The “market consistent scenarios” used in the determination of the fair value of the GLB liability are similar to those used by an investment bank to value derivatives for which the pricing is not transparent and the aftermarket is nonexistent or illiquid. We use risk-neutral Monte Carlo simulations in our calculation to value the entire block of guarantees, which involve 100 unique scenarios per policy or approximately 46 million scenarios. The market consistent scenario assumptions, as of each valuation date, are those we view to be appropriate for a hypothetical market participant. The market consistent inputs include assumptions for the capital markets (e.g., implied volatilities, correlation among indices, risk-free swap curve, etc.), policyholder behavior (e.g., policy lapse, benefit utilization, mortality, etc.), risk margins, administrative expenses and a margin for profit. We believe these assumptions are consistent with those that would be used by a market participant; however, as the related markets develop we will continue to reassess our assumptions. It is possible that different valuation techniques and assumptions could produce a materially different estimate of fair value.
ASU 2013-08, Amendments to the Scope, Measurement, and Disclosure Requirements (Topic 946, Investment Companies)
As of December 31, 2014, the unrealized losses associated with our MBS and ABS were attributable primarily to collateral losses and credit spreads. We assessed for credit impairment using a cash flow model that incorporates key assumptions including default rates, severities and prepayment rates. We estimated losses for a security by forecasting the underlying loans in each transaction. The forecasted loan performance was used to project cash flows to the various tranches in the structure, as applicable. Our forecasted cash flows also considered, as applicable, independent industry analyst reports and forecasts, sector credit ratings and other independent market data. Based upon our assessment of the expected credit losses of the security given the performance of the underlying collateral compared to our subordination or other credit enhancement, we expected to recover the entire amortized cost basis of each temporarily impaired security.
Mortgage loans on real estate principally involve commercial real estate. The commercial loans are geographically diversified throughout the U.S. with the largest concentrations in California and Texas, which accounted for 23% and 9%, respectively, of mortgage loans on real estate as of December 31, 2014 and 2013.
Vested or expected to vest as of December 31, 2014 (1)
Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to certain insurance department regulatory restrictions as to the transfer of funds and payment of dividends to the holding company. Under Indiana laws and regulations, our Indiana insurance subsidiaries, including our primary insurance subsidiary, LNL, may pay dividends to LNC without prior approval of the Indiana Insurance Commissioner (the “Commissioner”), only from unassigned surplus and must receive prior approval of the Commissioner to pay a dividend if such dividend, along with all other dividends paid within the preceding 12 consecutive months, would exceed the statutory limitation. The current statutory limitation is the greater of 10% of the insurer’s contract holders’ surplus, as shown on its last annual statement on file with the Commissioner or the insurer’s statutory net gain from operations for the previous 12 months, but in no event to exceed statutory unassigned surplus. Indiana law gives the Commissioner broad discretion to disapprove requests for dividends in excess of these limits. LNL’s subsidiary, LLANY, a New York domiciled insurance company, has similar restrictions, except that in New York it is the lesser of 10% of surplus to contract holders as of the immediately preceding calendar year or net gain from operations for the immediately preceding calendar year, not including realized capital gains. We expect our domestic insurance subsidiaries could pay dividends of approximately $1.3 billion in 2015 without prior approval from the respective state commissioner.
makers or broker-dealers obtained from third-party sources recognized as market participants. The fair value of a broker-quoted asset or liability is based solely on the receipt of an updated quote from a single market maker or a broker-dealer recognized as a market participant as we do not adjust broker quotes when used as the fair value measurement for an asset or liability. Significant increases or decreases in any of the quotes received from a third-party broker-dealer may result in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement.