comprehensive income. Simplified amortization of deferred acquisition costs. Deferred acquisition costs will be amortized on a constant-level basis over the expected life of the contract. As a result, the expense pattern will be more easily predictable and will no longer fluctuate in tandem with an insurance company s investment or underwriting performance. Also, deferred acquisition costs will not be subject to impairment testing; instead, deferred costs will be amortized as long as the related contracts remain outstanding. Enhanced disclosures. Several new disclosures will be required, including liability rollforwards and information about significant inputs, judgments, assumptions, and methods used in measurement. Key dates Public company transition date: January 1, 2019 Public company effective date: January 1, 2021 Organizations should begin preparing for implementation now. For public entities, ASU 2018-12 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, including interim periods therein. Nonpublic entities must adopt in fiscal years beginning after December 31, 2021, and in interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022. With a transition date of January 1, 2019, the window is quickly closing for public entities to verify they are collecting sufficient data for transition. 2

Four key changes from current guidance 1. Assumptions While ASU 2018-12 retains certain elements of the net premium reserving model applied under current US GAAP, the amendments change several aspects of how an insurer will measure the liability for future policy benefits. These include the nature of cash flow and discount rate assumptions, the timing of assumption updates, and how insurers will account for updated assumptions. Under the new standard, an insurer must use a current discount rate that (1) is based upon yield of an uppermedium-grade (low-credit-risk) fixed-income instrument and (2) reflects the duration characteristics of the liability. 2 This contrasts with the existing guidance that prescribes a rate based on the insurer s estimate (at inception of the contract) of the anticipated investment yield on the underlying asset portfolio over the life of that contract. Additionally, we no longer expect that a premium for adverse deviation (PAD) will be added to the cash flow assumptions going forward. The standard also requires insurers to review and update cash flow assumptions used to measure the liability for future policy benefits at least annually, with more frequent (i.e., interim period) updates required when evidence suggests that additional revisions are warranted. These assumptions should represent current estimates and should not include a provision for adverse deviation. An insurer may also make an entity-wide election to lock in its expense assumption(s) at contract inception and not update for subsequent cash flow changes. When cash flow assumptions are updated, a revised net premium ratio will be calculated using actual historical experience, the updated future period cash flow assumptions, and the discount rate applied at inception. This net premium ratio will then be used to determine the revised liability as of the balance sheet date, with the difference reflected in current period earnings. At the transition date, and on an ongoing basis, the computation of the liability for future policy benefits contracts in force at the transition date must be aggregated into quarterly or annual groups on the basis of original contract issue date (the acquisition date is considered the original contract issue date for acquired contracts, inclusive of reinsurance). 2. Deferred acquisition costs (DAC) Although ASU 2018-12 does not change the capitalization of acquisition costs, it does change the manner and timing of DAC amortization for all long-duration contracts. Under ASC 944, insurers calculate DAC at a seriatim or cohort level and may use different amortization methods based on the product type. Conversely, the ASU requires DAC to instead be amortized on a constant-level basis either on an individual contract basis or on a grouped contract basis over the expected term of the related contract(s). 3 While the ASU does not specify the level of aggregation insurers should apply, it does specify that entities that group contracts should use groupings and related assumptions consistent with those used to determine the liability for future policy benefits. 3. Market risk benefits The ASU establishes new accounting requirements for certain contracts or contract features that provide protection to the holder from capital market risk and expose the insurance entity to other-than-nominal capital market risk. Referred to as market risk benefits, these features are currently accounted for using different methodologies with some (e.g., guaranteed minimum death benefits) recognized as insurance contracts under ASC 944 and others (e.g., guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits) accounted for as embedded derivatives under ASC 815. However, the ASU changes this accounting for market risk benefits by establishing a single measurement model with the benefits reported at fair value. Changes in fair value will generally flow through income, except for any portion attributable to insurers credit risk that will be reported as other comprehensive income. 4. Disclosures To achieve the FASB s objective of targeted improvements, the ASU enhances the disclosures that insurers must provide to allow users to understand the amount, timing, and uncertainty of future cash flows arising from the [insurance] liabilities. 4 Year-to-date disaggregated tabular rollforwards are required for liability for future policy benefits, the liability for policyholders account balances, market risk benefits, and unamortized DAC, among others. To achieve compliance with these disclosure requirements, insurers will need to evaluate the aggregation methodology applied to product portfolios to ensure useful information is not obscured by the inclusion of a large amount of insignificant detail or by the aggregation of items that have significantly different characteristics. 5 2. FASB, Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-12, Financial Services Insurance (Topic 944): Targeted Improvements to the Accounting for Long-Duration Contracts, August 2018, https://www.fasb.org/jsp/fasb/document_c/documentpage?cid=1176171066930&accepteddisclaimer=true. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid.. 3

Five areas your ASU 2018-12 implementation preparation should focus on 1. Determine the right transition approach. The FASB provided the following two methods for transition: Modified retrospective application as of the transition date, done by assuming the contract was issued at the transition date and pivoting on that recorded liability Optional retrospective application to contract origination, with limitations; actual data experience must be used across the entire entity, by contract year 2. Capture the right data, including: Discount rate applied at contract inception and each quarter/annum going forward Cash flow assumptions for each contract or contract grouping back to the transition date, if modified retroactive adoption or contract issue date, if retroactive adoption, and each update going forward The sufficient disaggregation of the change in the business each quarter to produce the disaggregated tabular rollforward disclosures The anticipated or implied ascribed fee for each market risk benefit The data availability and how far back in time you can go 3. Gather the right resources. Make sure all data and control requirements for accounting, finance, and actuarial are provided to IT. 4. Acquire talent and expertise to execute the transition. 5. Educate investors with new profit patterns and tell a new story. 4

Three ways your organization may need to change ASU 2018-12 not only introduces new reporting complexities, it requires more integration between finance and actuarial processes and data systems. Over the course of this two-plus year implementation process, your organization will likely need to integrate finance, risk, and actuarial systems, while making changes within each department to prepare for the new standard. Finance and accounting changes Update account mapping of financial information, including significantly more extensive disclosure requirements Redesign processes for reconciliations, controls, and workflow automation Restructure G/L posting logic to accommodate new accounts and transactions Ensure the reporting system can support additional data volume from increased disclosure and presentation requirements Reassess tax reporting Actuarial changes Modifications to existing code libraries for actuarial models New actuarial valuation platforms for fair value calculations and updated DAC amortization methods More robust assumption setting and experience analysis processes to support annual reviews and updates of cash flow assumptions for liability of future policy benefits New processes, calculations, and analytics for retrospective unlocking IT implications Organizations should not underestimate the complexity or cost of data systems integration across financial, actuarial, and other IT architecture for ASU 2018-12 implementation. To help limit unnecessary spending, lower risk, and optimize the future state of your data systems, your organization should: Look for opportunities to leverage existing models and transformation initiatives Use software integration for overlapping functionality Include emerging standards from FASB, NAIC, and IFRS, as applicable, in your gap analysis of existing platforms Evaluate the accounting requirements with business unit owners not just in policy Assess internal control framework and governance processes Perform deep-dive operational and financial impact analysis understand what the new numbers will look like Coordinate efforts between other in-flight programs within actuarial, finance, and IT to plan for interdependencies Keys to a successful implementation Evaluate data quality and potential modeling capability gaps this standard is far more than a shift in debits and credits Get to know your peers and counterparts understand what others in the marketplace are doing when implementing this principles-based standard Engage and educate key stakeholders includes board members and executives Consider the impact to your period-end close process, and assess whether that may lead to operating model changes Source: Deloitte LLP 5

Four opportunities to add value with ASU 2018-12 1. Smart compliance ASU 2018-12 offers you the opportunity to approach implementation from the perspective of smart compliance and provides two ways to add value: Build incremental process and technology components to achieve minimum viable compliance, thereby helping lower implementation costs and possibly raising business-as-usual costs. Transform business-driven technology and infrastructure across finance, actuarial, and IT to achieve strategic implementation that, while likely resulting in higher implementation costs, may offer efficiencies and lower future costs. To achieve smart compliance, consider your organization s technology and architecture maturity. Then decide whether to evolve, simplify, or replace your current capabilities and supporting technology in adopting the new ASU 2018-12 requirements. Each insurer will need to evaluate its current framework for capability gaps and then balance the cost and timeline implications of each option. 3. Better cost management ASU 2018-12 will increase both the volume and frequency of data processing, as well as increase storage requirement. This can cause strain on already understaffed IT departments and increase hardware or service fees. Strategically planning your implementation can reduce these back-office costs and allow IT departments to focus on driving efficiency and improvements. 4. More insights Replacing dated and inflexible technology with modern systems and better reporting tools can deliver significant value to your overall business, providing business insights that help shape your organization s strategy and success. 2. Enhanced efficiency Actuaries are often overburdened with significant stewardship activities related to maintenance and production of data, processes, systems, and reports. Reorganizing your operating model and using automation tools can increase productivity and enable actuaries to focus on more valued work. 6

Where to start your journey The ASU will have pervasive financial and operational implications across insurance organizations. Frequently referred to as targeted improvements, the term does not capture the depth and breadth of the standard which will significantly impact companies accounting and actuarial functions, external reporting, and data and technology: Compliance introduces new reporting complexities that will require more integration between finance and actuarial departments across both processes and systems. The standard introduces several changes related to the measurement of the liability for future policy benefits for traditional and limited-payment longduration contracts, the measurement and presentation of market risk benefits, and the amortization of deferred acquisition costs. These updates will require changes to existing accounting and actuarial policies, assumptions, and methodologies. The standard significantly expands the disclosures that an insurer must provide as part of their interim and annual financial statements. In addition to requiring additional data elements, these disclosures may also create stress on existing close processes. Systems may need to be updated or replaced to comply with new modeling requirements. Furthermore, additional IT resources may be needed to support additional data granularity and volume. Regardless of where you are on ASU implementation, it s time to begin the journey. Deloitte has worked hand in hand with the industry to prepare for this change. We have actively followed the development of ASU 2018-12, and we have helped to form industry positions through our involvement in various technical organizations. Our professionals have played a key role in drafting the provisions within the US GAAP for Insurers publication that provides thought leadership as industry practice develops on the methodologies that will be applied to ASU 2018-12. Deloitte will use new tools and accelerators specifically to support successful ASU 2018-12 implementation including a business impact analysis framework, financial impact tools, implementation roadmaps, IT systems implications frameworks, and effort estimations to achieve minimum compliance or, alternatively, to turn this into a wider finance transformation. Our understanding of the current state of the industry and ASU 2018-12 gives us valuable context: We can help you assess potential solutions and meet challenges all companies will face implementing the new standard. 7

Contacts Matthew Clark, FSA, CFA, CERA, MAAA Principal Actuarial and Insurance Solutions Deloitte Consulting LLP matthewclark@deloitte.com +1 312 486 0185 Wallace Nuttycombe Principal Risk and Financial Advisory Deloitte & Touche LLP wnuttycombe@deloitte.com +1 973 602 6769 Rick Sojkowski Partner Audit and Assurance Deloitte & Touche LLP rsojkowski@deloitte.com +1 860 725 3094 About Deloitte Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee ( DTTL ), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as Deloitte Global ) does not provide services to clients. In the United States, Deloitte refers to one or more of the US member firms of DTTL, their related entities that operate using the Deloitte name in the United States, and their respective affiliates. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Please see www.deloitte. com/about to learn more about our global network of member firms. This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication. Copyright 2019 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.