For purposes of this discussion, “MICC” or the “Company” refers to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, a Connecticut corporation incorporated in 1863, and its subsidiaries, including MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company (“MLI-USA”). Management’s narrative analysis of the results of operations is presented pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(a) of Form 10-K. This narrative analysis should be read in conjunction with the forward-looking statement information included below, “Risk Factors,” and the Company’s consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein.
On July 1, 2005, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut became a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”). MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, together with substantially all of Citigroup Inc.’s (“Citigroup”) international insurance businesses, excluding Primerica Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries, were acquired by MetLife from Citigroup for $12.1 billion. The total consideration paid by MetLife for the purchase consisted of $11.0 billion in cash and 22,436,617 shares of MetLife’s common stock with a market value of $1.0 billion to Citigroup and $100 million in other transaction costs.
The Company’s investments in fixed maturity and equity securities are classified as available-for-sale and are reported at their estimated fair value. The fair values for public fixed maturity securities and public equity securities are based on quoted market prices or estimates from independent pricing services. However, in cases where quoted market prices are not available, such as for private fixed maturities, fair values are estimated using present value or valuation techniques. The determination of fair values in the absence of quoted market prices is based on: (i) valuation methodologies; (ii) securities the Company deems to be comparable; and (iii) assumptions deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The fair value estimates are made at a specific point in time, based on available market information and judgments about financial instruments, including estimates of the timing and amounts of expected future cash flows and the credit standing of the issuer or counterparty. Factors considered in estimating fair value include: coupon rate, maturity, estimated duration, call provisions, sinking fund requirements, credit rating, industry sector of the issuer, and quoted market prices of comparable securities. The use of different methodologies and assumptions may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts.
The recognition of income on certain investments (e.g. loan-backed securities, including mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities, certain investment transactions, etc.) is dependent upon market conditions, which could result in prepayments and changes in amounts to be earned.
Fair value of derivatives is determined by quoted market prices or through the use of pricing models. The determination of fair value, when quoted market values are not available, is based on valuation methodologies and assumptions deemed appropriate under the circumstances. Derivative valuations can be affected by changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, financial indices, credit spreads, market volatility, and liquidity. Values can also be affected by changes in estimates and assumptions used in pricing models. Such assumptions include estimates of volatility, interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, other financial indices and credit ratings. Essential to the analysis of the fair value is risk of counterparty default. The use of different assumptions may have a material effect on the estimated derivative fair value amounts, as well as the amount of reported net income. Also, fluctuations in the fair value of derivatives which have not been designated for hedge accounting may result in significant volatility in net income.
The Company incurs significant costs in connection with acquiring new and renewal insurance business. Costs that vary with and relate to the production of new business are deferred as DAC. Such costs consist principally of commissions and agency and policy issue expenses. VOBA is an intangible asset that reflects the estimated fair
Separate account rates of return on variable universal life contracts and variable deferred annuity contracts affect in-force account balances on such contracts each reporting period. Returns that are higher than the Company’s long-term expectation produce higher account balances, which increases the Company’s future fee expectations and decreases future benefit payment expectations on minimum death benefit guarantees, resulting in higher expected future gross profits. The opposite result occurs when returns are lower than the Company’s long-term expectation. The Company’s practice to determine the impact of gross profits resulting from returns on separate accounts assumes that long-term appreciation in equity markets is not changed by short-term market fluctuations, but is only changed when sustained interim deviations are expected. The Company monitors these changes and only changes the assumption when its long-term expectation changes. The effect of an increase/(decrease) by 100 basis points in the assumed future rate of return is reasonably likely to result in a decrease/(increase) in the DAC and VOBA balances of $29 million with an offset to the Company’s unearned revenue liability of less than $1 million for this factor.
DAC and VOBA amortization will decrease, resulting in a current period increase to earnings. The opposite result occurs when the assumption update causes expected future gross profits to decrease.
Over the past two years, the Company’s most significant assumption updates resulting in a change to expected future gross profits and the amortization of DAC and VOBA have been updated due to revisions to expected future investment returns, expenses and in-force or persistency assumptions included within the Individual segment. The Company expects these assumptions to be the ones most reasonably likely to cause significant changes in the future. Changes in these assumptions can be offsetting and the Company is unable to predict their movement or offsetting impact over time.
Goodwill is the excess of cost over the fair value of net assets acquired. Goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment at least annually or more frequently if events or circumstances, such as adverse changes in the business climate, indicate that there may be justification for conducting an interim test.
Impairment testing is performed using the fair value approach, which requires the use of estimates and judgment, at the “reporting unit” level. A reporting unit is the operating segment or a business one level below the operating segment, if discrete financial information is prepared and regularly reviewed by management at that level. For purposes of goodwill impairment testing, goodwill within Corporate & Other is allocated to reporting units within the Company’s business segments. If the carrying value of a reporting unit’s goodwill exceeds its fair value, the excess is recognized as an impairment and recorded as a charge against net income. The fair values of the reporting units are determined using a market multiple or a discounted cash flow model. The critical estimates necessary in determining fair value are projected earnings, comparative market multiples and the discount rate.
Liabilities for unpaid claims and claim expenses for workers’ compensation insurance are included in future policyholder benefits and represent the amount estimated for claims that have been reported but not settled and claims incurred but not reported. Other policyholder funds include claims that have been reported but not settled and claims incurred but not reported on life and non-medical health insurance. Liabilities for unpaid claims are estimated based upon the Company’s historical experience and other actuarial assumptions that consider the effects of current developments, anticipated trends and risk management programs. With respect to workers’ compensation insurance, such unpaid claims are reduced for anticipated subrogation. The effects of changes in such estimated liabilities are included in the results of operations in the period in which the changes occur.
The Company periodically reviews its estimates of actuarial liabilities for future policy benefits and compares them with its actual experience. Differences between actual experience and the assumptions used in pricing these policies, guarantees and riders and in the establishment of the related liabilities result in variances in profit and could result in losses. The effects of changes in such estimated liabilities are included in the results of operations in the period in which the changes occur.
Economic capital is an internally developed risk capital model, the purpose of which is to measure the risk in the business and to provide a basis upon which capital is deployed. The economic capital model accounts for the unique and specific nature of the risks inherent in MetLife’s businesses. As a part of the economic capital process, a portion of net investment income is credited to the segments based on the level of allocated equity. This is in contrast to the standardized regulatory risk-based capital formula, which is not as refined in its risk calculations with respect to the nuances of the Company’s businesses.
The Company’s liquidity is critical to its ability to operate its businesses. Liquidity refers to a company’s ability to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet its needs. A principal objective of liquidity management is to be able to fund and enable the Company’s core businesses to generate revenues, even under adverse scenarios which may include early contractholder and policyholder withdrawal. Liquidity needs are determined from a rolling 12-month forecast by portfolio and are monitored daily.
The Company’s liabilities are diversified in their term and conditions, and the specific characteristics of the liabilities are included in cash flow testing and stress testing for performance in adverse scenarios.
Cash Flows from Operations: The Company’s principal cash inflows from its insurance activities come from insurance premiums, annuity considerations and deposit funds.
Sale of Liquid Assets: An integral part of the Company’s liquidity management is the amount of liquid assets it holds. Liquid assets include cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments, and marketable fixed maturity and equity securities. The Company closely monitors and manages these risks through its credit risk management process. See “Risk Factors - The Performance of Our Investments Depends on Conditions that Are Outside Our Control, and Our Net Investment Income Can Vary from Period to Period,” “Risk Factors - Defaults, Downgrades or Other Events Impairing the Value of Our Fixed Maturity Securities Portfolio May Reduce Our Earnings,” and “Risk Factors - Some of Our Investments Are Relatively Illiquid.”
Funding Sources: Liquidity may also be provided by borrowing from the capital markets, MetLife or affiliated companies, securities lending and other secured borrowing such as through repurchase agreements. Restrictions on transactions with affiliates might necessitate the approval of the Connecticut Commissioner of Insurance for borrowing from MetLife or affiliated companies, if certain limits were exceeded. See “Risk Factors - Adverse Credit Market Conditions May Significantly Affect Our Access to Capital, Cost of Capital and Ability to Meet Liquidity Needs.”
The Company believes that it has sufficient liquidity to fund its cash needs and maintain significant flexibility in order to address Company and product-specific risks, as well as address developments in the broader markets.
Higher DAC amortization of $164 million, net of income tax, primarily resulting from business growth, lower net investment losses in the current year and revisions to management’s assumptions used to determine estimated gross profits.
Higher expenses of $34 million, net of income tax. Higher general expenses, the impact of revisions to certain liabilities in both periods, a contribution to the MetLife Foundation and the start-up of the Company’s operations in Ireland contributed to the increase in other expenses.
Unfavorable underwriting results of $16 million, net of income tax. Management attributed the unfavorable underwriting results primarily to the life products and retirement & savings business of $12 million and $11 million, both net of income tax, respectively, partially offset by favorable underwriting results of $7 million, net of income tax, in the non-medical health & other business. Underwriting results are generally the difference between the portion of premium and fee income intended to cover mortality, morbidity or other insurance costs, less claims incurred, and the change in insurance-related liabilities. Underwriting results are significantly influenced by mortality, morbidity or other insurance-related experience trends, as well as the reinsurance activity related to certain blocks of business. Consequently, results can fluctuate from period to period.
Higher universal life and investment-type product policy fees of $98 million, net of income tax, primarily related to fees being earned on higher average account balances.
Higher net investment income on blocks of business not driven by interest margins of $28 million, net of income tax.
Total revenues, excluding net investment gains (losses), increased by $281 million, or 6%, to $4,908 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 from $4,627 million for the comparable 2006 period.
Premiums increased by $45 million primarily due to an increase of $77 million from business growth in income annuities and life products, partially offset by a decrease of $30 million in the retirement & savings business, resulting primarily from declines of $19 million in structured settlements and $11 million in pension closeouts. Premiums from retirement & savings products are significantly influenced by large transactions and, as a result, can fluctuate from period to period.
Interest credited to policyholder account balances decreased by $12 million due to the impact of lower policyholder account balances primarily related to the general account portion of investment-type products and other businesses resulting in decreases of $28 million and $6 million, respectively, partially offset by an increase in rates on floating-rate products of $3 million, primarily LIBOR-based funding agreements, which are tied to short-term interest rates, and lower amortization of the excess interest liabilities on acquired annuity and universal life blocks of business of $19 million primarily driven by lower lapses in the current year.
Other expenses increased by $282 million primarily due to higher DAC amortization of $252 million resulting from business growth, lower net investment losses and revisions to management’s assumptions used to determine estimated gross profits, which includes amortization associated with the ongoing implementation of Statement of Position (“SOP”) 05-1, Accounting by Insurance Enterprises for Deferred Acquisition Costs in Connection with Modifications or Exchanges of Insurance Contracts (“SOP 05-1”) in the current year. Other expenses, excluding DAC amortization, increased $30 million. The remaining increase in other expenses was driven by $78 million related to higher general expenses, $42 million due to the impact of revisions to certain liabilities in both periods, $12 million as a contribution to the MetLife Foundation and $10 million related to the start-up of the Company’s operations in Ireland which includes $5 million in foreign currency transaction losses. Partially offsetting these increases were $79 million related to lower commissions, $26 million related to minority interest associated with
The Company commits to lend funds under mortgage loan commitments. The amounts of these mortgage loan commitments were $626 million and $665 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The purpose of these loans is to enhance the Company’s total return on its investment portfolio. There are no other obligations or liabilities arising from such arrangements that are reasonably likely to become material.
The Company has provided a guarantee on behalf of MLII that is triggered if MLII cannot pay claims because of insolvency, liquidation or rehabilitation. During the second quarter of 2007, MLII was sold to a third party. Life insurance coverage in-force, representing the maximum potential obligation under this guarantee, was $434 million and $444 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The Company does not hold any collateral related to this guarantee, but has recorded a liability of $1 million that was based on the total account value of the guaranteed policies plus the amounts retained per policy at December 31, 2007. The remainder of the risk was ceded to external reinsurers. The Company did not have a recorded liability related to this guarantee at December 31, 2006.
Effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted FIN 48. FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income tax recognized in a company’s financial statements. FIN 48 requires companies to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that a tax position will be sustained upon examination by the appropriate taxing authorities before any part of the benefit can be recorded in the financial statements. It also provides guidance on the recognition, measurement, and classification of income tax uncertainties, along with any related interest and penalties. Previously recorded income tax benefits that no longer meet this standard are required to be charged to earnings in the period that such determination is made.
The adoption of FIN 48 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
Effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted SOP 05-1 which provides guidance on accounting by insurance enterprises for DAC on internal replacements of insurance and investment contracts other than those specifically described in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 97, Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises for Certain Long-Duration Contracts and for Realized Gains and Losses from the Sale of Investments. SOP 05-1 defines an internal replacement and is effective for internal replacements occurring in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. In addition, in February 2007, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA”) issued related Technical Practice Aids (“TPAs”) to provide further clarification of SOP 05-1. The TPAs became effective concurrently with the adoption of SOP 05-1.
The adoption of SOP 05-1 and the related TPAs resulted in a reduction to DAC and VOBA on January 1, 2007 and an acceleration of the amortization period relating primarily to the Company’s group life and non-medical health insurance contracts that contain certain rate reset provisions. Prior to the adoption of SOP 05-1, DAC on such contracts was amortized over the expected renewable life of the contract. Upon adoption of SOP 05-1, DAC on such
financial asset by entering into a servicing contract in certain situations. The adoption of SFAS 156 did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
Effective November 15, 2006, the Company adopted SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements (“SAB 108”). SAB 108 provides guidance on how prior year misstatements should be considered when quantifying misstatements in current year financial statements for purposes of assessing materiality. SAB 108 requires that registrants quantify errors using both a balance sheet and income statement approach and evaluate whether either approach results in quantifying a misstatement that, when relevant quantitative and qualitative factors are considered, is material. SAB 108 permits companies to initially apply its provisions by either restating prior financial statements or recording a cumulative effect adjustment to the carrying values of assets and liabilities as of January 1, 2006 with an offsetting adjustment to retained earnings for errors that were previously deemed immaterial but are material under the guidance in SAB 108. The adoption of SAB 108 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In June 2005, the Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) reached consensus on Issue No. 04-5, Determining Whether a General Partner, or the General Partners as a Group, Controls a Limited Partnership or Similar Entity When the Limited Partners Have Certain Rights (“EITF 04-5”). EITF 04-5 provides a framework for determining whether a general partner controls and should consolidate a limited partnership or a similar entity in light of certain rights held by the limited partners. The consensus also provides additional guidance on substantive rights. EITF 04-5 was effective after June 29, 2005 for all newly formed partnerships and for any pre-existing limited partnerships that modified their partnership agreements after that date. For all other limited partnerships, EITF 04-5 required adoption by January 1, 2006 through a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle recorded in opening equity or applied retrospectively by adjusting prior period financial statements. The adoption of the provisions of EITF 04-5 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
Effective November 9, 2005, the Company prospectively adopted the guidance in FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) No. FAS 140-2, Clarification of the Application of Paragraphs 40(b) and 40(c) of FAS 140 (“FSP 140-2”). FSP 140-2 clarified certain criteria relating to derivatives and beneficial interests when considering whether an entity qualifies as a QSPE. Under FSP 140-2, the criteria must only be met at the date the QSPE issues beneficial interests or when a derivative financial instrument needs to be replaced upon the occurrence of a specified event outside the control of the transferor. The adoption of FSP 140-2 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements (“SFAS 157”). SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and requires enhanced disclosures about fair value measurements. Effective January 1, 2008, the Company adopted SFAS 157 and applied the provisions of the statement prospectively to assets and liabilities measured and disclosed at fair value. In addition to new disclosure requirements, the adoption of SFAS 157 changes the valuation of certain freestanding derivatives by moving from a mid to bid pricing convention as well as changing the valuation of embedded derivatives associated with annuity contracts. The change in valuation of embedded derivatives associated with annuity contracts results from the incorporation of risk margins and the Company’s own credit standing in their valuation. As a result of the adoption of SFAS 157 on January 1, 2008, the Company expects such changes to result in a gain in the range of $30 million to $50 million, net of income tax, in the Company’s consolidated statement of income.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (“SFAS 159”). SFAS 159 permits entities the option to measure most financial instruments and certain other items at fair value at specified election dates and to report related unrealized gains and losses in earnings. The fair value option is generally applied on an instrument-by-instrument basis and is generally an irrevocable election. Effective January 1, 2008, the Company did not elect the fair value option for any instruments. Accordingly, there is no impact on the Company’s retained earnings or equity as of January 1, 2008.
In May 2007, the FASB issued FSP No. FIN 39-1, Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39 (“FSP 39-1”). FSP 39-1 amends FIN No. 39, Offsetting of Amounts Related to Certain Contracts (“FIN 39”), to permit a reporting entity to offset fair value amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash collateral (a receivable) or the obligation to return cash collateral (a payable) against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting arrangement that have been offset in accordance with FIN 39. FSP 39-1 also amends FIN 39 for certain terminology modifications. FSP 39-1 applies to fiscal years beginning
after November 15, 2007. FSP 39-1 will be applied retrospectively, unless it is impracticable to do so. Upon adoption of FSP 39-1, the Company is permitted to change its accounting policy to offset or not offset fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments under master netting arrangements. The adoption of FSP 39-1 will not have an impact on the Company’s financial statements.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), Business Combinations - A Replacement of FASB Statement No. 141 (“SFAS 141(r)”) and SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements - An Amendment of ARB No. 51 (“SFAS 160”) which are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. Under SFAS 141(r) and SFAS 160:
Certain acquired contingent liabilities are recorded at fair value at the acquisition date and subsequently measured at either the higher of such amount or the amount determined under existing guidance for non-acquired contingencies.
The pronouncements are effective for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008 and apply prospectively to business combinations. Presentation and disclosure requirements related to noncontrolling interests must be retrospectively applied. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of SFAS 141(r) on its accounting for future acquisitions and the impact of SFAS 160 on its consolidated financial statements.
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities - An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 (“SFAS 161”). SFAS 161 requires enhanced qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of and gains and losses on derivative instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent features in derivative agreements. SFAS 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of SFAS 161 on its consolidated financial statements.
In January 2008, the FASB cleared SFAS 133 Implementation Issue E23, Clarification of the Application of the Shortcut Method (“Issue E23”). Issue E23 amends SFAS 133 by permitting interest rate swaps to have a non-
Financial Statements at December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005:
See Note 2 for further discussion of the net assets of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut acquired by MetLife, Inc. and contributed to MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of (i) MLI-USA and effective July 1, 2005, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries (See Notes 2 and 3); (ii) partnerships and joint ventures in which the Company has control; and (iii) variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which the Company is deemed to be the primary beneficiary. Intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.
The cost of fixed maturity and equity securities is adjusted for impairments in value deemed to be other-than-temporary in the period in which the determination is made. These impairments are included within net investment gains (losses) and the cost basis of the fixed maturity and equity securities is reduced accordingly. The Company does not change the revised cost basis for subsequent recoveries in value.
The assessment of whether impairments have occurred is based on management’s case-by-case evaluation of the underlying reasons for the decline in fair value. The Company’s review of its fixed maturity and equity securities for impairments includes an analysis of the total gross unrealized losses by three categories of securities: (i) securities where the estimated fair value had declined and remained below cost or amortized cost by less than 20%; (ii) securities where the estimated fair value had declined and remained below cost or amortized cost by 20% or more for less than six months; and (iii) securities where the estimated fair value had declined and remained below cost or amortized cost by 20% or more for six months or greater.
Additionally, management considers a wide range of factors about the security issuer and uses its best judgment in evaluating the cause of the decline in the estimated fair value of the security and in assessing the prospects for near-term recovery. Inherent in management’s evaluation of the security are assumptions and estimates about the operations of the issuer and its future earnings potential. Considerations used by the Company in the impairment evaluation process include, but are not limited to: (i) the length of time and the extent to which the market value has been below cost or amortized cost; (ii) the potential for impairments of securities when the issuer is experiencing significant financial difficulties; (iii) the potential for impairments in an entire industry sector or sub-sector; (iv) the potential for impairments in certain economically depressed geographic locations; (v) the potential for impairments of securities where the issuer, series of issuers or industry has suffered a catastrophic type of loss or has exhausted natural resources; (vi) the Company’s ability and intent to hold the security for a period of time sufficient to allow for the recovery of its value to an amount equal to or greater than cost or amortized cost (See also Note 4); (vii) unfavorable changes in forecasted cash flows on mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities; and (viii) other subjective factors, including concentrations and information obtained from regulators and rating agencies.
Real Estate Joint Ventures and Other Limited Partnership Interests. The Company uses the equity method of accounting for investments in real estate joint ventures and other limited partnership interests in which it has more than a minor equity interest or more than a minor influence over the joint ventures or partnership’s operations, but does not have a controlling interest and is not the primary beneficiary. The Company uses the cost method of accounting for investments in real estate joint ventures and other limited partnership interests in which it has a minor equity investment and virtually no influence over the joint ventures or the partnership’s operations. In addition to the investees performing regular evaluations for the impairment of underlying investments, the Company routinely evaluates its investments in real estate joint ventures and other limited partnerships for impairments. For its cost method investments, the Company follows an impairment analysis which is similar to the process followed for its fixed maturity and equity securities as described previously. For equity method investees, the Company considers financial and other information provided by the investee, other known information and inherent risks in the underlying investments, as well as future capital commitments, in determining whether an impairment has occurred. When an other-than-
Other Invested Assets. Other invested assets consist primarily of stand-alone derivatives with positive fair values.
The Company is also a party to financial instruments that contain terms which are deemed to be embedded derivatives. The Company assesses each identified embedded derivative to determine whether it is required to be bifurcated. If the instrument would not be accounted for in its entirety at fair value and it is determined that the terms of the embedded derivative are not clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics of the host contract,
The Company also reviews periodically other long-term assumptions underlying the projections of estimated gross profits. These include investment returns, interest crediting rates, mortality, persistency, and expenses to administer business. Management annually updates assumptions used in the calculation of estimated gross profits which may have significantly changed. If the update of assumptions causes expected future gross profits to increase, DAC and VOBA amortization will decrease, resulting in a current period increase to earnings. The opposite result occurs when the assumption update causes expected future gross profits to decrease.
The Company has two different types of sales inducements which are included in other assets: (i) the policyholder receives a bonus whereby the policyholder’s initial account balance is increased by an amount equal to a specified percentage of the customer’s deposit; and (ii) the policyholder receives a higher interest rate using a dollar cost averaging method than would have been received based on the normal general account interest rate credited. The Company defers sales inducements and amortizes them over the life of the policy using the same methodology and assumptions used to amortize DAC.
Goodwill is the excess of cost over the fair value of net assets acquired. Goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment at least annually or more frequently if events or circumstances, such as adverse changes in the business climate, indicate that there may be justification for conducting an interim test. Impairment testing is performed using the fair value approach, which requires the use of estimates and judgment, at the “reporting unit” level. A reporting unit is the operating segment or a business one level below the operating segment, if discrete financial information is prepared and regularly reviewed by management at that level. For purposes of goodwill impairment testing, goodwill within Corporate & Other is allocated to reporting units within the Company’s business segments. If the carrying value of a reporting unit’s goodwill exceeds its fair value, the excess is recognized as an impairment and recorded as a charge against net income. The fair values of the reporting units are determined using a market multiple or a discounted cash flow model. The critical estimates necessary in determining fair value are projected earnings, comparative market multiples and the discount rate.
The Company establishes liabilities for amounts payable under insurance policies, including traditional life insurance, traditional annuities and non-medical health insurance. Generally, amounts are payable over an extended period of time and related liabilities are calculated as the present value of future expected benefits to be paid reduced by the present value of future expected premiums. Such liabilities are established based on methods and underlying assumptions in accordance with GAAP and applicable actuarial standards. Principal assumptions used in the establishment of liabilities for future policy benefits are mortality, morbidity, policy lapse, renewal, retirement, investment returns, inflation, expenses and other contingent events as appropriate to the respective product type. Utilizing these assumptions, liabilities are established on a block of business basis.
Future policy benefit liabilities for non-participating traditional life insurance policies are equal to the aggregate of the present value of expected future benefit payments and related expenses less the present value of expected future net premiums. Assumptions as to mortality and persistency are based upon the Company’s experience when the basis of the liability is established. Interest rates for future policy benefit liabilities on non-participating traditional life insurance range from 3% to 8%.
Future policy benefit liabilities for non-medical health insurance are calculated using the net level premium method and assumptions as to future morbidity, withdrawals and interest, which provide a margin for adverse deviation. Interest rates used in establishing such liabilities range from 4% to 7%.
The unearned revenue liability relates to universal life-type and investment-type products and represents policy charges for services to be provided in future periods. The charges are deferred as unearned revenue and
amortized using the product’s estimated gross profits, similar to DAC. Such amortization is recorded in universal life and investment-type product policy fees.
Other revenues include advisory fees, broker-dealer commissions and fees, and administrative service fees. Such fees and commissions are recognized in the period in which services are performed.
If the Company determines that a reinsurance contract does not expose the reinsurer to a reasonable possibility of a significant loss from insurance risk, the Company records the contract using the deposit method of accounting. Deposits received are included in other liabilities and deposits made are included within other assets. As amounts are paid or received, consistent with the underlying contracts, the deposit assets or liabilities are adjusted. Interest on such deposits is recorded as other revenues or other expenses, as appropriate. Periodically, the Company evaluates the adequacy of the expected payments or recoveries and adjusts the deposit asset or liability through other revenues or other expenses, as appropriate.
The adoption of SOP 05-1 and the related TPAs resulted in a reduction to DAC and VOBA on January 1, 2007 and an acceleration of the amortization period relating primarily to the Company’s group life and non-medical health insurance contracts that contain certain rate reset provisions. Prior to the adoption of SOP 05-1, DAC on such contracts was amortized over the expected renewable life of the contract. Upon adoption of SOP 05-1, DAC on such contracts is to be amortized over the rate reset period. The impact as of January 1, 2007 was a cumulative effect adjustment of $86 million, net of income tax of $46 million, which was recorded as a reduction to retained earnings.
Effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted prospectively SFAS 133 Implementation Issue No. B38, Embedded Derivatives: Evaluation of Net Settlement with Respect to the Settlement of a Debt Instrument
In June 2007, the AICPA issued SOP 07-1, Clarification of the Scope of the Audit and Accounting Guide Investment Companies and Accounting by Parent Companies and Equity Method Investors for Investments in Investment Companies (“SOP 07-1”). Upon adoption of SOP 07-1, the Company must also adopt the provisions of FASB Staff Position FSP No. FIN 46(r)-7, Application of FASB Interpretation No. 46 to Investment Companies (“FSP FIN 46(r)-7”), which permanently exempts investment companies from applying the provisions of FIN No. 46(r), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities - An Interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, and its December 2003 revision (“FIN 46(r)”) to investments carried at fair value. SOP 07-1 provides guidance for determining whether an entity falls within the scope of the AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide Investment Companies and whether investment company accounting should be retained by a parent company upon consolidation of an investment company subsidiary or by an equity method investor in an investment company. In certain circumstances, SOP 07-1 precludes retention of specialized accounting for investment companies (i.e., fair value accounting), when similar direct investments exist in the consolidated group and are measured on a basis inconsistent with that applied to investment companies. Additionally, SOP 07-1 precludes retention of specialized accounting for investment companies if the reporting entity does not distinguish through documented policies the nature and type of investments to be held in the investment companies from those made in the consolidated group where other accounting guidance is being applied. In February 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. SOP 7-1-1, Effective Date of AICPA Statement of Position 07-1, which delays indefinitely the effective date of SOP 07-1. The Company is closely monitoring further FASB developments.
Acquisition of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut by MetLife, Inc. from Citigroup Inc.
In accordance with FASB SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations, and SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, the Acquisition was accounted for by MetLife using the purchase method of accounting, which requires that the assets and liabilities of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut be identified and measured at their fair value as of the acquisition date. As of July 1, 2005 the net fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed totaled $5.9 billion, resulting in goodwill of $885 million. Further information on goodwill is described in Note 7. See Note 6 for the VOBA acquired as part of the acquisition and Note 8 for the value of distribution agreements (“VODA”) and the value of customer relationships acquired (“VOCRA”).
In connection with the Transfer Agreement on October 11, 2006, MLIG transferred to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut certain assets and liabilities, including goodwill, VOBA and deferred income tax liabilities, which remain outstanding from MetLife’s acquisition of MLIG on October 30, 1997. The assets and liabilities have been included in the financial data of the Company for all periods presented.
The Company held foreign currency derivatives with notional amounts of $911 million and $472 million to hedge the exchange rate risk associated with foreign denominated fixed maturity securities at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
The following tables present the estimated fair value and gross unrealized loss of the Company’s fixed maturity (aggregated by sector) and equity securities in an unrealized loss position, aggregated by length of time that the securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position at:
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, $1,050 million and $858 million, respectively, of unrealized losses related to securities with an unrealized loss position of less than 20% of cost or amortized cost, which represented 4% and 3%, respectively, of the cost or amortized cost of such securities.
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, the Company had $1.2 billion and $866 million, respectively, of gross unrealized losses related to its fixed maturity and equity securities. These securities are concentrated, calculated as a percentage of gross unrealized loss, as follows:
Certain of the Company’s fixed maturity securities are pledged as collateral for various derivative transactions as described in Note 5. Additionally, the Company has pledged certain of its fixed maturity securities in support of its funding agreements as described in Note 8.
Mortgage loans are collateralized by properties primarily located in the United States. At December 31, 2007, 26%, 7% and 7% of the value of the Company’s mortgage and consumer loans were located in California, Florida and New York, respectively. Generally, the Company, as the lender, only loans up to 75% of the purchase price of the underlying real estate.
The investment in restructured loans was less than $1 million at December 31, 2007. There was no investment in restructured loans at December 31, 2006. Interest income, recognized on restructured loans, was less than $1 million for both years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. There was no interest income on restructured loans for the year ended December 31, 2005. Gross interest income that would have been recorded in accordance with the original terms of such loans amounted to less than $1 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006. There was no gross interest income that would have been recorded in accordance with the original terms of such loans for the year ended December 31, 2005.
There were no impairments recognized on real estate held-for-sale for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. The carrying value of non-income producing real estate was $1 million at December 31, 2007. There was no non-income producing real estate at December 31, 2006. The Company did not own any real estate acquired in satisfaction of debt during the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.
The Company’s real estate holdings are primarily located in the United States. At December 31, 2007, 22%, 21%, 6% and 5% of the Company’s real estate holdings were located in California, New York, Texas and Florida, respectively.
The carrying value of other limited partnership interests (which primarily represent ownership interests in pooled investment funds that make private equity investments in companies in the United States and overseas) was $1.1 billion at both December 31, 2007 and 2006. Included within other limited partnership interests at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were $433 million and $354 million, respectively, of hedge funds. For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, net investment income from other limited partnership interests included $16 million, $30 million and $4 million, respectively, related to hedge funds.
respectively. There were no losses from fixed maturity and equity securities deemed other-than-temporarily impaired for the year ended December 31, 2005.
MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut was the majority owner of Tribeca on the Acquisition Date. Tribeca was a feeder fund investment structure whereby the feeder fund invests substantially all of its assets in the master fund, Tribeca Global Convertible Instruments Ltd. The primary investment objective of the master fund is to achieve enhanced risk-adjusted return by investing in domestic and foreign equities and equity-related securities utilizing such strategies as convertible securities arbitrage. At December 31, 2005, the Company was the majority owner of the feeder fund and consolidated the fund within its consolidated financial statements. Net investment
income related to the trading activities of Tribeca, which included interest and dividends earned on trading securities in addition to the net realized and unrealized gains (losses), was $12 million and $6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006 and the year ended December 31, 2005, respectively.
The following table presents the total assets of and maximum exposure to loss relating to VIEs for which the Company has concluded that it holds significant variable interests but it is not the primary beneficiary and which have not been consolidated:
The assets of the asset-backed securitizations are reflected at fair value. The assets of the real estate joint ventures, other limited partnership interests, trust preferred securities and other investments are reflected at the carrying amounts at which such assets would have been reflected on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet had the Company consolidated the VIE from the date of its initial investment in the entity.
The following table presents the notional amount and current market or fair value of derivative financial instruments held at:
In a foreign currency swap transaction, the Company agrees with another party to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between one currency and another at a forward exchange rate calculated by reference to an agreed upon principal amount. The principal amount of each currency is exchanged at the inception and termination of the currency swap by each party.
The Company has certain embedded derivatives that are required to be separated from their host contracts and accounted for as derivatives. These host contracts include guaranteed minimum withdrawal contracts, guaranteed minimum accumulation contracts and affiliated reinsurance contracts related to guaranteed minimum withdrawal contracts, guaranteed minimum accumulation contracts and certain guaranteed minimum income contracts.
The Company manages its credit risk related to over-the-counter derivatives by entering into transactions with creditworthy counterparties, maintaining collateral arrangements and through the use of master agreements that provide for a single net payment to be made by one counterparty to another at each due date and upon termination. Because exchange traded futures are effected through regulated exchanges, and positions are marked to market on a daily basis, the Company has minimal exposure to credit-related losses in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to such derivative instruments.
The Company enters into various collateral arrangements, which require both the pledging and accepting of collateral in connection with its derivative instruments. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, the Company was obligated to return cash collateral under its control of $370 million and $273 million, respectively. This unrestricted cash collateral is included in cash and cash equivalents and the obligation to return it is included in payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions in the consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, the Company had also accepted collateral consisting of various securities with a fair market value of $526 million and $410 million, respectively, which are held in separate custodial accounts. The Company is permitted by contract to sell or repledge this collateral, but as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, none of the collateral had been sold or repledged.
The estimated future amortization expense allocated to other expenses for the next five years for VOBA is $342 million in 2008, $303 million in 2009, $269 million in 2010, $237 million in 2011, and $195 million in 2012.
Affiliated insurance liabilities included in the table above include reinsurance assumed and ceded. Affiliated future policy benefits, included in the table above, were $29 million and $25 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Affiliated policyholder account balances, included in the table above, were $97 million and $(57) million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Affiliated other policyholder funds, included in the table above, were $1.3 billion and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Fees charged to the separate accounts by the Company (including mortality charges, policy administration fees and surrender charges) are reflected in the Company’s revenues as universal life and investment-type product policy
fees and totaled $947 million, $800 million and $467 million for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
MICC is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (the “FHLB of Boston”) and holds $70 million of common stock of the FHLB of Boston at both December 31, 2007 and 2006, which is included in equity securities. MICC has also entered into funding agreements with the FHLB of Boston whereby MICC has issued such funding agreements in exchange for cash and for which the FHLB of Boston has been granted a blanket lien on certain MICC assets, including residential mortgage-backed securities, to collateralize MICC’s obligations under the funding agreements. MICC maintains control over these pledged assets, and may use, commingle, encumber or dispose of any portion of the collateral as long as there is no event of default and the remaining qualified collateral is sufficient to satisfy the collateral maintenance level. Upon any event of default by MICC, the FHLB of Boston’s recovery on the collateral is limited to the amount of MICC’s liability to the FHLB of Boston. The amount of MICC’s liability for funding agreements with the FHLB of Boston was $726 million and $926 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, which is included in policyholder account balances. The advances on these funding agreements are collateralized by residential mortgage-backed securities with fair values of $901 million and $1.1 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Claims and claim adjustment expenses associated with prior periods decreased by $5 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, increased by $4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, and decreased by $3 million for the year ended December 31, 2005. In all periods presented, the change was due to differences between actual benefit periods and expected benefit periods for LTC and disability contracts.
In addition to reinsuring mortality risk as described previously, the Company reinsures other risks, as well as specific coverages. The Company routinely reinsures certain classes of risks in order to limit its exposure to particular travel, avocation and lifestyle hazards. The Company has exposure to catastrophes, which could contribute to significant fluctuations in the Company’s results of operations. The Company uses excess of retention and quota share reinsurance arrangements to provide greater diversification of risk and minimize exposure to larger risks.
The Company reinsures the new production of fixed annuities and the riders containing benefit guarantees related to variable annuities to affiliated and non-affiliated reinsurers.
Reinsurance recoverables, included in premiums and other receivables, were $4.9 billion and $4.6 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, including $3.4 billion and $3.0 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, relating to reinsurance on the run-off LTC business and $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, relating to reinsurance on the run-off of workers’ compensation business. Reinsurance and ceded commissions payables, included in other liabilities, were $128 million and $99 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
The Company has reinsurance agreements with MetLife and certain of its subsidiaries, including MLIC, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated, MetLife Reinsurance Company of South Carolina (“MRSC”), Exeter Reassurance Company, Ltd. (“Exeter”), General American Life Insurance Company (“GALIC”), Mitsui Sumitomo MetLife Insurance Co., Ltd. and MetLife Reinsurance Company of Vermont (“MRV”). At December 31, 2007, the Company had reinsurance-related assets and liabilities from these agreements totaling $3.4 billion and $1.7 billion,
respectively. At December 31, 2006, comparable assets and liabilities were $2.8 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.
The Company has assumed risks related to guaranteed minimum benefit riders from an affiliated joint venture under a reinsurance contract. Such guaranteed minimum benefit riders are embedded derivatives and are included within net investment gains (losses). The assumed amounts were $(113) million, $57 million and $28 million for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. These risks have been retroceded in full to another affiliate under a retrocessional agreement resulting in no net impact on net investment gains (losses).
reinsurance recoverables, included in premiums and other receivables, increased $326 million, MLI-USA recorded a funds withheld liability for $223 million, included in other liabilities, and unearned revenue, included in other policyholder funds, was reduced by $33 million.
MetLife Credit Corp., an affiliate, is the holder of a surplus note issued by the Company during the fourth quarter of 2007 in the amount of $200 million at December 31, 2007.
MetLife is the holder of a surplus note issued by MLI-USA in the amount of $400 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006.
MLIG is the holder of two surplus notes issued by MLI-USA in the amounts of $25 million and $10 million at both December 31, 2007 and 2006. These surplus notes may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at the election of the Company at any time, subject to the prior approval of the insurance department of the state of domicile.
Payments of interest and principal on these surplus notes may be made only with the prior approval of the insurance department of the state of domicile.
Domestic net operating loss carryforwards amount to $29 million at December 31, 2007 and will expire beginning in 2025. Foreign net operating loss carryforwards amount to $113 million at December 31, 2007 with indefinite expiration. Capital loss carryforwards amount to $430 million at December 31, 2007 and will expire beginning in 2010. Tax credit carryforwards amount to $20 million at December 31, 2007.
The Company has recorded a valuation allowance related to tax benefits of certain foreign net operating loss carryforwards. The valuation allowance reflects management’s assessment, based on available information, that it is more likely than not that the deferred income tax asset for certain foreign net operating loss carryforwards will not be realized. The tax benefit will be recognized when management believes that it is more likely than not that these deferred income tax assets are realizable. In 2007, the Company recorded a reduction of $4 million to the deferred income tax valuation allowance related to certain foreign net operating loss carryforwards.
The Company files income tax returns with the U.S. federal government and various state and local jurisdictions, as well as foreign jurisdictions. With a few exceptions, the Company is no longer subject to U.S. federal, state and local income tax examinations by tax authorities for years prior to 2003 and is no longer subject to foreign income tax examinations for the years prior to 2006.
As of December 31, 2007, the Company’s total amount of unrecognized tax benefits is $53 million and there are no amounts of unrecognized tax benefits that would affect the effective tax rate, if recognized. The total amount of unrecognized tax benefit decreased by $11 million from the date of adoption primarily due to a settlement reached with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) with respect to a post-sale purchase price adjustment. As a result of the settlement, an item within the liability for unrecognized tax benefits, in the amount of $6 million, was reclassified to deferred income taxes. The Company does not anticipate any material change in the total amount of unrecognized tax benefits over the ensuing 12 month period.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company recognized $2 million in interest expense associated with the liability for unrecognized tax benefits. As of December 31, 2007, the Company had $3 million of accrued interest associated with the liability for unrecognized tax benefits, an increase of $2 million from the date of adoption.
On September 25, 2007, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-61, which announced its intention to issue regulations with respect to certain computational aspects of the Dividends Received Deduction (“DRD”) on separate account assets held in connection with variable annuity contracts. Revenue Ruling 2007-61 suspended a revenue ruling issued in August 2007 that would have changed accepted industry and IRS interpretations of the statutes governing these computational questions. 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 year ended December 31, 2007, the Company recognized an income tax benefit of $64 million related to the separate account DRD.
Various litigation, claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, employer, investor, investment advisor or taxpayer. Further, federal, state or industry regulatory or governmental authorities may conduct investigations, serve subpoenas or make other inquiries concerning a wide variety of issues, including the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.
It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings or provide reasonable ranges of potential losses. In some of the matters referred to previously, large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Although in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s financial
Assessments levied against the Company were less than $1 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.
The Company has entered into collateral arrangements with affiliates, which require the transfer of collateral in connection with secured demand notes. At December 31, 2007, the Company had agreed to fund up to $60 million of cash upon the request of an affiliate and had transferred collateral consisting of various securities with a fair market value of $73 million to custody accounts to secure the notes. The counterparties are permitted by contract to sell or repledge this collateral.
Subsequent to the Acquisition, the Company became a participating affiliate in qualified and non-qualified, noncontributory defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans sponsored by MLIC. Employees were credited with prior service recognized by Citigroup, solely (with regard to pension purposes) for the purpose of determining eligibility and vesting under the Metropolitan Life Retirement Plan for United States Employees (the “Plan”), a noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plan, with respect to benefits earned under the Plan subsequent to the Acquisition Date. Net periodic expense related to these plans was based on the employee population at the beginning of the year. During 2006, the employees of the Company were transferred to MetLife Group, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife (“MetLife Group”), therefore no pension expense was allocated to the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007. Pension expense of $8 million related to the MLIC plans was allocated to the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006. There were no expenses allocated to the Company for the six months ended December 31, 2005.
The Company has 40,000,000 authorized shares of common stock, 34,595,317 shares of which are outstanding as of December 31, 2007. Of such outstanding shares, 30,000,000 shares are owned directly by MetLife, Inc. and the remaining shares are owned by MLIG.
Statutory net loss of MLI-USA, a Delaware domiciled insurer, was $1.1 billion, $116 million and $227 million for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Statutory capital and surplus, as filed with the Delaware Insurance Department, was $584 million and $575 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Under Connecticut State Insurance Law, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is permitted, without prior insurance regulatory clearance, to pay shareholder dividends to its parent as long as the amount of such dividends, when aggregated with all other dividends in the preceding 12 months, does not exceed 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. MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut will be permitted to pay a cash dividend in excess of the greater of such two amounts only if it files notice of its declaration of such a dividend and the amount thereof with the Connecticut Commissioner of Insurance (“Connecticut Commissioner”) and the Connecticut Commissioner does not disapprove the payment within 30 days after notice. In addition, any dividend that exceeds earned surplus (unassigned funds, reduced by 25% of unrealized appreciation in value or revaluation of assets or unrealized profits on investments) as of the last filed annual statutory statement requires insurance regulatory approval. Under Connecticut State Insurance Law, the Connecticut Commissioner has broad discretion in determining whether the financial condition of a stock life insurance company would support the payment of such dividends to its shareholders. The Connecticut State Insurance Law requires prior approval for any dividends for a period of two years following a change in control. As a result of the Acquisition on July 1, 2005, under Connecticut State Insurance Law, all dividend payments by MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut through June 30, 2007 required prior approval of the Connecticut Commissioner. In the third quarter of 2006, after receiving regulatory approval from the Connecticut Commissioner, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut paid a $917 million dividend. Of that amount,
Under Delaware State Insurance Law, MLI-USA is permitted, without prior insurance regulatory clearance, to pay a stockholder dividend to its parent as long as the amount of the dividend when aggregated with all other dividends in the preceding 12 months does not exceed 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). MLI-USA will be permitted to pay a cash dividend to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut in excess of the greater of such two amounts only if it files notice of the declaration of such a dividend and the amount thereof with the Delaware Commissioner of Insurance (“Delaware Commissioner”) and the Delaware Commissioner does not disapprove the distribution within 30 days of its filing. In addition, any dividend that exceeds earned surplus (defined as unassigned funds) as of the last filed annual statutory statement requires insurance regulatory approval. Under Delaware State Insurance Law, the Delaware Commissioner 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. MLI-USA did not pay dividends for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006. Because MLI-USA’s statutory unassigned funds surplus is negative, MLI-USA cannot pay any dividends without prior approval of the Delaware Commissioner in 2008.
See Notes 9, 10 and 19 for discussion of affiliated expenses included in the table above.
Individual offers a wide variety of protection and asset accumulation products, including life insurance, annuities and mutual funds. Institutional offers a broad range of group insurance and retirement & savings products and services, including group life insurance and other insurance products and services. Corporate & Other contains the excess capital not allocated to the business segments, various start-up entities and run-off business, the Company’s ancillary international operations, interest expense related to the majority of the Company’s outstanding debt, expenses associated with certain legal proceedings and the elimination of intersegment transactions.
Set forth in the tables below is certain financial information with respect to the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other, for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those of the Company, except for the method of capital allocation and the accounting for gains (losses) from intercompany sales, which are eliminated in consolidation. Subsequent to the Acquisition Date, the Company allocates equity to each segment based upon the economic capital model used by MetLife that allows MetLife and the Company to effectively manage their capital. The Company evaluates the performance of each segment based upon net income excluding net investment gains (losses), net of income tax, and adjustments related to net investment gains (losses), net of income tax.
Includes six months of results for MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries and twelve months of results for MLI-USA.
The fair values of publicly held fixed maturity securities and publicly held equity securities are based on quoted market prices or estimates from independent pricing services. However, in cases where quoted market prices are not available, such as for private fixed maturity securities, fair values are estimated using present value or valuation techniques. The determination of fair values is based on: (i) valuation methodologies; (ii) securities the Company deems to be comparable; and (iii) assumptions deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The fair value estimates are based on available market information and judgments about financial instruments, including estimates of the timing and amounts of expected future cash flows and the credit standing of the issuer or counterparty. Factors considered in estimating fair value include; coupon rate, maturity, estimated duration, call provisions, sinking fund requirements, credit rating, industry sector of the issuer, and quoted market prices of comparable securities.
Fair values for mortgage and consumer loans are estimated by discounting expected future cash flows, using current interest rates for similar loans with similar credit risk. For mortgage loan commitments, commitments to fund bank credit facilities, and private corporate bond investments the estimated fair value is the net premium or discount of the commitments.
The fair values of long-term debt are determined by discounting expected future cash flows using risk rates currently available for debt with similar terms and remaining maturities.
The Company has entered into a Master Service Agreement with MLIC, which provides administrative, accounting, legal and similar services to the Company. MLIC charged the Company $170 million, $93 million and $15 million, included in other expenses, for services performed under the Master Service Agreement for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The Company has entered into a Service Agreement with MetLife Group, under which MetLife Group provides personnel services, as needed, to support the activities of the Company. MetLife Group charged the Company $107 million, $154 million and $49 million, included in other expenses, for services performed under the Service Agreement for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The Company has entered into various additional agreements with other affiliates for services necessary to conduct its activities. Typical services provided under these additional agreements include management, policy administrative functions and distribution services. Expenses and fees incurred with affiliates related to these agreements, recorded in other expenses, were $198 million, $190 million and $48 million for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.