We arrange for property & casualty coverage on our properties, taking into consideration our risk exposures and the cost and availability of commercial coverages, including deductible loss levels. In connection with the renewal of those coverages, we have arranged $500 million of property insurance, including coverage for terrorism, on our real estate portfolio through May 1, 2016, its renewal date.
On January 12, 2016, the Company announced its plan to pursue the Separation. The Company is currently evaluating structural alternatives for the proposed Separation, including a public offering of shares in an independent, publicly traded company, a spin-off, or a sale. The completion of a public offering would depend on, among other things, the SEC filing and review process, as well as market conditions. Any Separation that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions.
The accounting for derivatives is complex and interpretations of accounting standards continue to evolve in practice. If it is determined that hedge accounting designations were not appropriately applied, reported net income could be materially affected. Assessments of hedge effectiveness and measurements of ineffectiveness of hedging relationships are also subject to interpretations and estimations and different interpretations or estimates may have a material effect on the amount reported in net income.
We apply significant judgment when determining the estimated fair value of our reporting units and when assessing the relationship of market capitalization to the aggregate estimated fair value of our reporting units. The valuation methodologies utilized are subject to key judgments and assumptions that are sensitive to change. Estimates of fair value are inherently uncertain and represent only management’s reasonable expectation regarding future developments. These estimates and the judgments and assumptions upon which the estimates are based will, in all likelihood, differ in some respects from actual future results. Declines in the estimated fair value of our reporting units could result in goodwill impairments in future periods which could materially adversely affect our results of operations or financial position.
The unfavorable change in net derivative gains (losses) on VA program derivatives was $893 million ($580 million, net of income tax). This was due to an unfavorable change of $685 million ($445 million, net of income tax) in other risks in embedded derivatives and an unfavorable change of $358 million ($233 million, net of income tax) in market risks in embedded derivatives, net of the impact of freestanding derivatives hedging those risks, partially offset by a favorable change of $150 million ($98 million, net of income tax) related to the change in the nonperformance risk adjustment on embedded derivatives. Other risks relate primarily to the impact of policyholder behavior and other non-market risks that generally cannot be hedged.
Market Factors. The sustained low interest rate environment drove lower investment yields on our fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans. In addition, yields were negatively impacted by a reduction in the size of our securities lending program, as well as lower returns on other limited partnership interests. This was partially offset by higher returns on alternative investments and currency derivatives. Unlike in the Retail and Corporate Benefit Funding segments, in the Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits segment, a change in investment yield does not necessarily drive a corresponding change in the rates credited on certain insurance liabilities. The decrease in investment yields was partially offset by the impact of lower crediting rates in 2015, which resulted in a net decrease in operating earnings of $14 million.
Business Overview. Funding ratios for defined benefit pension plans of S&P 500 companies continued to fall in 2015, limiting their ability to engage in full pension plan buyouts. However, we expect that customers may choose to close out portions of pension plans over time, with the largest volume of business generally occurring near the end of any year. Despite the decline in funding ratios for defined benefit pension plans of S&P 500 companies, higher pension risk transfers resulted in an increase in premiums. In addition, more competitive pricing in the market drove a decrease in structured settlement annuity sales. Changes in premiums for these businesses were almost entirely offset by the related changes in policyholder benefits and claims.
Other. Our results for 2014 include charges totaling $57 million related to the settlement of a licensing matter with the Department of Financial Services and the District Attorney, New York County. In addition, we increased our litigation reserves related to asbestos more in 2014 than in 2013 resulting in a $16 million decline in operating earnings. This was partially offset by a $53 million decline in expenses which included decreases in interest on uncertain tax positions, lower corporate overhead expenses and an adjustment on certain reinsurance assets and liabilities. In addition, declines in employee-related costs and lower software amortization totaling $15 million, improved operating earnings.
We originated $12.8 billion and $11.1 billion of commercial mortgage loans during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. We originated $3.2 billion and $3.5 billion of agricultural mortgage loans during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. While we originate some residential mortgage loans, we purchased a substantial amount of our residential mortgage loans on the secondary market during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014. See Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on mortgage loan purchases.
The Company's authorized equity investment in real estate property was $1.0 billion and $1.7 billion for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Our private placement unit originated $9.7 billion and $8.3 billion of private investments, comprised primarily of certain privately placed fixed maturity securities and tax credit and renewable energy partnerships, during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The carrying value of such private investments included within our consolidated balance sheets was $49.8 billion at both December 31, 2015 and 2014. In addition, we originated $0 and $94 million of private lease investments during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The carrying value of such private lease investments included within our consolidated balance sheets was $2.0 billion and $2.1 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The gain (loss) on Level 3 derivatives primarily relates to certain purchased equity index options that are valued using models dependent on an unobservable market correlation input, equity variance swaps that are valued using observable equity volatility data plus an unobservable equity variance spread and foreign currency swaps and forwards that are valued using an unobservable portion of the swap yield curve. Other significant inputs, which are observable, include equity index levels, equity volatility and the swap yield curve. We validate the reasonableness of these inputs by valuing the positions using internal models and comparing the results to broker quotations.
Policyholder account balances are generally equal to the account value, which includes accrued interest credited, but excludes the impact of any applicable charge that may be incurred upon surrender. See “- Industry Trends - Impact of a Sustained Low Interest Rate Environment - Low Interest Rate Scenario” and “- Variable Annuity Guarantees.” See also Notes 1 and 4 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. A discussion of policyholder account balances by segment (as well as Corporate & Other) follows.
We offer a range of GMDBs to our contractholders. The table below presents GMDBs, by benefit type, at December 31, 2015:
In November and August 2013, MetLife, Inc. repaid at maturity its $500 million and $250 million senior notes, respectively.
We pledged collateral from time to time in connection with funding agreements. See Note 4 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Amounts presented for debt include short-term debt, long-term debt, collateral financing arrangements and junior subordinated debt securities, the total of which differs from the total of the corresponding amounts presented on the consolidated balance sheet due to the following: (i) the amounts presented herein do not include premiums or discounts upon issuance or purchase accounting fair value adjustments; (ii) the amounts presented herein include future interest on such obligations for the period from January 1, 2016 through maturity; and (iii) the amounts presented herein do not include $60 million at December 31, 2015 of long-term debt relating to CSEs - FVO as such debt does not represent our contractual obligation. Future interest on variable rate debt was computed using prevailing rates at December 31, 2015 and, as such, does not consider the impact of future rate movements. Future interest on fixed rate debt was computed using the stated rate on the obligations for the period from January 1, 2016 through maturity, except with respect to junior subordinated debt which was computed using the stated rates through the scheduled redemption dates as it is our expectation that such obligations will be redeemed at that time. Inclusion of interest payments on junior subordinated debt securities through the final maturity dates would increase the contractual obligation by $7.7 billion. Pursuant to collateral financing arrangements, MetLife, Inc. may be required to deliver cash or pledge collateral to the respective unaffiliated financial institutions. See Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Certain of MetLife, Inc.’s debt instruments and committed facilities, as well as its credit facility, contain various administrative, reporting, legal and financial covenants. MetLife, Inc. believes it was in compliance with all such covenants at December 31, 2015.
the costs of direct-response advertising, the primary purpose of which is to elicit sales to customers who could be shown to have responded specifically to the advertising and that results in probable future benefits.
FVO and trading securities are stated at estimated fair value and include investments for which the FVO has been elected (“FVO Securities”) and investments that are actively purchased and sold (“Actively traded securities”). FVO Securities include:
MetLife is organized into six segments, reflecting three broad geographic regions: Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits; Corporate Benefit Funding; and Latin America (collectively, the “Americas”); Asia; and EMEA. In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other.
The Corporate Benefit Funding segment offers a broad range of annuity and investment products, including guaranteed interest products and other stable value products, income annuities and separate account contracts for the investment management of defined benefit and defined contribution plan assets. This segment also includes structured settlements and certain products to fund postretirement benefits and company-, bank- or trust-owned life insurance used to finance nonqualified benefit programs for executives.
The deferred income tax liability related to leveraged leases was $1.5 billion at both December 31, 2015 and 2014.
The Company has invested in certain structured transactions (including CSEs), formed trusts to invest proceeds from certain collateral financing arrangements and has insurance operations that are VIEs. In certain instances, the Company holds both the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, as well as an economic interest in the entity and, as such, is deemed to be the primary beneficiary or consolidator of the entity.
Written credit default swaps held in relation to the trading portfolio amounted to $20 million and $15 million in gross notional amount and ($2) million and $1 million in estimated fair value at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
These other assets are principally comprised of a receivable for cash paid to an unaffiliated financial institution under the MetLife Reinsurance Company of Charleston (“MRC”) collateral financing arrangement described in Note 13. The estimated fair value of the receivable for the cash paid to the unaffiliated financial institution under the MRC collateral financing arrangement is determined by discounting the expected future cash flows using a discount rate that reflects the credit rating of the unaffiliated financial institution.
In April 2014, MetLife, Inc. issued $1.0 billion of senior notes due April 2024 which bear interest at a fixed rate of 3.60%, payable semi-annually. In connection with the issuance, MetLife, Inc. incurred $5 million of related costs which have been capitalized and included in other assets. These costs are being amortized over the term of the senior notes.
Capacity at December 31, 2015 of $425 million decreases in June 2017, March 2018 and June 2018 to $395 million, $200 million and $0, respectively.
Capacity at December 31, 2015 of $2.3 billion increases periodically to a maximum of $2.9 billion in 2024, decreases periodically commencing in 2025 to $2.0 billion in 2037, and decreases to $0 upon maturity in December 2037. Unused commitment of $737 million is based on maximum capacity.
During 2015, following regulatory approval, MRC repurchased $57 million in aggregate principal amount of the surplus notes. Cumulatively, since December 2007, MRC repurchased $1.2 billion in aggregate principal amount of the surplus notes. Payments made by the Company in 2015 associated with the repurchases were exclusive of accrued interest on the surplus notes. In connection with the repurchases, the Company received payments in the aggregate amount of $8 million from the unaffiliated financial institution, which reduced the amount receivable from the unaffiliated financial institution by $8 million. No other payments were made by MetLife, Inc. or received from the unaffiliated financial institution during 2015, 2014 and 2013, related to an increase or decrease in the estimated fair value of the surplus notes.
The aggregate number of Shares authorized for issuance under the 2015 Director Stock Plan at December 31, 2015 was equal to:
Performance Share amounts above represent aggregate initial target awards and do not reflect potential increases or decreases resulting from the performance factor determined after the end of the respective performance periods. At December 31, 2015, the three year performance period for the 2013 Performance Share grants was completed, but the performance factor had not yet been calculated. Included in the immediately preceding table are 1,592,641 outstanding Performance Shares to which the 2013 - 2015 performance factor will be applied.
Effective for dividends paid during 2016 and going forward, the New York Insurance Law was amended permitting MLIC, without prior insurance regulatory clearance, to pay stockholder dividends to MetLife, Inc. in any calendar year based on either of two standards. Under one standard, MLIC is permitted, without prior insurance regulatory clearance, to pay dividends out of earned surplus (defined as positive “unassigned funds (surplus)” excluding 85% of the change in net unrealized capital gains or losses (less capital gains tax), for the immediately preceding calendar year), in an amount up to the greater of: (i) 10% of its surplus to policyholders as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year, or (ii) its statutory net gain from operations for the immediately preceding calendar year (excluding realized capital gains), not to exceed 30% of surplus to policyholders as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year. In addition, under this standard, MLIC may not, without prior insurance regulatory clearance, pay any dividends in any calendar year immediately following a calendar year for which its net gain from operations, excluding realized capital gains, was negative. Under the second standard, if dividends are paid out of other than earned surplus, MLIC may, without prior insurance regulatory clearance, pay an amount up to the lesser of: (i) 10% of its surplus to policyholders as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year, or (ii) its statutory net gain from operations for the immediately preceding calendar year (excluding realized capital gains). In addition, MLIC will be permitted to pay a dividend to MetLife, Inc. in excess of the amounts allowed under both standards only if it files notice of its intention to declare such a dividend and the amount thereof with the New York Superintendent of Financial Services (the “Superintendent”) and the Superintendent either approves the distribution of the dividend or does not disapprove the dividend within 30 days of its filing. Under New York Insurance Law, the Superintendent has broad discretion in determining whether the financial condition of a stock life insurance company would support the payment of such dividends to its stockholders.
In addition to regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends by its insurance subsidiaries to MetLife, Inc., the payment of dividends by MetLife, Inc. to its stockholders is also subject to restrictions. The declaration and payment of dividends is subject to the discretion of MetLife, Inc.’s Board of Directors, and will depend on its financial condition, results of operations, cash requirements, future prospects and other factors deemed relevant by the Board. In addition, the payment of dividends on MetLife, Inc.’s common stock, and MetLife, Inc.’s ability to repurchase its common stock, may be subject to restrictions described below arising out of (i) regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (collectively, with the Federal Reserve Board, the “Federal Reserve”) as a result of the designation of MetLife, Inc. by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) as a non-bank systemically important financial institution (“non-bank SIFI”), and (ii) restrictions under the terms of MetLife, Inc.’s preferred stock, and junior subordinated debentures in situations where MetLife, Inc. may be experiencing financial stress, as described below. For purposes of this discussion, “junior subordinated debentures” are deemed to include MetLife, Inc.’s Fixed-to-Floating Rate Exchangeable Surplus Trust Securities, which are exchangeable at the option of MetLife, Inc., or in the future upon the occurrence of certain events, for junior subordinated debentures, and which contain terms with the same substantive effects described in this discussion as the terms in MetLife’s junior subordinated debentures.
The U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS have indicated that they intend to address through regulations the methodology to be followed in determining the dividends received deduction (“DRD”), related to variable life insurance and annuity contracts. The DRD reduces the amount of dividend income subject to tax and is a significant component of the difference between the actual tax expense and expected amount determined using the federal statutory tax rate of 35%. Any regulations that the IRS ultimately proposes for issuance in this area will be subject to public notice and comment, at which time insurance companies and other interested parties will have the opportunity to raise legal and practical questions about the content, scope and application of such regulations. As a result, the ultimate timing and substance of any such regulations are unknown at this time. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013, the Company recognized an income tax benefit of $220 million, $234 million and $164 million, respectively, related to the separate account DRD. The 2015 benefit included a benefit of $12 million related to a true-up of the 2014 tax return. The 2014 and 2013 benefit included a benefit of $38 million and $6 million related to a true-up of the 2013 and 2012 tax returns, respectively.
Seeking to sue derivatively on behalf of MetLife, Inc., two shareholders commenced separate actions against members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, alleging that they breached their fiduciary and other duties to the Company. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company complied with state unclaimed property laws and to ensure that the Company accurately reported its earnings. Plaintiffs alleged that because of the defendants’ breaches of duty, MetLife, Inc. had incurred damage to its reputation and had suffered other unspecified damages. The two actions (Mallon v. Kandarian, et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed March 28, 2012) and Martino v. Kandarian, et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed April 19, 2012)) were consolidated. On December 25, 2015, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated action, holding that the action is moot.
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the “Policies”). Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using “contractual parental guarantees,” and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.