We lease 420,000 rentable square feet in an office building in Manhattan, New York. The term of that lease commenced in February 2008 and continues until April 2029. In August 2009, we subleased 32,000 rentable square feet of that space to a subtenant, which has met our standards of review with respect to creditworthiness. We also lease 495,000 rentable square feet at 200 Park Avenue, New York (the “MetLife Building”). The term of this lease commenced in December 2015 and continues until September 2027. We also lease additional space at the MetLife Building, which includes MetLife, Inc.’s boardroom. We have retained rights to existing signage for 20 years with optional renewal periods through 2205. Each of these spaces under lease is occupied by all of our segments, as well as Corporate & Other. The Company plans to consolidate its existing New York City offices to the MetLife Building, in phases, beginning in December 2016.
We lease 425,000 rentable square feet in Charlotte, North Carolina, which is predominantly occupied by the Retail segment, as well as Corporate & Other. The term of that lease commenced in April 2013 and continues until September 2026. We leased an additional 30,000 rentable square feet in Charlotte, North Carolina, the term of which commenced in May 2014 and expired on December 31, 2015. We lease 435,000 rentable square feet in two buildings in Cary, North Carolina, which are occupied by Global Technology & Operations, which supports all of our segments, as well as Corporate & Other. The leases for the two buildings commenced in February 2015 and April 2015, and will both continue until April 2030.
This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations may contain or incorporate by reference information that includes or is based upon forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe” and other words and terms of similar meaning, or are tied to future periods, in connection with a discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, prospective services or products, future performance or results of current and anticipated services or products, sales efforts, expenses, the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings, trends in operations and financial results. Any or all forward-looking statements may turn out to be wrong. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. See “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”
This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations includes references to our performance measures, operating earnings and operating earnings available to common shareholders, that are not based on GAAP. Operating earnings is the measure of segment profit or loss we use to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Consistent with GAAP guidance for segment reporting, operating earnings is our measure of segment performance. Operating earnings is also a measure by which senior management’s and many other employees’ performance is evaluated for the purposes of determining their compensation under applicable compensation plans. See “- Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for definitions of these and other measures.
MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management. MetLife is organized into six segments, reflecting three broad geographic regions: Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits; Corporate Benefit Funding; and Latin America (collectively, the “Americas”); Asia; and EMEA. In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other. See “Business - Segments and Corporate & Other” and Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the Company’s segments and Corporate & Other. See also “- Other Key Information - Significant Events” for information on the Company’s announcement of its plan to pursue the Separation. Management continues to evaluate the Company’s segment performance and allocated resources and may adjust related measurements in the future to better reflect segment profitability.
Overall sales growth declined from 2014 levels; however, we experienced sales growth across various products within our regions during the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to 2014. In particular, we had higher sales of retail annuity and accident & health products. A number of factors in 2015, however, offset the benefits of such sales growth, including (i) a tax charge and a related charge for interest on uncertain tax positions recorded under accounting guidance for the recognition of tax uncertainties, (ii) a decline in investment yields as a result of the sustained low interest rate environment and lower returns on other limited partnership interests, (iii) less favorable underwriting results driven by unfavorable claims experience in our property & casualty business, and (iv) a decrease in earnings as a result of our annual review of actuarial assumptions.
The following represents the segments’ contributions to total income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, and total operating earnings for the year ended December 31, 2015:
(2) See “- Results of Operations - Consolidated Results” and “- Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for reconciliations and definitions of non-GAAP financial measures.
Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, down $1.0 billion:
Net investment gains (losses) favorable by $794 million ($516 million, net of income tax) primarily driven by a 2014 loss on the disposition of MetLife Assurance Limited (“MAL”)
Includes a one-time tax benefit in Japan of $174 million in 2015
$557 million tax charge and a $362 million ($235 million, net of income tax) charge for interest on uncertain tax positions recorded under accounting guidance for the recognition of tax uncertainties related to the U.S. tax treatment of taxes paid by a wholly-owned United Kingdom (“U.K.”) investment subsidiary of MLIC
$117 million, net of income tax, increase in the litigation reserve related to asbestos
Charges totaling $57 million, net of income tax, related to a settlement of a licensing matter with the Department of Financial Services and the District Attorney, New York County
Net tax charge of $9 million related to: (i) charge related to a tax reform bill in Chile; and (ii) benefit related to the filing of the Company’s U.S. federal tax return
Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, up $2.9 billion:
Results of operations impacted by: (i) higher net investment income from portfolio growth; (ii) higher asset-based fee income; (iii) lower interest credited expense; (iv) unfavorable mortality, morbidity and claims experience; (v) lower investment yields; and (vi) additional items described below.
Fourth quarter 2013 acquisition of ProVida favorable by $166 million, net of income tax (excluding impact of tax reform charge in Chile)
A $101 million, net of income tax, increase in the litigation reserve related to asbestos
A $57 million, net of income tax, reserve strengthening in Australia
We will need to take the above-referenced factors into account when formulating further assumptions. Due to the fact that the Separation is a significant restructuring of our business, we will not be able to further expand our outlook until we have further clarity on the nature of the Separation. The Separation is consistent with our “Accelerating Value” strategic initiative, giving greater weight to our commitments to maximize shareholder value and, subject to Board approval, regulatory constraints and acquisition opportunities, pay out our free cash flow to shareholders.
Certain international subsidiaries have a fiscal year cutoff of November 30th. Accordingly, the Company’s consolidated financial statements reflect the assets and liabilities of such subsidiaries as of November 30, 2015 and 2014 and the operating results of such subsidiaries for the years ended November 30, 2015, 2014 and 2013. The Company is in the process of converting to calendar year reporting for these subsidiaries. These conversions are expected to be substantially complete in the first quarter of 2016. The impact of the conversions on our financial statements to date has been de minimis and, therefore, has been reported in net income in the quarter of conversion.
In October 2013, MetLife, Inc. completed its acquisition of ProVida, the largest private pension fund administrator in Chile based on assets under management and number of pension fund contributors. The acquisition of ProVida supports the Company's growth strategy in emerging markets and further strengthens the Company's overall position in Chile. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Our business and results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the global capital markets and the economy generally. Stressed conditions, volatility and disruptions in global capital markets, particular markets, or financial asset classes can have an adverse effect on us, in part because we have a large investment portfolio and our insurance liabilities are sensitive to changing market factors. Global market factors, including interest rates, credit spreads, equity, oil and commodity prices, real estate markets, foreign currency exchange rates, consumer spending, business investment, government spending, the volatility and strength of the capital markets, deflation and inflation, all affect the business and economic environment and, ultimately, the amount and profitability of our business. Disruptions in one market or asset class can also spread to other markets or asset classes. Upheavals in the financial markets can also affect our business through their effects on general levels of economic activity, employment and customer behavior. See “Risk Factors - Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks - We Are Exposed to Significant Global Financial and Capital Markets Risks Which May Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations, Financial Condition and Liquidity, and May Cause Our Net Investment Income to Vary from Period to Period,” and “Risk Factors - Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks - If Difficult Conditions in the Global Capital Markets and the Economy Generally Persist, They May Materially Adversely Affect Our Business and Results of Operations.”
In an effort to further stabilize the European financial crisis, in December 2015, the European Central Bank (“ECB”) extended its quantitative easing program until at least March 2017. These measures have included cutting interest rates to negative levels, providing inexpensive financing facilities designed to incentivize banks to extend loans, buying private sector asset-backed securities and covered bonds and extending its asset purchase program to include €60 billion per month of ECB purchases of local and regional debt, as well as sovereign debt on secondary markets. Such actions are intended to lessen the risk of deflation, lower borrowing costs in the Euro zone and encourage corporations to issue more asset-backed securities.
We face substantial exposure to the Japanese economy given our operations there. Structural weaknesses and debt sustainability have yet to be addressed effectively. Going forward, Japan’s structural and demographic challenges may continue to limit its potential growth unless reforms that boost productivity are put into place. Japan’s high public sector debt levels are mitigated by low refinancing risks and its nominal yields on government debt have remained at a lower level than that of any other developed country. However, frequent changes in government have prevented policy makers from implementing fiscal reform measures to put public finances on a sustainable path. To avert deflation and to achieve sustainable economic growth, the government and the Bank of Japan have implemented a coordinated strategy which includes the imposition of a negative rate on commercial bank deposits, increased government bond purchases at longer maturities and tax reform, including the lowering of the Japanese corporate tax rate by approximately 2% and the delay until 2017 of an increase in the consumption tax to 10%. As a result of the decrease in the corporate tax rate, the Company recorded a one-time benefit of $174 million in the second quarter of 2015, which included an increase in Asia’s operating earnings of $61 million. This tax law change favorably affected our annual effective tax rate for 2015 by approximately 0.3% as compared to 2014.
As a global insurance company, we are affected by the monetary policy of central banks around the world, as well as the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve Board in the United States. The Federal Reserve Board has taken a number of actions in recent years to spur economic activity, including asset purchases and keeping interest rates low. However, in October 2014, the Federal Reserve Board’s Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”), citing strength in the economy and substantial improvement in the outlook for labor market conditions, decided to conclude the asset purchase program. In December 2015, the FOMC increased the federal funds rate for the first time in 10 years and held it steady at its January 2016 meeting. Further increases in the federal funds rate in the future may affect interest rates and risk markets in the U.S. and other developed and emerging economies. See “- Financial and Economic Environment” for information regarding accommodative and other policy measures pursued by the ECB and the Bank of Japan. However, we cannot predict with certainty the effect of these programs and policies on interest rates or the impact on the pricing levels of risk-bearing investments at this time. See “- Investments - Current Environment.”
In periods of declining interest rates, we may have to invest insurance cash flows and reinvest the cash flows we received as interest or return of principal on our investments in lower yielding instruments. Moreover, borrowers may prepay or redeem the fixed income securities, commercial, agricultural or residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities in our investment portfolio with greater frequency in order to borrow at lower market rates. Therefore, some of our products expose us to the risk that a reduction in interest rates will reduce the difference between the amounts that we are required to credit on contracts in our general account and the rate of return we are able to earn on investments intended to support obligations under these contracts. This difference between interest earned and interest credited, or margin, is a key metric for the management of, and reporting for, many of our businesses.
Our expectations regarding future margins are an important component impacting the amortization of certain intangible assets such as DAC and VOBA. Significantly lower margins may cause us to accelerate the amortization, thereby reducing net income in the affected reporting period. Additionally, lower margins may also impact the recoverability of intangible assets such as goodwill, require the establishment of additional liabilities or trigger loss recognition events on certain policyholder liabilities. We review this long-term margin assumption, along with other assumptions, as part of our annual assumption review.
The Company continues to be proactive in its investment and interest crediting rate strategies, as well as its product design and product mix. To mitigate the risk of unfavorable consequences from the low interest rate environment in the U.S., the Company applies disciplined asset/liability management (“ALM”) strategies, including the use of derivatives, primarily interest rate swaps, floors and swaptions. A significant portion of these derivatives were entered into prior to the onset of the current low U.S. interest rate environment. In some cases, the Company has entered into offsetting positions as part of its overall ALM strategy and to reduce volatility in net income. Lowering interest crediting rates on some products, or adjusting the dividend scale on traditional products, can help offset decreases in investment margins on some products. Our ability to lower interest crediting rates could be limited by competition, requirements to obtain regulatory approval, or contractual guarantees of minimum rates and may not match the timing or magnitude of changes in asset yields. As a result, our margins could decrease or potentially become negative. We are able to limit or close certain products to new sales in order to manage exposures. Business actions, such as shifting the sales focus to less interest rate sensitive products, can also mitigate this risk. In addition, the Company is well diversified across product, distribution, and geography. Certain of our non-U.S. businesses, reported within our Latin America and EMEA segments, which accounted for approximately 15% of our operating earnings in 2015, are not significantly interest rate or market sensitive; in particular, they do not have any direct sensitivity to U.S. interest rates. The Company’s primary exposure within these segments is insurance risk. We expect our non-U.S. businesses to grow faster than our U.S. businesses and, over time, to become a larger percentage of our total business. As a result of the foregoing, the Company expects to be able to substantially mitigate the negative impact of a sustained low interest rate environment in the U.S. on the Company’s profitability. Based on a near to intermediate term analysis of a sustained lower interest rate environment in the U.S., the Company anticipates operating earnings will continue to increase, although at a slower growth rate.
Below is a summary of the rates we used for the Low Interest Rate Scenario versus our business plan through 2018. These rates represent the most relevant short-term and long-term rates for our business plan.
In addition to its impact on operating earnings, we estimated the effect of the Low Interest Rate Scenario on the mark-to-market of our derivative positions that do not qualify as accounting hedges. We applied the Low Interest Rate Scenario to these derivatives and compared the impact to that from interest rates in our business plan. We hold a significant position in long duration receive-fixed interest rate swaps to hedge reinvestment risk. These swaps are most sensitive to the 30-year and 10-year swap rates and we recognize gains as rates drop and recognize losses as rates rise. This estimated impact on the derivative mark-to-market does not include that of our VA program derivatives as the impact of low interest rates in the freestanding derivatives would be largely offset by the mark-to-market in net derivative gains (losses) for the related embedded derivative.
Life & Other - Our interest rate sensitive products include traditional life, universal life, and retained asset accounts. Because the majority of our traditional life insurance business is participating, we can largely offset lower investment returns on assets backing our traditional life products through adjustments to the applicable dividend scale. In our universal life products, we manage interest rate risk through a combination of product design features and ALM strategies, including the use of hedges such as interest rate swaps and floors. While we have the ability to lower crediting rates on certain in-force universal life policies to mitigate margin compression, such actions would be partially offset by increases in our liabilities related to policies with secondary guarantees. Our retained asset accounts have minimum interest crediting rate guarantees which range from 0.5% to 4.0%, all of which are currently at their respective minimum interest crediting rates. While we expect to experience margin compression as we reinvest at lower rates, the interest rate derivatives held in this portfolio will partially mitigate this risk.
Reinvestment risk is defined for this purpose as the amount of reinvestment in 2016, 2017 and 2018 that would impact operating earnings due to reinvesting cash flows in the Low Interest Rate Scenario. For the deferred annuities business, $2.1 billion, $2.1 billion, and $0.4 billion in 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively, of the asset base will be subject to reinvestment risk on an average asset base of $36.7 billion, $37.5 billion and $38.2 billion in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively.
Voluntary & Worksite - We have exposure to interest rate risk in this business arising mainly from our long-term care policy reserves. For these products, lower reinvestment rates cannot be offset by a reduction in liability crediting rates for established claim reserves. Long-term care policies are guaranteed renewable, and rates may be adjusted on a class basis with regulatory approval to reflect emerging experience. Our long-term care block is closed to new business. The Company makes use of derivative instruments to more closely match asset and liability duration and immunize the portfolio against changes in interest rates. Reinvestment risk is defined for this purpose as the amount of reinvestment in 2016, 2017 and 2018 that would impact operating earnings due to reinvesting cash flows in the Low Interest Rate Scenario. For the long-term care portfolio, $1.8 billion, $1.7 billion and $1.5 billion of the asset base in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively, will be subject to reinvestment risk on an average asset base of $10.5 billion, $11.2 billion and $11.8 billion in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively.
We estimate a favorable combined long-term and short-term interest rate impact on the operating earnings of our Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits segment from the Low Interest Rate Scenario of $5 million in 2016 and an unfavorable impact of $10 million and $45 million 2017 and 2018, respectively.
This segment contains both short and long duration products consisting of capital market products, pension risk transfers, structured settlements, and other benefit funding products. The majority of short duration products are managed on a floating rate basis, which mitigates the impact of the low interest rate environment in the U.S. The long duration products have very predictable cash flows and we have matched these cash flows through our ALM strategies. We also use interest rate swaps to help protect income in this segment against a low interest rate environment in the U.S. Based on the cash flow estimates, only a small component is subject to reinvestment risk. Reinvestment risk is defined for this purpose as the amount of reinvestment in 2016, 2017 and 2018 that would impact operating earnings due to reinvesting cash flows in the Low Interest Rate Scenario. For the long duration business, $0.6 billion of the asset base in 2016 will be subject to reinvestment risk on an average asset base of $60.6 billion. In 2017 and 2018, none of the asset base will be subject to reinvestment risk on an average asset base of $63.9 billion and $66.5 billion, respectively.
We estimate an unfavorable combined long-term and short-term interest rate impact on operating earnings on our Corporate Benefit Funding segment from the Low Interest Rate Scenario of $5 million, $30 million and $45 million in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively.
We estimate an unfavorable combined long-term and short-term interest rate impact on the operating earnings of Corporate & Other from the Low Interest Rate Scenario of $30 million, $55 million and $60 million in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively.
The regulation of the global financial services industry has received renewed scrutiny as a result of the disruptions in the financial markets. Significant regulatory reforms have been adopted and additional reforms proposed, and these or other reforms could be implemented. See “Business - Regulation,” “Risk Factors - Regulatory and Legal Risks - Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth,” “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Business - Our Statutory Life Insurance Reserve Financings May Be Subject to Cost Increases and New Financings May Be Subject to Limited Market Capacity,” and “Risk Factors - Regulatory and Legal Risks - Changes in U.S. Federal, State Securities and State Insurance Laws and Regulations May Affect Our Operations and Our Profitability.” For example, Dodd-Frank, which was signed by President Obama in July 2010, effected the most far-reaching overhaul of financial regulation in the U.S. in decades. The full impact of Dodd-Frank on us will depend on the numerous rulemaking initiatives required or permitted by Dodd-Frank which are in various stages of implementation, many of which are not likely to be completed for some time.
In addition, the application of acquisition accounting requires the use of estimation techniques in determining the estimated fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed - the most significant of which relate to aforementioned critical accounting estimates. In applying our accounting policies, we make subjective and complex judgments that frequently require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain. Many of these policies, estimates and related judgments are common in the insurance and financial services industries; others are specific to our business and operations. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
The Company’s nonperformance risk adjustment decreased the valuation of guaranteed liabilities, increased actual gross profits and increased DAC and VOBA amortization by $17 million. This was partially offset by the lower risk margins, which increased the guarantee liability valuations, decreased actual gross profits and decreased DAC and VOBA amortization by $10 million.
The change in current and future projected GMIBs liability resulted in an increase to DAC amortization of $63 million.
Changes in net investment gains (losses) resulted in the following changes in DAC and VOBA amortization:
The remainder of the impact of net investment gains (losses), which decreased DAC and VOBA amortization by $72 million, was primarily attributable to 2013 investment activities.
Our DAC and VOBA balance is also impacted by unrealized investment gains (losses) and the amount of amortization which would have been recognized if such gains and losses had been realized. The decrease in unrealized investment gains (losses) increased the DAC and VOBA balance by $638 million in 2015, while the change in unrealized investment gains decreased the DAC and VOBA balance by $702 million and increased the DAC and VOBA balance by $1.3 billion in 2014 and 2013, respectively. See Notes 5 and 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding the DAC and VOBA offset to unrealized investment losses.
In determining the ranges, we have considered current market conditions, as well as the market level of spreads that can reasonably be anticipated over the near term. The ranges do not reflect extreme market conditions such as those experienced during the 2008-2009 financial crisis as we do not consider those to be reasonably likely events in the near future.
During the 2015, 2014 and 2013 annual goodwill impairment tests, we concluded that the fair values of all reporting units were in excess of their carrying values and, therefore, goodwill was not impaired.
We determine the expected rate of return on plan assets based upon an approach that considers inflation, real return, term premium, credit spreads, equity risk premium and capital appreciation, as well as expenses, expected asset manager performance, asset weights and the effect of rebalancing. Given the amount of plan assets as of December 31, 2014 the beginning of the measurement year, if we had assumed an expected rate of return for both our pension and other postretirement benefit plans that was 100 basis points higher or 100 basis points lower than the rates we assumed, the change in our net periodic benefit costs would have been a decrease of $103 million and an increase of $103 million, respectively, in 2015. This considers only changes in our assumed long-term rate of return given the level and mix of invested assets at the beginning of the year, without consideration of possible changes in any of the other assumptions described above that could ultimately accompany any changes in our assumed long-term rate of return.
We determine the discount rates used to value the pension and postretirement obligations, based upon rates commensurate with current yields on high quality corporate bonds. Given our pension and postretirement obligations as of December 31, 2014, the beginning of the measurement year, if we had assumed a discount rate for both our pension and postretirement benefit plans that was 100 basis points higher or 100 basis points lower than the rates we assumed, the change in our net periodic benefit costs would have been a decrease of $133 million and an increase of $155 million, respectively, in 2015. This considers only changes in our assumed discount rates without consideration of possible changes in any of the other assumptions described above that could ultimately accompany any changes in our assumed discount rate. The assumptions used may differ materially from actual results due to, among other factors, changing market and economic conditions and changes in participant demographics. These differences may have a significant effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and liquidity.
In 2014, the life insurance joint venture in Vietnam among MetLife, Inc. (through MetLife Limited), Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Investment & Development of Vietnam and Bank for Investment & Development of Vietnam Insurance Joint Stock Corporation was established. Operations of the joint venture (BIDV MetLife Life Insurance Limited Liability Company) commenced in 2014.
In 2014, MetLife, Inc. and Malaysia’s AMMB Holdings Bhd (“AMMB”) completed the formation of their strategic partnership, in which each holds approximately 50% of both AmMetLife Insurance Berhad and AmMetTakaful Berhad, each of which became parties to exclusive 20-year distribution agreements with AMMB bank affiliates.
Management of Investment Portfolio and Hedging Market Risks with Derivatives. We manage our investment portfolio using disciplined ALM principles, focusing on cash flow and duration to support our current and future liabilities. Our intent is to match the timing and amount of liability cash outflows with invested assets that have cash inflows of comparable timing and amount, while optimizing risk-adjusted net investment income and risk-adjusted total return. Our investment portfolio is heavily weighted toward fixed income investments, with over 80% of our portfolio invested in fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans. These securities and loans have varying maturities and other characteristics which cause them to be generally well suited for matching the cash flow and duration of insurance liabilities. We also use derivatives as an integral part of our management of the investment portfolio to hedge certain risks, including changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, credit spreads and equity market levels. In addition, our general account investment portfolio includes, within FVO and trading securities, contractholder-directed unit-linked investments supporting unit-linked variable annuity type liabilities, which do not qualify as separate account assets. The returns on these contractholder-directed unit-linked investments, which can vary significantly from period to period, include changes in estimated fair value subsequent to purchase, inure to contractholders and are offset in earnings by a corresponding change in policyholder account balances through interest credited to policyholder account balances.
Certain variable annuity products with guaranteed minimum benefits contain embedded derivatives that are measured at estimated fair value separately from the host variable annuity contract, with changes in estimated fair value recorded in net derivative gains (losses). We use freestanding derivatives to hedge the market risks inherent in these variable annuity guarantees. The valuation of these embedded derivatives includes a nonperformance risk adjustment, which is unhedged, and can be a significant driver of net derivative gains (losses) and volatility in earnings, but does not have an economic impact on us.
The unfavorable change in net derivative gains (losses) on non-VA program derivatives was $386 million ($251 million, net of income tax). This was primarily due to long-term interest rates decreasing less in 2015 than in 2014, unfavorably impacting receive-fixed interest rate swaptions and interest rate swaps primarily hedging long duration liability portfolios.
The foregoing $685 million ($445 million, net of income tax) unfavorable change in other risks in embedded derivatives reflected:
The foregoing $358 million ($233 million, net of income tax) unfavorable change was comprised of an $838 million ($545 million, net of income tax) unfavorable change in freestanding derivatives hedging market risks in embedded derivatives, which was partially offset by a $480 million ($312 million, net of income tax) favorable change in market risks in embedded derivatives.
Long-term interest rates decreased less in 2015 than in 2014, contributing to an unfavorable change in our freestanding derivatives and a favorable change in our embedded derivatives. For example, the 30-year U.S. swap rate decreased by 3% in 2015 and 31% in 2014.
Key equity index levels decreased in 2015 and increased in 2014, contributing to a favorable change in our freestanding derivatives and an unfavorable change in our embedded derivatives. For example, the S&P 500 Index decreased by 1% in 2015 and increased by 11% in 2014.
Net Investment Gains (Losses). The favorable change in net investment gains (losses) of $794 million ($516 million, net of income tax) primarily reflects a loss in 2014 on the disposition of MAL and higher net gains on sales of real estate in 2015, partially offset by lower net gains on sales and disposals of fixed maturity securities in 2015. For further information on MAL, see Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The $3 million loss recognized in net derivative gains (losses) associated with our annual assumption review was included within the other risks in embedded derivatives caption in the table above.
Net Derivative Gains (Losses). The variable annuity embedded derivatives and associated freestanding derivative hedges are collectively referred to as “VA program derivatives” in the following table. All other derivatives that are economic hedges of certain invested assets and insurance liabilities are referred to as “non-VA program derivatives” in the following table. The table below presents the impact on net derivative gains (losses) from non-VA program derivatives and VA program derivatives:
Long-term interest rates decreased in 2014 and increased in 2013, contributing to a favorable change in our freestanding derivatives and an unfavorable change in our embedded derivatives. For example, the 30-year U.S. swap rate decreased by 31% in 2014 and increased by 40% in 2013.
Key equity index levels increased less in 2014 than in 2013, contributing to a favorable change in our freestanding derivatives and an unfavorable change in our embedded derivatives. For example, the S&P 500 increased by 11% in 2014 and increased by 30% in 2013.
Changes in foreign currency exchange rates contributed to a favorable change in our freestanding derivatives and an unfavorable change in our embedded derivatives. For example, the U.S. dollar strengthened against the Japanese yen by 14% in 2014 as compared with 22% in 2013.
Actuarial Assumption Review. Our 2014 results include a $161 million ($105 million, net of income tax) benefit associated with our annual assumption review related to reserves and DAC, of which $137 million ($89 million, net of income tax) was recognized in net derivative gains (losses). Of the $161 million benefit, $82 million ($53 million, net of income tax) was related to DAC and $79 million ($52 million, net of income tax) was associated with reserves.
The $137 million gain recognized in net derivative gains (losses) associated with our annual assumption review was included within the other risks in embedded derivatives caption in the table above.
Divested Businesses. Income (loss) from continuing operations, before provision for income tax, related to the divested businesses, excluding net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses), improved $156 million to a loss of $13 million in 2014 from a loss of $169 million in 2013. Included in this improvement was a decrease in total revenues of $142 million, before income tax, and a decrease in total expenses of $298 million, before income tax. The divested businesses include certain MetLife Bank businesses and MAL.
Overview. The primary drivers of the decrease in operating earnings were lower investment yields, a tax charge and a related charge for interest on uncertain tax positions in 2015, less favorable underwriting results and an unfavorable impact from our annual review of actuarial assumptions, partially offset by higher net investment income from portfolio growth.
Foreign Currency. Changes in foreign currency exchange rates had a $303 million negative impact on operating earnings compared to 2014.
Business Growth. We benefited from higher sales and business growth across many of our products. Growth in the investment portfolios of our domestic and Latin America segments generated higher net investment income, which was partially offset by higher surrenders of foreign currency-denominated fixed annuity products in Japan. The changes in business growth discussed above resulted in a $474 million increase in operating earnings.
Market Factors. Market factors, including the sustained low interest rate environment, continued to impact our investment yields. Excluding the impact of inflation-indexed investments in the Latin America segment, investment yields decreased. Investment yields were negatively impacted by the adverse impact of the sustained low interest rate environment on fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans, as well as by lower returns on other limited partnership interests and our securities lending program. These decreases were partially offset by higher income on currency and interest rate derivatives and higher returns on real estate and real estate joint ventures. The changes in market factors discussed above resulted in a $545 million decrease in operating earnings.
Expenses. In 2015, other expenses include the aforementioned $235 million charge for interest on uncertain tax positions. An additional $101 million increase in expenses was primarily the result of higher employee-related costs and an increase in expenses associated with corporate initiatives and projects, primarily in Asia. These increases were partially offset by a $117 million accrual in 2014 to increase the litigation reserve related to asbestos, as well as 2014 charges totaling $57 million related to the aforementioned settlement of a licensing matter.
Taxes. The Company’s 2015 and 2014 effective tax rates differed from the U.S. statutory rate of 35%, primarily due to non-taxable investment income, tax credits for low income housing, and foreign earnings taxed at lower rates than the U.S. statutory rate. Our results for 2015 include the aforementioned tax charge of $557 million recorded under accounting guidance for the recognition of tax uncertainties, partially offset by a $61 million benefit in Japan related to a tax rate change, a one-time tax benefit of $60 million related to restructuring in Chile, a $31 million tax benefit related to the repatriation of earnings from Japan and a $31 million one-time tax benefit related to the devaluation of the peso in Argentina. In 2014, the Company realized a $32 million one-time tax benefit related to the filing of the Company’s U.S. federal tax return. However, this was more than offset by a $41 million one-time tax charge related to tax reform in Chile and an $18 million tax charge related to the aforementioned settlement of a licensing matter which was not deductible for income tax purposes.
Overview. The primary drivers of the increase in operating earnings were higher net investment income from portfolio growth, higher asset-based fee income and a decrease in interest credited expense, partially offset by unfavorable mortality, morbidity and claims experience and the impact of decreasing investment yields on net investment income. Excluding the impact of the aforementioned tax reform charge in Chile, the fourth quarter 2013 acquisition of ProVida increased operating earnings by $166 million.
Foreign Currency. Changes in foreign currency exchange rates had a $127 million negative impact on results compared to 2013.
Business Growth. We benefited from strong sales and business growth across many of our products as evidenced by higher asset-based fee income from growth in our businesses abroad. However, we continue to focus on pricing discipline and risk management which resulted in a decrease in sales of our variable annuity products. This decline in sales, in combination with surrenders and withdrawals, resulted in negative net flows, which caused lower average separate account assets and, consequently, lower asset-based fee income in our Retail segment. Excluding the impact of the divested businesses and the acquisition of ProVida, growth in our investment portfolios in the majority of our segments generated higher net investment income. Our property & casualty businesses benefited from an increase in average premium per policy. These positive results were partially offset by an associated increase in DAC amortization. The changes in business growth discussed above resulted in a $432 million increase in operating earnings.
Market Factors. Market factors, including the sustained low interest rate environment, continued to impact our investment yields, as well as our crediting rates. Excluding the results of the divested businesses, the acquisition of ProVida and the impact of inflation-indexed investments in the Latin America segment, investment yields decreased. Certain of our inflation-indexed products are backed by inflation-indexed investments. Changes in inflation cause fluctuations in net investment income with a corresponding fluctuation in policyholder benefits, resulting in a minimal impact to operating earnings. Investment yields were negatively impacted by the adverse impact of the sustained low interest rate environment on fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans yields, lower returns on our hedge funds, as well as increased holdings of lower yielding Japanese government securities in the Japan fixed annuity business. These decreases were partially offset by higher returns on interest rate derivatives, real estate joint ventures and private equity investments. Yields were also favorably impacted by increased sales of foreign currency-denominated fixed annuities in Japan, resulting in an increase in higher yielding foreign currency-denominated fixed maturity securities. The sustained low interest rate environment also resulted in lower interest credited expense as we set interest credited rates lower on both new business and certain in-force business with rate resets that are contractually tied to external indices or contain discretionary rate reset provisions. Our average separate account balances grew with the equity markets driving higher fee income in our annuity business. However, this was partially offset by higher DAC amortization due to the significant prior period equity market increase, as well as higher asset-based commissions and costs associated with our variable annuity GMDBs. The changes in market factors discussed above resulted in a $170 million decrease in operating earnings.
Expenses. A $112 million decrease in expenses was primarily driven by lower employee-related costs. In addition, our 2014 results include charges totaling $57 million related to the aforementioned settlement of a licensing matter with the Department of Financial Services and the District Attorney, New York County. The PPACA fee reduced operating earnings by $58 million in 2014. We increased our litigation reserves related to asbestos more in 2014 than in 2013 resulting in a $16 million decline in operating earnings.
Business Overview. Retail annuity sales increased 15% as a result of new variable annuity products introduced in late 2014 and early 2015 and higher indexed annuity sales. Life sales increased 17% driven by increases in our term life products (due to pricing actions) and whole life products (as a result of several large cases, as well as a continued focus on our enhanced underwriting programs). A significant portion of our operating earnings is driven by separate account balances. Most directly, these balances determine asset-based fee income but they also impact DAC amortization and asset-based commissions. Separate account balances are driven by sales, movements in the market, surrenders, withdrawals, benefit payments, transfers and policy charges. Separate account balances have declined due to market performance along with the impact of negative net flows, as benefits, surrenders and withdrawals exceeded sales.
Market Factors. A $58 million decrease in operating earnings was attributable to market factors, including equity markets and interest rates. Strong equity market performance led to higher asset-based commissions, which were, in part, driven by separate account balances, higher DAC amortization and costs associated with our GMDBs. The more favorable separate account returns in 2013 drove lower DAC amortization in 2013 as compared to 2014 where equity returns were much less favorable. These negative impacts were partially offset by higher asset-based fee income in 2014 due to increased average separate account balances. This positive equity market performance also drove higher net investment income from private equity investments. The sustained low interest rate environment resulted in a decline in net investment income on our fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans as proceeds from maturing investments were reinvested at lower yields. This negative interest rate impact was partially offset by lower interest credited expense as we reduced interest credited rates on contracts with discretionary rate reset provisions, and lower DAC amortization in our life business. Lower returns in our hedge funds also decreased operating earnings and were partially offset by higher income from real estate joint ventures and increased prepayment fees.
Underwriting, Actuarial Assumption Review and Other Insurance Adjustments. Less favorable mortality experience in our variable and universal life business, primarily driven by three large, unreinsured claims, partially offset by favorable experience in the traditional life and immediate annuities businesses, resulted in a $40 million decrease in operating earnings. In our property & casualty business, non-catastrophe claim costs increased by $8 million as a result of higher frequencies in our auto business offset by lower frequencies in our homeowners business. Catastrophe-related losses increased $5 million as compared to 2013. In addition, favorable morbidity experience in our individual disability income business resulted in a $6 million increase in operating earnings. The combined impact of the 2014 and 2013 annual assumption updates resulted in a net operating earnings decrease of $11 million and were primarily related to unfavorable DAC unlockings in the variable annuity business, partially offset by favorable DAC unlockings in our traditional and universal life businesses. Refinements to DAC and certain insurance-related liabilities that were recorded in 2014 and 2013 resulted in a $7 million increase in operating earnings, which included $104 million of favorable reserve adjustments in 2014 related to disability premium waivers and a 2014 charge of $57 million related to delayed settlement interest on unclaimed funds held by state governments, both in our life business.
Underwriting and Other Insurance Adjustments. In our property & casualty business, catastrophe-related losses increased by $29 million, mainly due to severe winter weather in 2015. In addition, non-catastrophe claim costs increased $37 million, resulting from higher severities in both our auto and homeowners businesses, as well as higher frequencies in our auto business, partially offset by lower frequencies in our homeowners businesses. Further, less favorable development of prior year non-catastrophe losses resulted in a slight decrease to operating earnings. Our life and AD&D businesses experienced favorable mortality in 2015, mainly due to favorable claims experience, which resulted in a $46 million increase in operating earnings. Less favorable reserve development in our dental business was partially offset by favorable morbidity experience in our long-term care and disability businesses and resulted in a $16 million decrease in operating earnings. The favorable claims experience in our long-term care business was due to higher net closures and the impact of lapses on certain insurance liabilities. In our disability business, the favorable claims experience was primarily driven by fewer approvals, a reduction in the average size of claims and higher net closures. Refinements to certain insurance and other liabilities, which were recorded in both 2015 and 2014, resulted in a $17 million increase in operating earnings.
Market Factors. The impact of changes in market factors, including lower yields on our fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans, and decreased income on alternative investments, partially offset by higher returns on our real estate joint ventures and private equity investments, resulted in lower investment yields. The decrease in investment yields, slightly offset by lower crediting rates in 2014, reduced operating earnings by $29 million.
Business Growth. The impact of 2015 deposits and funding agreement issuances resulted in higher invested assets, which drove an increase in net investment income, partially offset by the related increase in interest credited expense, and resulted in a $106 million increase in operating earnings. Net funding agreement issuances were higher in 2014 to take advantage of favorable market conditions in advance of scheduled contract maturities.
Expenses. Slightly higher employee-related costs and annual premium tax adjustments were partially offset by lower non-deferrable commissions, driven by a decrease in structured settlement annuity sales in 2015, and decreased operating earnings by $4 million.
Business Growth. The impact of 2014 deposits and funding agreement issuances, as well as increases in allocated equity and other liabilities, resulted in higher invested assets, which drove an increase in net investment income that was partially offset by the related increase in interest credited expense and resulted in a $122 million increase in operating earnings. In addition, strong investment performance and large case sales for our separate account products drove higher average account balances which resulted in an increase in separate account fees of $8 million.
Underwriting and Other Insurance Adjustments. Favorable mortality in 2014, primarily in our structured settlements business, resulted in a $24 million increase in operating earnings. The net impact of insurance liability refinements that were recorded in 2014 and 2013 increased operating earnings by $28 million.
Business Overview. Total sales for the region decreased primarily due to the impact of a large contract in Mexico in 2014. Excluding this contract, sales for the region increased due to organic growth in several countries. Total sales of life, accident & health and credit products increased across several countries. Life and accident & health product sales also increased in our U.S. direct business. Sales of retirement products were down as lower sales in Mexico were only partially offset by higher sales in Brazil.
Market Factors. The net impact of changes in market factors resulted in an $83 million decrease in operating earnings, driven by lower investment yields and higher interest credited expense. Investment yields decreased on fixed income securities in Chile and Mexico and we experienced lower investment returns on alternative investments in Chile.
Market Factors. The net impact of changes in market factors resulted in a $25 million decrease in operating earnings. This decrease was primarily driven by higher interest credited expense, the unfavorable impact of inflation, and lower yields from alternative investments and mortgage loans in Chile, partially offset by higher investment yields on fixed income securities in Chile and Brazil.
Underwriting, Actuarial Assumption Review and Other Insurance Adjustments. Unfavorable claims experience, primarily due to increased claims severity and frequency in Mexico, Chile and Brazil, decreased operating earnings by $32 million. The impact of the 2013 annual assumption review resulted in an operating earnings decrease of $7 million. In addition to our annual updates, other refinements to DAC and other adjustments recorded in both 2014 and 2013 resulted in a $13 million decrease in operating earnings.
Business Overview. Sales decreased slightly compared to 2014 due to lower group sales in Australia. This was partially offset by growth in our ordinary life and accident & health businesses in Japan.
Foreign Currency. The impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates reduced operating earnings by $126 million for 2015 compared to 2014 as a result of the weakening of the yen against the U.S. dollar. This resulted in significant variances in the financial statement line items.
Business Growth. Asia’s premiums, fees and other revenues increased over the prior year driven by broad based in-force growth across the region, including growth in our ordinary life and accident & health businesses in Japan and Korea, as well as our group insurance business in Australia. Changes in premiums for these businesses were partially offset by related changes in policyholder benefits. During the period, surrenders of foreign currency-denominated fixed annuity products in Japan also contributed to higher fee income. The impact of these surrenders, partially offset by positive net flows in Korea, Bangladesh and India, resulted in lower average invested assets and a decrease in net investment income. In addition, a decrease in interest credited expenses was partially offset by increases in amortization of DAC and VOBA, commissions and variable expenses (net of DAC capitalization), primarily related to the establishment of an agency channel in Hong Kong. The combined impact of the items discussed above improved operating earnings by $61 million.
Underwriting and Actuarial Assumption Review. Favorable claims experience, primarily in Japan resulted in a $15 million increase in operating earnings. In addition, on an annual basis, we review and update our long-term assumptions used in our calculations of certain insurance-related liabilities and DAC. This annual update resulted in a net operating earnings increase of $22 million.
Foreign Currency. The impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates reduced operating earnings by $52 million for 2014 as compared with 2013 and resulted in significant variances in the financial statement line items. For example, while premiums, fees and other revenues decreased 3% on a reported basis, they increased 3% on a constant currency basis.
Underwriting and Other Insurance Adjustments. Our 2013 results include a strengthening of group and permanent disability claim reserves of $57 million, net of reinsurance, in Australia. In addition, refinements to DAC and certain insurance-related liabilities that were recorded in 2014 and 2013 resulted in a $14 million increase in operating earnings. Our 2014 results for Korea decreased $5 million as a result of unfavorable claims experience, primarily in our life business, and regulatory changes.
Business Overview. Sales have increased slightly as 2015 sales growth in Turkey, Italy and Poland was offset by strong 2014 sales in the Gulf.
Actuarial Assumption Review. On an annual basis, we review and update our long-term assumptions used in our calculations of certain insurance-related liabilities and DAC. These annual updates, which occurred in both 2015 and 2014, resulted in a net operating earnings decrease of $4 million. In addition, operating earnings increased by $5 million due to a 2014 refinement of DAC in the U.K.
Foreign Currency. The impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates reduced operating earnings by $18 million for 2014 as compared to 2013.
Business Growth. An increase in sales over 2013, primarily in the Middle East and central, eastern and southern Europe, was partially offset by the impact of regulatory changes in the U.K. Net investment income increased, driven by an increase in average invested assets from business growth in Egypt, the Persian Gulf and Russia, in addition to a slight increase in yields from the lengthening of the Ireland and Greece shorter-term portfolios into higher yielding longer duration fixed maturity securities. This was partially offset by the impact of changes in allocated equity. Our 2014 results also included certain legal and re-branding expenses, as well as higher corporate overhead expenses, while operating earnings benefited as a result of a review of certain tax liabilities. The combined impact of the items discussed above decreased operating earnings by $16 million.
Other Net Investment Income. A $122 million decrease in other net investment income was driven by an increase in the amount credited to the segments due to growth in the economic capital managed by Corporate & Other on their behalf. This decrease was also impacted by the sustained low interest rate environment, which drove lower investment yields on fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans, as well as lower returns on alternative investments. This was partially offset by increased income from higher average invested assets and improved returns on real estate investments.
Incremental Tax Benefit (Expense). Corporate & Other benefits from the impact of certain permanent tax differences, including non-taxable investment income and tax credits for investments in low income housing. As a result, our effective tax rate differs from the U.S. statutory rate of 35%. Our 2015 results include the aforementioned tax charge of $557 million, which was recorded under accounting guidance for the recognition of tax uncertainties. Our 2014 results include an $18 million tax charge related to a portion of the settlement of a licensing matter that was not deductible for income tax purposes. In addition, in 2015, we had higher utilization of tax preferenced investments, a benefit related to the timing of certain tax credits and other tax benefits which increased our operating earnings by $68 million over 2014.
Other. Our 2015 results include the aforementioned charge of $235 million for interest on uncertain tax positions, as well as a $20 million charge associated with company use real estate. These increases in expenses were partially offset by a $21 million one-time tax refund received for a favorable outcome on prior year tax audits and a decrease in employee-related costs of $28 million from 2014. Our results for 2014 include a $117 million accrual to increase the litigation reserve related to asbestos and charges totaling $57 million related to the settlement of a licensing matter with the Department of Financial Services and the District Attorney, New York County. This was partially offset by an $18 million increase in operating earnings in 2014 resulting from net adjustments to certain reinsurance assets and liabilities.
Interest Expense on Debt. Interest expense on debt increased by $12 million, mainly due to the issuance of $1.0 billion of senior notes in April 2014 and the recognition of issuance costs related to the early redemption of senior notes in May 2014.
Corporate Initiatives and Projects. Expenses related to corporate initiatives and projects increased by $49 million, primarily due to higher relocation costs, severance and consulting expenses. These expenses include a $16 million decrease in restructuring charges, the majority of which related to severance.
Incremental Tax Benefit. The tax benefit in 2014 included a tax benefit of $16 million related to the timing of certain tax credits. In addition, we incurred a tax charge of $6 million in 2014 and received a tax benefit of $10 million in 2013 related to the filing of the Company’s U.S. federal tax returns. Our results for 2014 also included an $18 million tax charge related to a portion of the aforementioned settlement of a licensing matter that was not deductible for income tax purposes.
Our primary investment objective is to optimize, net of income tax, risk-adjusted investment income and risk-adjusted total return while ensuring that assets and liabilities are managed on a cash flow and duration basis. The Investments Department, led by the Chief Investment Officer, manages investment risks using a risk control framework comprised of policies, procedures and limits, as discussed further below. The Investments Risk Committee, chaired by GRM, reviews and monitors investment risk limits and tolerances. We are exposed to the following primary sources of investment risks:
Excluding Europe’s perimeter region and Cyprus which are discussed below, our holdings of sovereign debt, corporate debt and perpetual hybrid securities in certain EU member states and other countries in the region that are not members of the EU (collectively, the “European Region”) were concentrated in the U.K., Germany, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Norway and Sweden. The sovereign debt of these countries continues to maintain investment grade credit ratings from all major rating agencies. We maintain general account investments in the European Region to support our insurance operations and related policyholder liabilities in these countries and certain of our non-European Region operations invest in the region for diversification. In the European Region, we have proactively mitigated risk in both direct and indirect exposures by investing in a diversified portfolio of high quality investments with a focus on the higher-rated countries. Sovereign debt issued by countries outside of Europe’s perimeter region and Cyprus comprised $6.8 billion, or 98%, of our European Region sovereign fixed maturity securities, at estimated fair value, at December 31, 2015. The European Region corporate securities (fixed maturity and perpetual hybrid securities classified as non-redeemable preferred stock) are invested in a diversified portfolio of primarily non-financial services securities, which comprised $20.8 billion, or 70%, of European Region total corporate securities, at estimated fair value, at December 31, 2015. Of these European Region sovereign fixed maturity and corporate securities, 92% were investment grade and, for the 8% that were below investment grade, the majority were non-financial services corporate securities at December 31, 2015. European Region financial services corporate securities, at estimated fair value, were $9.0 billion (including $6.4 billion within the banking sector) with 95% invested in investment grade rated corporate securities, at December 31, 2015.
Yields are calculated as investment income as a percent of average quarterly asset carrying values. Investment income excludes recognized gains and losses and reflects GAAP adjustments presented in footnote (5) below. Asset carrying values exclude unrealized gains (losses), collateral received in connection with our securities lending program, freestanding derivative assets, collateral received from derivative counterparties, the effects of consolidating certain variable interest entities (“VIEs”) under GAAP that are treated as consolidated securitization entities (“CSEs”) and contractholder-directed unit-linked investments. A yield is not presented for other invested assets as it is not considered a meaningful measure of performance for this asset class.
In connection with our investment management business, we manage privately-placed and infrastructure fixed maturity securities on behalf of institutional clients, which are unaffiliated investors. These privately-placed and infrastructure fixed maturity securities had an estimated fair value of $6.1 billion and $4.1 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These assets are not included in our consolidated financial statements.
Also in connection with our investment management business, we manage index investment portfolios that track the return of standard industry fixed income and equity market indices such as the Barclay’s U.S. Aggregate Bond Index and S&P 500® Index. These assets had an estimated fair value of $26.0 billion and $27.7 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and are included within separate account assets in our consolidated financial statements.
Valuation of Securities. We are responsible for the determination of the estimated fair value of our investments. We determine the estimated fair value of publicly-traded securities after considering one of three primary sources of information: quoted market prices in active markets, independent pricing services, or independent broker quotations. We determine the estimated fair value of privately-placed securities after considering one of three primary sources of information: market standard internal matrix pricing, market standard internal discounted cash flow techniques, or independent pricing services (after we determine the independent pricing services’ use of available observable market data). For publicly-traded securities, the number of quotations obtained varies by instrument and depends on the liquidity of the particular instrument. Generally, we obtain prices from multiple pricing services to cover all asset classes and obtain multiple prices for certain securities, but ultimately utilize the price with the highest placement in the fair value hierarchy. Independent pricing services that value these instruments use market standard valuation methodologies based on data about market transactions and inputs from multiple pricing sources that are market observable or can be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data. See Note 10 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of the types of market standard valuation methodologies utilized and key assumptions and observable inputs used in applying these standard valuation methodologies. When a price is not available in the active market or through an independent pricing service, management values the security primarily using market standard internal matrix pricing or discounted cash flow techniques, and non-binding quotations from independent brokers who are knowledgeable about these securities. Independent non-binding broker quotations utilize inputs that may be difficult to corroborate with observable market data. As shown in the following section, less than 1% of our fixed maturity securities were valued using non-binding quotations from independent brokers at December 31, 2015.
The composition of fair value pricing sources for and significant changes in Level 3 securities at December 31, 2015 are as follows:
The majority of the Level 3 fixed maturity and equity securities AFS were concentrated in four sectors: U.S. and foreign corporate securities, residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”), and asset-backed securities (“ABS”).
During the year ended December 31, 2015, Level 3 fixed maturity securities decreased by $1.3 billion, or 6%. The decrease was driven by net transfers out of Level 3, partially offset by purchases in excess of sales and a decrease in estimated fair value recognized in OCI.
The NAIC has adopted revised methodologies for certain structured securities comprised of non-agency RMBS, commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) and ABS. The NAIC’s objective with the revised methodologies for these structured securities was to increase the accuracy in assessing expected losses, and to use the improved assessment to determine a more appropriate capital requirement for such structured securities. The revised methodologies reduce regulatory reliance on rating agencies and allow for greater regulatory input into the assumptions used to estimate expected losses from structured securities. We apply the revised NAIC methodologies to structured securities held by MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries that maintain the NAIC statutory basis of accounting. The NAIC’s present methodology is to evaluate structured securities held by insurers using the revised NAIC methodologies on an annual basis. If MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries acquire structured securities that have not been previously evaluated by the NAIC, but are expected to be evaluated by the NAIC in the upcoming annual review, an internally developed designation is used until a final designation becomes available.
We maintain a diversified portfolio of corporate fixed maturity securities across industries and issuers. This portfolio does not have any exposure to any single issuer in excess of 1% of total investments and the top ten holdings comprise 2% of total investments at both December 31, 2015 and 2014. The tables below present our U.S. and foreign corporate securities holdings at:
Historically, we have managed our exposure to sub-prime RMBS holdings by: acquiring older vintage year securities that benefit from better underwriting, improved credit enhancement and higher levels of residential property price appreciation; reducing our overall exposure; stress testing the portfolio with severe loss assumptions; and closely monitoring the performance of the portfolio. Since 2012, we have increased our exposure by purchasing sub-prime RMBS at significant discounts to the expected principal recovery value of these securities. The estimated fair value of our sub-prime RMBS holdings purchased since 2012 was $4.0 billion and $3.9 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, with unrealized gains (losses) of $74 million and $130 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The tables above reflect rating agency ratings assigned by NRSROs, including Moody’s, S&P, Fitch and Morningstar. CMBS designated NAIC 1 were 99.5% and 98.5% of total CMBS at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The information presented in the tables herein exclude mortgage loans where we elected the FVO. Such amounts are presented in Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
We diversify our mortgage loan portfolio by both geographic region and property type to reduce the risk of concentration. Of our commercial and agricultural mortgage loan portfolios, 85% are collateralized by properties located in the U.S., with the remaining 15% collateralized by properties located outside the U.S., at December 31, 2015. The carrying value of our commercial and agricultural mortgage loans located in California, New York and Texas were 19%, 12% and 8%, respectively, of total mortgage loans at December 31, 2015. Additionally, we manage risk when originating commercial and agricultural mortgage loans by generally lending up to 75% of the estimated fair value of the underlying real estate collateral.
In connection with our investment management business, we manage commercial mortgage loans on behalf of institutional clients, which are unaffiliated investors. These commercial mortgage loans had an estimated fair value of $2.0 billion and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These assets are not included in our consolidated financial statements.
We review our commercial mortgage loans on an ongoing basis. These reviews may include an analysis of the property financial statements and rent roll, lease rollover analysis, property inspections, market analysis, estimated valuations of the underlying collateral, loan-to-value ratios, debt service coverage ratios, and tenant creditworthiness. The monitoring process focuses on higher risk loans, which include those that are classified as restructured, delinquent or in foreclosure, as well as loans with higher loan-to-value ratios and lower debt service coverage ratios. The monitoring process for agricultural mortgage loans is generally similar, with a focus on higher risk loans, such as loans with higher loan-to-value ratios, including reviews on a geographic and sector basis. We review our residential mortgage loans on an ongoing basis. See Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information on our evaluation of residential mortgage loans and related valuation allowance methodology.
Loan-to-value ratios and debt service coverage ratios are common measures in the assessment of the quality of commercial mortgage loans. Loan-to-value ratios are a common measure in the assessment of the quality of agricultural mortgage loans. Loan-to-value ratios compare the amount of the loan to the estimated fair value of the underlying collateral. A loan-to-value ratio greater than 100% indicates that the loan amount is greater than the collateral value. A loan-to-value ratio of less than 100% indicates an excess of collateral value over the loan amount. Generally, the higher the loan-to-value ratio, the higher the risk of experiencing a credit loss. The debt service coverage ratio 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. For our commercial mortgage loans, our average loan-to-value ratio was 52% at both December 31, 2015 and 2014, and our average debt service coverage ratio was 2.6x at both December 31, 2015 and 2014. The debt service coverage ratio, as well as the values utilized in calculating the ratio, is 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 our ongoing review of our commercial mortgage loan portfolio. For our agricultural mortgage loans, our average loan-to-value ratio was 43% and 44% at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The values utilized in calculating the agricultural mortgage loan loan-to-value ratio are developed in connection with the ongoing review of the agricultural loan portfolio and are routinely updated.
We classify within traditional real estate our investment in income-producing real estate, which is comprised of wholly-owned real estate and joint ventures with interests in single property income-producing real estate. The estimated fair value of the traditional and held-for-sale real estate investment portfolios was $12.4 billion and $13.3 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. We classify within real estate joint ventures and funds, our investments in joint ventures with interests in multi-property projects with varying strategies ranging from the development of properties to the operation of income-producing properties, as well as our investments in real estate private equity funds. From time to time, if we intend to retain an interest in the property, we transfer investments from these joint ventures to traditional real estate after the completed property commences operations.
Other limited partnership interests are comprised of private equity funds and hedge funds. The carrying value of other limited partnership interests was $7.1 billion and $8.1 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which included $1.9 billion and $2.4 billion of hedge funds, at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
See Notes 8 and 9 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding tax credit partnerships, leveraged and direct financing leases and freestanding derivatives with positive estimated fair values, respectively. See Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information about tax credit and renewable energy partnerships, funds withheld and operating joint ventures.
The carrying value of short-term investments, which approximates estimated fair value, was $9.3 billion and $8.6 billion, or 1.8% and 1.7% of total cash and invested assets, at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The carrying value of cash equivalents, which approximates estimated fair value, was $7.5 billion and $4.5 billion, or 1.5% and 0.9% of total cash and invested assets, at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Information about the gross notional amount, estimated fair value, and primary underlying risk exposure of our derivatives by type of hedge designation, excluding embedded derivatives held at December 31, 2015 and 2014.
Derivatives categorized as Level 3 at December 31, 2015 include: interest rate forwards with maturities which extend beyond the observable portion of the yield curve; foreign currency swaps and forwards with certain unobservable inputs, including the unobservable portion of the yield curve; credit default swaps priced using unobservable credit spreads, or that are priced through independent broker quotations; equity variance swaps with unobservable volatility inputs; and equity index options with unobservable correlation inputs. At December 31, 2015, less than 1% of the estimated fair value of our derivatives was priced through independent broker quotations.
The gross gains and gross (losses) for purchased credit default swaps in the trading portfolio were $8 million and ($11) million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2015 and $5 million and ($5) million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2014.
We maintain an unsecured credit facility, as well as committed facilities with various financial institutions. See “- Liquidity and Capital Resources - The Company - Liquidity and Capital Sources - Global Funding Sources - Credit and Committed Facilities” for further descriptions of such arrangements. For the classification of expenses on such credit and committed facilities and the nature of the associated liability for letters of credit issued and drawdowns on these credit and committed facilities, see Note 12 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
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 $50 million and $83 million at estimated fair value at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. See Notes 1 and 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, as well as “- Investments - Securities Lending” for discussion of our securities lending program, the classification of revenues and expenses, and the nature of the secured financing arrangement and associated liability.
Liabilities for this segment are primarily related to payout annuities, including pension risk transfers, structured settlement annuities and institutional income annuities. There is no interest rate crediting flexibility on these liabilities. As a result, a sustained low interest rate environment could negatively impact earnings; however, we mitigate our risks by applying various ALM strategies, including the use of various derivative positions, primarily interest rate floors and interest rate swaps, to mitigate the risks associated with such a scenario.
Future policy benefits primarily include liabilities for certain run-off long-term care and workers’ compensation business written by MetLife USA. Additionally, future policy benefits include liabilities for variable annuity guaranteed minimum benefits assumed from a former operating joint venture in Japan that are accounted for as insurance.
As a result of acquisitions, we establish additional liabilities known as excess interest reserves for policies with credited rates in excess of market rates as of the applicable acquisition dates. At December 31, 2015, excess interest reserves were $110 million and $328 million for Life & Other and Annuities, respectively.
Policyholder account balances in this segment are held for retained asset accounts, universal life policies, the fixed account of variable life insurance policies and specialized life insurance products for benefit programs. Policyholder account balances are credited interest at a rate we determine, which are influenced by current market rates. A sustained low interest rate environment could negatively impact earnings as a result of the minimum credited rate guarantees present in most of these policyholder account balances. We have various derivative positions, primarily interest rate floors, to partially mitigate the risks associated with such a scenario.
Excludes negative VOBA liabilities of $1.2 billion at December 31, 2015, primarily held in Japan. These liabilities were established in instances where the estimated fair value of contract obligations exceeded the book value of assumed insurance policy liabilities associated with the acquisition of ALICO. These negative liabilities were established primarily for decreased market interest rates subsequent to the issuance of the policy contracts.
Policyholder account balances in Corporate & Other are held for variable annuity guaranteed minimum benefits assumed from a former operating joint venture in Japan that are accounted for as embedded derivatives.
The carrying amounts for guarantees included in policyholder account balances above include nonperformance risk adjustments of $462 million and $299 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These nonperformance risk adjustments represent the impact of including a credit spread when discounting the underlying risk neutral cash flows to determine the estimated fair values. The nonperformance risk adjustment does not have an economic impact on us as it cannot be monetized given the nature of these policyholder liabilities. The change in valuation arising from the nonperformance risk adjustment is not hedged.
As discussed below, we use a combination of product design, hedging strategies, reinsurance, and other risk management actions to mitigate the risks related to these benefits. Within each type of guarantee, there is a range of product offerings reflecting the changing nature of these products over time. Changes in product features and terms are in part driven by customer demand but, more importantly, reflect our risk management practices of continuously evaluating the guaranteed benefits and their associated asset-liability matching. Recently, we have been diversifying the concentration of income benefits in the portfolio of the Company’s Retail Annuities business by focusing on withdrawal benefits, variable annuities without living benefits and index-linked annuities. To this end, the GMIBs will not be available for new purchases after February 19, 2016.
Total account value excludes $2.1billion for contracts with no GMDBs. Further, many of our annuity contracts offer more than one type of guarantee such that GMDB amounts listed above are not mutually exclusive to the amounts in the living benefit guarantees table below.
Total account value excludes $48.1 billion for contracts with no living benefit guarantees. Further, many of our annuity contracts offer more than one type of guarantee such that living benefit guarantee amounts listed above are not mutually exclusive of the amounts in the GMDBs table above.
The Asia and EMEA segments include the non-life contingent portion of the GMWB total account value of $948 million with a guarantee at annuitization.
In terms of total account value, GMIBs are our most significant living benefit guarantee. Our primary risk management strategy for our GMIB products is our derivatives hedging program as discussed below. Additionally, we have engaged in certain reinsurance agreements covering some of our GMIB business. As part of our overall risk management approach for living benefit guarantees, we continually monitor the reinsurance markets for the right opportunity to purchase additional coverage for our GMIB business.
The annuitization interest rates on GMIBs have been decreased from 2.5% to 0.5% over time, partially in response to the low interest rate environment, accompanied by an increase in the setback period from seven years to 10 years and the more recent introduction of a 10-year mortality projection.
Additionally, 33% of the $90.3 billion of GMIB total account value has been invested in managed volatility funds as of December 31, 2015. These funds seek to manage volatility by adjusting the fund holdings within certain guidelines based on capital market movements. Such activity reduces the overall risk of the underlying funds while maintaining their growth opportunities. These risk mitigation techniques translate to a reduction or elimination of the need for us to manage the funds’ volatility through hedging or reinsurance.
Our GMIB products typically have a waiting period of 10 years to be eligible for annuitization. As of December 31, 2015, only 15% of our contracts with GMIBs were eligible for annuitization. The remaining contracts are not eligible for annuitization for an average of six years.
Our business and results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the global capital markets and the economy generally. Stressed conditions, volatility and disruptions in global capital markets, particular markets, or financial asset classes can have an adverse effect on us, in part because we have a large investment portfolio and our insurance liabilities are sensitive to changing market factors. The global markets and economy continue to experience volatility that may affect our financing costs and market interest for our debt or equity securities. For further information regarding market factors that could affect our ability to meet liquidity and capital needs, see “- Industry Trends” and “- Investments - Current Environment.”
An integral part of our liquidity management includes managing our level of liquid assets, which was $229.4 billion and $237.4 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Liquid assets include cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments and publicly-traded securities, excluding assets that are pledged or otherwise committed. Assets pledged or otherwise committed include: (i) amounts related to cash collateral received under our securities lending program; (ii) amounts related to cash collateral received from counterparties in connection with derivatives; (iii) cash and investments held in the closed block, in regulatory custodial accounts or on deposit with regulatory agencies; (iv) investments held in trust in support of collateral financing arrangements; and (v) investments pledged in support of funding agreements, derivatives and short sale agreements.
Our Board and senior management are directly involved in the development and maintenance of our capital policy. The capital policy sets forth, among other things, minimum and target capital levels and the governance of the capital management process. All capital actions, including proposed changes to the annual capital plan, capital targets or capital policy, are reviewed by the Finance and Risk Committee of the Board prior to obtaining full Board approval. The Board approves the capital policy and the annual capital plan and authorizes capital actions, as required.
Liquidity refers to a company’s ability to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet its needs. We determine our liquidity needs based on a rolling 12-month forecast by portfolio of invested assets which we monitor daily. We adjust the asset mix and asset maturities based on this rolling 12-month forecast. To support this forecast, we conduct cash flow and stress testing, which include various scenarios of the potential risk of early contractholder and policyholder withdrawal. We include provisions limiting withdrawal rights on many of our products, including general account pension products sold to employee benefit plan sponsors. Certain of these provisions prevent the customer from making withdrawals prior to the maturity date of the product. In the event of significant cash requirements beyond anticipated liquidity needs, we have various alternatives available depending on market conditions and the amount and timing of the liquidity need. These available alternatives include cash flows from operations, sales of liquid assets, global funding sources and various credit facilities.
Downgrades in our insurer financial strength ratings could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations in many ways, including:
The amount of dividends that our insurance subsidiaries can pay to MetLife, Inc. or to other parent entities is constrained by the amount of surplus we hold to maintain our ratings and provides an additional margin for risk protection and investment in our businesses. We proactively take actions to maintain capital consistent with these ratings objectives, which may include adjusting dividend amounts and deploying financial resources from internal or external sources of capital. Certain of these activities may require regulatory approval. Furthermore, the payment of dividends and other distributions to MetLife, Inc. and other parent entities by their respective insurance subsidiaries is governed by insurance laws and regulations. See “Business - Regulation - U.S. Regulation - Insurance Regulation,” “Business - Regulation - International Regulation,” “- MetLife, Inc. - Liquidity and Capital Sources - Dividends from Subsidiaries” and Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The principal cash inflows from our insurance activities come from insurance premiums, net investment income, annuity considerations and deposit funds. The principal cash outflows relate to various life insurance, property & casualty, annuity and pension products, operating expenses and income tax, as well as interest expense. A primary liquidity concern with respect to these cash flows is the risk of early contractholder and policyholder withdrawal.
In June 2015, MetLife, Inc. issued 1,500,000 shares of 5.25% Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series C (the “Series C preferred stock”), with a $0.01 par value per share and a liquidation preference of $1,000 per share, for aggregate proceeds of $1.5 billion. See Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.
In October 2014 and September 2013, MetLife, Inc. issued 22,907,960 new shares and 22,679,955 new shares, respectively, of its common stock, each for $1.0 billion, in connection with the remarketing of senior debt securities and settlement of stock purchase contracts. See “- Remarketing of Senior Debt Securities and Settlement of Stock Purchase Contracts.”
We issue fixed and floating rate funding agreements which are denominated in either U.S. dollars or foreign currencies, to certain SPEs that have issued either debt securities or commercial paper for which payment of interest and principal is secured by such funding agreements. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we issued $48.1 billion, $48.9 billion and $37.7 billion, respectively, and repaid $49.9 billion, $45.6 billion and $36.8 billion, respectively, under such funding agreements. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, total obligations outstanding under these funding agreements were $31.6 billion and $33.9 billion, respectively. See Note 4 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
In December 2015, MetLife Private Equity Holdings, LLC (“MPEH”), a wholly-owned indirect investment subsidiary of MLIC, borrowed $350 million under term loans that mature in December 2020 (see “Other Notes” in Note 12 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information);
In November 2015, MetLife, Inc. issued $1.3 billion of senior notes for general corporate purposes, which include repayment of certain senior notes upon their maturity in 2016;
In March 2015, MetLife, Inc. issued $1.5 billion of senior notes for general corporate purposes, which included repayment of certain senior notes upon their maturity in 2015;
In each of October 2014 and September 2013, MetLife, Inc. closed the successful remarketings of $1.0 billion of senior debt securities underlying common equity units issued in November 2010 in connection with the acquisition of ALICO. MetLife, Inc. did not receive any proceeds from the remarketings. Most common equity unit holders used the remarketing proceeds to settle their payment obligations under the applicable stock purchase contracts. The subsequent settlement of the stock purchase contracts provided proceeds to MetLife, Inc. of $1.0 billion in each of October 2014 and September 2013 in exchange for newly issued shares of MetLife, Inc.’s common stock as described in “- Common Stock” above.
See Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The unsecured credit facility is used for general corporate purposes, to support the borrowers’ commercial paper programs and for the issuance of letters of credit. At December 31, 2015, we had outstanding $484 million in letters of credit and no drawdowns against this facility. Remaining availability was $3.5 billion at December 31, 2015.
Excludes $60 million and $151 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, of long-term debt relating to CSEs - FVO (see Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements). For more information regarding long-term debt, see Note 12 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
In June 2015, MetLife, Inc. conducted a tender offer for up to 59,850,000 of its 60,000,000 shares of the 6.50% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series B (“Series B preferred stock”), at a purchase price of $25 per share, plus an amount equal to accrued, unpaid and undeclared dividends from, and including, June 15, 2015 to, but excluding, June 29, 2015, the settlement date of the tender offer. In June 2015, MetLife, Inc. also delivered a notice of redemption to the holders of the Series B preferred stock, pursuant to which it would redeem any Series B preferred stock not purchased by it in the tender offer at a redemption price of $25 per share, without any payment for accrued, unpaid and undeclared dividends on the Series B preferred stock from, and including, June 15, 2015 to, but excluding July 1, 2015, the redemption date. On June 29, 2015, MetLife, Inc. repurchased and canceled 37,192,413 shares of Series B preferred stock in the tender offer for $932 million in cash. On July 1, 2015, MetLife, Inc. redeemed and canceled the remaining 22,807,587 shares of Series B preferred stock not tendered in the tender offer for an aggregate redemption price of $570 million in cash. In connection with the tender offer and redemption, MetLife, Inc. recognized a preferred stock repurchase premium of $42 million (calculated as the difference between the carrying value of the Series B preferred stock and the total amount paid by MetLife, Inc. to the holders of the Series B preferred stock in connection with the tender offer and redemption), which was reflected as a reduction to retained earnings on the consolidated balance sheet. See Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Common stock repurchases are dependent upon several factors, including our capital position, liquidity, financial strength and credit ratings, general market conditions, the market price of MetLife, Inc.’s common stock compared to management’s assessment of the stock’s underlying value and applicable regulatory approvals, as well as other legal and accounting factors. See “Business - Regulation - U.S. Regulation - Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI,” “Business - Regulation - International Regulation - Global Systemically Important Insurers,” “Risk Factors - Capital-Related Risks - Regulatory Restrictions and Uncertainty and Restrictions Under the Terms of Certain of Our Securities May Prevent Us from Repurchasing Our Stock and Paying Dividends at the Level We Wish” and Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Preferred stock dividends are paid quarterly in accordance with the terms of MetLife, Inc.’s Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series A and, ending with the June 15, 2015 payment date for the Series B preferred stock. Dividends are paid semi-annually on MetLife, Inc.’s Series C preferred stock commencing December 15, 2015 and ending on June 15, 2020, and thereafter are paid quarterly.
In 2015, following regulatory approval, MetLife Reinsurance Company of Charleston (“MRC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., repurchased and canceled $57 million in aggregate principal amount of its surplus notes;
In June and February 2014, MetLife, Inc. repaid at maturity its $350 million and $1.0 billion senior notes, respectively;
Liabilities arising from our insurance activities primarily relate to benefit payments under various life insurance, property & casualty, annuity and group 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 Retail segment, which includes individual annuities, lapses and surrenders tend to occur in the normal course of business. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, general account surrenders and withdrawals from annuity products were $3.8 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively. In the Corporate Benefit Funding 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. With regard to the Corporate Benefit Funding segment liabilities that provide customers with limited rights to accelerate payments, as of December 31, 2015, there were no funding agreements and other capital market products that could be put back to the Company.
We pledged collateral and have had collateral pledged to us, and may be required from time to time to pledge additional collateral or be entitled to have additional collateral pledged to us, in connection with collateral financing arrangements related to the reinsurance of closed block and ULSG liabilities. See Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The following table summarizes our major contractual obligations at December 31, 2015:
The sum of the estimated cash flows shown for all years of $377.0 billion exceeds the liability amounts of $208.6 billion included on the consolidated balance sheet principally due to (i) the time value of money, which accounts for a substantial portion of the difference; and (ii) differences in assumptions, most significantly mortality, between the date the liabilities were initially established and the current date; and are partially offset by liabilities related to accounting conventions, or which are not contractually due, which are excluded.
We have accepted cash collateral in connection with securities lending and derivatives. As the securities lending transactions expire within the next year and the timing of the return of the derivatives collateral is uncertain, the return of the collateral has been included in the one year or less category in the table. We also held non-cash collateral, which is not reflected as a liability in the consolidated balance sheet of $2.2 billion at December 31, 2015.
Other obligations presented are principally comprised of amounts due under reinsurance agreements, payables related to securities purchased but not yet settled, securities sold short, accrued interest on debt obligations, estimated fair value of derivative obligations, deferred compensation arrangements, guaranty liabilities, and accruals and accounts payable due under contractual obligations, which are all reported in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. If the timing of any of these other obligations is sufficiently uncertain, the amounts are included within the one year or less category. Items reported in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets that were excluded from the table represent accounting conventions or are not liabilities due under contractual obligations. Unrecognized tax benefits and related accrued interest totaling $2.0 billion was excluded as the timing of payment cannot be reliably determined.
We also enter into agreements to purchase goods and services in the normal course of business; however, such amounts are excluded as these purchase obligations were not material to our consolidated results of operations or financial position at December 31, 2015.
All dividends and returns of capital to MetLife, Inc. were from operating subsidiaries and none were from other MetLife holding companies during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.
Other, net includes $171 million, $862 million and $69 million of net receipts by MetLife, Inc. to and from subsidiaries under a tax sharing agreement and tax payments to tax agencies during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Amounts to fund business acquisitions and strategic insurance partnerships were $0, $251 million and $150 million (included in capital contributions to subsidiaries) and $0, $0 and $1.5 billion (included in issuances of and (repayments on) loans to subsidiaries and related interest, net) during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
The primary sources of MetLife, Inc.’s liquid assets are dividends and returns of capital from subsidiaries, long-term debt issued, common stock issued, and net receipts from subsidiaries under a tax sharing agreement. MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends imposed by the regulators of their respective domiciles. See “- Liquidity and Capital Sources - Dividends from Subsidiaries.”
The primary uses of liquid assets of other MetLife holding companies are capital contributions paid to their subsidiaries and branches, principally non-U.S. insurance companies; loans to subsidiaries and affiliates; principal and interest paid on loans from subsidiaries and affiliates; and the following items, which are reported within other, net: dividends and returns of capital; business acquisitions; and operating expenses. Uses of liquid assets of other MetLife holding companies included $0, $0 and $400 million to fund business acquisitions during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013, respectively.
See “Business - Overview - Other Key Information” for discussion of the Mergers. MetLife Investors Insurance Company was one of the companies that was merged into MetLife USA in connection with the Mergers. Prior to the Mergers, Exeter paid dividends of $155 million on its preferred stock. In August 2014, MICC redeemed for $1.4 billion and retired 4,595,317 shares of its common stock owned by MetLife Investors Group, LLC (“MLIG”). Following the redemption, in August 2014, MLIG paid a dividend of $1.4 billion to MetLife, Inc. See “- Liquidity and Capital Uses - Affiliated Capital Transactions.” MetLife USA did not pay dividends in 2014.
We actively manage target and excess capital levels and dividend flows on a proactive basis and forecast local capital positions as part of the financial planning cycle. The dividend capacity of certain U.S. and non-U.S. subsidiaries is also subject to business targets in excess of the minimum capital necessary to maintain the desired rating or level of financial strength in the relevant market. We cannot provide assurance that MetLife, Inc.’s subsidiaries will have statutory earnings to support payment of dividends to MetLife, Inc. in an amount sufficient to fund its cash requirements and pay cash dividends and that the applicable regulators will not disapprove any dividends that such subsidiaries must submit for approval. See “Risk Factors - Capital-Related Risks - As a Holding Company, MetLife, Inc. Depends on the Ability of Its Subsidiaries to Pay Dividends, a Major Component of Holding Company Free Cash Flow” and Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
See “- The Company - Liquidity and Capital Sources - Global Funding Sources - Credit and Committed Facilities” for information about MetLife, Inc.’s unsecured credit facility.
MetLife, Inc. maintains a committed facility with a capacity of $425 million. At December 31, 2015, MetLife, Inc. had outstanding $425 million in letters of credit and no drawdowns against this facility. Remaining availability was $0 at December 31, 2015. In addition, MetLife, Inc. is a party and/or guarantor to committed facilities of certain of its subsidiaries, which aggregated $11.4 billion at December 31, 2015. The committed facilities are used as collateral for certain of the Company’s affiliated reinsurance liabilities.
Cash proceeds from dispositions during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $0, $7 million, and $17 million, respectively. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
MetLife, Inc. lends funds, as necessary, to its subsidiaries and affiliates, some of which are regulated, to meet their capital requirements. MetLife, Inc. had loans to subsidiaries outstanding of $1.2 billion and $1.7 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
In December 2014, MetLife, Inc. entered into a five-year agreement with MetLife Reinsurance Company of Bermuda, Ltd. (“MrB”), a Bermuda insurance affiliate and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., to lend up to $500 million to MrB on a revolving basis. There were no loans outstanding at December 31, 2015 and 2014.
For information on MetLife, Inc.’s debt repayments, see “- The Company - Liquidity and Capital Uses - Debt Repayments.” MetLife, Inc. intends to repay or refinance, in whole or in part, all the debt that is due in 2016.
The following table summarizes MetLife, Inc.’s outstanding senior notes by year of maturity through 2020 and 2021 to 2046, excluding any premium or discount, at December 31, 2015:
MetLife, Inc. guarantees the obligations of MrB in an aggregate amount up to $1.0 billion, under a reinsurance agreement with MetLife Europe Limited (“MEL”), under which MrB reinsured the guaranteed living benefits and guaranteed death benefits associated with certain unit-linked annuity contracts issued by MEL.
MetLife, Inc., in connection with MRV’s reinsurance of certain universal life and term life insurance risks, committed to the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration to take necessary action to cause the three protected cells of MRV to maintain total adjusted capital in an amount that is equal to or greater than 200% of each such protected cell’s authorized control level RBC, as defined in Vermont state insurance statutes. See Note 12 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, there were no cash outflows from MetLife, Inc. for acquisitions. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding the Company’s acquisitions.
Reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included below and in “- Results of Operations.”
Operating earnings is the measure of segment profit or loss we use to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Consistent with GAAP accounting guidance for segment reporting, operating earnings is our measure of segment performance. Operating earnings is also a measure by which senior management’s and many other employees’ performance is evaluated for the purposes of determining their compensation under applicable compensation plans.
Net investment income: (i) includes amounts for investment hedge adjustments, (ii) includes income from discontinued real estate operations, (iii) excludes post-tax operating earnings adjustments relating to insurance joint ventures accounted for under the equity method, (iv) excludes certain amounts related to contractholder-directed unit-linked investments, and (v) excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are VIEs consolidated under GAAP; and
The Company uses a measure of free cash flow to facilitate an understanding of its ability to generate cash for reinvestment into its businesses or use in discretionary capital actions. The Company defines free cash flow as the sum of cash available at MetLife’s holding companies from dividends from operating subsidiaries, expenses and other net flows of the holding companies, and net contributions from debt to be at or below target leverage ratios. This measure of free cash flow is prior to discretionary capital deployment, including common stock dividends and repurchases, debt reduction and mergers and acquisitions. Free cash flow should not be viewed as a substitute for net cash provided by (used in) operating activities calculated in accordance with GAAP. The free cash flow ratio is typically expressed as a percentage of annual operating earnings available to common shareholders. A reconciliation of net cash provided by operating activities of MetLife, Inc. to free cash flow of all holding companies for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 is provided below.
(3) Including the free cash flow of other MetLife, Inc. holding companies of $461 million, $228 million and $134 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, in the numerator of the ratio, this ratio, as adjusted, would be 40%, 46% and 62%, respectively.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of MetLife, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015. Our audits also included the financial statement schedules listed in the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements, Notes and Schedules. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules based on our audits.
The Company’s revenues reflect fees charged to the separate accounts, including mortality charges, risk charges, policy administration fees, investment management fees and surrender charges. Such fees are included in universal life and investment-type product policy fees in the statements of operations.
Policyholder account balances relate to contract or contract features where the Company has no significant insurance risk.
The unearned revenue liability relates to universal life-type and investment-type products and represents policy charges for services to be provided in future periods. The charges are deferred as unearned revenue and amortized using the product’s estimated gross profits and margins, similar to DAC as discussed further herein. Such amortization is recorded in universal life and investment-type product policy fees.
Premiums related to property & casualty contracts are recognized as revenue on a pro rata basis over the applicable contract term. Unearned premiums, representing the portion of premium written related to the unexpired coverage, are also included in future policy benefits.
the portion of an employee’s total compensation and benefits related to time spent selling, underwriting or processing the issuance of new and renewal insurance business only with respect to actual policies acquired or renewed;
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.
Also included in mortgage loans held-for-investment are commercial mortgage loans held by consolidated securitization entities (“CSEs”) and residential mortgage loans for which the FVO was elected, which are stated at estimated fair value. Changes in estimated fair value are recognized in net investment gains (losses) for commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs - FVO, and net investment income for residential mortgage loans - FVO.
Tax credit and renewable energy partnerships which derive a significant source of investment return in the form of income tax credits or other tax incentives. Where tax credits are guaranteed by a creditworthy third party, the investment is accounted for under the effective yield method. Otherwise, the investment is accounted for under the equity method.
Fair value hedge (a hedge of the estimated fair value of a recognized asset or liability) - in net derivative gains (losses), consistent with the change in estimated fair value of the hedged item attributable to the designated risk being hedged.
The Company may be required to change its provision for income taxes when estimates used in determining valuation allowances on deferred tax assets significantly change or when receipt of new information indicates the need for adjustment in valuation allowances. Additionally, the effect of changes in tax laws, tax regulations, or interpretations of such laws or regulations, is recognized in net income tax expense (benefit) in the period of change.
The Company is a party to a number of legal actions and is involved in a number of regulatory investigations. Given the inherent unpredictability of these matters, it is difficult to estimate the impact on the Company’s 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. Except as otherwise disclosed in Note 21, legal costs are recognized as incurred. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to liabilities for litigation, regulatory investigations and litigation-related contingencies to be reflected in the Company’s financial statements.
Effective January 1, 2014, the Company adopted new guidance regarding the presentation of an unrecognized tax benefit. The new guidance requires that an unrecognized tax benefit, or a portion of an unrecognized tax benefit, be presented in the financial statements as a reduction to a deferred tax asset for a net operating loss carryforward, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward. However, when the carryforwards are not available at the reporting date to settle any additional income taxes that would result from the disallowance of a tax position or the applicable tax law does not require, and the entity does not intend to use, the deferred tax asset for such purpose, the unrecognized tax benefit will be presented in the financial statements as a liability and will not be combined with the related deferred tax asset. The adoption was prospectively applied and resulted in a reduction to other liabilities and a corresponding increase to deferred income tax liability in the amount of $277 million.
Effective January 1, 2014, the Company adopted new guidance on other expenses. The objective of this standard is to address how health insurers should recognize and classify in their income statements fees mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. The amendments in this standard specify that the liability for the fee should be estimated and recorded in full once the entity provides qualifying health insurance in the applicable calendar year in which the fee is payable with a corresponding deferred cost that is amortized to expense using the straight-line method of allocation unless another method better allocates the fee over the calendar year that it is payable. In accordance with the adoption of the new accounting pronouncement on January 1, 2014, the Company recorded $57 million in other liabilities, and a corresponding deferred cost, in other assets.
In May 2015, the FASB issued new guidance on short-duration insurance contracts (ASU 2015-09, Financial Services - Insurance (Topic 944): Disclosures about Short-Duration Contracts). The amendments in this new guidance are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015, and interim periods within annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The new guidance should be applied retrospectively by providing comparative disclosures for each period presented, except for those requirements that apply only to the current period. The new guidance requires insurance entities to provide users of financial statements with more transparent information about initial claim estimates and subsequent adjustments to these estimates, including information on: (i) reconciling from the claim development table to the balance sheet liability, (ii) methodologies and judgments in estimating claims, and (iii) the timing, and frequency of claims. The adoption will not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements other than expanded disclosures in Note 4.
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, 2016 and interim periods within those years and should be applied retrospectively. In August 2015, the FASB amended the guidance to defer the effective date by one year, effective for the fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period. Earlier application is permitted only as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. The new guidance will supersede nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance under GAAP; however, it will not impact the accounting for insurance contracts, leases, financial instruments and guarantees. For those contracts that are impacted by the new guidance, 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. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.
The Retail segment offers a broad range of protection products and services and a variety of annuities to individuals and employees of corporations and other institutions, and is organized into two U.S. businesses: Life & Other and Annuities. Life & Other insurance products and services include variable life, universal life, term life and whole life products. Additionally, through broker-dealer affiliates, the Company offers a full range of mutual funds and other securities products. Life & Other products and services also include individual disability income products and personal lines property & casualty insurance, including private passenger automobile, homeowners and personal excess liability insurance. Annuities includes a variety of variable and fixed annuities which provide for both asset accumulation and asset distribution needs.
The EMEA segment offers a broad range of products to both individuals and corporations, as well as other institutions and their respective employees, which include life insurance, accident & health insurance, credit insurance, annuities, endowment and retirement & savings products.
Corporate & Other contains the excess capital, as well as certain charges and activities, not allocated to the segments, including external integration costs, internal resource costs for associates committed to acquisitions, enterprise-wide strategic initiative restructuring charges, various start-up businesses (including expatriate benefits insurance and the investment management business through which the Company offers fee-based investment management services to institutional clients) and certain run-off businesses. Corporate & Other also includes assumed reinsurance of certain variable annuity products from the Company’s former operating joint venture in Japan. Under this in-force reinsurance agreement, the Company reinsures living and death benefit guarantees issued in connection with variable annuity products. Additionally, Corporate & Other includes interest expense related to the majority of the Company’s outstanding debt and expenses associated with certain legal proceedings and income tax audit issues. Corporate & Other also includes the elimination of intersegment amounts, which generally relate to intersegment loans, which bear interest rates commensurate with related borrowings.
Net investment income: (i) includes investment hedge adjustments which represent earned income on derivatives and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of investments or that are used to replicate certain investments, but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, (ii) includes income from discontinued real estate operations, (iii) excludes post-tax operating earnings adjustments relating to insurance joint ventures accounted for under the equity method, (iv) excludes certain amounts related to contractholder-directed unit-linked investments and (v) excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are VIEs consolidated under GAAP; and
The following table presents total premiums, universal life and investment-type product policy fees and other revenues associated with the Company’s U.S. and foreign operations:
Policyholder account balances are equal to: (i) policy account values, which consist of an accumulation of gross premium payments and investment performance; (ii) credited interest, ranging from less than 1% to 13% for domestic business and 0% to 15% for international business, less expenses, mortality charges and withdrawals; and (iii) fair value adjustments relating to business combinations.
Defined as either the excess of the upper tier, adjusted for a profit margin, less the lower tier, as of the balance sheet date or the amount (if any) that would be required to be added to the total account value to purchase a lifetime income stream, based on current annuity rates, equal to the minimum amount provided under the guaranteed benefit. These amounts represent the Company’s potential economic exposure to such guarantees in the event all contractholders were to annuitize on the balance sheet date.
Such subsidiaries have also entered into funding agreements with FHLBanks and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, a federally chartered instrumentality of the U.S. (“Farmer Mac”). The liability for such funding agreements is included in policyholder account balances. Information related to such funding agreements was as follows at:
Management considers a wide range of factors about the security issuer and uses its best judgment in evaluating the cause of the decline in the estimated fair value of the security and in assessing the prospects for near-term recovery. Inherent in management’s evaluation of the security are assumptions and estimates about the operations of the issuer and its future earnings potential. Considerations used in the impairment evaluation process include, but are not limited to: (i) the length of time and the extent to which the estimated fair value has been below cost or amortized cost; (ii) the potential for impairments when the issuer is experiencing significant financial difficulties; (iii) the potential for impairments in an entire industry sector or sub-sector; (iv) the potential for impairments in certain economically depressed geographic locations; (v) the potential for impairments where the issuer, series of issuers or industry has suffered a catastrophic loss or has exhausted natural resources; (vi) with respect to fixed maturity securities, whether the Company has the intent to sell or will more likely than not be required to sell a particular security before the decline in estimated fair value below amortized cost recovers; (vii) with respect to structured securities, changes in forecasted cash flows after considering the quality of underlying collateral, expected prepayment speeds, current and forecasted loss severity, consideration of the payment terms of the underlying assets backing a particular security, and the payment priority within the tranche structure of the security; (viii) the potential for impairments due to weakening of foreign currencies on non-functional currency denominated fixed maturity securities that are near maturity; and (ix) other subjective factors, including concentrations and information obtained from regulators and rating agencies.
Additional considerations are made when assessing the unique features that apply to certain structured securities including, but not limited to: the quality of underlying collateral, expected prepayment speeds, current and forecasted loss severity, consideration of the payment terms of the underlying loans or assets backing a particular security, and the payment priority within the tranche structure of the security.
At December 31, 2015, $364 million of the total $5.4 billion of gross unrealized losses were from 69 fixed maturity securities with an unrealized loss position of 20% or more of amortized cost for six months or greater.
Of the $364 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, $122 million, or 34%, were related to gross unrealized losses on 33 below investment grade fixed maturity securities. Unrealized losses on below investment grade fixed maturity securities are principally related to U.S. and foreign corporate securities (primarily utility and industrial securities) and non-agency RMBS (primarily alternative residential mortgage loans) and are the result of significantly wider credit spreads resulting from higher risk premiums since purchase, largely due to economic and market uncertainties including concerns over lower oil prices in the energy sector and valuations of residential real estate supporting non-agency RMBS. Management evaluates U.S. and foreign corporate securities based on factors such as expected cash flows and the financial condition and near-term and long-term prospects of the issuers and evaluates non-agency RMBS based on actual and projected cash flows after considering the quality of underlying collateral, expected prepayment speeds, current and forecasted loss severity, consideration of the payment terms of the underlying assets backing a particular security and the payment priority within the tranche structure of the security.
Gross unrealized losses on equity securities increased $91 million during the year ended December 31, 2015 to $158 million. Of the $158 million, $36 million were from 12 securities with gross unrealized losses of 20% or more of cost for 12 months or greater. Of the $36 million, 64% were rated A or better, and all were from financial services industry investment grade non-redeemable preferred stock securities.
The average recorded investment for impaired commercial, agricultural and residential mortgage loans was $526 million, $153 million and $14 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2013.
The estimated fair value of agricultural mortgage loans was $13.5 billion and $12.8 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The estimated fair value of residential mortgage loans was $9.9 billion and $6.6 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The carrying value of tax credit partnerships was $1.6 billion at both December 31, 2015 and 2014. Losses from tax credit partnerships included within net investment income were $164 million, $149 million, and $139 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Unrealized investment gains (losses) on fixed maturity and equity securities AFS and the effect on DAC, VOBA, DSI, future policy benefits and the policyholder dividend obligation, that would result from the realization of the unrealized gains (losses), are included in net unrealized investment gains (losses) in AOCI.
Investments in any counterparty that were greater than 10% of the Company’s equity, other than the U.S. government and its agencies, were in fixed income securities of the Japanese government and its agencies with an estimated fair value of $20.9 billion and $20.3 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The Company’s investment in fixed maturity and equity securities to counterparties that primarily conduct business in Japan, including Japan government and agency fixed maturity securities, was $25.4 billion and $25.5 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The Company has pledged invested assets in connection with various agreements and transactions, including funding agreements (see Notes 4 and 12), collateral financing arrangements (see Note 13) and derivative transactions (see Note 9).
The Company holds investments in real estate joint ventures, real estate funds and other limited partnership interests consisting of leveraged buy-out funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, joint ventures and other funds. The portion of these investments accounted for under the equity method had a carrying value of $14.6 billion at December 31, 2015. The Company’s maximum exposure to loss related to these equity method investments is limited to the carrying value of these investments plus unfunded commitments of $5.2 billion at December 31, 2015. Except for certain real estate joint ventures, the Company’s investments in real estate funds and other limited partnership interests are generally of a passive nature in that the Company does not participate in the management of the entities.
Assets of the operating joint venture are primarily fixed maturity securities and separate account assets. Liabilities of the operating joint venture are primarily future policy benefits, other policyholder funds and separate account liabilities.
The Company consolidates entities that are structured as CMBS and as collateralized debt obligations. 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 $105 million and $123 million at estimated fair value at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The long-term debt bears interest primarily at fixed rates ranging from 2.25% to 5.57%, payable primarily on a monthly basis. Interest expense related to these obligations, included in other expenses, was $8 million, $38 million and $122 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 respectively.
Other investments is comprised of other invested assets, other limited partnerships interests, FVO and trading securities, and real estate joint ventures.
Other investments is comprised of mortgage loans and non-redeemable preferred stock.
As described in Note 21, the Company makes commitments to fund partnership investments in the normal course of business. Excluding these commitments, the Company did not provide financial or other support to investees designated as VIEs during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.
Gains (losses) from foreign currency transactions included within net investment gains (losses) were $46 million, ($183) million and $171 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Derivatives are financial instruments with values derived from interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, credit spreads and/or other financial indices. Derivatives may be exchange-traded or contracted in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market. Certain of the Company’s OTC derivatives are cleared and settled through central clearing counterparties (“OTC-cleared”), while others are bilateral contracts between two counterparties (“OTC-bilateral”). The types of derivatives the Company uses include swaps, forwards, futures and option contracts. To a lesser extent, the Company uses credit default swaps and structured interest rate swaps to synthetically replicate investment risks and returns which are not readily available in the cash market.
To a lesser extent, the Company uses exchange-traded currency futures to hedge currency mismatches between assets and liabilities, and to hedge minimum guarantees embedded in certain variable annuity products offered by the Company. The Company utilizes exchange-traded currency futures in nonqualifying hedging relationships.
The Company enters into purchased credit default swaps to hedge against credit-related changes in the value of its investments. In a credit default swap transaction, the Company agrees with another party to pay, at specified intervals, a premium to hedge credit risk. If a credit event occurs, as defined by the contract, the contract may be cash settled or it may be settled gross by the delivery of par quantities of the referenced investment equal to the specified swap notional amount in exchange for the payment of cash amounts by the counterparty equal to the par value of the investment surrendered. Credit events vary by type of issuer but typically include bankruptcy, failure to pay debt obligations, repudiation, moratorium, involuntary restructuring or governmental intervention. In each case, payout on a credit default swap is triggered only after the Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) deems that a credit event has occurred. The Company utilizes credit default swaps in nonqualifying hedging relationships.
For the Company’s foreign currency forwards, the change in the estimated fair value of the derivative related to the changes in the difference between the spot price and the forward price is excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness. For all other derivatives, all components of each derivative’s gain or loss were included in the assessment of hedge effectiveness. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the component of the change in estimated fair value of derivatives that was excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness was ($11) million, $3 million and ($2) million, respectively.
The Company uses foreign currency exchange rate derivatives, which may include foreign currency forwards and currency options, to hedge portions of its net investments in foreign operations against adverse movements in exchange rates. The Company measures ineffectiveness on these derivatives based upon the change in forward rates.
In connection with synthetically created credit investment transactions and credit default swaps held in relation to the trading portfolio, 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 $10.3 billion and $10.5 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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, 2015 and 2014, the Company would have received $65 million and $175 million, respectively, to terminate all of these contracts.
At December 31, 2015 and 2014, derivative assets included income or expense accruals reported in accrued investment income or in other liabilities of $278 million and $255 million, respectively, and derivative liabilities included income or expense accruals reported in accrued investment income or in other liabilities of $41 million and $60 million, respectively.
Cash collateral received by the Company for OTC-bilateral and OTC-cleared derivatives is included in cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments or in fixed maturity securities, and the obligation to return it is included in payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions on the balance sheet. In certain instances, cash collateral pledged to the Company as initial margin for OTC-bilateral derivatives is held in separate custodial accounts and is not recorded on the Company’s balance sheet because the account title is in the name of the counterparty (but segregated for the benefit of the Company). The amount of this off-balance sheet collateral was $0 and $263 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The receivable for the return of cash collateral provided by the Company is inclusive of initial margin on exchange-traded and OTC-cleared derivatives and is included in premiums, reinsurance and other receivables on the balance sheet. The amount of cash collateral offset in the table above is limited to the net estimated fair value of derivatives after application of netting agreements. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company received excess cash collateral of $89 million and $87 million (including $0 and $36 million off-balance sheet cash collateral held in separate custodial accounts), respectively, and provided excess cash collateral of $204 million and $192 million, respectively, which is not included in the table above due to the foregoing limitation.
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, 2015 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, 2015 and 2014, the Company received excess securities collateral with an estimated fair value of $100 million and $395 million, respectively, for its OTC-bilateral derivatives, which are not included in the table above due to the foregoing limitation. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company provided excess securities collateral with an estimated fair value of $150 million and $117 million, respectively, for its OTC-bilateral derivatives, $315 million and $199 million, respectively, for its OTC-cleared derivatives, and $224 million and $245 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 estimated fair value of that counterparty’s derivatives reaches a pre-determined threshold. Certain of these arrangements also include credit-contingent provisions that 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 the Company and/or the counterparty. In addition, certain 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 ratings 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.
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts are presented primarily within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables on the consolidated balance sheets. Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts are presented within policyholder account balances, future policy benefits and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, debt and equity securities also included embedded derivatives of ($220) million and ($217) million, respectively.
The Company reviews its valuation methodologies on an ongoing basis and revises those methodologies when necessary based on changing market conditions. Assurance is gained on the overall reasonableness and consistent application of input assumptions, valuation methodologies and compliance with fair value accounting standards through controls designed to ensure valuations represent an exit price. Several controls are utilized, including certain monthly controls, which include, but are not limited to, analysis of portfolio returns to corresponding benchmark returns, comparing a sample of executed prices of securities sold to the fair value estimates, comparing fair value estimates to management’s knowledge of the current market, reviewing the bid/ask spreads to assess activity, comparing prices from multiple independent pricing services and ongoing due diligence to confirm that independent pricing services use market-based parameters. The process includes a determination of the observability of inputs used in estimated fair values received from independent pricing services or brokers by assessing whether these inputs can be corroborated by observable market data. The Company ensures that prices received from independent brokers, also referred to herein as “consensus pricing,” represent a reasonable estimate of fair value by considering such pricing relative to the Company’s knowledge of the current market dynamics and current pricing for similar financial instruments. While independent non-binding broker quotations are utilized, they are not used for a significant portion of the portfolio. For example, fixed maturity securities priced using independent non-binding broker quotations represent less than 1% of the total estimated fair value of fixed maturity securities and 7% of the total estimated fair value of Level 3 fixed maturity securities at December 31, 2015.
The estimated fair value of investments in certain separate accounts included in FVO contractholder-directed unit-linked investments, FVO securities held by CSEs, other investments, long-term debt of CSEs - FVO and trading liabilities is determined on a basis consistent with the methodologies described herein for securities.
U.S. Treasury and agency, Foreign government and State and political subdivision securities
The Company ceded the risk associated with certain of the GMIBs previously described. These reinsurance agreements contain embedded derivatives which are included within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables on the consolidated balance sheets with changes in estimated fair value reported in net derivative gains (losses) or policyholder benefits and claims depending on the statement of operations classification of the direct risk. The value of the embedded derivatives on the ceded risk is determined using a methodology consistent with that described previously for the guarantees directly written by the Company with the exception of the input for nonperformance risk that reflects the credit of the reinsurer.
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), while changes in estimated fair value of residential mortgage loans - FVO are included in net investment income. Lapses associated with net embedded derivatives are included in net derivative gains (losses). Substantially all realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in net income for net derivatives and net embedded derivatives are reported in net derivatives gains (losses).
The following table presents information for assets measured at estimated fair value on a nonrecurring basis during the periods and still held at the reporting dates (for example, when there is evidence of impairment). The estimated fair values for these assets were determined using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3).
The following tables provide fair value information for financial instruments that are carried on the balance sheet at amounts other than fair value. These tables exclude the following financial instruments: cash and cash equivalents, accrued investment income, payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions, short-term debt and those short-term investments that are not securities, such as time deposits, and therefore are not included in the three level hierarchy table disclosed in the “- Recurring Fair Value Measurements” section. The estimated fair value of the excluded financial instruments, which are primarily classified in Level 2, approximates carrying value as they are short-term in nature such that the Company believes there is minimal risk of material changes in interest rates or credit quality. All remaining balance sheet amounts excluded from the table below are not considered financial instruments subject to this disclosure.
When testing goodwill for impairment, the Company also considers its market capitalization in relation to the aggregate estimated fair value of its reporting units. The Company applies significant judgment when determining the estimated fair value of the Company’s reporting units and when assessing the relationship of market capitalization to the aggregate estimated fair value of its reporting units.
For the 2015 annual goodwill impairment tests, the Company utilized the qualitative assessment for four of its six reporting units and determined it was not more likely than not that the fair value of any of the reporting units tested using the qualitative assessment was less than its carrying amount and, therefore no further testing was needed for these reporting units. The Company prepared a quantitative impairment test for Retail and EMEA, using both the market multiple and discounted cash flow valuation approaches. The Company determined that the fair values of these reporting units were in excess of their carrying values and, therefore goodwill was not impaired.
Includes goodwill of $4.3 billion, $4.4 billion and $4.7 billion from the Japan operations at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
For purposes of goodwill impairment testing in 2015, the balance of $229 million, of net goodwill in Corporate & Other at December 31, 2014 did not change. This balance resulted from goodwill acquired as part of the 2005 Travelers acquisition and was allocated to business units of the Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits; and Corporate Benefit Funding segments in the amounts of $34 million, $9 million and $186 million, respectively.
In connection with exiting the businesses of MetLife Bank, National Association (“MetLife Bank”), goodwill and the related accumulated impairment were reduced by $65 million for the year ended December 31, 2013.
The aggregate maturities of long-term debt at December 31, 2015 for the next five years and thereafter are $1.3 billion in 2016, $1.0 billion in 2017, $1.0 billion in 2018, $1.0 billion in 2019, $940 million in 2020 and $12.7 billion thereafter.
Certain of the Company’s debt instruments and committed facilities, as well as its credit facility, contain various administrative, reporting, legal and financial covenants. The Company believes it was in compliance with all such covenants at December 31, 2015.
In November 2010, in connection with the financing of the acquisition of American Life Insurance Company (“American Life”) and Delaware American Life Insurance Company (“DelAm”), (collectively “ALICO”), MetLife, Inc. issued to ALICO Holdings LLC (now AM Holdings LLC (“AM Holdings”)) $3.0 billion (estimated fair value of $3.0 billion) of three series of debt securities (the “Series C Debt Securities,” the “Series D Debt Securities,” and the “Series E Debt Securities,” collectively, the “Debt Securities”), which constituted a part of the common equity units more fully described in Note 15.
In November 2015, MetLife, Inc. issued $500 million of senior notes due in November 2025 which bear interest at a fixed rate of 3.60%, payable semi-annually. Also in November 2015, MetLife, Inc. issued $750 million of senior notes due in May 2046 which bear interest at a fixed rate of 4.60%, payable semi-annually. In connection with the issuances, MetLife, Inc. incurred $10 million of related costs which have been capitalized and included in other assets. These costs are being amortized over the terms of the senior notes.
In December 2015, MetLife Private Equity Holdings, LLC (“MPEH”), a wholly-owned indirect investment subsidiary of MLIC, entered into a five-year credit agreement (the “MPEH Credit Agreement”) and borrowed $350 million under term loans that mature in December 2020. The loans bear interest at a variable rate of three-month LIBOR plus 3.70%, payable quarterly. In connection with the borrowing, $6 million of costs were incurred which have been capitalized and included in other assets. These costs are being amortized over the term of the loans. Additionally, the MPEH Credit Agreement provides for MPEH to borrow up to $100 million on a revolving basis at a variable rate of three-month LIBOR plus 3.70%, payable quarterly. There were no revolving loans outstanding under the MPEH Credit Agreement at December 31, 2015. Term loans and revolving loans borrowed under the MPEH Credit Agreement are non-recourse to MLIC and MetLife, Inc.
Interest expense related to long-term and short-term debt included in other expenses was $894 million, $874 million and $854 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Such amounts do not include interest expense on long-term debt related to CSEs - FVO, collateral financing arrangements, or junior subordinated debt securities. See Notes 8, 13 and 14.
At December 31, 2015, the Company maintained a $4.0 billion unsecured credit facility and certain committed facilities aggregating $11.9 billion. When drawn upon, these facilities bear interest at varying rates in accordance with the respective agreements.
The Company’s unsecured credit facility is used for general corporate purposes, to support the borrowers’ commercial paper programs and for the issuance of letters of credit. Total fees associated with this credit facility was $13 million, $12 million and $24 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and was included in other expenses. Information on the credit facility at December 31, 2015 was as follows:
Capacity at December 31, 2015 of $575 million decreases periodically commencing in December 2022 to $515 million in July 2024 and decreases to $0 upon maturity in December 2024.
Capacity at December 31, 2015 of $4.3 billion decreases periodically commencing in April 2028 to $3.1 billion in September 2038, and decreases to $0 upon maturity in September 2038. Unused commitment of $893 million is based on maximum capacity. MetLife Reinsurance Company of Vermont is responsible only for reimbursement obligations relating to $2.9 billion of the $3.4 billion of letters of credit outstanding as of December 31, 2015. MetLife, Inc. is responsible only for reimbursement obligations relating to the remaining letters of credit outstanding as of such date.
A majority of the proceeds from the offering of the surplus notes was placed in a trust, which is consolidated by the Company, to support MRC’s statutory obligations associated with the assumed closed block liabilities. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, MRC transferred $30 million and $467 million, respectively, out of the trust to its general account. No such transfers were made during the year ended December 31, 2013. The assets are principally invested in fixed maturity securities and are presented as such within the Company’s consolidated balance sheets, with the related income included within net investment income in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.
Information related to the collateral financing arrangement associated with secondary guarantees was as follows at:
In May 2007, MetLife, Inc. and MRSC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., entered into a 30-year collateral financing arrangement with an unaffiliated financial institution that provides up to $3.5 billion of statutory reserve support for MRSC associated with reinsurance obligations under intercompany reinsurance agreements. Such statutory reserves are associated with ULSG and are required under U.S. Valuation of Life Policies Model Regulation (commonly referred to as Regulation A-XXX). Proceeds from the collateral financing arrangement were placed in trusts to support MRSC’s statutory obligations associated with the reinsurance of secondary guarantees. The trusts are VIEs which are consolidated by the Company. The unaffiliated financial institution is entitled to the return on the investment portfolio held by the trusts. The assets are principally invested in fixed maturity securities and are presented as such within the Company’s balance sheets, with the related income included within net investment income in the Company’s statements of operations. The collateral financing arrangement may be extended by agreement of MetLife, Inc. and the unaffiliated financial institution on each anniversary of the closing.
In connection with the collateral financing arrangement, MetLife, Inc. entered into an agreement with the same unaffiliated financial institution under which MetLife, Inc. is entitled to the return on the investment portfolio held by the trusts established in connection with this collateral financing arrangement in exchange for the payment of a stated rate of return to the unaffiliated financial institution of three-month LIBOR plus 0.70%, payable quarterly. MetLife, Inc. may also be required to make payments to the unaffiliated financial institution, for deposit into the trusts, related to any decline in the estimated fair value of the assets held by the trusts, as well as amounts outstanding upon maturity or early termination of the collateral financing arrangement. During 2015, 2014 and 2013, no payments were made or received by MetLife, Inc. Cumulatively, since May 2007, MetLife, Inc. has contributed a total of $680 million as a result of declines in the estimated fair value of the assets in the trusts, all of which was deposited into the trusts.
As discussed in Note 12, in October 2014, September 2013 and October 2012, MetLife, Inc. closed the successful remarketings of senior debt securities underlying the common equity units. Most holders of the common equity units used the remarketing proceeds to settle their payment obligations under the applicable Purchase Contracts. The subsequent settlement of the Purchase Contracts provided proceeds to MetLife, Inc. of $1.0 billion in each of October 2014, September 2013 and October 2012 in exchange for shares of MetLife, Inc.’s common stock. See Note 16.
In December 2008, MetLife, Inc. entered into an RCC related to the Series A and Series B preferred stock and, in June 2015, MetLife, Inc. entered into an RCC related to the Series C preferred stock. As part of each such RCC, MetLife, Inc. agreed that it will not repay, redeem or purchase the preferred stock on or before December 31, 2018, unless, subject to certain limitations, it has received proceeds during a specified period from the sale of specified replacement securities. The repurchase and redemption of Series B preferred stock as described above was in compliance with the terms of the applicable RCC. The RCC is, in each case, for the benefit of the holders of the related covered debt, which is currently MetLife, Inc.’s 10.750% JSDs. The RCC will terminate upon the occurrence of certain events, including the date on which MetLife, Inc. has no series of outstanding eligible debt securities.
On December 12, 2014, MetLife, Inc. announced that its Board of Directors authorized $1.0 billion of common stock repurchases in addition to previously authorized repurchases and on September 22, 2015, MetLife, Inc. announced that its Board of Directors authorized additional repurchases of $739 million of its common stock, bringing MetLife, Inc.’s available repurchase authorization under the December 2014 and September 2015 authorizations as of such date to $1.0 billion.
During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, MetLife, Inc. repurchased 39,491,991 shares and 18,876,363 shares under these repurchase authorizations for $1.9 billion and $1.0 billion, respectively. No shares of common stock were repurchased during the year ended December 31, 2013. At December 31, 2015, MetLife, Inc. had $70 million remaining under its common stock repurchase authorizations. See Note 23 for information on subsequent common stock repurchases.
Under the MetLife, Inc. 2005 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2005 Stock Plan”) and the MetLife, Inc. 2015 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2015 Stock Plan”), awards granted to employees and agents may be in the form of Stock Options, Stock Appreciation Rights, Restricted Stock or Restricted Stock Units, Performance Shares or Performance Share Units, Cash-Based Awards and Stock-Based Awards (each, as applicable, as defined in the 2005 Stock Plan and 2015 Stock Plan with reference to shares of MetLife, Inc. common stock (“Shares”)). Awards under the 2005 Stock Plan and 2015 Stock Plan were outstanding at December 31, 2015. All awards in 2015 were granted under the 2015 Stock Plan.
The aggregate number of Shares authorized for issuance under the 2015 Stock Plan at December 31, 2015 was equal to:
Shares available but not utilized under the 2005 Stock Plan, when the 2015 Stock Plan became effective (18,023,959 Shares at January 1, 2015), plus;
Shares covered by awards granted under the 2015 Stock Plan since it became effective on January 1, 2015, including Performance Shares assuming future payout at maximum performance factor, and Shares covered by imputed reinvested dividends credited in 2015 on Deferred Shares owed to employees or agents (4,380,101 Shares).
If a Share-settled Stock Appreciation Right were to be granted under the 2015 Stock Plan and were to be exercised, only the number of Shares issued, net of the Shares tendered, if any, would be deemed delivered for purposes of determining the maximum number of Shares available for issuance under the 2015 Stock Plan.
Compensation expense related to awards under the 2005 Stock Plan or 2015 Stock Plan is recognized based on the number of awards expected to vest, which represents the awards granted less expected forfeitures over the life of the award, as estimated at the date of grant. Unless a material deviation from the assumed forfeiture rate is observed during the term in which the awards are expensed, any adjustment necessary to reflect differences in actual experience is recognized in the period the award becomes payable or exercisable.
Deferred Shares payable to employees or agents relate to awards under the 2005 Stock Plan, 2015 Stock Plan, or earlier applicable plans equaled 1,765,120 Shares at December 31, 2015.
Certain stock-based awards provide solely for cash settlement based in whole or in part on the price of Shares or changes in the price of Shares (“Phantom Stock-Based Awards”). Such awards have been made under the MetLife, Inc. International Unit Option Incentive Plan, the MetLife International Performance Unit Incentive Plan, and the MetLife International Restricted Unit Incentive Plan prior to 2015, and under the 2015 Stock Plan in 2015.
Awards settled in Shares (and Stock Option exercises, if any) under the 2015 Director Stock Plan are satisfied through the issuance of Shares held in treasury by MetLife, Inc. or by the issuance of new Shares.
Shares covered by awards granted under the 2015 Director Stock Plan since it became effective and Shares covered by imputed reinvested dividends credited in 2015 on Deferred Shares owed to Directors (33,684 Shares).
Any Shares utilized under the 2005 Director Stock Plan or 2015 Director Stock Plan that were to be recovered due to (i) termination of the award by expiration, forfeiture, cancellation, lapse, or otherwise without the issuance of Shares; (ii) settlement of the award in cash either in lieu of Shares or otherwise; (iii) exchange of the award for awards not involving Shares; and (iv) payment of the exercise price of a Stock Option, or the tax withholding requirements with respect to an award, satisfied by tendering Shares to MetLife, Inc. (by either actual delivery or by attestation) would be available for issuance under the 2015 Director Stock Plan. In addition, if a Share-settled Stock Appreciation Right were to be granted under the 2015 Director Stock Plan, and was exercised, only the number of Shares issued, net of the Shares tendered, if any, would be deemed delivered for purposes of determining the maximum number of Shares available for issuance under the 2015 Director Stock Plan.
Deferred Shares payable to Directors relate to awards under the 2005 Director Stock Plan, 2015 Director Stock Plan, or earlier applicable plans equaled 166,102 Shares at December 31, 2015.
Restricted Stock Units are units that, if they vest, are payable in an equal number of Shares. Restricted Stock Units are accounted for as equity awards. They are not credited with dividend-equivalents for dividends paid on Shares. Accordingly, the estimated fair value of Restricted Stock Units is based upon the closing price of Shares on the date of grant, reduced by the present value of estimated dividends to be paid on that stock.
The states of domicile of MetLife, Inc.’s U.S. insurance subsidiaries impose risk-based capital (“RBC”) requirements that were developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”). American Life does not write business in Delaware or any other domestic state and, as such, is exempt from RBC requirements by Delaware law. Regulatory compliance is determined by a ratio of a company’s total adjusted capital, calculated in the manner prescribed by the NAIC (“TAC”) to its authorized control level RBC, calculated in the manner prescribed by the NAIC (“ACL RBC”), based on the statutory-based filed financial statements. Companies below specific trigger levels or ratios are classified by their respective levels, each of which requires specified corrective action. The minimum level of TAC before corrective action commences is twice ACL RBC (“Company Action Level RBC”). While not required by or filed with insurance regulators, the Company also calculates an internally defined combined RBC ratio (“Statement-Based Combined RBC Ratio”), which is determined by dividing the sum of TAC for MetLife, Inc.’s principal U.S. insurance subsidiaries, excluding American Life, by the sum of Company Action Level RBC for such subsidiaries. The Company’s Statement-Based Combined RBC Ratio was in excess of 390% at both December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. In addition, all non-exempted U.S. insurance subsidiaries individually exceeded Company Action Level RBC for all periods presented.
MetLife, Inc.’s U.S. insurance subsidiaries have no material state prescribed accounting practices, except as described below.
The Company’s domestic captive life reinsurance subsidiaries, which reinsure risks including the closed block, level premium term life and ULSG assumed from other MetLife subsidiaries, have no state prescribed accounting practices, except for MetLife Reinsurance Company of Vermont (“MRV”) and MetLife Reinsurance Company of Delaware (“MRD”). MRV, with the explicit permission of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Vermont, has included, as admitted assets, the value of letters of credit serving as collateral for reinsurance credit taken by various affiliated cedants, in connection with reinsurance agreements entered into between MRV and the various affiliated cedants, which resulted in higher statutory capital and surplus of $6.0 billion for both the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014. MRV’s RBC would have triggered a regulatory event without the use of the state prescribed practice. MRD, with the explicit permission of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Delaware, has included, as admitted assets, the value of letters of credit issued to MRD, which resulted in higher statutory capital and surplus of $200 million and $75 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. MRD’s RBC would not have triggered a regulatory event without the use of the state prescribed practice. The combined statutory net income (loss) of MetLife, Inc.’s domestic captive life reinsurance subsidiaries was ($336) million, ($320) million and ($612) million for the years ended December 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and the combined statutory capital and surplus, including the aforementioned prescribed practice, was $5.0 billion and $5.2 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Reflects dividend amounts that may be paid during 2016 without prior regulatory approval. However, because dividend tests may be based on dividends previously paid over rolling 12-month periods, if paid before a specified date during 2016, some or all of such dividends may require regulatory approval.
Prior to the mergers into MetLife USA of certain of its affiliates and a subsidiary, Exeter paid dividends of $155 million on its preferred stock. In August 2014, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut redeemed for $1.4 billion and retired 4,595,317 shares of its common stock owned by MetLife Investors Group LLC (“MLIG”). Following the redemption, in August 2014, MLIG paid a dividend of $1.4 billion to MetLife, Inc. In November 2014, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut changed its name to MetLife Insurance Company USA. MetLife USA did not pay dividends in 2014.
“Dividend Stopper” Provisions in the Preferred Stock and Junior Subordinated Debentures. Certain terms of MetLife, Inc.’s preferred stock and junior subordinated debentures (sometimes referred to as “dividend stoppers”) may prevent it from repurchasing its common or preferred stock or paying dividends on its common or preferred stock in certain circumstances. Dividends on the preferred stock are not cumulative. If a dividend is not declared before the dividend payment date, MetLife, Inc. has no obligation to pay dividends accrued for that dividend period whether or not dividends are declared and paid in future periods. No dividends may, however, be paid or declared on MetLife, Inc.’s common stock - or any other securities ranking junior to the preferred stock - unless the full dividends for the latest completed dividend period on all preferred stock, and any parity stock, have been declared and paid or provided for. Under the junior subordinated debentures, if MetLife, Inc. has not paid in full the accrued interest on its junior subordinated debentures through the most recent interest payment date, it may not repurchase or pay dividends on its common stock or other capital stock (including the preferred stock), subject to certain exceptions. The junior subordinated debentures provide that MetLife may, at its option and provided that certain conditions are met, defer payment of interest without giving rise to an event of default for periods of up to 10 years (although after five years MetLife, Inc. would be obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to sell equity securities to raise proceeds to pay the interest), with no limitation on the number of deferral periods that MetLife, Inc. may begin, so long as all accrued and unpaid interest is paid with respect to prior deferral periods. If MetLife, Inc. were to elect to defer payments of interest, the “dividend stopper” provisions in the junior subordinated debentures would thus prevent MetLife, Inc. from repurchasing or paying dividends on its common stock or other capital stock (including the preferred stock) during the period of deferral, subject to exceptions.
The Company commenced an enterprise-wide strategic initiative in 2012. This global strategy focuses on leveraging the Company’s scale to improve the value it provides to customers and shareholders in order to reduce costs, enhance revenues, achieve efficiencies and reinvest in its technology, platforms and functionality to improve its current operations and develop new capabilities.
Certain subsidiaries of MetLife, Inc. sponsor and/or administer various U.S. qualified and nonqualified defined benefit pension plans and other postretirement employee benefit plans covering employees and sales representatives who meet specified eligibility requirements. U.S. pension benefits are provided utilizing either a traditional formula or cash balance formula. The traditional formula provides benefits that are primarily based upon years of credited service and either final average or career average earnings. The cash balance formula utilizes hypothetical or notional accounts which credit participants with benefits equal to a percentage of eligible pay, as well as earnings credits, determined annually based upon the average annual rate of interest on 30-year U.S. Treasury securities, for each account balance. The U.S. nonqualified pension plans provide supplemental benefits in excess of limits applicable to a qualified plan. The non-U.S. pension plans generally provide benefits based upon either years of credited service and earnings preceding-retirement or points earned on job grades and other factors in years of service.
Assumed healthcare costs trend rates may have a significant effect on the amounts reported for healthcare plans. A 1% change in assumed healthcare costs trend rates would have the following effects on the U.S. Plans as of December 31, 2015:
As of December 31, 2014, the improved mortality rate assumption used for all U.S. pension and postretirement benefit plans is the RP-2000 healthy mortality table projected generationally using 175% of Scale AA. The mortality rate assumption was revised based upon the results of a comprehensive study of MetLife’s demographic experience and reflects the current best estimate of expected mortality rates for MetLife’s participant population. Prior to December 31, 2014, the mortality rate assumption used to value the benefit obligations and net periodic benefit cost for these plans was the RP-2000 healthy mortality table projected generationally using 100% of Scale AA.
Alternative securities primarily include derivative assets, money market securities, short-term investments and other investments. U.S. other postretirement benefits do not include postretirement life’s target and actual allocation of plan assets that are all in short-term investments.
Other postretirement benefit plan assets measured at estimated fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable (Level 3) inputs were not significant for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.
Benefit payments due under the U.S. nonqualified pension plans are primarily funded from the subsidiaries’ general assets as they become due under the provision of the plans, therefore benefit payments equal employer contributions. The U.S. subsidiaries expect to make contributions of $65 million to fund the benefit payments in 2016.
Postretirement benefits are either: (i) not vested under law; (ii) a non-funded obligation of the subsidiaries; or (iii) both. Current regulations do not require funding for these benefits. The subsidiaries use their general assets, net of participant’s contributions, to pay postretirement medical claims as they come due. As permitted under the terms of the governing trust document, the subsidiaries may be reimbursed from plan assets for postretirement medical claims paid from their general assets. The U.S. subsidiaries expect to make contributions of $50 million towards benefit obligations in 2016 to pay postretirement medical claims.
As previously discussed, most of the assets of the U.S. pension benefit plans are held in a group annuity contract issued by the subsidiaries while some of the assets of the U.S. postretirement benefit plans are held in a trust which largely utilizes life insurance contracts issued by the subsidiaries to hold such assets. Total revenues from these contracts recognized in the consolidated statements of operations were $55 million, $50 million and $49 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and included policy charges and net investment income from investments backing the contracts and administrative fees. Total investment income (loss), including realized and unrealized gains (losses), credited to the account balances was ($130) million, $1.2 billion and $20 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The terms of these contracts are consistent in all material respects with those the subsidiaries offer to unaffiliated parties that are similarly situated.
For the year ended December 31, 2014, foreign tax rate differential includes a one-time tax charge of $54 million related to tax reform in Chile and $45 million related to the repatriation of earnings from Japan, partially offset by a one-time tax benefit of $13 million related to the change in repatriation assumption for foreign earnings of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”).
In December 2012, the Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of the Japan branch of American Life in a tax case related to the deduction of unrealized foreign exchange losses on certain securities held by American Life prior to its acquisition by MetLife. During the first quarter of 2013, American Life received a refund of ¥16 billion ($176 million) related to income tax, interest and penalties. Under the indemnification provisions of the stock purchase agreement dated March 7, 2010, as amended, by and among MetLife, Inc., American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) and AM Holdings, MetLife, Inc. has remitted the refund to AIG, net of certain amounts it can retain as a counter claim. The receipt of the refund, net of obligations to AIG with related foreign currency exchange impact and corresponding U.S. tax effects, resulted in a net charge of $16 million in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2013, which was comprised of a $154 million charge included in other expenses, a $19 million gain included in other net investment gains (losses) and a $119 million benefit included in provision for income tax expense (benefit).
The Company files income tax returns with the U.S. federal government and various state and local jurisdictions, as well as foreign jurisdictions. The Company is under continuous examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and other tax authorities in jurisdictions in which the Company has significant business operations. The income tax years under examination vary by jurisdiction and subsidiary. The Company is no longer subject to U.S. federal, state, or local income tax examinations for years prior to 2007, except for i) 2000 through 2002 where the IRS disallowance relates to certain tax credits claimed - in April 2015, the Company received a Statutory Notice of Deficiency (the “Notice”) and paid the tax thereon in September 2015 (see additional details below); and ii) 2003 through 2006, where the IRS disallowance related predominantly to certain tax credits claimed and the Company is engaged with IRS Appeals. Management believes it has established adequate tax liabilities and final resolution for the years 2000 through 2006 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In material foreign jurisdictions, the Company is no longer subject to income tax examination for years prior to 2009.
Also related to the aforementioned foreign tax credit matter, on April 9, 2015, the IRS issued the Notice to the Company. The Notice asserted that the Company owes additional taxes and interest for 2000 through 2002 primarily due to the disallowance of foreign tax credits. The transactions that are the subject of the Notice continue through 2009, and it is likely that the IRS will seek to challenge these later periods. On September 18, 2015, the Company paid the assessed tax and interest of $444 million for 2000 through 2002 and will subsequently file a claim for a refund. On November 19, 2015, $9 million of this amount was refunded from the IRS as an overpayment of interest.
(1) The significant increase in 2015 is related to the non-cash charge discussed above.
The Company had insignificant penalties for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.
For some of the matters disclosed below, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. As of December 31, 2015, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be $0 to $460 million.
MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. As previously disclosed, in 2014, MLIC increased its recorded liability for asbestos-related claims to $690 million. Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through December 31, 2015.
The Company receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries seeking a broad range of information from state regulators, including state insurance commissioners; state attorneys general or other state governmental authorities; federal regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); federal governmental authorities, including congressional committees; and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), as well as from local and national regulators and government authorities in countries outside the United States where MetLife conducts business. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely. The Company cooperates in these inquiries.
In May 2013, MetLife Bank received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requiring production of documents relating to MetLife Bank’s payment of certain foreclosure-related expenses to law firms and business entities affiliated with law firms and relating to MetLife Bank’s supervision of such payments, including expenses submitted to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for reimbursement. It is possible that various state or federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities may seek monetary penalties from MLHL relating to foreclosure practices.
The inquiry referred to above could adversely affect MetLife’s reputation or result in significant fines, penalties, equitable remedies or other enforcement actions, and result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations or other litigation. Exiting the MetLife Bank businesses may not protect MetLife from inquiries and investigations relating to residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure activities, or any fines, penalties, equitable remedies or enforcement actions that may result, the costs of responding to any such governmental investigations, or other litigation. Management believes that the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole will not be materially affected by these regulatory matters.
The Company entered into a consent order with the Department of Financial Services to resolve its inquiry into whether American Life and DelAm conducted business in New York without a license and whether representatives acting on behalf of those companies solicited, sold or negotiated insurance products in New York without a license. The Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the District Attorney, New York County, regarding the same conduct. Pursuant to these agreements, in the first quarter of 2014, the Company paid $50 million to the Department of Financial Services and $10 million to the District Attorney, New York County. The Department of Financial Services consent order allowed certain activities in New York related to American Life and other entities to continue through June 30, 2015. On July 2, 2015, New York Insurance Law Section 2117 was amended to allow certain activities to take place in New York that relate to a policy or contract of group life, group annuity, or group accident and health insurance where the policyholder or proposed policyholder is a multinational entity resident outside the United States. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the New York State Office of the Attorney General Taxpayer Protection Bureau as to its inquiry concerning American Life’s and DelAm’s New York State tax filings.
Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom MLIC established a TCA to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan. The action alleges that MLIC’s use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC’s fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. The court denied MLIC’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.
Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014)
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the “Annuities”). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using “contractual parental guarantees,” and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities. The Court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the Robainas decision. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
This lawsuit was filed by the fiduciary for the Union Carbide Employees’ Pension Plan and alleges that MLIC, which issued annuity contracts to fund some of the benefits the Plan provides, engaged in transactions that ERISA prohibits and violated duties under ERISA and federal common law by determining that no dividends were payable with respect to the contracts from and after 1999. On August 8, 2014, the court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The court has set a June 6, 2016 trial date.
In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC’s Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for “market conduct claims” related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that were transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC’s Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC’s motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013, again without naming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. The court issued a final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. Objectors to the settlement have appealed the approval order.
The Company commits to lend funds under mortgage loan commitments. The amounts of these mortgage loan commitments were $4.4 billion and $4.0 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The Company’s recorded liabilities were $8 million and $4 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, for indemnities, guarantees and commitments.
In 2016, through January 7, 2016, MetLife, Inc. repurchased 1,445,864 shares of its common stock in the open market for $70 million completing the September 2015 authorization.
On January 6, 2016, the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors declared a first quarter 2016 common stock dividend of $0.375 per share payable on March 14, 2016 to shareholders of record as of February 5, 2016. The Company estimates that the aggregate dividend payment will be $413 million.
On January 12, 2016, the Company announced its plan to pursue the Separation. The Company is currently evaluating structural alternatives for the proposed Separation, including a public offering of shares in an independent, publicly traded company, a spin-off, or a sale. The completion of a public offering would depend on, among other things, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing and review process, as well as market conditions. Any Separation that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions.
In December 2015, MetLife, Inc. accrued $50 million, $45 million and $25 million in capital contributions payable to the following captive reinsurers: MRV, MRD and MRSC, respectively, which were included in payables to subsidiaries at December 31, 2015. The payables were settled for cash in February 2016. See Note 6.
In 2014, in connection with the mergers into MetLife USA of certain of its affiliates and a subsidiary, MetLife, Inc. recorded $5.7 billion in non-cash returns of capital from subsidiaries, including $2.0 billion of Exeter’s preferred stock, and correspondingly recorded $5.7 billion of non-cash capital contributions to subsidiaries. In November 2014, upon the consummation of the mergers, the $2.0 billion of outstanding preferred stock of Exeter was canceled. Consequently, MetLife, Inc.’s preferred capital stock investment was added to its common capital stock investment in MetLife USA.
In December 2014, American Life issued a $100 million surplus note to MetLife, Inc. The surplus note bears interest at a fixed rate of 3.17%, payable semi-annually and matures in June 2020.
In December 2013, MRD issued a $350 million surplus note to MetLife, Inc. due December 2033. The surplus note bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.00%, payable semi-annually. MetLife, Inc. issued a $350 million senior note to MRD in exchange for the surplus note (see Note 4).
Interest income earned on loans to subsidiaries of $91 million, $155 million and $103 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, is included in net investment income.
In December 2015, MetLife, Inc. repaid $286 million of affiliated long-term debt to MetLife Exchange Trust I, at maturity, in exchange for a return of capital. The long-term note bore interest at three-month LIBOR plus 0.7%.
In June 2014, a $500 million senior note payable to MLIC matured and, subsequently, MetLife, Inc. issued a new $500 million senior note to MLIC. This note matures in June 2019 and bears interest at a fixed rate of 3.54%, payable semi-annually.
MetLife, Inc., in connection with the collateral financing arrangement associated with MRC’s reinsurance of a portion of the liabilities associated with the closed block, committed to the South Carolina Department of Insurance to make capital contributions, if necessary, to MRC so that MRC may at all times maintain its total adjusted capital in an amount that is equal to or greater than 200% of the company action level RBC, as defined in South Carolina state insurance statutes as in effect on the date of determination or December 31, 2007, whichever calculation produces the greater capital requirement, or as otherwise required by the South Carolina Department of Insurance. See Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
On February 16, 2016, MetLife, Inc. paid, in cash, capital contributions of $50 million, $45 million and $25 million to the following captive reinsurers: MRV, MRD and MRSC respectively, which were accrued at December 31, 2015 (see Note 2). On February 24, 2016, MetLife, Inc., paid in cash, a capital contribution of $1.5 billion to MetLife, USA.