For purposes of this discussion, “Brighthouse Insurance,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (formerly, MetLife USA or MICC), a Delaware corporation originally incorporated in Connecticut in 1863, and its subsidiaries. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (MetLife, Inc., together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, “MetLife”). Management’s narrative analysis of the results of operations is presented pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(a) of Form 10-K. This discussion should be read in conjunction with “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements,” “Risk Factors,” “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” and the Company’s consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein.
Operating earnings is used by management to evaluate performance and allocate resources. Consistent with GAAP guidance for segment reporting, operating earnings is also our GAAP measure of segment performance. Accordingly, we report operating earnings by segment in Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Operating earnings should not be viewed as a substitute for net income (loss). See “- Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for the definition and components of operating earnings.
The businesses in the Company’s former Retail segment are reflected in two new segments, Annuities and Life.
Differences between actual experience and the assumptions used in pricing these policies and guarantees, as well as in the establishment of the related liabilities, result in variances in profit and could result in losses. In assessing loss recognition and profits followed by losses, product groupings are limited by segment. Historically, all of our universal life business was grouped together for evaluating loss recognition and profits followed by losses. In the second quarter of 2016, an actuarial model change reduced expected future gross profits for ULSG and triggered loss recognition resulting in a charge of $178 million, net of income tax, during the year ended December 31, 2016. Subsequently, in the fourth quarter of 2016, ULSG was moved from our Life to Run-off segment triggering a change in groupings for loss recognition testing that resulted in an additional loss of $95 million, net of income tax.
See Note 5 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on our accounting policy relating to variable annuity guarantees and liability for future policy benefits, Note 5 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for future policy benefit liabilities, and Note 9 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for derivatives.
See Note 6 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on DAC and VOBA.
The determination of the estimated fair value of freestanding derivatives, when quoted market values are not available, is based on market standard valuation methodologies and inputs that management believes are consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing such instruments. Derivative valuations can be affected by changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, financial indices, credit spreads, default risk, nonperformance risk, volatility, liquidity and changes in estimates and assumptions used in the pricing models. See Note 10 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional details on significant inputs into the over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivative pricing models and credit risk adjustment.
In the third quarter of 2016, the Company performed its annual goodwill impairment test on the Run-off reporting unit based upon data at June 30, 2016. The Company utilized an actuarial based embedded value approach, which estimates the net worth of the reporting unit and the value of existing business. Under this actuarial based methodology the fair value of the Run-off reporting unit was less than the carrying value, indicating a potential for goodwill impairment. Because the Run-off reporting unit is a closed block, we used a higher discount rate that reflects the expected risk-adjusted returns associated with such business. The use of a higher discount rate negatively impacted the fair value of this reporting unit. As a result, the Company performed Step 2 of the goodwill impairment process. This analysis indicated that the recorded goodwill associated with this reporting unit was not recoverable. Therefore, the Company recorded a non-cash charge of $381 million ($305 million, net of income tax) for the impairment of the entire goodwill balance which is reported in goodwill impairment on the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2016.
We provide for federal, and state income taxes currently payable, as well as those deferred due to temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities. Our accounting for income taxes represents our best estimate of various events and transactions. Tax laws are often complex and may be subject to differing interpretations by the taxpayer and the relevant governmental taxing authorities. In establishing a provision for income tax expense, we must make judgments and interpretations about the application of inherently complex tax laws. We must also make estimates about when in the future certain items will affect taxable income in the various tax jurisdictions.
Valuation allowances are established against deferred tax assets, particularly those arising from tax credit carryforwards, when management determines, based on available information, that it is more likely than not that deferred income tax assets will not be realized. The realization of deferred tax assets related to tax credit carryforwards depends upon the existence of sufficient taxable income within the carryforward periods under the tax law in the applicable tax jurisdiction. Valuation allowances are established when management determines, based on available information, that it is more likely than not that deferred income tax assets will not be realized. Significant judgment is required in projecting future taxable income to determine whether or not valuation allowances should be established, as well as the amount of such allowances. See Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information relating to our determination of such valuation allowances.
From time to time, we are a party to a number of legal actions and are involved in a number of regulatory investigations. Given the inherent unpredictability of these matters, it is difficult to estimate the impact on our financial position. Liabilities are established when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to liabilities for litigation, regulatory investigations and litigation-related contingencies to be reflected on our consolidated financial statements.
Business Overview. Annuity sales declined 23% primarily due to the suspension of sales by a major distributor and discontinuance of sales of our GMIB rider products. Life sales declined 28% primarily due to the U.S. Retail Advisor Force Divestiture. While overall sales declined, we did experience increases in certain products including our newest universal life product, our index-linked annuities and our latest generation variable annuity withdrawal guarantee product.
Income (loss) before provision for income tax decreased $5.8 billion ($3.8 billion, net of income tax) for the year ended December 31, 2016. In addition to lower operating earnings, this decrease was primarily due to unfavorable results from GMLB Riders, unfavorable changes in other derivative instruments, and a charge for goodwill impairment. Excluding the impact of the annual actuarial assumption review, income (loss) before provision for income tax decreased $3.4 billion ($2.2 billion, net of income tax).
Overview. The $386 million decrease in operating earnings primarily resulted from higher DAC amortization, higher insurance liabilities related to our universal life with secondary guarantees (“ULSG”) business and higher costs related to guaranteed minimum death benefits (“GMDBs”), partially offset by higher fee income. Excluding the impact of the annual actuarial assumption review, operating earnings decreased $303 million.
In the second quarter of 2016, we refined our actuarial model which calculates reserves for our ULSG products (“ULSG Model Change”). This change resulted in a one-time charge to operating earnings of $229 million, when compared to 2015. Of this one-time charge, $51 million was due to higher insurance-related liabilities combined with unfavorable adjustments related to unearned revenue and DAC. The change also resulted in a reduction of expected future gross profits, which drove our loss recognition margins negative, resulting in an increase in DAC amortization of $158 million and an additional increase in insurance-related liabilities of $20 million.
As a further result of the lower expected future gross profits in our ULSG products, we expect future recurring increases in insurance-related liabilities for which $34 million was recognized in the third and fourth quarters of 2016, in addition to the one-time charges discussed above. The recurring amounts may increase if and when the current affiliated captive reinsurance companies are merged with and into BRCD.
a decrease of $97 million due to lower asset-based fees resulting from the lower separate account balances in our variable annuities business.
a $129 million increase in insurance-related liabilities driven by GMDB costs related to higher claims, hedge losses and the liabilities increasing at a higher rate;
Excluding the impact of the annual actuarial assumption review, insurance-related activities decreased operating earnings by $275 million.
Amortization of DAC and VOBA. Higher DAC and VOBA amortization decreased operating earnings by $231 million, primarily due to:
an increase of $200 million due to the ULSG Model Change and ULSG Re-segmentation, net of the impact of lower operating amortization recognized in 2016 compared to 2015, as a result of these loss recognition write-offs;
a decrease in amortization of $56 million from a recovery of DAC related to the SPDA Recapture;
Other Expenses, Net of DAC Capitalization. Lower expenses increased operating earnings by $37 million, primarily due to the impacts from the U.S. Retail Advisor Force Divestiture and lower commission expense resulting from lower sales and reinsurance recapture activities. These decreases were partially offset by higher interest expense on funds withheld related to certain affiliated reinsurance agreements and higher software amortization as certain projects were completed and placed into service in 2016.
Actuarial Assumption Review. The results of the actuarial assumption review, which are included in the amounts discussed above, decreased operating earnings by $83 million, primarily due to:
a decrease of $27 million due to GMDB liabilities resulting from assumption changes related to rider utilization assumptions; partially offset by
The following table presents the overall impact to income (loss) before provision for income tax from the performance of GMLB Riders for (i) changes in carrying value of the GAAP liabilities, (ii) the mark-to-market of hedges and reinsurance, (iii) fees, and (iv) associated DAC offsets for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Excludes living benefit fees of $74 million, included as a component of operating earnings, for both years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
Unless otherwise noted, all amounts in the following discussion are net of income tax.
GMLB Riders liabilities represent our obligation to protect policyholders against the possibility that a downturn in the markets will reduce the specified benefits that can be claimed under the base annuity contract. Any periods of significant and/or sustained downturns in equity markets, increased equity volatility, or reduced interest rates could result in an increase in the valuation of our GMLB Riders liabilities. An increase in these liabilities would result in a decrease to our net income, which could be significant.
We enter into freestanding derivatives, and to a lesser extent reinsurance, to hedge the market risks inherent in GMLB Riders liabilities. However, certain of the risks inherent in GMLB Riders liabilities are unhedged, including the adjustment for non-performance risk. Generally, the same market factors that impact the fair value of GMLB Riders liabilities impact the value of the hedges, though in the opposite direction. However, due to the complex nature of the business and any unhedged risks, the changes in fair value of GMLB Riders liabilities and GMLB Riders hedges and reinsurance are not always in an equal amount.
The unfavorable change in the fair value of GMLB Riders hedges and reinsurance decreased income (loss) before provision for income tax by $3.0 billion ($2.0 billion, net of income tax). This unfavorable change in value was primarily due to equity market impacts as well as the effect on the hedges of long-term interest rates increasing in 2016 compared to decreasing in 2015.
Higher GMLB Riders fees increased income (loss) before provision for income tax by $66 million ($43 million, net of income tax), primarily due to the impact from the roll-up of the average benefit base on which fees are assessed.
DAC offsets related to the impact of changes in each of the individual components of the GMLB Riders discussed above increased income (loss) before provision for income tax by $1.1 billion ($725 million, net of income tax). The DAC offset related to each component of the directly written GMLB Riders is determined by the same factors that impact the respective component, but generally in the opposite direction. There is no DAC related to assumed reinsurance and, accordingly, no DAC offset. Excluding the impact of the annual actuarial assumption review, DAC offsets increased income (loss) before provision for income tax by $409 million ($266 million, net of income tax).
The annual assumption review, which is included in the amounts discussed above, resulted in an unfavorable impact for the year ended December 31, 2016, decreasing income (loss) before provision for income tax by $2.3 billion ($1.5 billion, net of income tax), primarily due to the following:
a decrease of $3.0 billion ($1.9 billion, net of income tax) recognized in net derivative gains (losses), mainly related to changes in rider utilization assumptions; partially offset by
We participate in a securities lending program in the normal course of business for the purpose of enhancing the total return on our investment portfolio. Periodically, we receive non-cash collateral for securities lending from counterparties on deposit from customers, which cannot be sold or re-pledged, and which has not been recorded on our consolidated balance sheets. The amount of this collateral was $27 million and $23 million at estimated fair value at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. See Notes 1 and 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion of our securities lending program, the classification of revenues and expenses, and the nature of the secured financing arrangement and associated liability.
We enter into derivatives to manage various risks relating to our ongoing business operations. We have non-cash collateral from counterparties for derivatives, which can be sold or re-pledged subject to certain constraints, and which has not been recorded on our consolidated balance sheets. The amount of this non-cash collateral was $564 million and $552 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. See “- Liquidity and Capital Resources - Liquidity” and Note 9 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding the earned income on and the gross notional amount, estimated fair value of assets and liabilities and primary underlying risk exposure of our derivatives.
Additionally, we enter into the following commitments in the normal course of business for the purpose of enhancing the total return on our investment portfolio: mortgage loan commitments and commitments to fund partnership investments and private corporate bond investments. See “Net Investment Income” and “Net Investment Gains (Losses)” in Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information on the investment income, investment expense, gains and losses from such investments. See also “Fixed Maturity and Equity Securities AFS” and “Mortgage Loans” in Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information on our investments in fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans.
Historically, the Company could benefit from availability under an unsecured credit facility maintained by MetLife, Inc. and MetLife Funding, an affiliate, as a potential source of liquidity. In connection with the planned separation, Brighthouse has entered into a $3.0 billion three-year unsecured delayed draw term loan agreement and a $2.0 billion five-year senior unsecured revolving credit facility (collectively the “Brighthouse Credit Facilities”). In the future, Brighthouse may also establish an internal affiliated liquidity facility to provide liquidity within and across the combined group of Brighthouse companies. The Brighthouse Credit Facilities coupled with the potential internal affiliated liquidity facility will be a potential source of liquidity and capital to the Company.
Based upon the strength of our franchise, diversification of our businesses, strong financial fundamentals including strong cash flows from operations, substantial short-term liquidity and additional liquid assets in our investment portfolio, as well as the substantial funding sources available to us, we continue to believe we have access to ample liquidity to meet business requirements under current market conditions and reasonably possible stress scenarios. We continuously monitor and adjust our liquidity and capital plans for Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries in light of market conditions, as well as changing needs and opportunities.
Liabilities arising from our insurance activities primarily relate to benefit payments under various life insurance, annuity and pension products, as well as payments for policy surrenders, withdrawals and loans. For annuity or deposit type products, surrender or lapse behavior differs somewhat by segment. In the Annuities segment, lapses and surrenders tend to occur in the normal course of business. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, general account surrenders and withdrawals from annuity products were $1.7 billion and $2.0 billion, respectively. In the Run-Off segment, which includes pension risk transfers, bank-owned life insurance and other fixed annuity contracts, as well as funding agreements and other capital market products, most of the products offered have fixed maturities or fairly predictable surrenders or withdrawals.
We manage our capital position to maintain our financial strength ratings. See “Business - Company Ratings.” Our capital position is supported by our ability to generate strong cash flows within our businesses.
The NAIC continues to review insurance companies’ use of affiliated captive reinsurers and off-shore entities. The Department of Financial Services continues to have a moratorium on new reserve financing transactions involving captive insurers. We are not aware of any states other than New York and California implementing such a moratorium. While such a moratorium would not impact our existing reinsurance agreements with captive reinsurers, a moratorium placed on the use of captives for new reserve financing transactions could impact our ability to write certain products and/or impact our RBC ratios and ability to deploy excess capital in the future. This could result in our need to increase prices, modify product features or limit the availability of those products to our customers. While this affects insurers across the industry, it could adversely impact our competitive position and our results of operations in the future. We continue to evaluate product modifications, pricing structure and alternative means of managing risks, capital and statutory reserves and we expect the discontinued use of captive reinsurance on new reserve financing transactions would not have a material impact on our future consolidated financial results.
These financial measures focus on our primary businesses principally by excluding the impact of market volatility, which could distort trends, and revenues and costs related to non-core products and divested businesses and certain entities required to be consolidated under GAAP. Also, these measures exclude results of discontinued operations and other businesses that have been or will be sold or exited by the Company and are referred to as divested businesses.
Amortization of unearned revenue related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses) and certain variable annuity GMIB fees (“GMIB Fees”);
The tax impact of the adjustments mentioned are calculated net of the U.S. or foreign statutory tax rate, which could differ from the Company’s effective tax rate.
Financial Statement Schedules at December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for the Years Ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014:
On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the Separation. Additionally, on July 21, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced that following the planned Separation, the separated business will be rebranded as Brighthouse Financial. On October 5, 2016, Brighthouse Financial, Inc., a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), filed a registration statement on Form 10 (the “Form 10”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The information statement filed as an exhibit to the Form 10 disclosed that MetLife intends to include Brighthouse Insurance and certain affiliates in the proposed separated business and distribute at least 80.1% of the shares of Brighthouse’s common stock on a pro rata basis to the holders of MetLife, Inc. common stock. Effective March 6, 2017, and in connection with the planned Separation, the Company changed its name from MetLife Insurance Company USA to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
The ultimate form and timing of the planned Separation will be influenced by a number of factors, including regulatory considerations and economic conditions. MetLife continues to evaluate and pursue structural alternatives for the proposed Separation. The planned Separation remains subject to certain conditions, including among others, obtaining final approval from the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, receipt of a favorable ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and an opinion from MetLife’s tax advisor regarding certain U.S. federal income tax matters, insurance and other regulatory approvals, and an SEC declaration of the effectiveness of the Form 10.
In November 2014, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut re-domesticated from Connecticut to Delaware, changed its name to MetLife Insurance Company USA and merged with its subsidiary, MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company (“MLI-USA”), and its affiliates, MetLife Investors Insurance Company (“MLIIC”) and Exeter Reassurance Company, Ltd. (“Exeter”). See Note 3 for further information on the merger transactions and the prior periods’ adjustments.
The results of operations of a component of the Company that has either been disposed of or is classified as held-for-sale are reported in discontinued operations if certain criteria are met. Effective January 1, 2014, the Company adopted new guidance regarding reporting of discontinued operations for disposals or classifications as held-for-sale that have not been previously reported on the consolidated financial statements. A disposal of a component is reported in discontinued operations if the disposal represents a strategic shift that has or will have a major effect on the Company’s operations and financial results. See “- Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements.”
Separate accounts are established in conformity with insurance laws. Generally, the assets of the separate accounts cannot be used to settle the liabilities that arise from any other business of the Company. Separate account assets are subject to general account claims only to the extent the value of such assets exceeds the separate account liabilities. The Company reports separately, as assets and liabilities, investments held in separate accounts and liabilities of the separate accounts if:
The Company regularly reviews its assumptions supporting its estimates of actuarial liabilities for future policy benefits. For universal life and annuity product guarantees, assumptions are updated periodically, whereas for traditional life products, such as term life and non-participating whole life insurance, assumptions are established and locked in at inception but reviewed periodically to determine whether a premium deficiency exists that would trigger an unlocking of assumptions. Differences result in changes to the liability balances with related charges or credits to benefit expenses in the period in which the changes occur.
Premiums related to traditional life and annuity contracts with life contingencies are recognized as revenues when due from policyholders. When premiums are due over a significantly shorter period than the period over which policyholder benefits are incurred, any excess profit is deferred and recognized into earnings in proportion to insurance in-force or, for annuities, the amount of expected future policy benefit payments.
Deposits related to universal life-type and investment-type products are credited to policyholder account balances. Revenues from such contracts consist of fees for mortality, policy administration and surrender charges and are recorded in universal life and investment-type product policy fees in the period in which policyholder benefits and expenses are incurred. Amounts that are charged to earnings include interest credited and benefit claims incurred in excess of related policyholder account balances.
See Note 6 for additional information on DAC and VOBA amortization.
If the Company determines that a reinsurance agreement does not expose the reinsurer to a reasonable possibility of a significant loss from insurance risk, the Company records the agreement using the deposit method of accounting. Deposits received are included in other liabilities and deposits made are included within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables. As amounts are paid or received, consistent with the underlying contracts, the deposit assets or liabilities are adjusted. Interest on such deposits is recorded as other revenues or other expenses, as appropriate. Periodically, the Company evaluates the adequacy of the expected payments or recoveries and adjusts the deposit asset or liability through other revenues or other expenses, as appropriate. Certain assumed non-life contingent portion of guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits (“GMWBs”), guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits (“GMABs”) and GMIBs are also accounted for as embedded derivatives with changes in estimated fair value reported in net derivative gains (losses).
Certain of the Company’s variable annuity guarantee features are accounted for as insurance liabilities and recorded in future policy benefits while others are accounted for at fair value as embedded derivatives and recorded in policyholder account balances. Generally speaking, a guarantee is accounted for as an insurance liability if the guarantee is paid only upon either (i) the occurrence of a specific insurable event, or (ii) annuitization. Alternatively, a guarantee is accounted for as an embedded derivative if a guarantee is paid without requiring (i) the occurrence of specific insurable event, or (ii) the policyholder to annuitize, that is, the policyholder can receive the guarantee on a net basis. In certain cases, a guarantee may have elements of both an insurance liability and an embedded derivative and in such cases the guarantee is split and accounted for under both models. Further, changes in assumptions, principally involving behavior, can result in a change of expected future cash outflows of a guarantee between portions accounted for as insurance liabilities and portions accounted for as embedded derivatives.
These insurance liabilities are accrued over the accumulation phase of the contract in proportion to actual and future expected policy assessments based on the level of guaranteed minimum benefits generated using multiple scenarios of separate account returns. The scenarios are based on best estimate assumptions consistent with those used to amortize DAC. When current estimates of future benefits exceed those previously projected or when current estimates of future assessments are lower than those previously projected, liabilities will increase, resulting in a current period charge to net income. The opposite result occurs when the current estimates of future benefits are lower than those previously projected or when current estimates of future assessments exceed those previously projected. At each reporting period, we update the actual amount of business remaining in-force, which impacts expected future assessments and the projection of estimated future benefits resulting in a current period charge or increase to earnings. See Note 5 for additional details of guarantees accounted for as insurance liabilities.
The Company uses the equity method of accounting for investments (“investees”) when it has more than a minor ownership interest or more than a minor influence over the investee’s operations, while the cost method is used when the Company has virtually no influence over the investee’s operations. The Company generally recognizes its share of the equity method investee’s earnings on a three-month lag in instances where the investee’s financial information is not sufficiently timely or when the investee’s reporting period differs from the Company’s reporting period; while distributions on cost method investments are recognized as earned or received.
See “Variable Annuity Guarantees” for additional information on the accounting policy for embedded derivatives bifurcated from variable annuity host contracts.
Property, equipment and leasehold improvements, which are included in other assets, are stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Depreciation is determined using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, as appropriate. Estimated lives generally range from five to 10 years for leasehold improvements, and from three to seven years for all other property and equipment. The net book value of the property, equipment and leasehold improvements was insignificant at both December 31, 2016 and 2015.
On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates potential triggering events that may affect the estimated fair value of the Company’s reporting units to assess whether any goodwill impairment exists.
Effective January 1, 2014, the Company adopted new guidance regarding reporting of discontinued operations and disclosures of disposals of components of an entity. The guidance increases the threshold for a disposal to qualify as a discontinued operation, expands the disclosures for discontinued operations and requires new disclosures for certain disposals that do not meet the definition of a discontinued operation. Disposals must now represent a strategic shift that has or will have a major effect on the entity’s operations and financial results to qualify as discontinued operations. As discussed in Note 4, the Company sold its wholly-owned subsidiary, MetLife Assurance Limited (“MAL”). As a result of the adoption of this new guidance, the results of operations of MAL and the loss on sale have been included in income from continuing operations.
In October 2016, the FASB issued new guidance on consolidation evaluation for entities under common control (ASU 2016-17, Consolidation (Topic 810): Interests Held through Related Parties That Are under Common Control). The new guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods within those fiscal years, and should be applied on a retrospective basis. Early adoption is permitted. The new guidance does not change the characteristics of a primary beneficiary under current GAAP. It changes how a reporting entity evaluates whether it is the primary beneficiary of a VIE by changing how a reporting entity that is a single decisionmaker of a VIE handles indirect interests in the entity held through related parties that are under common control with the reporting entity. The adoption of this new guidance will not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In May 2014, the FASB issued a comprehensive new revenue recognition standard (ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)), effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those years. The guidance may be applied retrospectively for all periods presented or retrospectively with a cumulative-effect adjustment at the date of adoption. The new guidance will supersede nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance under U.S. GAAP; however, it will not impact the accounting for insurance and investment contracts within the scope of Financial Services insurance (Topic 944), leases, financial instruments and guarantees. For those contracts that are impacted, the guidance will require an entity to recognize revenue upon the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled, in exchange for those goods or services. Given the scope of the new revenue recognition guidance, the Company does not expect the adoption to have a material impact on its consolidated revenues or statements of operations, with the Company’s implementation efforts primarily focused on other revenues on the consolidated statements of operations.
The Annuities segment offers a variety of variable, fixed, index-linked and income annuities designed to address contractholders’ needs for protected wealth accumulation on a tax-deferred basis, wealth transfer and income security.
The Life segment offers insurance products and services, including term, whole, universal and variable life products designed to address policyholders’ needs for financial security and protected wealth transfer, which may be provided on a tax-advantaged basis.
The following are excluded from total revenues in calculating operating revenues:
The following are excluded from total expenses in calculating operating expenses:
Amounts related to: (i) net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses) and (ii) GMIB Fees and GMIB Costs included in amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs and value of business acquired;
Recognition of certain contingent assets and liabilities that could not be recognized at acquisition or adjusted for during the measurement period under GAAP business combination accounting guidance;
Set forth in the tables below is certain financial information with respect to the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other, for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and at December 31, 2016 and 2015. The segment accounting policies are the same as those used to prepare the Company’s consolidated financial statements, except for operating earnings adjustments as defined above. In addition, segment accounting policies include the method of capital allocation described below.
The internal capital model is a MetLife developed risk capital model that reflects management’s judgment and view of required capital to represent the measurement of the risk profile of the business, to meet the Company’s long term promises to clients, to service long-term obligations and to support the credit ratings of the Company. It accounts for the unique and specific nature of the risks inherent in the Company’s business. Management is responsible for the ongoing production and enhancement of the internal capital model and reviews its approach periodically to ensure that it remains consistent with emerging industry practice standards. As such, the internal capital allocation methodology in the future may differ from MetLife’s historical model.
Revenues derived from any customer did not exceed 10% of consolidated premiums, universal life and investment-type product policy fees and other revenues for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
The Mergers represent a transaction among entities under common control and have been accounted for in a manner similar to the pooling-of-interests method, which requires that the merged entities be combined at their historical cost. The Company’s consolidated financial statements and related footnotes are presented as if the transaction occurred at the beginning of the earliest date presented and the prior periods have been retrospectively adjusted.
In May 2014, the Company completed the sale of its wholly-owned subsidiary, MAL, for $702 million (£418 million) in net cash consideration. As a result of the sale, a loss of $608 million ($436 million, net of income tax), was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2014, which includes a reduction to goodwill of $112 million ($94 million, net of income tax). The loss is reflected within net investment gains (losses) on the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). Compared to the expected loss at the time of the sales agreement, the actual loss on the sale was increased by net income from MAL of $77 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. MAL’s results of operations are included in continuing operations. They were historically included in the Run-off segment.
The Company has also entered into funding agreements with FHLBanks. The liability for such funding agreements is included in policyholder account balances. Information related to such funding agreements was as follows as of:
At December 31, 2016, the Company had $9.1 billion of net unaffiliated ceded reinsurance recoverables. Of this total, $7.8 billion, or 86%, were with the Company’s five largest unaffiliated ceded reinsurers, including $1.5 billion of net unaffiliated ceded reinsurance recoverables which were unsecured. At December 31, 2015, the Company had $8.5 billion of net unaffiliated ceded reinsurance recoverables. Of this total, $7.4 billion, or 87%, were with the Company’s five largest unaffiliated ceded reinsurers, including $1.5 billion of net unaffiliated ceded reinsurance recoverables which were unsecured.
Effective December 1, 2016, the Company terminated two agreements with an unaffiliated reinsurer which covered 90% of the liabilities on certain participating whole life insurance policies issued between April 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001 by MLIC. This termination resulted in a decrease in other invested assets of $713 million, a decrease in deferred policy acquisition costs and value of business acquired of $95 million, a decrease in future policy benefits of $654 million, and a decrease in other liabilities of $43 million. The Company recognized a loss of approximately $72 million, net of income tax, as a result of this transaction.
The Company ceded two blocks of business to two affiliates on a 90% coinsurance with funds withheld basis. Certain contractual features of these agreements qualify as embedded derivatives, which are separately accounted for at estimated fair value on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. The embedded derivatives related to the funds withheld associated with these reinsurance agreements are included within other liabilities and increased the funds withheld balance by $285 million and $244 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Net derivative gains (losses) associated with these embedded derivatives were ($41) million, $137 million and ($348) million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The Company ceded risks to an affiliate related to guaranteed minimum benefit guarantees written directly by the Company. This ceded reinsurance agreement contains embedded derivatives and changes in their estimated fair value are also included within net derivative gains (losses). The embedded derivatives associated with this cession is included within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables and were $3 million and $4 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Net derivative gains (losses) associated with the embedded derivatives were less than ($1) million, less than $1 million, and $4 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The Company has secured certain reinsurance recoverable balances with various forms of collateral, including secured trusts, funds withheld accounts and irrevocable letters of credit. The Company had $2.4 billion and $6.3 billion of unsecured affiliated reinsurance recoverable balances at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
The following table presents the fixed maturity and equity securities AFS by sector. Redeemable preferred stock is reported within U.S. corporate and foreign corporate fixed maturity securities and non-redeemable preferred stock is reported within equity securities. Included within fixed maturity securities are structured securities including RMBS, commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) and ABS (collectively, “Structured Securities”).
Amortization of premium and accretion of discount on Structured Securities considers the estimated timing and amount of prepayments of the underlying loans. Actual prepayment experience is periodically reviewed and effective yields are recalculated when differences arise between the originally anticipated and the actual prepayments received and currently anticipated. Prepayment assumptions for Structured Securities are estimated using inputs obtained from third-party specialists and based on management’s knowledge of the current market. For credit-sensitive Structured Securities and certain prepayment-sensitive securities, the effective yield is recalculated on a prospective basis. For all other Structured Securities, the effective yield is recalculated on a retrospective basis.
At December 31, 2016, $57 million of the total $754 million of gross unrealized losses were from 15 fixed maturity securities with an unrealized loss position of 20% or more of amortized cost for six months or greater.
Of the $57 million of gross unrealized losses on fixed maturity securities with an unrealized loss of 20% or more of amortized cost for six months or greater, $53 million, or 93%, were related to gross unrealized losses on six investment grade fixed maturity securities. Unrealized losses on investment grade fixed maturity securities are principally related to widening credit spreads since purchase and, with respect to fixed-rate fixed maturity securities, rising interest rates since purchase.
The Company purchases unaffiliated mortgage loans under a master participation agreement, from an affiliate, simultaneously with the affiliate’s origination or acquisition of mortgage loans. The aggregate amount of unaffiliated mortgage loan participation interests purchased by the Company from an affiliate during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 were $2.3 billion, $2.0 billion and $360 million, respectively. In connection with the mortgage loan participations, the affiliate collected mortgage loan principal and interest payments on the Company’s behalf and the affiliate remitted such payments to the Company in the amount of $1.6 billion, $973 million and $1.0 billion during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Purchases of mortgage loans from third parties were $619 million and $346 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and were primarily comprised of residential mortgage loans.
The average recorded investment for impaired commercial, agricultural and residential mortgage loans was $43 million, $3 million and $0, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2014.
For commercial mortgage loans, the primary credit quality indicator is the debt service coverage ratio, which compares a property’s net operating income to amounts needed to service the principal and interest due under the loan. Generally, the lower the debt service coverage ratio, the higher the risk of experiencing a credit loss. The Company also reviews the loan-to-value ratio of its commercial mortgage loan portfolio. Loan-to-value ratios compare the unpaid principal balance of the loan to the estimated fair value of the underlying collateral. Generally, the higher the loan-to-value ratio, the higher the risk of experiencing a credit loss. The debt service coverage ratio and the values utilized in calculating the ratio are updated annually on a rolling basis, with a portion of the portfolio updated each quarter. In addition, the loan-to-value ratio is routinely updated for all but the lowest risk loans as part of the Company’s ongoing review of its commercial mortgage loan portfolio.
The estimated fair value of agricultural mortgage loans was $1.7 billion and $1.5 billion at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
The estimated fair value of residential mortgage loans was $867 million and $345 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Rental receivables are generally due in periodic installments. The payment periods for leveraged leases range from one to 16 years. For rental receivables, the primary credit quality indicator is whether the rental receivable is performing or nonperforming, which is assessed monthly. The Company generally defines nonperforming rental receivables as those that are 90 days or more past due. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, all rental receivables were performing.
The deferred income tax liability related to leveraged leases was $74 million and $76 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
The carrying value of cash equivalents, which includes securities and other investments with an original or remaining maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase, was $1.6 billion and $1.1 billion at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
If the Company is required to return significant amounts of cash collateral on short notice and is forced to sell securities to meet the return obligation, it may have difficulty selling such collateral that is invested in securities in a timely manner, be forced to sell securities in a volatile or illiquid market for less than what otherwise would have been realized under normal market conditions, or both. The estimated fair value of the securities on loan related to the cash collateral on open at December 31, 2016 was $2.1 billion, all of which were U.S. government and agency securities which, if put back to the Company, could be immediately sold to satisfy the cash requirement.
The reinvestment portfolio acquired with the cash collateral consisted principally of fixed maturity securities (including agency RMBS, ABS, non-agency RMBS, U.S. corporate securities and U.S. government and agency) with 48% invested in agency RMBS, short-term investments, U.S. government and agency, cash equivalents or held in cash at December 31, 2016. If the securities on loan or the reinvestment portfolio become less liquid, the Company has the liquidity resources of most of its general account available to meet any potential cash demands when securities on loan are put back to the Company.
The Company has pledged invested assets in connection with various agreements and transactions, including funding agreements (see Note 5) and derivative transactions (see Note 9).
As described in Note 1, the Company generally records its share of earnings in its equity method investments using a three-month lag methodology and within net investment income. Aggregate net investment income from these equity method investments exceeded 10% of the Company’s consolidated pre-tax income (loss) for the two of the most recent annual periods: 2015 and 2014. This aggregated summarized financial data does not represent the Company’s proportionate share of the assets, liabilities, or earnings of such entities.
The Company has invested in certain entities (including CSEs) that are VIEs. In certain instances, the Company holds both the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, as well as an economic interest in the entity and, as such, is deemed to be the primary beneficiary or consolidator of the entity. The determination of the VIE’s primary beneficiary requires an evaluation of the contractual and implied rights and obligations associated with each party’s relationship with or involvement in the entity, an estimate of the entity’s expected losses and expected residual returns and the allocation of such estimates to each party involved in the entity.
The Company consolidates entities that are structured as CMBS. The assets of these entities can only be used to settle their respective liabilities, and under no circumstances is the Company liable for any principal or interest shortfalls should any arise. The Company’s exposure was limited to that of its remaining investment in these entities of $95 million and $105 million at estimated fair value at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
The table below presents a rollforward of the cumulative credit loss component of OTTI loss recognized in earnings on fixed maturity securities still held for which a portion of the OTTI loss was recognized in OCI:
In April 2016, the Company received a transfer of investments and cash and cash equivalents totaling $4.3 billion for the recapture of risks related to certain single premium deferred annuity contracts previously reinsured to MLIC, an affiliate, which are included in the table above. See Note 7 for additional information related to these transfers.
See “- Mortgage Loans - Mortgage Loans by Portfolio Segment” for discussion of mortgage loan participation agreements with an affiliate.
Interest rate total return swaps are swaps whereby the Company agrees with another party to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between the economic risk and reward of an asset or a market index and the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), calculated by reference to an agreed notional amount. No cash is exchanged at the outset of the contract. Cash is paid and received over the life of the contract based on the terms of the swap. These transactions are entered into pursuant to master agreements that provide for a single net payment to be made by the counterparty at each due date. Interest rate total return swaps are used by the Company to reduce market risks from changes in interest rates and to alter interest rate exposure arising from mismatches between assets and liabilities (duration mismatches). The Company utilizes interest rate total return swaps in nonqualifying hedging relationships.
Equity variance swaps are used by the Company primarily to hedge minimum guarantees embedded in certain variable annuity products offered by the Company. In an equity variance swap, the Company agrees with another party to exchange amounts in the future, based on changes in equity volatility over a defined period. The Company utilizes equity variance swaps in nonqualifying hedging relationships.
Changes in estimated fair value related to economic hedges of equity method investments in joint ventures.
At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the maximum length of time over which the Company was hedging its exposure to variability in future cash flows for forecasted transactions did not exceed three years and four years, respectively.
At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the balance in AOCI associated with cash flow hedges was $393 million and $368 million, respectively.
The following table presents the effects of derivatives in cash flow hedging relationships on the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) and the consolidated statements of stockholder’s equity:
At December 31, 2016, the Company expects to reclassify $39 million of deferred net gains (losses) on derivatives in AOCI to earnings within the next 12 months.
In connection with synthetically created credit investment transactions, the Company writes credit default swaps for which it receives a premium to insure credit risk. Such credit derivatives are included within the nonqualifying derivatives and derivatives for purposes other than hedging table. If a credit event occurs, as defined by the contract, the contract may be cash settled or it may be settled gross by the Company paying the counterparty the specified swap notional amount in exchange for the delivery of par quantities of the referenced credit obligation. The Company’s maximum amount at risk, assuming the value of all referenced credit obligations is zero, was $1.9 billion and $2.1 billion at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The Company can terminate these contracts at any time through cash settlement with the counterparty at an amount equal to the then current estimated fair value of the credit default swaps. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company would have received $28 million and $12 million, respectively, to terminate all of these contracts.
At December 31, 2016 and 2015, derivative assets included income or (expense) accruals reported in accrued investment income or in other liabilities of $104 million and $94 million, respectively, and derivative liabilities included (income) or expense accruals reported in accrued investment income or in other liabilities of ($49) million and $21 million, respectively.
Securities collateral received by the Company is held in separate custodial accounts and is not recorded on the balance sheet. Subject to certain constraints, the Company is permitted by contract to sell or re-pledge this collateral, but at December 31, 2016 none of the collateral had been sold or re-pledged. Securities collateral pledged by the Company is reported in fixed maturity securities on the balance sheet. Subject to certain constraints, the counterparties are permitted by contract to sell or re-pledge this collateral. The amount of securities collateral offset in the table above is limited to the net estimated fair value of derivatives after application of netting agreements and cash collateral. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company received excess securities collateral with an estimated fair value of $135 million and $0, respectively, for its OTC-bilateral derivatives, which are not included in the table above due to the foregoing limitation. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company provided excess securities collateral with an estimated fair value of $108 million and $36 million, respectively, for its OTC-bilateral derivatives, $630 million and $34 million, respectively, for its OTC-cleared derivatives, and $453 million and $156 million, respectively, for its exchange-traded derivatives, which are not included in the table above due to the foregoing limitation.
The Company’s collateral arrangements for its OTC-bilateral derivatives generally require the counterparty in a net liability position, after considering the effect of netting agreements, to pledge collateral when the collateral amount owed by that counterparty reaches a minimum transfer amount. A small number of these arrangements also include credit-contingent provisions that include a threshold above which collateral must be posted. Such agreements provide for a reduction of these thresholds (on a sliding scale that converges toward zero) in the event of downgrades in the credit ratings of Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, and/or the counterparty. In addition, substantially all of the Company’s netting agreements for derivatives contain provisions that require both the Company and the counterparty to maintain a specific investment grade credit rating from each of Moody’s and S&P. If a party’s credit or financial strength ratings, as applicable, were to fall below that specific investment grade credit rating, that party would be in violation of these provisions, and the other party to the derivatives could terminate the transactions and demand immediate settlement and payment based on such party’s reasonable valuation of the derivatives.
Estimated fair value equals carrying value, based on the value of the underlying assets, including: mutual fund interests, fixed maturity securities, equity securities, derivatives, other limited partnership interests, short-term investments and cash and cash equivalents. Fixed maturity securities, equity securities, derivatives, short-term investments and cash and cash equivalents are similar in nature to the instruments described under “- Securities, Short-term Investments and Long-term Debt of CSEs - FVO” and “- Derivatives - Freestanding Derivatives.”
The estimated fair value of derivatives is determined through the use of quoted market prices for exchange-traded derivatives, or through the use of pricing models for OTC-bilateral and OTC-cleared derivatives. The determination of estimated fair value, when quoted market values are not available, is based on market standard valuation methodologies and inputs that management believes are consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing such instruments. Derivative valuations can be affected by changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, financial indices, credit spreads, default risk, nonperformance risk, volatility, liquidity and changes in estimates and assumptions used in the pricing models. The valuation controls and procedures for derivatives are described in “- Investments - Valuation Controls and Procedures.”
This level includes all types of derivatives utilized by the Company with the exception of exchange-traded derivatives included within Level 1 and those derivatives with unobservable inputs as described in Level 3.
For assets and liabilities measured at estimated fair value and still held at December 31, 2016 and 2015, transfers between Levels 1 and 2 were not significant.
Investment performance related to separate account assets is fully offset by corresponding amounts credited to contractholders within separate account liabilities. Therefore, such changes in estimated fair value are not recorded in net income (loss). For the purpose of this disclosure, these changes are presented within net investment gains (losses).
Amortization of premium/accretion of discount is included within net investment income. Impairments charged to net income (loss) on securities are included in net investment gains (losses). Lapses associated with embedded derivatives are included in net derivative gains (losses). Substantially all realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in net income (loss) for net derivatives and embedded derivatives are reported in net derivatives gains (losses).
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) included in net income (loss) relate to assets and liabilities still held at the end of the respective periods. Substantially all changes in unrealized gains (losses) included in net income (loss) for net derivatives and embedded derivatives are reported in net derivative gains (losses).
As discussed in Note 11, for the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company recorded an impairment of goodwill associated with the Run-off reporting unit.
The Company tests goodwill for impairment during the third quarter of each year at the reporting unit level based upon best available data as of June 30 of that year. A reporting unit is the operating segment or a business one level below the operating segment, if discrete financial information is prepared and regularly reviewed by management at that level.
In connection with the sale of MAL, goodwill in the Run-off reporting unit was reduced by $112 million during the year ended December 31, 2014. See Note 4. This goodwill was allocated to MAL based on the relative fair values of MAL and the remaining portion of the Run-off reporting unit.
The aggregate maturities of long-term debt at December 31, 2016 were $1 million in 2017, $2 million in each of 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 and $772 million thereafter.
The Company had access to unsecured revolving credit facilities from various banks, either directly with the bank or indirectly through letters of credit available to MetLife, Inc. for the benefit of the Company and certain other affiliates of MetLife, Inc. These facilities were used for collateral for certain of the Company’s affiliated reinsurance liabilities. Total fees associated with letters of credit was $10 million, $5 million and $13 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and was included in other expenses. At December 31, 2016, the Company had $0 in letters of credit outstanding and the remaining availability was $3.3 billion.
In February 2016, Brighthouse Life Insurance Company received a capital contribution of $1.5 billion in cash from MetLife, Inc.
Statutory accounting principles differ from GAAP primarily by charging policy acquisition costs to expense as incurred, establishing future policy benefit liabilities using different actuarial assumptions, reporting surplus notes as surplus instead of debt, reporting of reinsurance agreements and valuing securities on a different basis.
Under Delaware Insurance Code, Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is permitted, without prior insurance regulatory clearance, to pay a stockholder dividend to MetLife, Inc. as long as the amount of the dividend when aggregated with all other dividends in the preceding 12 months does not exceed the greater of: (i) 10% of its surplus to policyholders as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year; or (ii) its net statutory gain from operations for the immediately preceding calendar year (excluding realized capital gains). Brighthouse Life Insurance Company will be permitted to pay a dividend to MetLife, Inc. in excess of the greater of such two amounts only if it files notice of the declaration of such a dividend and the amount thereof with the Delaware Commissioner and the Delaware Commissioner either approves the distribution of the dividend or does not disapprove the distribution within 30 days of its filing. In addition, any dividend that exceeds earned surplus (defined as “unassigned funds (surplus)”) as of the immediately preceding calendar year requires insurance regulatory approval. Under Delaware Insurance Code, the Delaware Commissioner has broad discretion in determining whether the financial condition of a stock life insurance company would support the payment of such dividends to its stockholders. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, Brighthouse Life Insurance Company paid dividends to MetLife, Inc. in the amount of $261 million and $500 million, respectively.
The following table sets forth the general business credits, foreign tax credits, and other credit carryforwards for tax purposes as of December 31, 2016.
The Company currently participates in a tax sharing agreement with MetLife, Inc., as described in Note 1. Pursuant to this tax sharing agreement, the amounts due from affiliates included $490 million and $14 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 respectively.
The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. It is possible that some matters could require the Company to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated at December 31, 2016.
On November 14, 2012, the West Virginia Treasurer filed an action against MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company in West Virginia state court (West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company, Circuit Court of Putnam County, Civil Action No. 12-C-363) alleging that MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company violated the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (the “Act”), seeking to compel compliance with the Act, and seeking payment of unclaimed property, interest, and penalties. On December 28, 2012, the Treasurer filed a substantially identical suit against MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut (West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, Circuit Court of Putnam County, Civil Action No. 12-C-430). On January 31, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving these actions.
Over the past several years, the Company has faced claims and regulatory inquiries and investigations, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. The Company continues to defend vigorously against the claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate provision has been made on its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters.
Various litigation, claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, investor and taxpayer. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.
The Company has entered into collateral arrangements with affiliates, which require the transfer of collateral in connection with secured demand notes. At both December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company had agreed to fund up to $20 million of cash upon the request by these affiliates and had transferred collateral consisting of various securities with a fair market value of $25 million to custody accounts to secure the demand notes. Each of these affiliates is permitted by contract to sell or re-pledge this collateral.
The Company’s recorded liabilities were $2 million at both December 31, 2016 and 2015, for indemnities, guarantees and commitments.
The Company has various existing relationships with MetLife for services necessary to conduct its activities.
The material arrangements between the Company and MetLife are as follows:
The Company has reinsurance agreements with certain of MetLife, Inc.’s subsidiaries, including MLIC, GALIC, MetLife Europe d.a.c., MRV, DELAM and ALICO, all of which are related parties. See Note 7 for further discussion of the affiliated reinsurance agreements.
The following table summarizes assets and liabilities from transactions with affiliated broker-dealers as follows:
Effective January 1, 2017, the Company executed a novation and assignment agreement whereby it will replace MLIC as the reinsurer of certain variable annuities, including guaranteed minimum benefits, issued by Brighthouse NY and NELICO. This novation and assignment resulted in an increase in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $34 million, an increase in future policy benefits of approximately $79 million, an increase in policyholder account balances of approximately $387 million and a decrease in other liabilities of approximately $427 million. The Company will recognize no gain or loss as a result of this transaction.
Effective January 1, 2017, MLIC recaptured risks related to guaranteed minimum benefit guarantees on certain variable annuities being reinsured by the Company. This recapture resulted in a decrease in investments and cash and cash equivalents of approximately $568 million, a decrease in future policy benefits of approximately $106 million, and a decrease in policyholder account balances of approximately $460 million. The Company will recognize a loss of approximately $2 million, net of income tax, as a result of this transaction.
For the year ended December 31, 2016, reinsurance ceded and assumed included affiliated transactions for life insurance in-force of $311.0 billion and $7.0 billion, respectively, and life insurance premiums of $928 million and $34 million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2015, reinsurance ceded and assumed included affiliated transactions for life insurance in-force of $321.0 billion and $86.4 billion, respectively, and life insurance premiums of $783 million and $227 million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2014, reinsurance ceded and assumed included affiliated transactions for life insurance in-force of $292.0 billion and $50.2 billion, respectively, and life insurance premiums of $830 million and $55 million, respectively.