Interest and debt expense for 2008 is lower than 2007 due to lower rates of interest on our outstanding debt, primarily as a result of the replacement of older fixed rate debt with non-recourse floating rate debt, and due to lower cost for early retirement of debt. Interest and debt expense in 2007 increased from the level of 2006 due to an increase in cost related to early retirement of debt, offset partially by the reduction in our outstanding debt. The cost related to early retirement of debt is minimal in 2008. Costs related to early retirement of debt for 2007 and 2006 were $58.8 million and $25.8 million, respectively, and were related to our $769.5 million and $732.0 million debt repurchases during those two years. See “Debt” contained in this Item 7 for additional information.
The deferral and amortization of deferred acquisition costs was higher in both 2008 and 2007 relative to the prior year comparable period due primarily to continued growth in certain of our product lines. Amortization also increased in 2008 due to an increase in the amortization related to Unum US internal replacement transactions that result in a policy that is substantially changed as well as slightly elevated persistency in certain policy issue years.
Income tax for 2006 includes tax benefits of $91.9 million as a result of the reversal of tax liabilities related primarily to group relief benefits recognized from the use of net operating losses in a foreign jurisdiction in which our businesses operate.
The Unum US segment includes group long-term and short-term disability insurance, group life and accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) products, and supplemental and voluntary lines of business. The supplemental and voluntary lines of business are comprised of recently issued disability insurance, group and individual long-term care insurance, and voluntary benefits products. Effective with the fourth quarter of 2008, we made slight modifications to our reporting segments to better align the debt of our securitizations with our business segments. The assets, non-recourse debt, and associated capital of Tailwind Holdings are now reported in our Unum US segment in the group disability line of business. The primary effect on operating results from the movement of Tailwind Holdings to Unum US is the inclusion of interest and debt expense associated with the Tailwind Holdings non-recourse debt. We also modified the investment income allocation on capital supporting certain of our group disability and long-term care product lines within Unum US. Financial results previously reported have been revised to reflect these reclassifications.
As previously discussed, included in operating income for Unum US are before-tax charges of $66.2 million and $364.2 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively, related to the claim reassessment process.
While overall sales for Unum US declined in 2007 relative to 2006, we maintained our disciplined pricing and our sales mix was generally in line with our target mix. In 2007, we had a sales mix of approximately 62 percent core market and 38 percent large case market. Although sales on an annualized premium basis declined year over year in our group core market segment, the number of new accounts in this segment increased over 2006.
(1) Included in these ratios are charges of $76.5 million and $349.2 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively, related to the claim reassessment process. Excluding these charges, the benefit ratios for 2007 and 2006 would have been 92.4% and 94.8%, respectively.
(3) Included in these ratios are charges of $66.2 million and $364.2 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively, related to the claim reassessment process. Excluding these charges, the before-tax operating income ratio for 2007 and 2006 would have been 7.4% and 3.2%, respectively.
Index to Financial Statements Year Ended December 31, 2008 Compared with Year Ended December 31, 2007
Interest and debt expense related to the debt issued by Tailwind Holdings decreased from the prior year due to a decrease in the variable rate of interest during 2008 compared to 2007 and a decrease in the amount of outstanding debt resulting from principal payments made during 2008 and 2007.
The other expense ratio increased in 2008 compared to the prior year due primarily to the decline in premium income and an increase in policy maintenance expenses and product service and development costs. Also contributing to the increase in the other expense ratio was the expense related to the broker compensation settlement previously discussed, of which $4.4 million was included in 2008 expenses for group disability.
Premium income for group disability decreased in 2007 relative to 2006 due primarily to our strategy on pricing, renewals, and risk selection. Premium persistency and case persistency were both consistent with our expectations given our business mix strategy. Net investment income increased in 2007 in comparison to 2006 due to the growth in the level of assets supporting these lines of business, partially offset by the impact of the lower yield resulting from the lower interest rate environment and a decrease in bond call premiums. Other income includes ASO fees of $65.2 million and $60.9 million for 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Index to Financial Statements Excluding the revisions to our estimate for claim reassessment costs, the benefit ratio for 2007 was lower than the benefit ratio for 2006 due primarily to lower paid claims in both group long-term and short-term disability and a higher rate of claim recoveries relative to 2006. Our claim operational effectiveness continued to improve during 2007 as a result of our organizational and process changes.
Interest and debt expense in 2007 is related to the Tailwind Holdings debt that was issued in the fourth quarter of 2006.
The net decrease in the amortization of DAC was due primarily to the decrease in the level of DAC as a result of the adoption of the new accounting policy related to DAC on internal replacements, offset somewhat by higher amortization resulting from the shorter amortization period for DAC. The other expense ratio, excluding the adjustments to our claim reassessment incremental operating expense estimate, increased in 2007 compared to 2006 due to the decline in premium income as well as an increase in advertising and branding expenses and product and service development costs.
Index to Financial Statements Unum US Group Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Operating Results
The other expense ratio increased in 2008 in comparison to the prior year due primarily to the decline in premium income as well as an increase in policy maintenance expenses and product and service development costs.
Premium income for group life decreased in 2007 relative to 2006 due primarily to our more disciplined approach to pricing, renewals, and risk selection. Premium persistency and case persistency were both consistent with our expectations. The decrease in net investment income relative to 2006 resulted primarily from a decline in the level of assets supporting these lines of business.
The increase in premium income for 2008 relative to the prior year is due to sales growth in our supplemental and voluntary product lines, the impact of premium rate increases implemented for individual long-term care, and overall stable persistency. Net investment income increased relative to the prior year primarily from growth in the level of assets supporting these lines of business.
During 2009, we will maintain our risk discipline and culture of operating effectiveness, with a focus on talent development across our businesses. We will seek to continue to improve our financial performance, driven primarily by our group disability line, with greater product diversification through our voluntary product growth. We will continue the expansion of our growth platform - our core group market, group long-term care, and voluntary lines of business. Our growth strategy includes offering a broad selection of benefits which provide cost predictability and stability over the long term for our clients through employee funding and defined employer contribution programs. We will seek to leverage capabilities being developed in our growth platform with our large case clients. We will focus on continued innovation for all of our customers and sales force, including the completion of our Simply Unum platform to be effective for larger employers.
investment income. We continuously monitor key indicators to assess our risk to an economic slowdown or recession and attempt to adjust our business plans accordingly.
Unum UK includes insurance for group long-term disability, group life, and individual disability products sold primarily in the United Kingdom through field sales personnel and independent brokers and consultants. Effective with the fourth quarter of 2008, we made slight modifications to our Unum UK segment to align the allocation of capital for Unum UK similar to that of Unum US and Colonial Life. We transferred excess assets, capital in excess of target, and the associated investment income from Unum UK to our Corporate and Other segment. Financial results previously reported have been revised to reflect these reclassifications.
Fluctuations in the pound to dollar exchange rate have an effect on Unum UK’s reported financial results and our consolidated financial results. In periods when the pound weakens, as occurred during the last half of 2008 relative to 2007, translating pounds into dollars decreases current year results relative to the prior year. In periods when the pound strengthens, translating into dollars increases current year results in relation to the prior year, as was the case in 2007 compared to 2006.
Index to Financial Statements The lower benefit ratio in 2008 in comparison to the prior year was primarily due to an increased rate of claim recoveries for group long-term disability. Also included in 2008 and 2007 results are adjustments to our long-term assumptions for claim reserves due to emerging experience and our view of future events, which increased operating income approximately £5.5 million and £8.2 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively.
During 2008, Unum UK became responsible for the ongoing administration and management of a closed block of group long-term disability claims through a reinsurance arrangement with Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited. At the time of the transaction, Unum UK received cash of £24.5 million, recorded £0.4 million in accrued premiums receivable, assumed reserves of £22.2 million, and recorded a deferred gain of £2.7 million. The transaction is not expected to materially impact operating results.
Premium income increased in 2007 relative to 2006 due primarily to sales of group and individual disability products and stable persistency for those two lines of business, partially offset by lower sales for group life and continued lower persistency relative to the levels of 2005 and early 2006. Net investment income increased in 2007 relative to 2006 due to continued growth in the business and the assets supporting the lines of business and an increase in portfolio yields.
Sales in Unum UK increased in 2008 primarily due to growth in group life sales offset partially by a decrease in sales for group long-term disability. Continued aggressive competition in the U.K. market is unfavorably affecting sales in all product lines. In the U.K., legislative changes that removed discrimination by employers on the basis of age, therefore encouraging the extension of insurance coverage, became effective in October 2006. During 2007, Unum UK took advantage of the opportunities offered by age equality legislation, with £7.4 million of additional sales during 2007 compared to only £2.0 million in 2008. Excluding sales related to the change in age equality legislation, Unum UK achieved underlying sales growth of approximately 16 percent in 2008 as compared to the prior year.
During 2008, we focused on continued profitable sales growth and improvement in our premium persistency. We will continue this focus in 2009, as we seek to achieve sustainable and profitable growth through disciplined pricing, premium persistency, risk selection, and claims management. We expect to maintain our strong leadership position in the U.K, but in the current competitive market we have a cautious outlook for premium growth. We are exploring additional market opportunities to expand our growth in the group market through new product offerings. We continue to make progress on our initiative to provide the U.K. market with industry leading services, processes, systems, and operational capability.
Growth in premium income for 2008 compared to the prior year was attributable primarily to current and prior period sales and stable persistency. Net investment income increased in 2008 in comparison to the prior year due primarily to growth in the level of assets supporting these lines of business and a higher yield on the portfolio due to the investment of new cash at a higher yield than that of the existing portfolio.
The other expense ratio for 2007 increased in comparison to 2006 due primarily to our investment in brand and product promotion and the development of additional product offerings. Also, during 2006 we reported a one-time adjustment to commissions and operating expenses that increased reported commissions and reduced other expenses for that year.
Sales in 2007 increased in comparison to 2006 primarily due to sales increases in the public sector market for educators and in the commercial market segment for employee groups with less than 100 lives. Also contributing to the sales increase was an increase in the number of new accounts over the prior year, offset partially by a decrease in the average new case size, which resulted in lower annualized premium per case sold.
During 2009, we will seek to continue to expand our distribution through recruiting, development, and training programs. We intend to focus our marketing resources on both existing accounts and new employers to maintain our in-force premium and generate sales opportunities. We believe sales and premium growth will be driven by the growth and productivity of our agency sales system, as well as continued product and brand development. We will also continue our collaboration with our Unum US business partners for marketing and product development opportunities.
Our outlook for 2009 is for the continuance of high levels of profitability in this segment, but with margins decreasing modestly over time as the benefit ratio returns to more historic levels. Premium growth in 2009 is expected to be slightly less than 2008 due to slower sales trends.
(2) Included in this ratio is a decrease of $2.5 million in 2007 related to the claim reassessment process. Excluding this item, the other expense ratio for 2007 would have been 14.1%.
(3) Included in these ratios are charges (credits) of $(13.2) million and $47.2 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively, related to the claim reassessment process. Excluding these charges and credits, the before-tax operating income ratio for 2007 and 2006 would have been 9.5% and 11.1%, respectively.
Index to Financial Statements Other income includes the underlying results of certain blocks of reinsured business, including the net investment income of portfolios held by those ceding companies to support the block we have reinsured. The net investment income for those blocks of reinsured business also declined relative to prior years, primarily due to a lower level of assets.
The other expense ratio is higher for 2008 relative to the prior year due to a $4.7 million litigation settlement as well as higher legal fees related to two pending cases.
The decrease in premium income for 2007 relative to 2006 is due to the expected decline in this block of closed business, as well as an adjustment to premium income for a small block of ceded business for which the contract was modified during 2007. Partially offsetting these declines is an increase in premium income due to the 2007 reinsurance recapture, in the third quarter of 2007, of a small block of business, with an effective date of January 1, 2007, and annualized premium income of approximately $7.0 million. Neither the contract modification nor the recapture had a material effect on operating results for this segment.
Net investment income decreased slightly in 2007 compared to 2006 due to a decrease in the level of assets supporting this business and the decline in the portfolio yield rate. The lower asset levels were primarily the result of the previously discussed intercompany reinsurance arrangement which lowered the statutory capital requirements for the reinsured block of business.
We also expect that operating revenue and income will decline over time as this closed block of business winds down. We believe that the interest adjusted loss ratio for this block of business will be relatively flat over the long term, but the segment may experience quarterly volatility. Claim resolution rates are very sensitive to operational and environmental changes and can be volatile over short periods of time. Our claim resolution rate assumption used in determining reserves is our expectation of the resolution rate we will experience over the life of the block of business and will vary from actual experience in any one period. It is possible, however, that variability in our reserve assumptions could result in a material impact on our reserve levels.
As previously discussed, effective with the fourth quarter of 2008, we aggregated our former Other segment and Corporate segment into one reporting segment. Subsequent to that aggregation, additional modifications to the reporting segment included the transfer of assets, non-recourse debt, and associated capital of Tailwind Holdings and Northwind Holdings out of Corporate and Other into Unum US and Individual Disability - Closed Block, respectively, and the transfer of excess assets, capital, and the associated investment income from Unum UK into Corporate and Other. Financial results previously reported have been revised to reflect these reclassifications.
Index to Financial Statements The Corporate and Other segment includes investment income on corporate assets not specifically allocated to a line of business, interest expense on corporate debt other than non-recourse debt, and certain other corporate income and expense not allocated to a line of business. Corporate and Other also includes results from certain Unum US insurance products not actively marketed, including individual life and corporate-owned life insurance, reinsurance pools and management operations, group pension, health insurance, and individual annuities. We expect operating revenue and income resulting from these insurance products to decline over time as these business lines wind down.
Operating revenue was $106.0 million in 2008 compared to $74.9 million and $73.2 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively. Operating losses were $30.6 million in 2008 compared to $178.3 million and $173.2 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively.
The increase in operating revenue in 2008 compared to the prior years is due primarily to an increase in net investment income resulting from higher asset levels and $7.6 million of other income received during 2008 related to a refund of interest primarily attributable to tax years 1986 through 1996.
Included in other expenses is a securities litigation settlement accrual of $11.6 million in 2007 and broker compensation settlement expenses of $18.5 million in 2006.
During the first quarter of 2007, we completed the sale of GENEX and recognized an after-tax gain on the transaction of approximately $6.2 million. This gain is included with income from discontinued operations in our statements of income. Also included in discontinued operations is after-tax income for GENEX of $0.7 million and $7.4 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively. See Note 2 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for additional information.
million amortized cost) of collateralized debt obligations within our public bond portfolio. We had $148.3 million fair value ($170.2 million amortized cost) of exposure to investments for which the payment of interest and principal is guaranteed under a financial guaranty insurance policy. The weighted average rating of the underlying securities, absent the guaranty insurance policy, is A1. We held $302.7 million fair value ($496.1 million amortized cost) of perpetual debentures, or “hybrid” securities, that generally have no fixed maturity date. Interest on these securities due on any payment date may be deferred by the issuer. The interest payments are generally deferrable only to the extent that the issuer has suspended dividends or other distributions or payments to any of its shareholders or any other perpetual debt instrument.
Derivative instruments may be used to hedge interest rate risk and foreign currency risk and match liability duration and cash flows consistent with the plan reviewed by the finance committee of Unum Group’s board of directors and approved by the boards of directors of our insurance subsidiaries.
Net investment income was $2,389.0 million in 2008, a decrease of 0.9 percent relative to the prior year. The level of invested assets was higher in 2008 compared to 2007, but we received fewer bond call premiums during 2008. The weaker British pound in 2008 relative to 2007 also unfavorably affected translated results for net investment income. Our portfolio yield has increased slightly year over year due to the investment of new cash at higher rates than that of prior periods, particularly during the last two quarters of 2008.
During 2008, we recognized an other than temporary impairment loss of $27.8 million on securities issued by a large investment banking firm. The company experienced a rapid deterioration in its credit and derivatives portfolio, which made it impossible for the firm to raise additional capital or to sell assets to increase liquidity. The inability to raise capital forced the company to file for bankruptcy protection in the third quarter of 2008. The firm was rated A2 by Moody’s and A by S&P at the time of the bankruptcy filing. At the time of the impairment loss, these securities had been in an unrealized loss position for a period of greater than two years but less than three years.
During 2008, we recognized an other than temporary impairment loss of $21.6 million on securities issued by a large publisher of yellow page advertising. The outlook for this industry continues to worsen due to the secular change impacting the industry and due to weak economic conditions. The company’s third quarter earnings were down significantly as compared to prior periods, and bad debt expense and financial leverage increased significantly. These financial results increased the likelihood that the company might violate bank covenants and seek waivers from its bondholders. Additionally, the company hired external consultants to advise it on potential capital restructuring alternatives. These events increase the likelihood that the company will seek to tender its bonds at a discounted value and that our bonds will not fully recover in value. At the time of the impairment loss, these securities had been in an unrealized loss position for a period of greater than one year but less than two years.
During 2008, we recognized an other than temporary impairment loss of $12.1 million on securities issued by a large newspaper publishing company. The outlook for this industry continues to deteriorate due to the secular change away from newspaper advertising and weak economic conditions. The company reported poor third quarter operating results. The increase in leverage and lower cash flows increase the likelihood that the company may violate its bank covenants. The company has attempted to sell non-core assets to reduce its debt, but it has been unable to execute a sale. As a result, it is likely that our bonds will not fully recover in value. At the time of the impairment loss, these securities had been in an unrealized loss position for a period of greater than two years but less than three years.
During 2008, we recognized a loss of $10.1 million on the disposition of the principal protected equity linked note discussed above. The note’s substitution clause was triggered in the fourth quarter of 2008 due to the continued decline in the S&P 500 index. At the time of the triggering event, we made the decision to take ownership in the underlying Vanguard S&P 500 index mutual fund shares rather than accept the zero coupon bonds issued by the financial services company. At the time of disposition, this note had been continuously in an unrealized loss position for a period of less than ninety days. The circumstances of this investment have no impact on other investments.
During 2006, we recognized a loss of $13.1 million on the sale of securities issued by a U.S. based automotive parts supplier. In the first quarter of 2006, the company reported third quarter 2005 results which were significantly below expectations and also withdrew guidance of positive free cash flow for its fiscal year 2005. Trade creditors put into place more stringent credit terms in response to the weaker financial results, which forced the company into bankruptcy in the first quarter of 2006. A portion of these securities had an investment-grade rating at the time of purchase, and a portion was purchased after the securities had been downgraded to below-investment-grade in the second quarter of 2001. At the time of sale, these securities had been continuously in an unrealized loss position for a period of greater than three years. The circumstances of this investment have no impact on other investments.
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (SFAS 157), Fair Value Measurements. SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS 157 is intended to increase consistency and comparability among fair value estimates used in financial reporting. It does not require any new fair value measurements. SFAS 157 clarifies a number of considerations with respect to fair value measurement objectives for financial reporting and expands disclosure about the use of fair value measurements, with particular emphasis on the inputs used to measure fair value. The adoption of SFAS 157 did not materially change the approach or methods we utilize for determining fair value measurements or the fair values derived under those methods. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” contained in this Item 7 and Notes 3 and 4 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” contained herein in Item 8 for further discussion of our fair value measurements.
Index to Financial Statements The following table is a distribution of the maturity dates for fixed maturity bonds in an unrealized loss position at December 31, 2008.
Index to Financial Statements The following two tables show the length of time our investment-grade and below-investment-grade fixed maturity bonds had been in a gross unrealized loss position as of December 31, 2008 and at the end of the prior four quarters. The relationships of the current fair value to amortized cost are not necessarily indicative of the fair value to amortized cost relationships for the securities throughout the entire time that the securities have been in an unrealized loss position nor are they necessarily indicative of the relationships after December 31, 2008. As is shown in the time period progression, the elevated level of unrealized losses occurred during the third and fourth quarters of 2008. The increase in unrealized losses during the third and fourth quarters of 2008 results primarily from the significant widening of credit spreads that occurred in the overall market.
Index to Financial Statements Unrealized Loss on Below-Investment-Grade Fixed Maturity Bonds
Unrealized losses on investment-grade fixed maturity securities principally relate to changes in interest rates or changes in market or sector credit spreads which occurred after the acquisition of the securities. These changes are generally temporary and are not recognized as realized investment losses unless the securities are sold, it becomes unlikely that we will hold the securities until recovery based on relevant facts and circumstances, or the securities become other than temporarily impaired. Generally, below-investment-grade fixed maturity securities are more likely to develop credit concerns. In determining whether a decline in fair value below amortized cost of a fixed maturity security is other than temporary, we utilize a formal, well-defined, and disciplined process to monitor and evaluate our fixed income investment portfolio. The process results in a thorough evaluation of problem investments and the recording of realized losses on a timely basis for investments determined to have an other than temporary impairment. See previous discussion of our other than temporary impairment analysis under “Critical Accounting Estimates” contained in this Item 7.
Index to Financial Statements For those fixed maturity securities with an unrealized loss and on which we have not recorded an impairment loss, we believe that the decline in fair value below amortized cost is temporary. We have the ability and intent to hold our securities to the earlier of recovery or maturity. If information becomes available that changes our assessment as to whether we will receive contractual payments related to a fixed maturity security and the security is also not projected to recover in value, the related security is generally sold. We may also in certain circumstances sell a security in an unrealized loss position because of changes in tax laws, when a merger or the disposition of a segment or product line results in positions outside of our investment guidelines, due to changes in regulatory or capital requirements, due to unexpected changes in liquidity needs, to better match portfolio cash flows, or to take advantage of relative value opportunities or tender offers that recover up to or beyond the cost of the investment.
For those securities with a gross unrealized loss of $20.0 million or greater, further discussed as follows are (a) the factors which we believe resulted in the impairment and (b) the information we considered, both positive and negative, in reaching the conclusion that the impairments were not other than temporary. We believe the decline in
fair value of these securities is temporary, and we have the ability to hold these securities to the earlier of recovery or maturity.
The principal protected equity linked trust certificates represent our investment in a trust which holds forward contracts to purchase shares of a Vanguard S&P 500 index mutual fund. This trust also holds a defeasance swap contract for U.S. Treasury bonds to provide principal protection for the investments. The trust investment derives its value from the underlying S&P 500 index mutual fund. This security is currently at an unrealized loss because the fixed rate of accretion on the note has exceeded the rate of return on the underlying S&P 500 index fund since the purchase date of the note. Because we purchased this security at a price point in a previous market decline in the S&P 500 index mutual fund, we believe that the value of the underlying S&P 500 index mutual fund will equate to or exceed the par value of the security at maturity.
The fair value of the U.S. based insurance and financial services company securities declined primarily due to liquidity concerns specific to the company and for financial institutions in general. The company’s balance sheet is solid, and its core businesses are profitable. The company also owns marketable assets which can be sold to increase liquidity. The company is seeking approval to participate in the U.S. Treasury Department’s Capital Purchase Program under the Troubled Asset Relief Program in an effort to gain access to government funding.
The decline in the fair value of the global building materials company is due to the increased slowdown in commercial and infrastructure-related construction as well as a weak residential construction market. The company maintains adequate liquidity and owns marketable long-lived assets.
The decline in fair value of the Canadian based railroad company securities is due primarily to its weakened financial risk profile resulting from a recent debt financed acquisition. The company’s position is strengthened by stable industry fundamentals and a favorable regulatory environment. The company has adequate access to capital markets, and it recently implemented cash preservation policies such as suspension of its share repurchase program and freezing any shareholder dividend increases. Additionally, management has stated that it will seek to improve cash flow through the implementation of operational efficiencies and a reduction in capital expenditures. Current liquidity should provide adequate coverage for near term funding requirements.
The decline in fair value of the U.S. based forest products company securities is due to lower demand and weaker pricing capabilities in the current environment. The company has adequate liquidity to meet its obligations and has a strong asset base through its ownership of 5.9 million acres of timberland.
The decline in the fair value of the securities of the U.S. based metals and mining company is due to the increased slowdown in global economic activity, resulting in lower commodity prices and earnings pressure for the sector. The company continues to proactively adjust its production activities to preserve its liquidity and manage through the current economic downturn. The company also owns marketable long-lived assets.
The decline in fair value of the U.S. based building materials company securities is due to the ongoing weakness in the residential and remodeling markets. The company has adequate liquidity and maintains free cash flow given its low capital expenditure requirements.
The fair value of the U.S. based food and agricultural company securities declined primarily due to a general widening of credit spreads in the market, exacerbated by the securities’ very long-term maturity dates. The company has strong operating cash flows and is free cash flow positive.
The decline in the fair value of the U.S. based electric utility company securities is primarily due to the general widening of credit spreads in the investment-grade corporate bond market. The company operates a fully regulated business with no retail competition. The company’s customer base is expected to grow due to the expansion of a military base located within its service territory. Liquidity remains adequate.
The decline in fair value of the U.S. based power tools manufacturing company securities results primarily from weak consumer demand. Despite declining demand, the company continues to maintain positive earnings and cash flow. The company has sufficient liquidity and no near-term refinancing needs.
The fair value of the U.S. based media conglomerate securities declined due to the increase in leverage from a leveraged buyout transaction, as well as a general widening of credit spreads in the media industry. The company is expected to continue to generate sufficient cash flow to service its debt obligations, and it has ownership interests in a variety of media businesses that could be sold to further reduce leverage.
The fair value of the securities of the U.S. based automotive supply company declined due to lower vehicle production from multiple domestic automobile manufacturers. The company maintains a significant amount of cash and liquidity to manage through the current economic cycle, with limited near-term debt maturities. The company has a dominant position in its markets.
The decline in fair value of the Canadian based metals and mining company is due to the increased slowdown in global economic activity, resulting in lower commodity prices and earnings pressure for this sector. As part of its diversification strategy, the company recently increased its leverage due to an acquisition prior to the current market pressure on credit availability. The company has ample cash flow to significantly reduce its debt burden in the coming year, which should allow for a timely refinance or extension of its bridge debt. The company also owns marketable long-lived assets.
Index to Financial Statements As of December 31, 2008, our exposure to below-investment-grade fixed maturity securities was $1,633.9 million, approximately 4.6 percent of the carrying value of invested assets excluding ceded policy loans. Below-investment-grade bonds are inherently more risky than investment-grade bonds since the risk of default by the issuer, by definition and as exhibited by bond rating, is higher. Also, the secondary market for certain below-investment-grade issues can be highly illiquid. Additional downgrades may occur, but we do not anticipate any liquidity problem caused by our investments in below-investment-grade securities, nor do we expect these investments to adversely affect our ability to hold our other investments to maturity.
We use derivative financial instruments to manage reinvestment risk, duration, and currency risk. Historically, we have utilized interest rate futures contracts, current and forward interest rate swaps and options on forward interest rate swaps, current and forward currency swaps, interest rate forward contracts, forward treasury locks, currency forward contracts, and forward contracts on specific fixed income securities. All of these freestanding derivative transactions are hedging in nature and not speculative. Positions under our hedging programs for derivative activity that were open during 2008 involved current and forward interest rate swaps, current and forward currency swaps, currency forward contracts, forward treasury locks, and options on forward interest rate swaps. Almost all hedging transactions are associated with the individual and group long-term care and the individual and group disability products. All other product portfolios are periodically reviewed to determine if hedging strategies would be appropriate for risk management purposes.
Our current credit exposure on derivatives, which is limited to the value of those contracts in a net gain position less collateral held, was $37.7 million at December 31, 2008. The carrying value of fixed maturity securities pledged as collateral to our counterparties was $107.9 million at December 31, 2008. We believe that our credit risk is mitigated by our use of multiple counterparties, all of whom are rated A or better by both Moody’s and S&P. See Note 5 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” contained herein in Item 8 for additional information.
Our exposure to non-current investments, on a fair value basis, totaled $11.8 million and $2.6 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
We have established an investment strategy that we believe will provide for adequate cash flows from operations. We attempt to match our asset cash flows and durations with expected liability cash flows and durations to meet the funding requirements of our business. However, further deterioration in the credit market could delay our ability to sell our positions in certain of our fixed maturity securities in a timely manner, which may negatively impact our cash flows. Furthermore, if we experience defaults on securities held in the investment portfolios of our insurance subsidiaries, this will negatively impact statutory capital, which could reduce our insurance subsidiaries’ capacity to pay dividends to our holding companies. A reduction in dividends to our holding companies could force us to seek external financing to avoid impairing our ability to pay our stockholder dividends or meet our debt and other payment obligations.
We also contribute to our U.K. pension plan sufficient to meet the minimum funding requirement under U.K. legislation. We anticipate that we will make a contribution of approximately £3.5 million during 2009.
In light of the recent credit market turmoil, we have implemented a more conservative cash management strategy with respect to our securities lending and commercial paper investment programs. In addition, we have a $250.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility and an open shelf registration that we can utilize as needed to provide additional liquidity and financial flexibility. We believe our cash resources are sufficient to meet our liquidity requirements for the next 12 months and that our current level of holding company liquidity can be utilized to mitigate potential losses from defaults.
During 2009, we intend to retain sufficient capital in our traditional U.S. insurance subsidiaries to maintain a weighted average RBC ratio in excess of our stated long-term objective of 300 percent. We also intend to maintain our leverage ratio at or slightly below our target levels and maintain, as a minimum threshold, liquidity at our holding companies sufficient to cover one year of fixed charges, measured as interest expense plus common stock dividends.
Net cash provided by operating activities was $1,326.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, compared to $1,750.3 million and $1,431.9 million for the comparable periods of 2007 and 2006, respectively. Operating cash flows are primarily attributable to the receipt of premium and investment income, offset by payments of claims, commissions, expenses, and income taxes. Premium income growth is dependent not only on new sales, but on renewals of existing business, renewal price increases, and stable persistency. Investment income growth is dependent on the growth in the underlying assets supporting our insurance reserves and on the level of portfolio yield rates. Increases in commissions and operating expenses are attributable primarily to new sales growth and the first year acquisition expenses associated with new business. The level of paid claims is due partially to the growth and aging of the block of business and also to the general economy, as previously discussed in the operating results by segment. Included in operating cash flows for 2008, 2007, and 2006 are voluntary pension contributions to our U.S. qualified defined benefit plan of $130.0 million, $110.0 million, and $92.0 million, respectively. We also had increased cash inflows of approximately $211.4 million in 2007 due to the reinsurance recapture of a small block of individual disability business.
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities in 2008 were consistent with the level of 2007 primarily due to an increase in bond maturities and bonds that were called at par, offset by a decrease in sales of fixed maturity securities, a lower level of proceeds from mortgage-backed securities prepayments, and the translation of investment proceeds from our U.K. operations at lower exchange rates. Proceeds from sales and maturities of other investments decreased in 2008 primarily due to lower proceeds from the sale of common stock investments and a reduction in commercial mortgage loan maturities and prepayments. The reduction in cash flows received on other investments was partially offset by higher proceeds in 2008 from terminations of derivatives within our cash flow hedging programs.
Purchases of available-for-sale securities decreased during 2008 relative to 2007 in part due to the lower exchange rate for translation of purchases within our U.K. operations and to investing more heavily in short-term investments rather than fixed maturity securities during the last half of 2008. During the first half of 2008, we invested more heavily in fixed maturity securities as we continued to transition out of short-term investments into floating rate fixed maturity securities to support the floating rate debt issued during the fourth quarter of 2007.
Index to Financial Statements Net sales of short-term investments increased during 2008 due in part to the sale of investments to fund the $700.0 million accelerated share repurchase agreements executed one half in each of January and August 2008, as well as the transition to floating rate fixed maturity securities in lieu of short-term investments during the first half of 2008.
We had lower proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities in 2007 compared to 2006, primarily due to a decrease in scheduled maturities of fixed maturity securities as well as a lower level of proceeds from principal prepayments on mortgage-backed securities. Somewhat offsetting this decline was the sale of a block of available-for-sale securities to generate the liquidity needed to repurchase debt in the fourth quarter of 2007 as part of our capital redeployment plan.
During 2008, we retired the remaining $175.0 million of our 5.997% senior notes and we purchased and retired $17.8 million of our outstanding 5.859% notes. At December 31, 2008, we held $190.5 million of short-term debt, $58.3 million of which was borrowed during 2008. The remaining $132.2 million represents debt previously classified as long-term but which now has a maturity date within one year after the date of our balance sheet.
During 2008, we purchased and retired $36.6 million aggregate principal amount of our outstanding 6.85% notes due 2015.
Index to Financial Statements During 2008, Tailwind Holdings made principal payments on its floating rate, senior secured non-recourse notes due 2036 of $10.0 million. During 2008, Northwind Holdings made principal payments of $59.3 million on its floating rate, senior secured non-recourse notes due 2037.
During 2007, we received proceeds of approximately $800.0 million, less debt issuance costs of $15.1 million, from the issuance of $800.0 million aggregate principal amount of debt by Northwind Holdings. We also repurchased and/or made principal payments of $769.5 million aggregate principal amount of outstanding debt during 2007, for an aggregate cash outflow of $803.7 million including the debt repurchase costs of $34.2 million.
During 2007, we received proceeds of approximately $300.0 million and issued 17.7 million shares of common stock upon the settlement of the common stock purchase contract element of the 2004 units.
During 2008 and 2006, Unum Group received $100.0 million and $150.0 million, respectively, from its insurance subsidiaries for the repayment of surplus debentures previously issued to Unum Group in 1997 and in 1996. The debentures had maturity dates of October 2027 and December 2006, respectively.
Unum Group and/or certain of its finance subsidiaries may also receive dividends from its United Kingdom-based affiliate, Unum Limited, subject to applicable insurance company regulations and capital guidance in the United Kingdom. Approximately £145.5 million is available for the payment of dividends from Unum Limited during 2009, subject to regulatory approval.
The ability of Unum Group and certain of its intermediate holding company subsidiaries and/or finance subsidiaries to continue to receive dividends from their insurance subsidiaries without regulatory approval generally depends on the level of earnings of those insurance subsidiaries as calculated under law. In addition to regulatory restrictions, the amount of dividends that may be paid by insurance subsidiaries will depend on additional factors, such as RBC ratios, funding growth objectives at an affiliate level, and maintaining appropriate capital adequacy ratios to support desired ratings. Insurance regulatory restrictions do not limit the amount of dividends available for distribution from non-insurance subsidiaries except where the non-insurance subsidiaries are held directly or indirectly by an insurance subsidiary and only indirectly by Unum Group. Unum Group’s RBC ratio for its traditional U.S. insurance subsidiaries, calculated on a weighted average basis using the NAIC Company Action Level formula, was approximately 332 percent at the end of 2008, with the individual RBC ratios for Unum Group’s principal traditional U.S. insurance subsidiaries all in excess of our long-term target ratio of 300 percent. The individual RBC ratios for Northwind Re and Tailwind Re, our special purpose financial captive insurance companies, are calculated using the NAIC Company Action Level formula and have a target level of 200 percent. The RBC ratios for Northwind Re and Tailwind Re were each approximately equal to the 200 percent target level at the end of 2008. The individual RBC ratio for each of our insurance subsidiaries is above the range that would require state regulatory action.
At December 31, 2008, we had long-term debt, including senior secured notes and junior subordinated debt securities, totaling $2,259.4 million and short-term debt of $190.5 million. Short-term debt consisted of $132.2 million 5.859% senior notes due May 2009 and $58.3 million of reverse repurchase agreements. The reverse repurchase agreements were entered into during the fourth quarter of 2008, with a weighted average interest rate of 2.71 percent and a maturity date of January 20, 2009. Our leverage ratio, when calculated excluding the non-recourse debt and associated capital of Tailwind Holdings and Northwind Holdings, was 21.5 percent at December 31, 2008, compared to 21.4 percent at December 31, 2007. Our leverage ratio, when calculated using consolidated debt to total consolidated capital, was 26.6 percent at December 31, 2008 compared to 26.4 percent at December 31, 2007.
We monitor our compliance with our debt covenants. There are no significant financial covenants associated with any of our outstanding debt obligations. A ratings downgrade from either S&P or Moody’s with respect to the “shadow” or underlying debt rating on the non-recourse debt issued by Tailwind Holdings or Northwind Holdings could cause an increase in the fee paid to the third party guarantor on those debt issuances but would not cause a breach. We remain in compliance with all debt covenants and have not observed any current trends that would cause a breach of any debt covenants.
In February 2006, the scheduled remarketing of the senior note element of the 2003 units occurred, as stipulated by the terms of the original offering, and we reset the interest rate on $575.0 million of senior notes due May 15, 2008 to 5.997%. We purchased $400.0 million of the senior notes in the remarketing which were subsequently retired. In May 2006, we settled the purchase contract element of the units by issuing 43.3 million shares of common stock. We received proceeds of approximately $575.0 million from the transaction.
In 2007, Northwind Holdings issued $800.0 million floating rate, insured, senior, secured notes in a private offering. Recourse for the payment of principal, interest, and other amounts due on the notes will be limited to the assets of Northwind Holdings, consisting primarily of the stock of its sole subsidiary Northwind Re, a Vermont special purpose financial captive insurance company. Northwind Holdings’ ability to meet its payment obligations under the notes will be dependent principally upon its receipt of dividends from Northwind Re. The ability of Northwind Re to pay dividends to Northwind Holdings will depend on its satisfaction of applicable regulatory requirements and on the performance of the reinsured claims of Provident, Paul Revere and Unum America (the ceding insurers) reinsured by Northwind Re. None of Unum Group, the ceding insurers, Northwind Re or any other affiliate of Northwind Holdings is an obligor or guarantor on the notes. The balance outstanding on these notes was $740.7 million at December 31, 2008.
In 2006, Tailwind Holdings issued $130.0 million floating rate, insured, senior, secured notes in a private offering. Recourse for the payment of principal, interest, and other amounts due on the notes will be limited to the assets of Tailwind Holdings, consisting primarily of the stock of its sole subsidiary Tailwind Re, a South Carolina special purpose financial captive insurance company. Tailwind Holdings’ ability to meet its payment obligations under the notes will be dependent principally upon its receipt of dividends from Tailwind Re. The ability of Tailwind Re to pay dividends to Tailwind Holdings will depend on its satisfaction of applicable regulatory requirements and on the performance of the reinsured claims of Unum America reinsured by Tailwind Re. None of Unum Group, Unum America, Tailwind Re or any other affiliate of Tailwind Holdings is an obligor or guarantor on the notes. The balance outstanding on these notes was $102.5 million at December 31, 2008.
Index to Financial Statements In 2002, Unum Group completed two long-term offerings, issuing $250.0 million of 7.375% senior debentures due June 15, 2032 and $150.0 million of 7.250% public income notes due June 15, 2032. The public income notes were called and retired in 2007 as previously discussed. The 7.375% notes have an aggregate principal amount outstanding of $39.5 million at December 31, 2008.
In 1998, Unum Group completed public offerings of $200.0 million of 7.25% senior notes due March 15, 2028, $200.0 million of 7.0% senior notes due July 15, 2018, and $250.0 million of 6.75% senior notes due December 15, 2028. None of these amounts have been reduced other than the 6.75% notes, which have an aggregate principal amount outstanding of $166.4 million at December 31, 2008.
In 1998, Provident Financing Trust I (the trust) issued $300.0 million of 7.405% capital securities in a public offering. These capital securities, which mature on March 15, 2038, are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by Unum Group, have a liquidation value of $1,000 per capital security, and have a mandatory redemption feature under certain circumstances. Unum Group issued 7.405% junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures, which mature on March 15, 2038, to the trust in connection with the capital securities offering. The securities issued by the trust have an aggregate principal amount outstanding of $226.5 million at December 31, 2008.
Although we believe that maintenance of the unsecured revolving credit facility provides an important source for contingent liquidity, we do not anticipate the need to access funds through the facility as we are able to meet short-term liquidity needs from operating cash flows. Our credit facility contains financial covenants regarding our leverage, net worth, interest coverage, issuer credit rating, and risk-based capital position. We do not anticipate any violation of those covenants. However, if economic conditions worsen and we incur unexpected losses, we could violate certain of the financial covenants imposed by the credit facility and lose access to available funds through that facility.
Pensions and other postretirement benefit obligations include our defined benefit pension and postretirement plans for our employees, including non-qualified pension plans. Pension plan obligations, other than the non-qualified plans, represent our contributions to the pension plans. Amounts in the one year or less category equal our planned contributions within the next 12 months. The remaining years’ contributions are projected based on the expected future contributions as required under ERISA. Non-qualified pension plan and other postretirement benefit obligations represent the expected benefit payments related to these plans, discounted with respect to interest and reflecting expected future service, as appropriate. See Note 9 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” contained herein in Item 8 and “Critical Accounting Estimates” contained in this Item 7 for additional information.
Miscellaneous liabilities include commissions due and accrued, deferred compensation liabilities, state premium taxes payable, amounts due to reinsurance companies, accounts payable, fair value of derivative obligations, and various other liabilities that represent contractual obligations. Obligations where the timing of the payment was uncertain were included in the one year or less category.
As noted in the preceding discussion, we have operating lease commitments and purchase obligations totaling $95.6 million and $64.8 million, respectively, at December 31, 2008.
As part of our regular investing strategy, we receive collateral from unaffiliated third parties through transactions which include both securities lending and also short-term agreements to purchase securities with the agreement to resell them at a later specified date. For both types of transactions, we require that a minimum of 102 percent of the fair value of the securities loaned or securities purchased under repurchase agreements be maintained as collateral. Generally, cash is received as collateral under these agreements. In the event that securities are received as collateral, we are not permitted to sell or re-post them. We also post our fixed maturity securities as collateral to unaffiliated third parties through transactions including both securities lending and short-term agreements to sell securities with the agreement to repurchase them at a later specified date. At December 31, 2008, the carrying value of fixed maturity securities posted as collateral to third parties under these programs was $80.6 million.
We maintain an ongoing dialogue with the four rating agencies that evaluate us in order to inform them of progress we are making regarding our strategic objectives and financial plans, as well as other pertinent issues. A significant component of our communications involves an annual review meeting; included as well are other meetings not limited to quarterly updates regarding our business. During the second quarter of 2008, we held our annual review meetings with S&P and Moody’s. In the fourth quarter 2008, we held our annual review meetings with AM Best and Fitch.
On January 29, 2008, AM Best reaffirmed the ratings of Unum Group and its operating subsidiaries and upgraded the company’s outlook from “negative” to “stable.” The agency’s revised outlook was attributed to our increased financial flexibility, the quality of our investment portfolio, the operational execution of our operating segments, and the completion of the claim reassessment process. On February 4, 2008, Fitch revised its outlook for Unum Group and its operating subsidiaries to “positive” from “stable,” citing our progress in increasing profitability and decreasing risk along with our improved capitalization levels as the basis for the upgrade. On February 14, 2008, Moody’s revised its outlook for Unum Group and its operating subsidiaries to “stable” from “negative,” basing its revision on the overall improvement in our financial flexibility.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Unum Group and subsidiaries at December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the related financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, Unum Group changed its method of accounting for deferred acquisition costs and income taxes as of January 1, 2007 in accordance with adoption of Statement of Position 05-1, Accounting by Insurance Enterprises for Deferred Acquisition Costs in Connection With Modifications or Exchanges of Insurance Contracts, and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109; and its method of accounting for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans as of December 31, 2006 in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158 (SFAS 158), Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R).
Freestanding derivatives with positive fair values are reported on our consolidated balance sheets at fair value as assets within other long-term investments, and those with negative fair values are carried as liabilities within other liabilities. Embedded derivatives, excluding those associated with modified coinsurance arrangements, are reported on the consolidated balance sheets at fair value with the host contract. The embedded derivatives associated with modified coinsurance contracts are reported at fair value as either other long-term investments or other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. We previously reported our freestanding derivatives and our embedded derivatives related to reinsurance contracts on a net basis within fixed maturity securities. We have increased fixed maturity securities, other long-term investments, and other liabilities $160.0 million, $109.2 million, and $269.2 million, respectively, at December 31, 2007 to conform to the current year presentation.
Fixed Maturity Securities, which include bonds and redeemable preferred stocks classified as available-for-sale, are reported at fair value. Interest income is recorded as part of net investment income when earned, using an effective yield method giving effect to amortization of premium and accretion of discount. Payment terms specified for fixed maturity securities may include a prepayment penalty for unscheduled payoff of the investment. Prepayment penalties are recognized as investment income when received.
Fixed maturity securities not bought and held for the purpose of selling in the near term but for which we do not have the positive intent and ability to hold to maturity are classified as available-for-sale. Changes in the fair value of available-for-sale fixed maturity securities are reported as a component of other comprehensive income. These amounts are net of income tax and valuation adjustments to deferred acquisition costs and reserves for future policy and contract benefits which would have been recorded had the related unrealized gain or loss on these securities been realized.
Mortgage Loans are generally carried at amortized cost less an allowance for probable losses. Interest income is accrued on the principal amount of the loan based on the loan’s contractual interest rate. Payment terms specified for mortgage loans may include a prepayment penalty for unscheduled payoff of the investment. Prepayment penalties are recognized as investment income when received.
Policy Loans are presented at unpaid balances directly related to policyholders. Interest income is accrued on the principal amount of the loan based on the loan’s contractual interest rate. Included in policy loans are $2,555.6 million and $2,422.0 million of policy loans ceded to reinsurers at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Other Long-term Investments are comprised primarily of freestanding derivatives with a net positive fair value and private equity fund limited partnerships. For determining whether the fair value of freestanding derivatives is a net positive, the derivatives are grouped by counterparty for which a master netting agreement has been executed. Private equity fund limited partnerships are generally carried at cost plus our share of changes in the investee’s ownership equity since acquisition.
For a derivative not designated as a hedging instrument, the change in fair value is recognized in earnings during the period of change. We report changes in the fair values of certain embedded derivatives as realized investment gains and losses during the period of change, as required under the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133 Implementation Issue B36 (DIG Issue B36), Embedded Derivatives: Modified Coinsurance Arrangements and Debt Instruments That Incorporate Credit Risk Exposure That Are Unrelated or Only Partially Related to the Creditworthiness of the Obligor Under Those Instruments.
Deferred Acquisition Costs: Certain costs of acquiring new business that vary with and are primarily related to the production of new business have been deferred. Such costs include commissions, other agency compensation, certain selection and policy issue expenses, and certain field expenses. Acquisition costs that do not vary with the production of new business, such as commissions on group products which are generally level throughout the life of the policy, are excluded from deferral. Deferred acquisition costs are subject to recoverability testing at the time of policy issue and loss recognition testing subsequent to the year of issue.
Deferred acquisition costs related to traditional policies are amortized over the premium paying period of the related policies in proportion to the ratio of the present value of annual expected premium income to the present value of
Deferred acquisition costs related to interest-sensitive policies are amortized over the lives of the policies in relation to the present value of estimated gross profits from surrender charges, mortality margins, investment returns, and expense margins. Adjustments are made each year to reflect actual experience for assumptions which deviate significantly compared to anticipated experience.
Goodwill: Goodwill is the excess of the amount paid to acquire a business over the fair value of the net assets acquired. We review the carrying amount of goodwill for impairment during the fourth quarter of each year or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount might not be recoverable. Goodwill impairment testing compares the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill. The fair values of the reporting units are determined using discounted cash flow models. The critical estimates necessary in determining fair value are projected earnings and the discount rate. We set our discount rate assumption based on an expected risk adjusted cost of capital. If the fair value of the reporting unit to which the goodwill relates is less than the carrying amount of the unamortized goodwill, the carrying amount is reduced with a corresponding charge to expense.
Property and Equipment: Property and equipment is reported at cost less accumulated depreciation, which is calculated on the straight-line method over the estimated useful life. The accumulated depreciation for property and equipment was $563.7 million and $539.8 million as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Value of Business Acquired: Value of business acquired represents the present value of future profits recorded in connection with the acquisition of a block of insurance policies. The asset is amortized based upon expected future premium income for traditional insurance policies and estimated future gross profits for interest-sensitive insurance policies. The value of business acquired, which is included in other assets in the consolidated balance sheets, was $50.5 million and $71.2 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The accumulated amortization for value of business acquired was $92.2 million and $110.9 million as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The amortization of value of business acquired, which is included in other expenses in the consolidated statements of income, was $7.8 million, $7.9 million, and $8.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. We periodically review the carrying amount of value of business acquired using the same methods used to evaluate deferred acquisition costs.
Deferred Gain or Loss on Reinsurance: Where applicable, gains or losses on reinsurance transactions are deferred and amortized into earnings based upon expected future premium income for traditional insurance policies and estimated future gross profits for interest-sensitive insurance policies. The deferred gain on reinsurance included in other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2008 and 2007 was $150.0 million and $177.8 million, respectively.
Effective December 31, 2008, we adopted the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Staff Position No. EITF 99-20-1, (FSP EITF 99-20-1), Amendments to the Impairment Guidance of EITF Issue No. 99-20. This FSP amends the impairment guidance in Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 99-20, Recognition of Interest Income and Impairment on Purchased Beneficial Interests and Beneficial Interests That Continue to Be Held by a Transferor in Securitized Financial Assets,” to achieve more consistent determination of whether an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The FSP also retains and emphasizes the objective of an other-than-temporary impairment assessment and the related disclosure requirements in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, and other related guidance. The adoption of FSP EITF 99-20-1 did not have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations.
Effective January 1, 2007, we adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 155 (SFAS 155), Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments, an amendment of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Nos. 133 (SFAS 133) and 140 (SFAS 140). SFAS 155: (a) permits fair value remeasurement for any hybrid financial instrument that contains an embedded derivative that otherwise would require bifurcation; (b) clarifies which interest-only strips and principal-only strips are not subject to the requirements of SFAS 133; (c) establishes a requirement to evaluate beneficial interests in securitized financial assets to identify interests that are freestanding derivatives or that are hybrid financial instruments that contain an embedded derivative requiring bifurcation; (d) clarifies that concentrations of credit risk in the form of subordination are not embedded derivatives; and, (e) eliminates restrictions on a qualifying special-purpose entity’s ability to hold passive derivative financial instruments that pertain to beneficial interests that are or contain a derivative financial instrument. The adoption of SFAS 155 did not have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations.
FASB Staff Position No. FAS 132(R)-1, (FSP FAS 132(R)-1), Employers’ Disclosures about Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets, was issued December 30, 2008. This FSP amends Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 132 (revised 2003), Employers’ Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits, to provide guidance on an employer’s disclosures about plan assets of a defined benefit pension or other postretirement plan. The disclosures about plan assets required by this FSP are required for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2009. The adoption of FSP FAS 132(R)-1 will amend our disclosures but will have no effect on our financial position or results of operations.
As discussed in Note 1, the sale of GENEX closed effective March 1, 2007, and we recognized an after-tax gain of $6.2 million on the sale, which is included in income from discontinued operations in our statements of income. We intend to continue to purchase certain disability management services for a period of up to five years from the effective date of the sale. The cost of the services to be purchased was negotiated in an arms-length transaction. Intercompany amounts paid to GENEX for these types of services were $2.3 million for the two months ended February 28, 2007 and $15.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The cost of these services is not significant to our results of operations.
The results of GENEX are reported as discontinued operations and excluded from segment results for all applicable periods. Selected results for GENEX are as follows:
We use the following methods and assumptions in estimating the fair values of our financial instruments:
Policy Loans: Fair values for policy loans, net of reinsurance ceded, are estimated using discounted cash flow analyses and interest rates currently being offered to policyholders with similar policies. The carrying amounts of ceded policy loans of $2,555.6 million and $2,422.0 million as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, are reported on a gross basis in the consolidated balance sheets and approximate fair value.
Other Liabilities: Fair values for derivatives other than DIG Issue B36 derivatives are based on market quotes or pricing models and represent the net amount of cash we would have paid if the contracts had been settled or closed as of the last day of the year. Fair values for our DIG Issue B36 embedded derivative are estimated using internal pricing models and represent the hypothetical value of the duration mismatch of assets and liabilities, interest rate risk, and third party credit risk embedded in the modified coinsurance arrangement.
The amortized cost and fair values of securities by security type are shown as follows.
The gross unrealized loss on below-investment-grade fixed maturity securities was $668.0 million at December 31, 2008, or 18.8 percent, of the total gross unrealized loss on fixed maturity securities. Generally, below-investment-grade fixed maturity securities are more likely to develop credit concerns.
The second entity is a trust containing a highly rated bond for principal protection, non-redeemable preferred stock, and several partnership equity investments. We contributed the bond and partnership investments into the trust at
the time it was established. The purpose of this trust is to allow us to maintain our investment in the partnerships while at the same time protecting the principal of the investment. There are no restrictions on the assets held in this trust, and the trust is free to dispose of the assets at any time. Because the assets in the trust are not liquid investments, we periodically provide funding to the underlying partnerships in the trust upon satisfaction of contractual notice from the partnerships. At December 31, 2008, we had commitments to fund approximately $1.9 million to the underlying partnerships. These amounts may or may not be funded during the life of the partnerships. The amount of funding provided to the partnerships was $0.6 million in 2006 and de minimis during 2008 and 2007. The fair values of the bond, non-redeemable preferred stock, and partnerships were $85.6 million, $0.6 million, and $13.7 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2008. The bonds are reported as fixed maturity securities, and the non-redeemable preferred stock and partnerships are reported as other long-term investments in the consolidated balance sheets.
We have a significant investment in, but are not the primary beneficiary of, a special purpose entity which is a collateralized bond obligation asset trust (CBO) in which we hold interests in several of the tranches and for which we act as investment manager of the underlying securities. We issued the CBO in 1998, and its purpose is to securitize high yield bonds and earn a spread over the cost of the funds from the different tranches issued. In determining whether we are the primary beneficiary under the consolidation requirements of FIN 46(R), we projected the expected cash flows generated by the underlying assets in the trust using various interest rate and credit quality assumptions and assigned the projected cash flows to the various beneficiaries of the trust in accordance with the legal terms set forth by the trust agreement. Based on our analysis, we determined that we were not the primary beneficiary as we would not absorb the majority of the trust’s expected losses or receive the majority of its expected residual gains. The outstanding balance of all tranches at December 31, 2008 was $75.7 million, $39.1 million of which is held by third parties with no recourse against us. We provide no financial or other support to the trust, other than acting as investment manager of the underlying securities. The total fair value of the underlying securities in the CBO was $5.5 million at December 31, 2008. The fair value of our investment in the CBO, and therefore our maximum exposure to loss, was $2.5 million at December 31, 2008. This investment is reported as a fixed maturity security in the consolidated balance sheets.
At December 31, 2008, mortgage loans were collateralized by office buildings (39.8 percent), industrial buildings (30.5 percent), retail stores (17.6 percent), and other properties (12.1 percent). Our mortgage loan portfolio is geographically dispersed within the United States, with the largest concentrations in California (13.2 percent) and Pennsylvania (11.5 percent).
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted the provisions of SFAS 157, which are intended to increase consistency and comparability among fair value estimates used in financial reporting. SFAS 157 does not require any new fair value measurements. SFAS 157 clarifies a number of considerations with respect to fair value measurement objectives for financial reporting and expands disclosure about the use of fair value measurements, with particular emphasis on the inputs used to measure fair value. The disclosures required by SFAS 157 are intended to provide users of the financial statements the ability to assess the reliability of an entity’s fair value measurements. The adoption of SFAS 157 did not materially change the approach or methods we utilize for determining fair value measurements or the fair values derived under those methods.
3. The cost approach is based upon the amount that currently would be required to replace the service capacity of an asset, or the current replacement cost. That is, from the perspective of a market participant (seller), the price that would be received for the asset is determined based on the cost to a market participant (buyer) to acquire or construct a substitute asset of comparable utility.
The selection of the valuation method(s) to apply considers the definition of an exit price and depends on the nature of the asset or liability being valued. For assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value, we generally use valuation techniques consistent with the market approach, and to a lesser extent, the income approach. We believe the market approach valuation technique provides more observable data than the income approach, considering the type of investments we hold. Our fair value measurements could differ significantly based on the valuation technique and available inputs. When markets are less active, brokers may rely more on models with inputs based on the information available only to the broker. In weighing a broker quote as an input to fair value, we place less reliance on quotes that do not reflect the result of market transactions. We also consider the nature of the quote, particularly whether the quote is an indicative price or a binding offer. If prices in an inactive market do not reflect current prices for the same or similar assets, adjustments may be necessary to arrive at fair value. When relevant market data is unavailable, which may be the case during periods of market uncertainty, the income approach can, in appropriate circumstances, provide a more appropriate fair value. During 2008, we have applied valuation techniques on a consistent basis to similar assets and liabilities and consistent with those techniques used at year end 2007. Due to recent market conditions, the mix and availability of observable inputs for valuation techniques have been volatile, and the risk inherent in the inputs is elevated relative to prior periods.
Observable inputs which we utilize to determine the fair values of our investments and derivative financial instruments include indicative broker prices and prices obtained from external pricing services. At December 31, 2008, approximately 87.6 percent of our fixed maturity securities were valued based on active trades and/or broker quotes or prices obtained from pricing services that generally use observable inputs in their valuation techniques, with no additional adjustments to the prices. These assets were classified as either Level 1 or Level 2, with the categorization dependent on whether the price was for an actual representative sale, for identical assets actively traded, and/or the quote binding or non-binding. We generally obtain, on average, one quote per financial instrument. We review the prices obtained to ensure they are consistent with a variety of observable market inputs
The overall valuation process for determining fair values may include adjustments to valuations obtained from our pricing sources when they do not represent a valid exit price. These adjustments may be made when, in our judgment, certain features of the financial instrument, such as its complexity or the market in which the financial instrument is traded (such as counterparty, credit, concentration, or liquidity), require that an adjustment be made to the value originally obtained from our pricing sources. Additionally, an adjustment to the price derived from a model typically reflects our judgment of the inputs that other participants in the market for the financial instrument being measured at fair value would consider in pricing that same financial instrument.
levels resulted primarily from a change in observability of three inputs used to determine fair values of the securities transferred: (1) transactional data for new issuance and secondary trades, (2) broker/dealer quotes and pricing, primarily related to the lack of an active and orderly market, and (3) comparable bond metrics from which to perform an analysis. For fair value measurements of financial instruments that were transferred either into or out of Level 3, we reflect the transfers using the fair value at the beginning of the period. The amount of losses for the year ended December 31, 2008 which is included in earnings and is attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets or liabilities valued using significant unobservable inputs and still held at December 31, 2008 was $291.7 million. This amount relates entirely to the change in fair value of an embedded derivative associated with a modified coinsurance arrangement which is reported as realized investment gains and losses, as required under DIG Issue B36.
receive the value of our collateral, net of the termination amount owed, although the timing of the resolution is uncertain.
The following table summarizes the timing of anticipated settlements of interest rate swaps outstanding at December 31, 2008, whereby we receive a fixed rate and pay a variable rate. The weighted average interest rates assume current market conditions.
As of December 31, 2007, we had $80.0 million notional amount of open options on forward interest rate swaps to lock in a reinvestment rate floor for the reinvestment of cash flows, through the year 2008, from renewals on policies with a one to two year minimum premium rate guarantee. We did not have any options outstanding at December 31, 2008.
We have invested in certain structured fixed maturity securities that contain embedded derivatives with a notional amount of $50.0 and $98.8 million as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. These embedded derivatives represent forward contracts and are accounted for as cash flow hedges. The purpose of these forward contracts is to hedge the risk of changes in cash flows related to the anticipated purchase of certain equity securities in the year 2022.
During 2006, we completed a program to reset the interest rates of several receive fixed, pay variable forward starting interest rate swaps by terminating various existing swaps and adding new swaps at current market interest rates and identical cash flow dates. This allowed us to increase our utilization of cash flows as well as reduce our credit exposure to our counterparties. Under this program, we added and terminated swaps with a notional amount of $1,515.0 million each, resulting in a gain of $136.4 million which we reported in other comprehensive income (loss). The anticipated cash flows hedged by these derivatives are still probable, and the gains from the terminated swaps along with the replacement swaps continue to be highly effective cash flow hedges. These terminations and the associated gain are included in the hedging activity discussed in the following paragraph.
During the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, we recognized net gains of $82.5 million, $26.0 million, and $183.6 million, respectively, on the termination of cash flow hedges and reported $84.4 million, $26.1 million, and $183.6 million, respectively, in other comprehensive income (loss). During the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, we reported a net loss of $1.9 million and $0.1 million as a component of realized investment gains and losses, respectively. We amortized $20.3 million, $20.2 million, and $30.0 million of net deferred gains into net investment income during 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. The estimated amount of net deferred gains to be amortized into operating earnings during 2009 is $21.0 million.
For the year ended December 31, 2008, there was no material ineffectiveness related to our cash flow hedges, and there was no component of the derivative instruments’ gain or loss excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness. During 2008, we recognized credit impairment losses of $2.5 million as a result of the termination of swap contracts resulting from changes in the credit ratings of the counterparty such that the contract was no longer within our internal investment policy guidelines. During 2008 and 2007, we reclassified $0.6 million of net gains and $0.1 million of net losses, respectively, into earnings as a result of the discontinuance of cash flow hedges due to the improbability of the original forecasted transactions occurring during the time period originally anticipated.
Due to the change in fair value of this embedded derivative, we recognized $291.7 million, $57.3 million, and $5.3 million of net realized investment losses during 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. The fair value of this embedded derivative was $(360.5) million and $(68.8) million at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
The majority of the net balances are related to disability claims with long-tail payouts on which interest earned on assets backing liabilities is an integral part of pricing and reserving. Interest accrued on prior year reserves has been calculated on the opening reserve balance less one-half year’s cash payments at our average reserve discount rate used during 2008, 2007, and 2006.
Our “Incurred Related to Prior Years” for 2007 and 2006 includes adjustments to reserves for our claim reassessment process. We entered into settlement agreements with various state insurance regulators during 2004 and 2005. In connection with these settlement agreements, we increased our disability claim reserves $396.4 million and $65.8 million in 2006 and 2007, respectively, to reflect our revised estimate for costs associated with the claim reassessment process. “Paid Related to Prior Years” includes $248.0 million and $154.9 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively, for these reserve charges.
rate assumption used in determining reserves is our expectation of the resolution rate we will experience over the life of the block of business and will vary from actual experience in any one period, both favorably and unfavorably.
Our deferred income tax assets and liabilities consist of the following:
The cumulative effect of applying the provisions of FIN 48 as of January 1, 2007 resulted in a $22.7 million decrease in our liability for unrecognized tax benefits, net of associated deferred tax assets. Our consolidated statements of income include the following changes in unrecognized tax benefits:
We file federal and state income tax returns in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions. We are under continuous examination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with regard to our U.S. federal income tax returns. The current IRS examination covers our tax years 2005 and 2006. During 2008, the IRS completed its examination of tax years 2002 through 2004 and issued its revenue agent’s report (RAR). We filed a protest to the RAR with respect to all significant adverse proposed adjustments and expect an appeal to be heard by the IRS during 2009 on all outstanding issues for years 1999 through 2004.
Included in 2008 operating results is a refund of interest of $7.6 million before tax and $4.9 million after tax primarily attributable to tax years 1986 through 1996.
As of December 31, 2008, we had no net operating loss carryforward in the U.S. and $4.1 million net operating loss carryforwards in foreign jurisdictions for which a full valuation allowance has been established because, in our judgment, we will most likely not realize a tax benefit for these losses. The $1.5 million decrease from 2007 in the valuation allowance is due primarily to utilization of loss carryforwards during 2008 as well as the fluctuation in the British pound sterling to dollar exchange rate.
The aggregate contractual principal maturities are $190.5 million in 2009, $225.1 million in 2011, and $2,034.5 million in 2015 and thereafter.
Recourse for the payment of principal, interest, and other amounts due on the Northwind notes is limited to the collateral for the Northwind notes and the other assets, if any, of Northwind Holdings. The collateral consists of a first priority, perfected security interest in (a) the debt service coverage account (Northwind DSCA) that Northwind Holdings is required to maintain in accordance with the indenture pursuant to which the Northwind notes were issued (the Northwind indenture), (b) the capital stock of Northwind Re and the dividends and distributions on such capital stock, and (c) Northwind Holdings’ rights under the transaction documents related to the Northwind notes to which Northwind Holdings is a party. At December 31, 2008 the amount in the Northwind DSCA was $29.7 million. None of Unum Group, the ceding insurers, Northwind Re, or any other affiliate of Northwind Holdings is an obligor or guarantor with respect to the Northwind notes.
Recourse for the payment of principal, interest, and other amounts due on the Tailwind notes is limited to the collateral for the Tailwind notes and the other assets, if any, of Tailwind Holdings. The collateral consists of a first priority, perfected security interest in (a) the debt service coverage account (Tailwind DSCA) that Tailwind Re is required to maintain in accordance with the indenture pursuant to which the Tailwind notes were issued (the Tailwind indenture), (b) the capital stock of Tailwind Re and the dividends and distributions on such capital stock, and (c) Tailwind Holdings’ rights under the transaction documents related to the Tailwind notes to which Tailwind Holdings is a party. At December 31, 2008 the amount in the Tailwind DSCA was $9.4 million. None of Unum Group, Unum America, Tailwind Re, or any other affiliate of Tailwind Holdings is an obligor or guarantor with respect to the Tailwind notes.
In 2006, we purchased and retired $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of our outstanding 7.625% notes due 2011.
In 2008, 2007, and 2006, $36.6 million, $34.5 million, and $32.0 million, respectively, of the 6.85% senior debentures due 2015 were redeemed. These debentures were issued by UnumProvident Finance Company plc, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unum Group, and are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by Unum Group.
We sponsor several defined benefit pension and postretirement plans for our employees, including non-qualified pension plans. The U.S. plans comprise the majority of our total benefit obligation and benefit cost. We maintain a separate defined benefit plan for eligible employees in our U.K. operation. The U.K. defined benefit pension plan was closed to new entrants on December 31, 2002.
Information presented as follows for our non U.S. plans previously included plans for the employees of our Canadian branch operation which was sold in 2004. In the third quarter of 2007, we terminated the Canadian defined benefit pension plans which were frozen in 2004. The termination of these plans resulted in a reduction in our pension assets and pension liabilities of $15.1 million and a settlement cost of $0.3 million recognized in our net periodic benefit cost for 2007.
6.10 percent as of our December 31, 2006 measurement date to 5.90 percent as of the measurement date of March 1, 2007. No other assumptions were materially changed. As a result of the remeasurement, our pension plan liability increased $35.6 million. The net effect of the curtailment and remeasurement was an increase in our pension plan liability of $29.0 million, a decrease in deferred income tax of $10.1 million, a decrease in income from discontinued operations of $0.2 million, and a decrease in accumulated other comprehensive income of $18.7 million.
The amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets for our pension and postretirement benefit plans at December 31, 2008 and 2007 are as follows:
The following table provides the changes recognized in other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.
The expected return assumption for the life insurance reserve for the postretirement benefits plan was 5.75 percent, which was based on full investment in fixed income securities with an average book yield of 6.30 percent for both 2008 and 2007.
In total, we repurchased 29.9 million shares of Unum Group common stock under the share repurchase program. These shares are reflected as treasury stock in our consolidated balance sheets.
We settled the purchase contract element of the 2004 and 2003 units in May 2007 and 2006 by issuing 17.7 million and 43.3 million shares of common stock, respectively. See Note 8 for further discussion.
We use the treasury stock method to account for the effect of the purchase contract element of the units, outstanding stock options, nonvested stock awards, and performance restricted stock units on the computation of dilutive earnings per share. Under this method, these potential common shares will each have a dilutive effect, as individually measured, when the average market price of Unum Group common stock during the period exceeds the threshold appreciation price of the purchase contract element of the units, as described in Note 8, or the exercise price of the stock options, the grant price of the nonvested stock awards, and/or the threshold stock price of performance restricted stock units, as described in Note 11.
The purchase contract element of the units issued in 2004 and 2003 had a threshold appreciation price of $16.95 per share and $13.27 per share, respectively. The outstanding stock options have exercise prices ranging from $12.23 to $58.56, the nonvested stock awards have grant prices ranging from $11.58 to $26.25, and the performance restricted stock units have a threshold stock price of $26.00.
The exercise price for stock options issued cannot be less than the fair market value of the underlying common stock as of the grant date. Stock options have a maximum term of ten years after the date of grant and generally vest after three years. At December 31, 2008, approximately 28.72 million shares were available for future grants.
Under the broad-based stock plan of 2001, up to 2.00 million shares of common stock were available for stock option awards to our employees, officers, consultants, and brokers, excluding certain senior officers and directors. The plan was terminated in December 2007 for purposes of any further grants, other than reload grants, for which 20,000 shares were available at December 31, 2008. The stock options have a maximum term of ten years after the date of grant and generally vest after three years.
Under the stock plan of 1999, comprised of the Provident Companies, Inc. stock plan of 1999 and the UnumProvident Corporation stock plan of 1999, an aggregate of up to 17.50 million shares of common stock were available for awards to our employees, officers, brokers, and directors. Awards could be in the form of stock options, stock appreciation rights, stock awards, dividend equivalent awards, or any other right or interest relating to stock. The plan was terminated in May 2007 for purposes of any further grants, other than reload grants, for which 250,000 shares were available at December 31, 2008. Stock options have a maximum term of ten years after the date of grant and generally vest after three years.
share for nonvested stock awards granted during 2008, 2007, and 2006 were $23.66, $21.99, and $20.95, respectively.
At December 31, 2008, we had $15.8 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to nonvested stock awards that will be recognized over a weighted average period of 0.9 years. Prior to adoption of SFAS 123(R), this amount was reported as additional paid-in capital and deferred compensation, a contra equity account. The value of this contra equity account at the adoption of SFAS 123(R) was $13.8 million.
At December 31, 2008, we had $9.0 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to PRSUs that will be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.5 years. The PRSU expense and unrecognized compensation cost assume the performance goals are attained at 100 percent. Actual performance may result in zero to 100 percent of the units ultimately being earned. We used the accelerated method of amortization for recognizing compensation expense, which treats each of the three vesting tranches as a separate award over the expected life of the unit.
Expected dividend yield of 1.30 percent and 1.57 percent, respectively, based on the dividend rate at the date of grant.
Cash received under all share-based payment arrangements for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006 was $4.4 million, $7.8 million, and $5.0 million, respectively.
During the third quarter of 2007, we recaptured a closed block of individual disability business, with approximately $204.3 million in reserves and $7.0 million of annual premium. The recapture had an immaterial effect on operating results.
During 2000, we reinsured substantially all of our individual life and corporate-owned life insurance blocks of business, with a resulting gain which was deferred and is being amortized into income. A portion of the ceded corporate-owned life insurance block of business surrendered during 2007. The termination of this fully ceded business, which is reported in our Corporate and Other segment, had no impact on our operating results and will not materially affect the amortization of the deferred gain. The termination resulted in a balance sheet only decrease in reserves for future policy and contract benefits of $1,094.0 million and policy loans of $1,013.7 million, with corresponding offsets to each in the reinsurance recoverable. The termination of this fully ceded business had no impact on our cash flows.
The Unum UK segment includes group long-term disability insurance, group life products, and individual disability products sold primarily in the United Kingdom through field sales personnel and independent brokers and consultants.
The Colonial Life segment includes insurance for accident, sickness, and disability products, life products, and cancer and critical illness products marketed primarily to employees at the workplace through an agency sales force and brokers.
The Individual Disability - Closed Block segment generally consists of those individual disability policies that were designed to be distributed to individuals in a non-workplace setting and which were primarily in force prior to the substantial changes in product offerings, pricing, distribution, and underwriting which generally occurred during the period 1994 through 1998. A minimal amount of new business continued to be sold subsequent to these changes, but we stopped selling new policies in this segment at the beginning of 2004 other than update features contractually allowable on existing policies.
The Corporate and Other segment includes investment income on corporate assets not specifically allocated to a line of business, interest expense on corporate debt other than non-recourse debt, and certain other corporate income and expense not allocated to a line of business. Corporate and Other also includes results from certain Unum US insurance products not actively marketed, including individual life and corporate-owned life insurance, reinsurance pools and management operations, group pension, health insurance, and individual annuities.
Revenue is primarily derived from sources in the United States and the United Kingdom. There are no material revenues or assets attributable to foreign operations other than those reported in Unum UK.
The lawsuits described below are for the most part in very preliminary stages, and the outcome of the matters is uncertain. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation and contingencies to be reflected in our consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss is accrued when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Unless indicated otherwise, reserves have not been established for these matters.
Index to Financial Statements NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Between November 22, 2002 and March 11, 2003 five purported derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in Tennessee. The defendants removed each of the actions that were filed in Tennessee state court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and the cases were consolidated. The plaintiffs then filed a single consolidated amended complaint, which purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain current and past members of our Board of Directors and certain executive officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law by establishing or permitting to be established an unlawful policy of denying legitimate disability claims and improper financial reporting, and that certain defendants engaged in insider trading.
On August 27, 2008, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to, among other things, approval of the court, we agreed to, among other things, implement or continue certain corporate governance measures and pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by the court. We have established adequate reserves for the attorneys’ fees, the payment of which we believe will be an immaterial amount.
On January 12, 2009, in a two-to-one decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s earlier ruling certifying a class. On January 26, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing of this decision by the full court. The District Court has yet to rule on our pending motions for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment.
On April 30, 2003, a separate putative class action, Taylor v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al., was filed in the Tennessee Circuit Court and subsequently removed to federal court. The complaint alleges claims against Unum Group and certain subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class of long-term disability insurance policyholders who did not obtain their coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim denied, terminated, or suspended by a Unum Group subsidiary after January 1, 1995, seeking equitable and monetary relief. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated various state laws by engaging in unfair claim practices and improperly denying claims. The trial court subsequently dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief and punitive damages and, most recently, denied certification of a class action. On September 23, 2008, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiff’s petition to appeal the denial of class certification; on the following day the District Court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s additional claims except for plaintiff’s individual claims for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty and alleged violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
We have cooperated fully with all investigations and will continue to do so. However, due to a prolonged period of inactivity, we consider these state investigations dormant.
We and certain of our subsidiaries, along with many other insurance brokers and insurers, have been named as defendants in a series of putative class actions that have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 1663, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 filed a consolidated amended complaint in August 2005, which alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, RICO, ERISA, and various state common law requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance brokers to steer business to defendant insurers. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 29, 2005. On April 5, 2007, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice as to all counts except the ERISA counts. Plaintiffs were granted a last opportunity to file an amended complaint, and they did so on May 22, 2007. On June 21, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on all counts. On August 31, 2007 and September 28, 2007, plaintiffs’ federal antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ERISA counts was granted on January 14, 2008. All pending state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals of the order dismissing their federal antitrust and RICO claims.
We are a defendant in an action styled, Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. v. ACE USA, et al., which was filed in the Florida state Circuit Court on February 16, 2005. The complaint contains allegations similar to those made in the multidistrict litigation referred to above. The case was removed to federal court and, on October 20, 2005, the case was transferred to the District of New Jersey multidistrict litigation. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to the state court in Florida was dismissed without prejudice along with other pending motions in the MDL.
In September 2003, United States of America ex. rel. Patrick J. Loughren v. UnumProvident Corporation and GENEX Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This is a qui tam action to recover damages and civil penalties on behalf of the United States of America alleging violations of the False Claims Act by us and our former GENEX subsidiary. In accordance with the False Claims Act, the action was originally filed under seal to provide the government the opportunity to investigate the allegations and prosecute the action if they believed that the case had merit and warranted their attention. The government declined to prosecute the case, and the case became a matter of public record on December 23, 2004. The complaint alleges that we defrauded the government by inducing and or assisting disability claimants to apply for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) when we allegedly knew that the claimants were not disabled under SSA criteria. We filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied on September 15, 2008. The case proceeded to trial at which seven out of 95 claims were adjudicated. We prevailed on four of the claims, the Relator prevailed on two of the claims, and the jury could not reach a verdict on one of the claims. The jury awarded the Relator $850 in damages which can be trebled. The court may also assess a penalty of between $5,000 and $11,000 per claim. The court has not yet set a trial date for the remaining claims. The court must still address the issue of whether, once all the claims are tried, there can be any extrapolation of these results to the larger population of claims we manage. We strongly believe that no such extrapolation can be justified either legally or factually, especially in light of the recent split verdict. On February 24, 2009, the court ruled that the testimony of the Relator’s expert in support of extrapolation would be excluded. We have also filed post trial motions with the trial court seeking to reverse the adverse findings by the jury and, if necessary, we will file an appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals if final judgment is entered against us.
At December 31, 2008, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries had on deposit with U.S. regulatory authorities securities with a book value of $293.7 million held for the protection of policyholders.
The fourth quarter of 2007 includes costs related to early retirement of debt of $55.6 million before tax and $36.1 million after tax.
See Notes 2, 6, and 8 for further discussion of the above items.