Document/ExhibitDescriptionPagesSize 1: 10-Q Quarterly Report HTML 1.88M
2: EX-10.1 Material Contract HTML 30K
3: EX-10.2 Material Contract HTML 51K
4: EX-10.3 Material Contract HTML 50K
5: EX-10.4 Material Contract HTML 50K
6: EX-10.5 Material Contract HTML 112K
7: EX-10.6 Material Contract HTML 94K
8: EX-10.7 Material Contract HTML 113K
9: EX-10.8 Material Contract HTML 36K
10: EX-31.1 Certification -- §302 - SOA'02 HTML 32K
11: EX-31.2 Certification -- §302 - SOA'02 HTML 32K
12: EX-32.1 Certification -- §906 - SOA'02 HTML 26K
13: EX-32.2 Certification -- §906 - SOA'02 HTML 26K
80: R1 Document and Entity Information HTML 47K
58: R2 Consolidated Balance Sheets HTML 162K
54: R3 Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parenthetical) HTML 54K
24: R4 Consolidated Statements Of Operations and HTML 132K
Comprehensive Income
56: R5 Consolidated Statements Of Operations and HTML 31K
Comprehensive Income Consolidated Statements of
Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Parenthetical)
41: R6 Consolidated Statements Of Shareholders' Equity HTML 78K
72: R7 Consolidated Statements Of Shareholders' Equity HTML 39K
(Parenthetical)
42: R8 Consolidated Statements Of Cash Flows HTML 157K
44: R9 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows HTML 28K
(Parentheticals)
25: R10 General HTML 34K
43: R11 Acquisitions HTML 34K
71: R12 Investments HTML 431K
67: R13 Fair value measurements HTML 644K
55: R14 Assumed life reinsurance programs involving HTML 100K
minimum benefit guarantees under annuity contracts
77: R15 Debt HTML 32K
70: R16 Commitments, contingencies, and guarantees HTML 163K
20: R17 Shareholders' equity HTML 45K
28: R18 Share-based compensation HTML 34K
76: R19 Segment information HTML 457K
79: R20 Earnings per share HTML 68K
81: R21 Information provided in connection with HTML 975K
outstanding debt of subsidiaries
78: R22 General (Policies) HTML 30K
61: R23 Investments (Tables) HTML 417K
26: R24 Fair value measurements (Tables) HTML 607K
40: R25 Assumed life reinsurance programs involving HTML 64K
minimum benefit guarantees under annuity contracts
(Tables)
33: R26 Commitments, contingencies, and guarantees HTML 137K
(Tables)
32: R27 Segment information (Tables) HTML 450K
46: R28 Earnings per share (Tables) HTML 66K
60: R29 Information provided in connection with HTML 974K
outstanding debt of subsidiaries (Tables)
68: R30 Acquisitions (Detail) HTML 38K
38: R31 Investments (Narrative) (Detail) HTML 54K
47: R32 Investments (Schedule Of Amortized Cost And Fair HTML 76K
Value Of Fixed Maturities And Related
Other-Than-Temporary Impairment Recognized In
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income) (Detail)
75: R33 Investments (Schedule Of Fixed Maturities By HTML 109K
Contractual Maturity) (Detail)
35: R34 Investments (Schedule Of Cost And Fair Value Of HTML 37K
Equity Securities) (Detail)
65: R35 Investments (Net Realized Gains (Losses) And HTML 67K
Losses Included In Net Realized Gains (Losses) And
Other Comprehensive Income) (Detail)
66: R36 Investments (Roll-Forward Of Pre-Tax Credit Losses HTML 41K
Related To Fixed Maturities For Which Portion Of
Other-Than-Temporary Impairment Was Recognized In
Other Comprehensive Income) (Detail)
48: R37 Investments (Aggregate Fair Value And Gross HTML 66K
Unrealized Loss By Length Of Time Security Has
Continuously Been In Unrealized Loss Position)
(Detail)
31: R38 Investments (Schedule Of Components Of Restricted HTML 39K
Assets) (Detail)
64: R39 Fair Value Measurements (Narrative) (Detail) HTML 65K
36: R40 Fair Value Measurements (Financial Instruments HTML 92K
Measured At Fair Value On Recurring Basis)
(Detail)
45: R41 Fair Value Measurements (Fair Value And Maximum HTML 62K
Future Funding Commitments Related To Investments)
(Detail)
69: R42 Fair Value Measurements (Schedule Of Significant HTML 62K
Unobservable Inputs Used In Level 3 Liability
Valuations) (Detail)
39: R43 Fair Value Measurements (Financial Instruments HTML 156K
Measured At Fair Value Using Significant
Unobservable Inputs) (Detail)
62: R44 Fair Value Measurements (Carrying Values And Fair HTML 68K
Values Of Financial Instruments Not Measured At
Fair Value) (Detail)
53: R45 Assumed Life Reinsurance Programs Involving HTML 45K
Minimum Benefit Guarantees Under Annuity Contracts
(Schedule Of Guaranteed Minimum Benefits Income
And Expense) (Detail)
34: R46 Assumed Life Reinsurance Programs Involving HTML 60K
Minimum Benefit Guarantees Under Annuity Contracts
(Narrative) (Detail)
74: R47 Debt (Details) HTML 36K
29: R48 Commitments, Contingencies, And Guarantees HTML 42K
(Balance Sheet Locations, Fair Values In Asset Or
(Liability) Position, And Notional Values/Payment
Provisions Of Derivative Instruments) (Detail)
37: R49 Commitments, Contingencies, And Guarantees (Net HTML 73K
Realized Gains (Losses) Of Derivative Instrument
Activity In Consolidated Statement Of Operations)
(Detail)
52: R50 Commitments, Contingencies, And Guarantees HTML 49K
(Narrative) (Detail)
59: R51 Shareholders' Equity (Detail) HTML 51K
73: R52 Share-Based Compensation (Detail) HTML 57K
21: R53 Segment Information (Operations By Segment) HTML 110K
(Detail)
63: R54 Segment Information (Net Premiums Earned For HTML 47K
Segment By Product) (Detail)
49: R55 Earnings Per Share (Detail) HTML 53K
27: R56 Information Provided In Connection With HTML 215K
Outstanding Debt Of Subsidiaries (Condensed
Consolidating Balance Sheet) (Detail)
30: R57 Information Provided In Connection With HTML 120K
Outstanding Debt Of Subsidiaries (Condensed
Consolidating Statement Of Operations) (Detail)
57: R58 Information Provided In Connection With HTML 143K
Outstanding Debt Of Subsidiaries (Condensed
Consolidating Statement Of Cash Flows) (Detail)
51: XML IDEA XML File -- Filing Summary XML 115K
23: EXCEL IDEA Workbook of Financial Reports XLSX 565K
50: EXCEL IDEA Workbook of Financial Reports (.xls) XLS 6.45M
14: EX-101.INS XBRL Instance -- ace-20130930 XML 9.01M
16: EX-101.CAL XBRL Calculations -- ace-20130930_cal XML 355K
17: EX-101.DEF XBRL Definitions -- ace-20130930_def XML 757K
18: EX-101.LAB XBRL Labels -- ace-20130930_lab XML 1.93M
19: EX-101.PRE XBRL Presentations -- ace-20130930_pre XML 1.11M
15: EX-101.SCH XBRL Schema -- ace-20130930 XSD 252K
22: ZIP XBRL Zipped Folder -- 0000896159-13-000016-xbrl Zip 451K
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Switzerland
98-0091805
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
Baerengasse 32
Zurich, Switzerland CH-8001
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip
Code)
+41 (0)43 456 76 00
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
YES x NO ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the
registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
YES x NO ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller
reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,”“accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer x
Accelerated filer ¨
Non-accelerated
filer ¨
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
YES ¨ NO x
The number of registrant’s Common Shares (CHF 27.49
par value) outstanding as of October 16, 2013 was 340,065,071.
Portion of OTTI losses recognized in other comprehensive income (OCI)
—
—
—
—
Net
OTTI losses recognized in income
(4
)
(10
)
(14
)
(30
)
Net realized gains (losses) excluding OTTI losses
44
(50
)
364
(164
)
Total
net realized gains (losses) (includes $24 and $97 of net unrealized gains reclassified from AOCI in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively)
40
(60
)
350
(194
)
Total
revenues
5,172
5,138
14,187
13,249
Expenses
Losses
and loss expenses
2,655
3,047
6,831
6,970
Policy benefits
138
130
379
379
Policy
acquisition costs
678
609
1,957
1,810
Administrative expenses
563
519
1,641
1,543
Interest
expense
72
63
205
187
Other (income) expense
(5
)
(17
)
22
14
Total
expenses
4,101
4,351
11,035
10,903
Income before income tax
1,071
787
3,152
2,346
Income
tax expense (includes $4 and $16 Income tax expense from reclassification of unrealized gains in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively)
155
147
392
405
Net
income
$
916
$
640
$
2,760
$
1,941
Other
comprehensive income (loss)
Unrealized appreciation (depreciation)
$
16
$
731
$
(1,570
)
$
1,369
Reclassification
adjustment for net realized gains included in net income
(24
)
(56
)
(97
)
(147
)
(8
)
675
(1,667
)
1,222
Change
in:
Cumulative translation adjustment
149
190
(237
)
162
Pension
liability
(2
)
(4
)
17
(5
)
Other comprehensive income (loss), before income tax
139
861
(1,887
)
1,379
Income
tax (expense) benefit related to OCI items
(25
)
(185
)
374
(276
)
Other comprehensive income (loss)
114
676
(1,513
)
1,103
Comprehensive
income
$
1,030
$
1,316
$
1,247
$
3,044
Earnings
per share
Basic earnings per share
$
2.68
$
1.88
$
8.09
$
5.71
Diluted
earnings per share
$
2.66
$
1.86
$
8.02
$
5.67
See
accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements
ACE Limited is a holding company incorporated in Zurich, Switzerland. ACE Limited, through its various subsidiaries, provides a broad range of insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide. ACE operates through the following business segments: Insurance – North American P&C, Insurance – North American Agriculture, Insurance – Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life. Refer to Note 10 for additional information.
The interim unaudited consolidated financial statements, which include the accounts of ACE Limited and its subsidiaries
(collectively, ACE, we, us, or our), have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments (consisting of normally recurring accruals) necessary for a fair statement of the results and financial position for such periods. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.
The results of operations and cash flows for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of the results for the full year. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes included in our 2012 Form 10-K.
2.
Acquisitions
PT Asuransi Jaya Proteksi
We acquired 80 percent of PT Asuransi Jaya Proteksi (JaPro) on September 18, 2012 and our local partner acquired the remaining 20 percent on January 3, 2013. JaPro is one of Indonesia's leading general insurers. The total purchase price for 100 percent of the company was approximately $107 million in cash. JaPro operates in our Insurance – Overseas General segment.
Fianzas Monterrey
On
April 1, 2013, we acquired Fianzas Monterrey, a leading surety lines company in Mexico offering administrative performance bonds primarily to clients in the construction and industrial sectors, for approximately $293 million in cash. This acquisition expands our global franchise in the surety business and enhances our existing commercial lines and personal accident insurance business in Mexico.
The acquisition generated $135 million of goodwill, attributable to expected growth and profitability, none of which is expected to be deductible for income tax purposes, and other intangible assets of $73 million, based on ACE's preliminary purchase price allocation. The other
intangible assets primarily relate to customer lists. Amortization of other intangible assets is included in Other (income) expense in the consolidated statements of operations. Goodwill and other intangible assets arising from this acquisition are included in the Insurance – Overseas General segment.
ABA Seguros
On May 2, 2013, we acquired ABA Seguros, a property and casualty insurer in Mexico that provides automobile, homeowners, and small business coverages for approximately $690 million in cash.
The acquisition generated $283 million of goodwill,
attributable to expected growth and profitability, none of which is expected to be deductible for income tax purposes, and other intangible assets of $140 million based on ACE’s preliminary purchase price allocation. The other intangible assets primarily relate to distribution channels. Amortization of other intangible assets is included in Other (income) expense in the consolidated statements of operations. Goodwill and other intangible assets arising from this acquisition are included in the Insurance – Overseas General segment.
States,
municipalities, and political subdivisions
2,517
163
(3
)
2,677
—
$
44,666
$
2,725
$
(85
)
$
47,306
$
(91
)
Held
to maturity
U.S. Treasury and agency
$
1,044
$
39
$
—
$
1,083
$
—
Foreign
910
54
—
964
—
Corporate
securities
2,133
142
—
2,275
—
Mortgage-backed
securities
2,028
88
—
2,116
—
States,
municipalities, and political subdivisions
1,155
44
(4
)
1,195
—
$
7,270
$
367
$
(4
)
$
7,633
$
—
As
discussed in Note 3 c), if a credit loss is indicated on an impaired fixed maturity, an OTTI is considered to have occurred and the portion of the impairment not related to credit losses (non-credit OTTI) is recognized in OCI. Included in the “OTTI Recognized in AOCI” columns above are the cumulative amounts of non-credit OTTI recognized in OCI adjusted for subsequent sales, maturities, and redemptions. OTTI recognized in AOCI does not include the impact of subsequent changes in fair value of the related securities. In periods subsequent to a recognition of OTTI in OCI, changes in the fair value of the related fixed maturities are reflected in Unrealized appreciation (depreciation) in the consolidated statement of shareholders’ equity. For the three and nine months ended September 30,
2013, $1 million of net unrealized depreciation and $24 million of net unrealized appreciation related to such securities is included in OCI. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, $46
million and $130 million of net unrealized appreciation related to such securities is included in OCI. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, AOCI includes net unrealized depreciation of $4 million and $25 million, respectively, related to securities remaining in
the investment portfolio at those dates for which ACE has recognized a non-credit OTTI.
Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by U.S. government agencies are combined with all other to be announced mortgage derivatives held (refer to Note 7 a) (iv)) and are included in the category, “Mortgage-backed securities”. Approximately 84 percent and 85 percent, of the total mortgage-backed securities at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively are represented by investments in U.S. government agency bonds. The remainder of the mortgage
exposure consists of collateralized mortgage obligations and non-government mortgage-backed securities, the majority of which provide a planned structure for principal and interest payments and carry a rating of AAA by the major credit rating agencies.
The following table presents fixed maturities by contractual maturity:
September
30
December 31
2013
2012
(in
millions of U.S. dollars)
Amortized Cost
Fair Value
Amortized Cost
Fair Value
Available for sale
Due
in 1 year or less
$
2,317
$
2,345
$
1,887
$
1,906
Due
after 1 year through 5 years
13,978
14,450
13,411
14,010
Due after 5 years through 10 years
16,291
16,650
15,032
16,153
Due
after 10 years
4,601
4,705
4,285
4,764
37,187
38,150
34,615
36,833
Mortgage-backed
securities
10,294
10,379
10,051
10,473
$
47,481
$
48,529
$
44,666
$
47,306
Held
to maturity
Due in 1 year or less
$
398
$
401
$
656
$
659
Due
after 1 year through 5 years
2,335
2,417
1,870
1,950
Due after 5 years through 10 years
1,707
1,756
2,119
2,267
Due
after 10 years
426
436
597
641
4,866
5,010
5,242
5,517
Mortgage-backed
securities
1,440
1,483
2,028
2,116
$
6,306
$
6,493
$
7,270
$
7,633
Expected
maturities could differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations, with or without call or prepayment penalties.
b) Equity securities
The following table presents the cost and fair value of equity securities:
September 30
December
31
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
2013
2012
Cost
$
835
$
707
Gross
unrealized appreciation
53
41
Gross unrealized depreciation
(57
)
(4
)
Fair value
$
831
$
744
c)
Net realized gains (losses)
In accordance with guidance related to the recognition and presentation of OTTI, when an impairment related to a fixed maturity has occurred, OTTI is required to be recorded in Net income if management has the intent to sell the security or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before the recovery of its amortized cost. Further, in cases where we do not intend to sell the security and it is more likely than not that we will not be required to sell the security, ACE must evaluate the
security to determine the portion of the impairment, if any, related to credit losses. If a credit loss is indicated, an OTTI is considered to have occurred and any portion of the OTTI related to credit losses must be reflected in Net income while the portion of OTTI related to all other factors is recognized in OCI. For fixed maturities held to maturity, OTTI recognized in OCI is accreted from AOCI to the amortized cost of the fixed maturity prospectively over the remaining term of the securities.
Each quarter, securities in an
unrealized loss position (impaired securities), including fixed maturities, securities lending collateral, equity securities, and other investments, are reviewed to identify impaired securities to be specifically evaluated for a potential OTTI.
For all non-fixed maturities, OTTI is evaluated based on the following:
•
the amount of time a security has been in a loss position and the magnitude of the loss position;
•
the
period in which cost is expected to be recovered, if at all, based on various criteria including economic conditions and other issuer-specific developments; and
•
ACE’s ability and intent to hold the security to the expected recovery period.
As a general rule, we also consider that equity securities in an unrealized loss position for twelve consecutive months are other than temporarily impaired.
We review each fixed maturity in an unrealized loss position to assess whether the security is a candidate
for credit loss. Specifically, we consider credit rating, market price, and issuer-specific financial information, among other factors, to assess the likelihood of collection of all principal and interest as contractually due. Securities for which we determine that credit loss is likely are subjected to further analysis to estimate the credit loss recognized in Net income, if any. In general, credit loss recognized in Net income equals the difference between the security’s amortized cost and the net present value of its projected future cash flows discounted at the effective interest rate implicit in the debt security. All significant assumptions used in determining credit losses are subject to change as market conditions evolve.
Projected cash flows for corporate securities (principally senior unsecured bonds) are driven primarily by assumptions regarding probability of default
and also the timing and amount of recoveries associated with defaults. We develop these estimates using information based on market observable data, issuer-specific information, and credit ratings. ACE developed its default assumption by using historical default data by Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s) rating category to calculate a 1-in-100 year probability of default, which results in a default assumption in excess of the historical mean default rate. We believe that use of a default assumption in excess of the historical mean is reasonable in light of current market conditions.
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, credit losses recognized in Net income for corporate
securities were $1 million and $8 million, respectively. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, credit losses recognized in Net income for corporate securities were $5 million and $9 million, respectively.
For mortgage-backed securities, credit impairment is assessed using a cash flow model that estimates the cash flows on the underlying mortgages, using the security-specific collateral and transaction structure. The model estimates cash flows from the underlying mortgage loans and distributes
those cash flows to various tranches of securities, considering the transaction structure and any subordination and credit enhancements that exist in that structure. The cash flow model incorporates actual cash flows on the mortgage-backed securities through the current period and then projects the remaining cash flows using a number of assumptions, including default rates, prepayment rates, and loss severity rates (the par value of a defaulted security that will not be recovered) on foreclosed properties.
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, there were no credit losses recognized in Net income for mortgage-backed securities. For
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, credit losses recognized in Net income for mortgage-backed securities were $2 million and $5 million, respectively.
The following table presents the Net realized gains (losses) and the losses included in Net realized gains (losses) and OCI as a result of conditions which caused us to conclude the decline in fair value of certain investments was “other-than-temporary”:
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
September 30
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
2013
2012
2013
2012
Fixed
maturities:
OTTI on fixed maturities, gross
$
(4
)
$
(10
)
$
(11
)
$
(18
)
OTTI
on fixed maturities recognized in OCI (pre-tax)
—
—
—
—
OTTI on fixed maturities, net
(4
)
(10
)
(11
)
(18
)
Gross
realized gains excluding OTTI
37
71
163
287
Gross realized losses excluding OTTI
(16
)
(14
)
(68
)
(120
)
Total
fixed maturities
17
47
84
149
Equity securities:
OTTI
on equity securities
—
—
(1
)
(5
)
Gross realized gains excluding OTTI
8
3
18
5
Gross
realized losses excluding OTTI
(1
)
(1
)
(4
)
(2
)
Total equity securities
7
2
13
(2
)
OTTI
on other investments
—
—
(2
)
(7
)
Foreign exchange gains (losses)
(26
)
(50
)
45
(64
)
Investment
and embedded derivative instruments
4
4
62
(3
)
Fair value adjustments on insurance derivative
134
83
563
44
S&P
put options and futures
(95
)
(147
)
(413
)
(308
)
Other derivative instruments
(1
)
—
(2
)
(4
)
Other
—
1
—
1
Net
realized gains (losses)
$
40
$
(60
)
$
350
$
(194
)
The
following table presents a roll-forward of pre-tax credit losses related to fixed maturities for which a portion of OTTI was recognized in OCI:
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September
30
September 30
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
2013
2012
2013
2012
Balance
of credit losses related to securities still held – beginning of period
$
40
$
47
$
43
$
74
Additions
where no OTTI was previously recorded
1
1
5
3
Additions where an OTTI was previously recorded
—
6
3
11
Reductions
for securities sold during the period
(3
)
(4
)
(13
)
(38
)
Balance of credit losses related to securities still held – end of period
$
38
$
50
$
38
$
50
d)
Gross unrealized loss
At September 30, 2013, there were 6,038 fixed maturities out of a total of 24,746 fixed maturities in an unrealized loss position. The largest single unrealized loss in the fixed maturities was $3 million. There were 66 equity securities out of a total of 183 equity securities in an unrealized loss position. The largest single unrealized loss in the equity securities was $48 million. Fixed maturities in an unrealized loss position at September 30, 2013
comprised both investment grade and below investment grade securities for which fair value declined primarily due to widening credit spreads since the date of purchase. Equity securities in an unrealized loss position at September 30, 2013 included foreign fixed income securities held in a commingled fund structure for which fair value declined primarily due to widening credit spreads since the date of purchase.
The following tables present, for all securities in an unrealized loss position (including securities on loan), the aggregate fair value and gross unrealized loss by length of time the security has continuously been in an unrealized loss position:
States,
municipalities, and political subdivisions
316
(3
)
48
(4
)
364
(7
)
Total
fixed maturities
3,871
(39
)
577
(50
)
4,448
(89
)
Equity
securities
29
(4
)
—
—
29
(4
)
Other
investments
68
(5
)
—
—
68
(5
)
Total
$
3,968
$
(48
)
$
577
$
(50
)
$
4,545
$
(98
)
e)
Restricted assets
ACE is required to maintain assets on deposit with various regulatory authorities to support its insurance and reinsurance operations. These requirements are generally promulgated in the statutory regulations of the individual jurisdictions. The assets on deposit are available to settle insurance and reinsurance liabilities. ACE is also required to restrict assets pledged under repurchase agreements. We also use trust funds in certain large reinsurance transactions where the trust funds are set up for the benefit of the ceding companies and generally take the place of letter of credit (LOC) requirements. We also have investments in segregated portfolios primarily to provide collateral or guarantees for LOCs and derivative transactions. Included in restricted assets at September 30, 2013 and December 31,
2012, are fixed maturities and short-term investments totaling $16.3 billion and $16.6 billion, respectively, and cash of $129 million and $139 million, respectively.
The following table presents the components of restricted assets:
Fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities is estimated based on the framework established in the fair value accounting guidance. The guidance defines fair value as the price to sell an asset or transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants
and establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy in which inputs into valuation techniques used to measure fair value are classified. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data.
The three levels of the hierarchy are as follows:
•
Level 1 – Unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets;
•
Level
2 – Includes, among other items, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability such as interest rates and yield curves, quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and quoted prices for identical or similar assets and liabilities in markets that are not active; and
•
Level 3 – Inputs that are unobservable and reflect management’s judgments about assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability.
We categorize financial instruments within the valuation hierarchy at the balance sheet date based upon the
lowest level of inputs that are significant to the fair value measurement. Accordingly, transfers between levels within the valuation hierarchy occur when there are significant changes to the inputs, such as increases or decreases in market activity, changes to the availability of current prices, changes to the transparency to underlying inputs, and whether there are significant variances in quoted prices. Transfers in and/or out of any level are assumed to occur at the end of the period.
We use one or more pricing services to obtain fair value measurements for the majority of the investment securities we hold. Based on management’s understanding of the methodologies used, these pricing services only produce an estimate of fair value if there is observable market information that would allow them to make a fair value estimate. Based on our understanding of the market inputs used
by the pricing services, all applicable investments have been valued in accordance with GAAP. We do not typically adjust prices obtained from pricing services. The following is a description of the valuation techniques and inputs used to determine fair values for financial instruments carried at fair value, as well as the general classification of such financial instruments pursuant to the valuation hierarchy.
Fixed maturities
We use pricing services to estimate fair value measurements for the majority of our fixed maturities. The pricing services use market quotations for fixed maturities that have quoted prices in active markets; such securities are classified within Level 1. For fixed maturities other than U.S. Treasury securities that generally do not trade on a daily basis, the pricing services prepare estimates of fair value
measurements using their pricing applications, which include available relevant market information, benchmark curves, benchmarking of like securities, sector groupings, and matrix pricing. Additional valuation factors that can be taken into account are nominal spreads, dollar basis, and liquidity adjustments. The pricing services evaluate each asset class based on relevant market and credit information, perceived market movements, and sector news. The market inputs used in the pricing evaluation, listed in the approximate order of priority include: benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, issuer spreads, two-sided markets, benchmark securities, bids, offers, reference data, and industry and economic events. The extent of the use of each input is dependent on the asset class and the market conditions. Given the asset class, the priority of the use of inputs may change or some market inputs may not be relevant. Additionally, the valuation of fixed maturities
is more subjective when markets are less liquid due to the lack of market based inputs (i.e., stale pricing), which may increase the potential that the estimated fair value of an investment is not reflective of the price at which an actual transaction would occur. The overwhelming majority of fixed maturities are classified within Level 2 because the most significant inputs used in the pricing techniques are observable. For a small number of fixed maturities, we obtain a quote from a broker (typically a market maker). Due to the disclaimers on the quotes that indicate that the price is indicative only, we include these fair value estimates in Level 3.
Equity securities
Equity securities with active markets are classified within Level 1 as fair values are based on quoted market prices. For equity securities in markets which are less
active, fair values are based on market valuations and are classified within Level 2. Equity securities for which pricing is unobservable are classified within Level 3.
Short-term investments, which comprise securities due to mature within one year of the date of purchase that are traded in active markets, are classified within Level 1 as fair values are based on quoted market prices. Securities such as commercial paper and discount notes are classified within Level 2 because these securities are typically not actively traded due to their approaching maturity and, as such, their cost approximates fair value. Short-term investments for which pricing is unobservable are classified within Level 3.
Other investments
Fair values for the majority of Other investments including investments in partially-owned investment companies, investment funds, and limited partnerships are based on their respective net asset values or equivalent (NAV). The majority
of these investments, for which NAV was used as a practical expedient to measure fair value, are classified within Level 3 because either ACE will never have the contractual option to redeem the investments or will not have the contractual option to redeem the investments in the near term. The remainder of such investments is classified within Level 2. Certain of our long duration contracts are supported by assets that do not qualify for separate account reporting under GAAP. These assets comprise mutual funds classified within Level 1 in the valuation hierarchy on the same basis as other equity securities traded in active markets. Other investments also includes equity securities and fixed maturities held in rabbi trusts maintained by ACE for deferred compensation plans, which are classified within the valuation hierarchy on the same basis as other equity securities and fixed
maturities.
Securities lending collateral
The underlying assets included in Securities lending collateral in the consolidated balance sheets are fixed maturities which are classified in the valuation hierarchy on the same basis as other fixed maturities. Excluded from the valuation hierarchy is the corresponding liability related to ACE’s obligation to return the collateral plus interest as it is reported at contract value and not fair value in the consolidated balance sheets.
Investment derivative instruments
Actively traded investment derivative instruments, including futures, options, and exchange-traded
forward contracts are classified within Level 1 as fair values are based on quoted market prices. The fair value of cross-currency swaps are based on market valuations and are classified within Level 2. Investment derivative instruments are recorded in Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.
Other derivative instruments
We maintain positions in other derivative instruments including exchange-traded equity futures contracts and option contracts designed to limit exposure to a severe equity market decline, which
would cause an increase in expected claims and, therefore, reserves for our guaranteed minimum death benefits (GMDB) and guaranteed living benefits (GLB) reinsurance business. Our position in exchange-traded equity futures contracts is classified within Level 1. The fair value of the majority of the remaining positions in other derivative instruments is based on significant observable inputs including equity security and interest rate indices. Accordingly, these are classified within Level 2. Our position in credit default swaps is typically included within Level 3. Other derivative instruments are recorded in Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.
Separate account assets
Separate account
assets represent segregated funds where investment risks are borne by the customers, except to the extent of certain guarantees made by ACE. Separate account assets comprise mutual funds classified in the valuation hierarchy on the same basis as other equity securities traded in active markets and are classified within Level 1. Separate account assets also include fixed maturities classified within Level 2 because the most significant inputs used in the pricing techniques are observable. Excluded from the valuation hierarchy are the corresponding liabilities as they are reported at contract value and not fair value in the consolidated balance sheets. Separate account assets are recorded in Other assets in the consolidated balance sheets.
Guaranteed living benefits
The
GLB arises from life reinsurance programs covering living benefit guarantees whereby we assume the risk of guaranteed minimum income benefits (GMIB) and guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits (GMAB) associated with variable annuity contracts. GLB’s are recorded in Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other liabilities and Future policy benefits in the consolidated balance sheets. For GLB reinsurance, ACE estimates fair value using an internal valuation model which includes current market information and estimates of policyholder behavior. All of the treaties contain claim limits, which are factored
into the valuation model. The fair value depends on a number of inputs, including changes in interest rates, changes in equity markets, credit risk, current account value, changes in market volatility, expected annuitization rates, changes in policyholder behavior, and changes in policyholder mortality.
The most significant policyholder behavior assumptions include lapse rates and the GMIB annuitization rates. Assumptions
regarding lapse rates and GMIB annuitization rates differ by treaty but the underlying methodologies to determine rates applied to each treaty are comparable. The assumptions regarding lapse and GMIB annuitization rates determined for each treaty are based on a dynamic calculation that uses several underlying factors.
A lapse rate is the percentage of in-force policies surrendered in a given calendar year. All else equal, as lapse rates increase, ultimate claim payments will decrease. In general, the base lapse function assumes low lapse rates (ranging from about 1 percent to 6 percent per annum) during the surrender charge period of the GMIB contract, followed by a “spike” lapse rate (ranging
from about 10 percent to 30 percent per annum) in the year immediately following the surrender charge period, and then reverting to an ultimate lapse rate (generally around 10 percent per annum), typically over a 2-year period. This base rate is adjusted downward for policies with more valuable guarantees (policies with guaranteed values far in excess of their account values) by multiplying the base lapse rate by a factor ranging from 15 percent to 75 percent. Additional lapses due to partial withdrawals and older policyholders with tax-qualified contracts (due to required minimum distributions) are also
included.
The GMIB annuitization rate is the percentage of policies for which the policyholder will elect to annuitize using the guaranteed benefit provided under the GMIB. All else equal, as GMIB annuitization rates increase, ultimate claim payments will increase, subject to treaty claim limits. In general ACE assumes that GMIB annuitization rates will be higher for policies with more valuable guarantees (policies with guaranteed values far in excess of their account values). In addition, we also assume that GMIB annuitization rates are higher in the first year immediately following the waiting period (the first year the policies are eligible to annuitize using the GMIB) in comparison to all subsequent years. We do not yet have a robust set of annuitization experience because most of our clients’ policyholders are not yet eligible to annuitize using the GMIB. However, for certain
clients representing approximately 37 percent of the total GMIB guaranteed value there are several years of annuitization experience. For these clients the annuitization function reflects the actual experience and has a maximum annuitization rate per annum of 8 percent (a higher maximum applies in the first year a policy is eligible to annuitize using the GMIB—it is over 13 percent). For most clients, there is not a credible amount of observable relevant behavior data and so we use a weighted-average (with a heavier weighting on the observed experience noted previously) of three different annuitization functions with maximum annuitization rates per annum of 8 percent, 12 percent, and 30 percent,
respectively (with significantly higher rates in the first year a policy is eligible to annuitize using the GMIB). The GMIB reinsurance treaties include claim limits to protect ACE in the event that actual annuitization behavior is significantly higher than expected.
The effect of changes in key market factors on assumed lapse and annuitization rates reflect emerging trends using data available from cedants. For treaties with limited experience, rates are established in line with data received from other ceding companies adjusted, as appropriate, with industry estimates. The model and related assumptions are continuously re-evaluated by management and enhanced, as appropriate, based upon additional experience obtained related to policyholder behavior and availability of more information, such as market conditions, market participant assumptions, and demographics of in-force annuities.
During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, no material changes were made to actuarial or behavioral assumptions.
We view the variable annuity reinsurance business as having a similar risk profile to that of catastrophe reinsurance, with the probability of a cumulative long-term economic net loss relatively small at the time of pricing. However, adverse changes in market factors and policyholder behavior will have an adverse impact on net income, which may be material. Because of the significant use of unobservable inputs including policyholder behavior, GLB reinsurance is classified within Level 3.
States,
municipalities, and political subdivisions
—
3,304
—
3,304
1,851
46,506
172
48,529
Equity
securities
375
452
4
831
Short-term investments
1,061
705
8
1,774
Other
investments
292
221
2,389
2,902
Securities lending collateral
—
1,517
—
1,517
Investment
derivative instruments
(18
)
—
—
(18
)
Other derivative instruments
7
8
—
15
Separate
account assets
1,074
78
—
1,152
Total assets measured at fair value
$
4,642
$
49,487
$
2,573
$
56,702
Liabilities:
GLB(1)
$
—
$
—
$
514
$
514
(1)
Our
GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative instrument for accounting purposes and is accordingly carried at fair value. Excluded from the table above is the portion of the GLB derivative liability classified as Future policy benefits in the consolidated balance sheets. Refer to Note 5 for additional information.
States,
municipalities, and political subdivisions
—
2,677
—
2,677
2,292
44,839
175
47,306
Equity
securities
253
488
3
744
Short-term investments
1,503
725
—
2,228
Other
investments
268
196
2,252
2,716
Securities lending collateral
—
1,791
—
1,791
Investment
derivative instruments
11
—
—
11
Other derivative instruments
(6
)
30
—
24
Separate
account assets
872
71
—
943
Total assets measured at fair value
$
5,193
$
48,140
$
2,430
$
55,763
Liabilities:
GLB(1)
$
—
$
—
$
1,119
$
1,119
(1)
Our
GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative instrument for accounting purposes and is accordingly carried at fair value. Excluded from the table above is the portion of the GLB derivative liability classified as Future policy benefits in the consolidated balance sheets. Refer to Note 5 for additional information.
There were no transfers from Level 1 to Level 2 during the the three months ended September 30, 2013. The transfers from Level 1 to Level 2 during the nine months ended September 30, 2013 were $19 million. The transfers from Level 1 to Level 2 were $34 million and $40 million during the three and nine months ended September 30,
2012, respectively. There were no transfers from Level 2 to Level 1 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013. The transfers from Level 2 to Level 1 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 were $15 million.
Fair value of alternative investments
Included in Other investments in the fair value hierarchy at September 30, 2013 and December 31,
2012 are investment funds, limited partnerships, and partially-owned investment companies measured at fair value using NAV as a practical expedient. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, there were no probable or pending sales related to any of the investments measured at fair value using NAV.
The following table presents, by investment category, the expected liquidation period, fair value, and maximum future funding commitments of alternative investments:
September
30
December 31
Expected
Liquidation
Period
2013
2012
(in
millions of U.S. dollars)
Fair
Value
Maximum
Future Funding
Commitments
Fair
Value
Maximum
Future
Funding
Commitments
Financial
5 to 9 Years
$
249
$
83
$
225
$
111
Real
estate
3 to 9 Years
342
78
292
62
Distressed
6
to 9 Years
168
122
192
152
Mezzanine
6
to 9 Years
243
285
284
279
Traditional
3
to 8 Years
811
505
711
587
Vintage
1
to 3 Years
12
—
14
—
Investment funds
Not
Applicable
415
—
395
—
$
2,240
$
1,073
$
2,113
$
1,191
Included
in all categories in the above table except for Investment funds are investments for which ACE will never have the contractual option to redeem but receives distributions based on the liquidation of the underlying assets. Included in the “Expected Liquidation Period” column above is the range in years over which ACE expects the majority of underlying assets in the respective categories to be liquidated. Further, for all categories except for Investment funds, ACE does not have the ability to sell or transfer the investments without the consent from the general partner of individual funds.
Financial
Financial consists of investments in private equity funds targeting financial services companies such as financial institutions and insurance services around the world.
Real
estate
Real estate consists of investments in private equity funds targeting global distress opportunities, value added U.S. properties, and global mezzanine debt securities in the commercial real estate market.
Distressed
Distressed consists of investments in private equity funds targeting distressed debt/credit and equity opportunities in the U.S.
Mezzanine
Mezzanine consists of investments in private equity funds targeting private mezzanine debt of large-cap and mid-cap companies in the U.S. and worldwide.
Traditional
Traditional
consists of investments in private equity funds employing traditional private equity investment strategies such as buyout and venture with different geographical focuses including Brazil, Asia, Europe, and the U.S.
Vintage
consists of investments in private equity funds made before 2002 and where the funds’ commitment periods had already expired.
Investment funds
ACE’s investment funds employ various investment strategies such as long/short equity and arbitrage/distressed. Included in this category are investments for which ACE has the option to redeem at agreed upon value as described in each investment fund’s subscription agreement. Depending on the terms of the various subscription agreements, investment fund investments may be redeemed monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually. If ACE wishes to redeem an investment fund investment, it must first determine if the investment fund is still in a lock-up period (a time when ACE cannot redeem its investment so that the investment fund manager has time to build the portfolio). If the investment fund
is no longer in its lock-up period, ACE must then notify the investment fund manager of its intention to redeem by the notification date prescribed by the subscription agreement. Subsequent to notification, the investment fund can redeem ACE’s investment within several months of the notification. Notice periods for redemption of the investment funds range between 5 and 120 days. ACE can redeem its investment funds without consent from the investment fund managers.
Level 3 financial instruments
The fair value of assets and liabilities measured at fair value using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) consist of various inputs and assumptions that management makes when determining fair value. Management analyzes changes in fair value measurements
classified within Level 3 by comparing pricing and returns of our investments to benchmarks, including month-over-month movements, investment credit spreads, interest rate movements, and credit quality of securities.
The following table presents the significant unobservable inputs used in the Level 3 liability valuations. Excluded from the table below are inputs used to fair value Level 3 assets which are based on single broker quotes or net asset value and contain no quantitative unobservable inputs developed by management.
(in
millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
Discussion
of the most significant inputs used in the fair value measurement of GLB and the sensitivity of those assumptions is included within Note 4 a) Guaranteed living benefits.
The following tables present a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of financial instruments measured at fair value using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):
Change
in Net Unrealized Gains (Losses) included in OCI
2
(1
)
—
—
—
(1
)
—
Net
Realized Gains/Losses
—
(1
)
—
—
—
—
(138
)
Purchases
12
6
—
—
—
138
—
Sales
(13
)
(4
)
—
—
—
(1
)
—
Settlements
—
(4
)
—
—
—
(96
)
—
Balance–End
of Period
$
42
$
121
$
9
$
4
$
8
$
2,389
$
514
Net
Realized Gains/Losses Attributable to Changes in Fair Value at the Balance Sheet Date
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
(138
)
(1)
Our
GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative instrument for accounting purposes and is accordingly carried at fair value. Excluded from the table above is the portion of the GLB derivative liability classified as Future policy benefits in the consolidated balance sheets. Refer to Note 5 for additional information.
Change
in Net Unrealized Gains (Losses) included in OCI
—
—
3
—
—
(1
)
13
—
—
Net
Realized Gains/Losses
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(75
)
Purchases
—
6
11
—
—
1
121
—
—
Sales
—
—
—
(7
)
—
—
(5
)
—
—
Settlements
—
—
—
(1
)
—
—
(51
)
(1
)
—
Balance–End
of Period
$
—
$
25
$
130
$
29
$
1
$
4
$
2,178
$
—
$
1,279
Net
Realized Gains/Losses Attributable to Changes in Fair Value at the Balance Sheet Date
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
(75
)
(1)
Our
GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative instrument for accounting purposes and is accordingly carried at fair value. Excluded from the table above is the portion of the GLB derivative liability classified as Future policy benefits in the consolidated balance sheets. The liability for GLB reinsurance was $1.5 billion at September 30, 2012, and $1.6 billion at June 30, 2012, which includes a fair value derivative adjustment of $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively.
Change
in Net Unrealized Gains (Losses) included in OCI
(2
)
(1
)
—
(5
)
—
34
—
Net
Realized Gains/Losses
1
(2
)
—
4
—
(2
)
(605
)
Purchases
15
39
—
1
2
387
—
Sales
(15
)
(4
)
(3
)
(5
)
—
(10
)
—
Settlements
(1
)
(12
)
(1
)
—
—
(272
)
—
Balance–End
of Period
$
42
$
121
$
9
$
4
$
8
$
2,389
$
514
Net
Realized Gains/Losses Attributable to Changes in Fair Value at the Balance Sheet Date
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
(2
)
$
(605
)
(1)
Our
GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative instrument for accounting purposes and is accordingly carried at fair value. Excluded from the table above is the portion of the GLB derivative liability classified as Future policy benefits in the consolidated balance sheets. Refer to Note 5 for additional information.
Change
in Net Unrealized Gains (Losses) included in OCI
—
—
6
—
—
—
37
—
—
Net
Realized Gains/Losses
—
—
(1
)
—
—
—
(7
)
(4
)
(40
)
Purchases
—
46
19
4
—
4
366
3
—
Sales
—
(52
)
(15
)
(7
)
—
(5
)
(6
)
—
—
Settlements
(1
)
(1
)
(11
)
(3
)
(1
)
—
(142
)
(2
)
—
Balance–End
of Period
$
—
$
25
$
130
$
29
$
1
$
4
$
2,178
$
—
$
1,279
Net
Realized Gains/Losses Attributable to Changes in Fair Value at the Balance Sheet Date
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
(7
)
$
—
$
(40
)
(1)
Our
GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative instrument for accounting purposes and is accordingly carried at fair value. Excluded from the table above is the portion of the GLB derivative liability classified as Future policy benefits in the consolidated balance sheets. The liability for GLB reinsurance was $1.5 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, which includes a fair value derivative adjustment of $1.3 billion.
b) Financial instruments disclosed, but not measured, at fair value
ACE uses various
financial instruments in the normal course of its business. Our insurance contracts are excluded from fair value of financial instruments accounting guidance, and therefore, are not included in the amounts discussed below.
The carrying values of cash, other assets, other liabilities, and other financial instruments not included below approximated their fair values.
Investments in partially-owned insurance companies
Fair values for investments in partially-owned insurance companies are based on ACE’s share of the net assets based on the financial statements provided by those companies.
Short-
and long-term debt and trust preferred securities
Where practical, fair values for short-term debt, long-term debt, and trust preferred securities are estimated using discounted cash flow calculations based principally on observable inputs including incremental borrowing rates, which reflect ACE’s credit rating, for similar types of borrowings with maturities consistent with those remaining for the debt being valued.
5. Assumed life reinsurance programs involving minimum benefit guarantees under annuity contracts
The following table presents income and expenses relating to GMDB and GLB reinsurance. GLBs include GMIBs as well as some GMABs originating in Japan.
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
September 30
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
2013
2012
2013
2012
GMDB
Net
premiums earned
$
19
$
20
$
59
$
64
Policy
benefits and other reserve adjustments
$
14
$
22
$
58
$
61
GLB
Net
premiums earned
$
36
$
40
$
112
$
121
Policy
benefits and other reserve adjustments
9
7
20
30
Net realized gains (losses)
138
75
608
41
Gain
recognized in income
$
165
$
108
$
700
$
132
Net
cash received
$
31
$
35
$
94
$
114
Net
decrease in liability
$
134
$
73
$
606
$
18
At
September 30, 2013, reported liabilities for GMDB and GLB reinsurance were $95 million and $746 million, respectively, compared with $90 million and $1.4 billion, respectively, at December 31, 2012. The reported liability of $746 million for GLB reinsurance at September 30, 2013 and $1.4 billion at December 31, 2012
includes a fair value derivative adjustment of $514 million and $1.1 billion, respectively. Included in Net realized gains (losses) in the table above are gains (losses) related to foreign exchange and other fair value derivative adjustments. Reported liabilities for both GMDB and GLB reinsurance are determined using internal valuation models. Such valuations require considerable judgment and are subject to significant uncertainty. The valuation of these products is subject to fluctuations arising from, among other factors, changes in interest rates, changes in equity markets, changes in credit markets, changes in the allocation of the investments underlying annuitants’ account values, and assumptions regarding future policyholder behavior. These models and the related assumptions are continually reviewed by management and enhanced, as appropriate, based upon improvements in
modeling assumptions and availability of more information, such as market conditions and demographics of in-force annuities.
Variable Annuity Net Amount at Risk
(i) Reinsurance covering the GMDB risk only
At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the net amount at risk from reinsurance programs covering the GMDB risk only was $751 million and $1.3 billion, respectively.
For reinsurance programs covering the GMDB
risk only, the net amount at risk is defined as the present value of future claim payments under the following assumptions:
mortality according to 100 percent of the Annuity 2000 mortality table;
•
future claims are discounted in line with the discounting assumption used in the calculation of the benefit reserve averaging between 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent; and
•
reinsurance
coverage ends at the earlier of the maturity of the underlying variable annuity policy or the reinsurance treaty.
The total claim amount payable on reinsurance programs covering the GMDB risk only, if all the cedants’ policyholders were to die immediately at September 30, 2013 was approximately $618 million. This takes into account all applicable reinsurance treaty claim limits.
At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the net amount at risk from reinsurance programs covering the GLB risk only was $220 million and $445 million, respectively.
For
reinsurance programs covering the GLB risk only, the net amount at risk is defined as the present value of future claim payments under the following assumptions:
policyholders annuitize at a frequency most disadvantageous to ACE (in other words, annuitization at a level that maximizes claims taking into account the treaty limits) under the terms of the reinsurance contracts;
•
for annuitizing policyholders, the GMIB claim is calculated using interest
rates in line with those used in calculating the reserve;
•
future claims are discounted in line with the discounting assumption used in the calculation of the benefit reserve averaging between 3.5 percent and 4.5 percent; and
•
reinsurance coverage ends at the earlier of the maturity of the underlying variable annuity policy or
the reinsurance treaty.
(iii) Reinsurance covering both the GMDB and GLB risks on the same underlying policyholders
At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the GMDB net amount at risk from reinsurance programs covering both the GMDB and GLB risks on the same underlying policyholders was $85 million and $116 million, respectively.
At September 30, 2013
and December 31, 2012, the GLB net amount at risk from reinsurance programs covering both the GMDB and GLB risks on the same underlying policyholders was $241 million and $655 million, respectively.
These net amounts at risk reflect the interaction between the two types of benefits on any single policyholder (eliminating double-counting), and therefore the net amounts at risk should be considered additive.
For reinsurance programs covering both the GMDB and GLB risks on the same underlying policyholders, the net amount at risk is defined as the present value of future claim payments under the following
assumptions:
mortality
according to 100 percent of the Annuity 2000 mortality table;
•
policyholders annuitize at a frequency most disadvantageous to ACE (in other words, annuitization at a level that maximizes claims taking into account the treaty limits) under the terms of the reinsurance contracts;
•
for annuitizing
policyholders, the GMIB claim is calculated using interest rates in line with those used in calculating the reserve;
•
future claims are discounted in line with the discounting assumption used in the calculation of the benefit reserve averaging between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent; and
•
reinsurance coverage ends at the earlier of
the maturity of the underlying variable annuity policy or the reinsurance treaty.
The total claim amount payable on reinsurance programs covering both the GMDB and GLB risks on the same underlying policyholders, if all of the cedants’ policyholders were to die immediately at September 30, 2013 was approximately $199
million million. This takes into account all applicable reinsurance treaty claim limits. Although there would be an increase in death claims resulting from 100 percent immediate mortality of all policyholders, the GLB claims would be zero.
The average attained age of all policyholders under sections i), ii), and iii) above, weighted by the guaranteed value of each reinsured policy, is approximately 68 years.
6.
Debt
In March 2013, ACE INA Holdings, Inc. issued $475 million of 2.70 percent senior notes due March 2023 and $475 million of 4.15 percent senior notes due March 2043. The 2.70 percent senior notes and 4.15 percent senior notes are redeemable at any time at ACE INA Holdings, Inc.'s option subject to a “make-whole” premium (the present value of the remaining principal and interest discounted at the applicable U.S. Treasury rate plus 0.10 percent and 0.15 percent, respectively). The notes are also redeemable
at par plus accrued and unpaid interest in the event of certain changes in tax law. These notes do not have the benefit of any sinking fund. These senior unsecured notes are guaranteed on a senior basis by ACE Limited and they rank equally with all of ACE's other senior obligations. They also contain customary limitations on lien provisions as well as customary events of default provisions which, if breached, could result in the accelerated maturity of such senior debt.
In June 2013, we reclassified $500 million of 5.875 percent senior notes, due to mature on June 15, 2014, from Long-term debt to Short-term debt in the consolidated balance sheet.
7.
Commitments, contingencies, and guarantees
a) Derivative instruments
Derivative instruments employed
ACE maintains positions in derivative instruments such as futures, options, swaps, and foreign currency forward contracts for which the primary purposes are to manage duration and foreign currency exposure, yield enhancement, or to obtain an exposure to a particular financial market. Along with convertible bonds and to be announced mortgage-backed securities (TBA), discussed below, these are the most numerous and frequent derivative transactions.
ACE maintains positions in convertible
bond investments that contain embedded derivatives. In addition, ACE, from time to time, purchases TBAs as part of its investing activities. These securities are included within the fixed maturities available for sale (FM AFS) portfolio.
Under reinsurance programs covering GLBs, ACE assumes the risk of GLBs, including GMIB and GMAB, associated with variable annuity contracts. The GMIB risk is triggered if, at the time the contract holder elects to convert the accumulated account value to a periodic payment stream (annuitize), the accumulated account value is not sufficient to provide a guaranteed minimum level of monthly income. The GMAB risk is triggered if, at contract
maturity, the contract holder’s account value is less than a guaranteed minimum value. The GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative instrument. Benefit reserves in respect of GLBs are classified as Future policy benefits (FPB) while the fair value derivative adjustment is classified within Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other liabilities (AP). ACE also maintains positions in exchange-traded equity futures contracts and options on equity market indices to limit equity exposure in the GMDB and GLB blocks of business.
In relation to certain debt issuances, ACE, from time to time, enters into interest rate swap transactions for the purpose of either fixing or reducing borrowing
costs. Although the use of these interest rate swaps has the economic effect of fixing or reducing borrowing costs on a net basis, gross interest expense on the related debt issuances is included in Interest expense while the settlements related to the interest rate swaps are reflected in Net realized gains (losses) in the consolidated statements of operations. At September 30, 2013, ACE had no in-force interest rate swaps.
ACE, from time to time, buys credit default swaps to mitigate global credit risk exposure, primarily related to reinsurance recoverables. At September 30, 2013, ACE had no in-force credit default swaps.
All
derivative instruments are carried at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in Net realized gains (losses) in the consolidated statements of operations. None of the derivative instruments are designated as hedges for accounting purposes.
The
following table presents the balance sheet locations, fair values in an asset or (liability) position, and notional values/payment provisions of our derivative instruments:
Includes both future policy benefits reserves and fair value derivative adjustment. Refer to Note 5 for additional information. Note that the payment provision related to GLB is the net amount at risk. The concept of a notional value does not apply to the GLB reinsurance contracts.
On January 1, 2013, we adopted new guidance that requires disclosure of financial instruments subject to
a master netting agreement. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, derivative liabilities of $1 million and derivative assets of $35 million, respectively, included in the table above were subject to a master netting agreement. The remaining derivatives included in the table above were not subject to a master netting agreement.
At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, our repurchase obligations of $1,402 million and $1,401
million, respectively, were fully collateralized. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, our securities lending payable was $1,520 million and $1,795 million, respectively, and our securities lending collateral was $1,517 million and $1,791 million, respectively. The securities lending collateral can only be accessed in the event that the institution borrowing the securities is in default under the lending agreement. An indemnification agreement with the lending agent protects us in the event a borrower becomes insolvent or fails to return any of the securities on loan. In contrast to securities lending programs,
the use of cash received is not restricted for the repurchase obligations.
Excludes
foreign exchange gains (losses) related to GLB.
(2)
Related to GMDB and GLB blocks of business.
Derivative instrument objectives
(i) Foreign currency exposure management
A foreign currency forward contract (forward) is an agreement between participants to exchange specific foreign currencies at a future date. ACE uses forwards to minimize the effect of fluctuating foreign currencies.
(ii)
Duration management and market exposure
Futures
Futures contracts give the holder the right and obligation to participate in market movements, determined by the index or underlying security on which the futures contract is based. Settlement is made daily in cash by an amount equal to the change in value of the futures contract times a multiplier that scales the size of the contract. Exchange-traded futures contracts on money market instruments,
notes and bonds are used in fixed maturity portfolios to more efficiently manage duration, as substitutes for ownership of the money market instruments, bonds and notes without significantly increasing the risk in the portfolio. Investments in futures contracts may be made only to the extent that there are assets under management not otherwise committed.
Exchange-traded equity futures contracts are used to limit exposure to a severe equity market decline, which would cause an increase in expected claims and therefore, reserves for GMDB and GLB reinsurance business.
Options
An
option contract conveys to the holder the right, but not the obligation, to purchase or sell a specified amount or value of an underlying security at a fixed price. Option contracts are used in the investment portfolio as protection against unexpected shifts in interest rates, which would affect the duration of the fixed maturity portfolio. By using options in the portfolio, the overall interest rate sensitivity of the portfolio can be reduced. Option contracts may also be used as an alternative to futures contracts in the synthetic strategy as described above.
Another
use for option contracts is to limit exposure to a severe equity market decline, which would cause an increase in expected claims and therefore, reserves for GMDB and GLB reinsurance business.
The price of an option is influenced by the underlying security, expected volatility, time to expiration, and supply and demand.
The credit risk associated with the above derivative financial instruments relates to the potential for non-performance by counterparties. Although non-performance is not anticipated, in order to minimize the risk of loss, management monitors the creditworthiness of its counterparties and obtains collateral. The performance of exchange-traded instruments is guaranteed by the exchange on which they trade. For non-exchange-traded instruments, the counterparties are principally banks which must meet certain criteria according to our investment guidelines.
Cross-currency swaps
Cross-currency
swaps are agreements under which two counterparties exchange interest payments and principal denominated in different currencies at a future date. We use cross-currency swaps to reduce the foreign currency and interest rate risk by converting cash flows back into local currency. We invest in foreign currency denominated investments to improve credit diversification and also to obtain better duration matching to our liabilities that is limited in the local currency market.
Other
Included within Other are derivatives intended to reduce potential losses which may arise from certain exposures in our insurance business. The economic benefit provided by these derivatives is similar to purchased reinsurance. For example, from time to time, ACE may enter into derivative contracts
to protect underwriting results in the event of a significant decline in commodity prices. Also included within Other are credit default swaps purchased and certain life insurance products that meet the definition of a derivative instrument for accounting purposes.
(iii) Convertible security investments
A convertible bond is a debt instrument that can be converted into a predetermined amount of the issuer’s equity at certain times prior to the bond’s maturity. The convertible option is an embedded derivative within the fixed maturity host instruments which are classified in the investment portfolio as available for sale. ACE purchases convertible bonds for their total return and not specifically for the conversion feature.
(iv) TBA
By
acquiring TBAs, we make a commitment to purchase a future issuance of mortgage-backed securities. For the period between purchase of the TBAs and issuance of the underlying security, we account for our position as a derivative in the consolidated financial statements. ACE purchases TBAs both for their total return and for the flexibility they provide related to our mortgage-backed security strategy.
(v) GLB
Under the GLB program, as the assuming entity, ACE is obligated to provide coverage until the expiration or maturity of the underlying deferred annuity contracts or the expiry of the reinsurance treaty. Premiums received under the reinsurance treaties are classified as premium. Expected losses allocated to premiums received are classified
as Future policy benefits and valued similar to GMDB reinsurance. Other changes in fair value, principally arising from changes in expected losses allocated to expected future premiums, are classified as Net realized gains (losses). Fair value represents management’s estimate of exit price and thus, includes a risk margin. We may recognize a realized loss for other changes in fair value due to adverse changes in the capital markets (e.g., declining interest rates and/or declining equity markets) and changes in actual or estimated future policyholder behavior (e.g., increased annuitization or decreased lapse rates) although we expect the business to be profitable. We believe this presentation provides the most meaningful disclosure of changes in the underlying risk within the GLB reinsurance programs for a given reporting period.
b) Other investments
At
September 30, 2013, included in Other investments in the consolidated balance sheet are investments in limited partnerships and partially-owned investment companies with a carrying value of $1,825 million. In connection with these investments, we have commitments that may require funding of up to $1,073 million over the next several years.
c) Taxation
In April 2012, ACE reached final settlement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Division regarding several issues raised by the IRS Examination Division in its federal tax returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The settlement of these issues had no net impact on our results of operations. In
addition, the IRS completed its field examination of ACE’s federal tax returns for 2008 and 2009 during June 2012. No material adjustments resulted from this examination. During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, ACE reduced the amount of unrecognized tax benefits by $5 million resulting from the closing of applicable statutes of limitations. As of September 30, 2013, $24 million of unrecognized tax benefits remains outstanding. It is reasonably possible that over the next twelve months, the amount of unrecognized tax benefits may change resulting from the
re-evaluation of unrecognized tax benefits arising from examinations of taxing authorities. With few exceptions, ACE is no longer subject to state and local or non-U.S. income tax examinations for years before 2005.
d) Legal proceedings
Claims and other litigation
Our insurance subsidiaries
are subject to claims litigation involving disputed interpretations of policy coverages and, in some jurisdictions, direct actions by allegedly-injured persons seeking damages from policyholders. These lawsuits, involving claims on policies issued by our subsidiaries which are typical to the insurance industry in general and in the normal course of business, are considered in our loss and loss expense reserves. In addition to claims litigation, we are subject to lawsuits and regulatory actions in the normal course of business that do not arise from or directly relate to claims on insurance policies. This category of business litigation typically involves, among other things, allegations of underwriting errors or misconduct, employment claims, regulatory activity, or disputes arising from our business ventures. In the opinion of management, our ultimate liability for these matters
could be, but we believe is not likely to be, material to our consolidated financial condition and results of operations.
8. Shareholders’ equity
All of ACE’s Common Shares are authorized under Swiss corporate law. Though the par value of Common Shares is stated in Swiss francs, ACE continues to use U.S. dollars as its reporting currency for preparing the consolidated financial statements. Under Swiss corporate law, dividends, including distributions through a reduction in par value (par value reduction) or from legal reserves, must be stated in Swiss francs though dividend payments are made by ACE in U.S. dollars. At our May 2011 annual general meeting, our shareholders approved a dividend for the
following year, payable in four quarterly installments after the May 2011 annual general meeting from our capital contribution reserves (Additional paid-in capital), a subaccount of legal reserves. At our May 2012 and May 2013 annual general meetings, our shareholders approved a dividend for the following year, respectively, payable in four quarterly installments after the annual general meetings in the form of a distribution by way of a par value reduction. We have determined this procedure is more appropriate for us at this time due to current Swiss law. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, dividends per Common Share amounted to CHF 0.46 ($0.51) and CHF 1.40 ($1.51),
respectively. Par value reductions have been reflected as such through Common Shares in the consolidated statements of shareholders' equity and had the effect of reducing par value per Common Share to CHF 27.49 at September 30, 2013.
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, dividends per Common Share amounted to CHF 0.45 ($0.49) and CHF 1.46 ($1.57), respectively, which included a $0.12
per Common Share increase (approved by our shareholders at the January 9, 2012 extraordinary general meeting) to the third and fourth installments of the dividend approved at the May 2011 annual general meeting. For the nine months ended September 30, 2012, dividends per Common Share included a par value reduction of CHF 0.93 per Common Share.
Common Shares in treasury are used principally for issuance upon the exercise of employee stock options, grants of restricted stock, and purchases under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). At September 30, 2013,
2,762,440 Common Shares remain in treasury after net shares redeemed under employee share-based compensation plans.
ACE Limited securities repurchase authorization
In August 2011, the Board of Directors (Board) authorized the repurchase of up to $303 million of ACE’s Common Shares through December 31, 2012. The amount authorized in August 2011 was in addition to the $197 million balance remaining under a $600 million share repurchase program approved in November 2010. In November 2012, the Board authorized an extension of our then-remaining repurchase capacity through December
31, 2013. These authorizations were granted to allow ACE to repurchase Common Shares to partially offset potential dilution from the exercise of stock options and the granting of restricted stock under share-based compensation plans. Such repurchases may be made in the open market, in privately negotiated transactions, block trades, accelerated repurchases and/or through option or other forward transactions. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, ACE repurchased 238,544 Common Shares for a cost of $21 million and 2,701,620 Common Shares for a cost of $233 million, respectively, in a series of open
market transactions. At September 30, 2013, $228 million in share repurchase authorization remained through December 31, 2013 pursuant to the November 2010, August 2011, and November 2012 Board authorizations.
The ACE Limited 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the 2004 LTIP) provides for grants of both incentive and non-qualified stock options principally at an option price per share equal to the fair value of ACE’s Common Shares on the date of grant. Stock options are generally granted with a 3-year vesting period and a 10-year term. The stock options vest in equal annual installments over the respective vesting period, which is also the requisite service period. On February 28, 2013, ACE granted 1,815,896
stock options with a weighted-average grant date fair value of $17.29 each. The fair value of the options issued is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.
The 2004 LTIP also provides for grants of restricted stock and restricted stock units. ACE generally grants restricted stock and restricted stock units with a 4-year vesting period, based on a graded vesting schedule. The restricted stock is granted at market close price on the day of grant. On February 28, 2013, ACE granted 1,345,850 restricted stock awards and 266,065 restricted stock units to employees and officers of ACE and its subsidiaries
with a grant date fair value of $85.39 each. Each restricted stock unit represents our obligation to deliver to the holder one Common Share upon vesting.
In May 2013, our shareholders approved an increase of 8 million shares authorized to be issued under the 2004 LTIP, bringing the total shares authorized to 38,600,000 common shares. At September 30, 2013, a total of 11,165,235 shares remain available for future issuance under the 2004 LTIP.
10.
Segment information
ACE operates through the following business segments: Insurance – North American P&C, Insurance – North American Agriculture, Insurance – Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life. These segments distribute their products through various forms of brokers, agencies, and direct marketing programs. All business segments have established relationships with reinsurance intermediaries.
Effective first quarter 2013, the Insurance – North American segment is presented in two distinct reportable segments: Insurance – North American P&C and Insurance – North American Agriculture. Prior year amounts contained in this report have been adjusted to conform to the new segment presentation.
For
segment reporting purposes, certain items have been presented in a different manner than in the consolidated financial statements below. Management uses underwriting income as the main measure of segment performance. ACE calculates underwriting income by subtracting Losses and loss expenses, Policy benefits, Policy acquisition costs, and Administrative expenses from Net premiums earned. For the Insurance – North American Agriculture segment, management includes gains and losses from fair value changes on crop derivatives as a component of underwriting income. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, underwriting income in our Insurance - North American Agriculture segment was $65 million and $111 million, respectively. These amounts include $1 million of realized
losses related to crop derivatives which are included in Net realized gains (losses) below. For the Life segment, management includes Net investment income and (Gains) losses from fair value changes in separate account assets that do not qualify for separate account reporting under GAAP as components of underwriting income. For example, for the three months ended September 30, 2013, Life underwriting income of $92 million includes Net investment income of $61 million and gains from fair value changes in separate account assets of $14 million.
(Gains)
losses from fair value changes in separate account assets
—
—
—
—
(18
)
—
(18
)
Other
(20
)
24
3
(7
)
14
18
32
Income
tax expense (benefit)
308
(29
)
166
17
44
(101
)
405
Net
income (loss)
$
965
$
(36
)
$
793
$
424
$
(20
)
$
(185
)
$
1,941
Underwriting
assets are reviewed in total by management for purposes of decision-making. Other than goodwill and other intangible assets, ACE does not allocate assets to its segments.
The following table presents the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
September 30
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except share and per share data)
2013
2012
2013
2012
Numerator:
Net
income
$
916
$
640
$
2,760
$
1,941
Denominator:
Denominator
for basic earnings per share:
Weighted-average shares outstanding
340,888,648
340,207,037
340,905,322
339,523,388
Denominator
for diluted earnings per share:
Share-based compensation plans
2,929,089
2,665,676
3,146,728
2,831,798
Weighted-average
shares outstanding and assumed conversions
343,817,737
342,872,713
344,052,050
342,355,186
Basic earnings per share
$
2.68
$
1.88
$
8.09
$
5.71
Diluted
earnings per share
$
2.66
$
1.86
$
8.02
$
5.67
Potential
anti-dilutive share conversions
1,215,884
1,449,610
1,429,514
1,193,839
Excluded from
weighted-average shares outstanding and assumed conversions is the impact of securities that would have been anti-dilutive during the respective periods.
12. Information provided in connection with outstanding debt of subsidiaries
The following tables present condensed consolidating financial information at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012,
for ACE Limited (Parent Guarantor) and ACE INA Holdings Inc. (Subsidiary Issuer). The Subsidiary Issuer is an indirect 100 percent-owned subsidiary of the Parent Guarantor. The Parent Guarantor fully and unconditionally guarantees certain of the debt of the Subsidiary Issuer.
During the third quarter of 2013, we determined that the Subsidiary Issuer columns presented in the previously issued condensed consolidating financial information should be presented on the equity method of accounting rather than on a consolidated basis. Accordingly, we have revised the disclosure to correct the Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2012, the Condensed Consolidating Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012,
and the Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2012. As a result of this revision to the Subsidiary Issuer condensed consolidating financial information, the assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses, and cash flows of the subsidiaries of ACE INA Holdings, Inc. (Subsidiary Issuer) are now presented in the Other ACE Limited Subsidiaries column on a combined basis. In addition, we revised the Consolidating Adjustments and Eliminations column to correctly include all intercompany eliminations. Previously, this column reflected only ACE Limited parent company intercompany eliminations. We also revised the Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet as of December
31, 2012 and Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 to correct the presentation of negative cash associated with our affiliated notional cash pooling programs (Pools). In addition, certain items in the Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation. Also, the operating cash flows have been corrected to properly reflect certain intercompany transactions previously recorded in financing cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2012.
Total shareholders' equity and net income of the Subsidiary Issuer and Parent Guarantor were not impacted as a result of these
revisions. The impact of the revisions was not material to the prior period consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. There was no impact on the consolidated amounts previously reported. The prior period condensed consolidating financial statements will be similarly revised as the information is presented in the 2013 Form 10-K and the first and second quarter Form 10-Q filings for 2014.
For
reference only, included in the following pages are the previously reported condensed consolidating information at December 31, 2012 and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012.
ACE
maintains two notional multicurrency cash pools (Pools) with a third-party bank. Various ACE entities participate in one or the other of the Pools, pursuant to which credit and debit balances in individual ACE accounts are translated daily into a single currency and pooled on a notional basis. Individual ACE entities are permitted to overdraw on their individual accounts provided the overall Pool balances do not fall below zero. At September 30, 2013, the cash balance of one or more entities was negative; however, the overall Pool balances were positive.
ACE
maintains two notional multicurrency cash pools (Pools) with a third-party bank. Various ACE entities participate in one or the other of the Pools, pursuant to which credit and debit balances in individual ACE accounts are translated daily into a single currency and pooled on a notional basis. Individual ACE entities are permitted to overdraw on their individual accounts provided the overall Pool balances do not fall below zero. At December 31, 2012, the cash balance of one or more entities was negative; however, the overall Pool balances were positive.
Includes
all other subsidiaries of ACE Limited and intercompany eliminations, primarily intercompany reinsurance transactions.
(2)
Includes ACE Limited parent company eliminations.
(3)
ACE maintains two notional multicurrency cash pools (Pools) with a third-party bank. Various ACE entities participate in one or the other of the Pools, pursuant
to which credit and debit balances in individual ACE accounts are translated daily into a single currency and pooled on a notional basis. Individual ACE entities are permitted to overdraw on their individual accounts provided the overall Pool balances do not fall below zero. At December 31, 2012, the cash balance of one or more entities was negative; however, the overall Pool balances were positive.
Net cash flows from (used for) operating activities
$
80
$
2
$
2,654
$
—
$
2,736
Cash
flows from investing activities
Purchases of fixed maturities available for sale and net change in short-term investments
—
4
(15,996
)
103
(15,889
)
Purchases
of fixed maturities held to maturity
—
—
(374
)
—
(374
)
Purchases
of equity securities
—
—
(217
)
—
(217
)
Sales
of fixed maturities available for
sale
—
—
8,115
(103
)
8,012
Sales
of equity securities
—
—
99
—
99
Maturities
and redemptions of fixed maturities available for sale
—
—
5,538
—
5,538
Maturities
and redemptions of fixed maturities held to maturity
—
—
1,233
—
1,233
Net
derivative instruments settlements
—
(1
)
(375
)
—
(376
)
Acquisition
of subsidiaries (net of cash acquired of $38)
—
—
(977
)
—
(977
)
Capital
contribution
(133
)
(1,010
)
—
1,143
—
Other
—
(5
)
(183
)
—
(188
)
Net
cash flows used for investing activities
(133
)
(1,012
)
(3,137
)
1,143
(3,139
)
Cash
flows from financing activities
Dividends paid on Common Shares
(343
)
—
—
—
(343
)
Common
Shares repurchased
—
—
(233
)
—
(233
)
Proceeds
from issuance of long-term debt
—
947
—
—
947
Net
proceeds from issuance of short-term debt
—
—
1
—
1
Proceeds
from share-based compensation plans, including windfall tax benefits
7
—
105
—
112
Advances
(to) from affiliates
(575
)
575
—
—
—
Capital
contribution
—
—
1,143
(1,143
)
—
Net
proceeds from (payments to) affiliated notional cash pooling programs(1)
872
(349
)
—
(523
)
—
Other
—
—
68
—
68
Net
cash flows from (used for) financing activities
(39
)
1,173
1,084
(1,666
)
552
Effect
of foreign currency rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
—
—
4
—
4
Net
(decrease) increase in cash
(92
)
163
605
(523
)
153
Cash
– beginning of period(1)
103
2
859
(349
)
615
Cash
– end of period(1)
$
11
$
165
$
1,464
$
(872
)
$
768
(1)
ACE
maintains two notional multicurrency cash pools (Pools) with a third-party bank. Various ACE entities participate in one or the other of the Pools, pursuant to which credit and debit balances in individual ACE accounts are translated daily into a single currency and pooled on a notional basis. Individual ACE entities are permitted to overdraw on their individual accounts provided the overall Pool balances do not fall below zero. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the cash balance of one or more entities was negative; however, the overall Pool balances were positive.
Purchases of fixed maturities available for sale and net change in short-term investments
—
—
(17,803
)
147
(17,656
)
Purchases
of fixed maturities held to maturity
—
—
(217
)
—
(217
)
Purchases
of equity securities
—
—
(114
)
—
(114
)
Sales
of fixed maturities available for sale
—
—
11,502
(147
)
11,355
Sales
of equity securities
—
—
57
—
57
Maturities
and redemptions of fixed maturities available for sale
—
—
3,596
—
3,596
Maturities
and redemptions of fixed maturities held to maturity
—
—
1,092
—
1,092
Net
derivative instruments settlements
(1
)
—
(357
)
—
(358
)
Acquisition
of subsidiaries (net of cash acquired of $8)
—
—
(98
)
—
(98
)
Capital
contribution
—
(89
)
(90
)
179
—
Other
—
(2
)
(337
)
—
(339
)
Net
cash flows used for investing activities
(1
)
(91
)
(2,769
)
179
(2,682
)
Cash
flows from financing activities
Dividends paid on Common Shares
(484
)
—
—
—
(484
)
Common
Shares repurchased
—
—
(11
)
—
(11
)
Net
proceeds from issuance of short-term debt
—
—
151
—
151
Proceeds
from share-based compensation plans
17
—
56
—
73
Advances
(to) from affiliates
110
(106
)
(4
)
—
—
Dividends
to parent company
—
—
(120
)
120
—
Capital
contribution
—
90
89
(179
)
—
Net
proceeds from (payments to) affiliated notional cash pooling programs(1)
116
7
—
(123
)
—
Net
cash flows from (used for) financing activities
(241
)
(9
)
161
(182
)
(271
)
Effect
of foreign currency rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
—
—
4
—
4
Net
increase (decrease) in cash
(106
)
27
278
(123
)
76
Cash
– beginning of period(1)
106
5
651
(148
)
614
Cash
– end of period(1)
$
—
$
32
$
929
$
(271
)
$
690
(1)
ACE
maintains two notional multicurrency cash pools (Pools) with a third-party bank. Various ACE entities participate in one or the other of the Pools, pursuant to which credit and debit balances in individual ACE accounts are translated daily into a single currency and pooled on a notional basis. Individual ACE entities are permitted to overdraw on their individual accounts provided the overall Pool balances do not fall below zero. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the cash balance of one or more entities was negative; however, the overall Pool balances were positive.
Maturities
and redemptions of fixed maturities available for sale
—
1,757
1,839
—
3,596
Maturities
and redemptions of fixed maturities held to maturity
—
798
294
—
1,092
Net
derivative instruments settlements
(1
)
(10
)
(347
)
—
(358
)
Advances
from affiliates
36
—
—
(36
)
—
Acquisition
of subsidiaries (net of cash acquired of $8)
—
(98
)
—
—
(98
)
Capital
contribution
—
—
(90
)
90
—
Other
—
(279
)
(60
)
—
(339
)
Net
cash flows from (used for) investing activities
35
(1,463
)
(1,308
)
54
(2,682
)
Cash
flows from financing activities
Dividends paid on Common Shares
(484
)
—
—
—
(484
)
Common
Shares repurchased
—
—
(11
)
—
(11
)
Net
proceeds from issuance of short-term debt
—
1
150
—
151
Proceeds
from share-based compensation plans
17
—
56
—
73
Advances
to affiliates
—
(10
)
(26
)
36
—
Capital
contribution
—
90
—
(90
)
—
Net
cash flows from (used for) financing activities
(467
)
81
169
(54
)
(271
)
Effect
of foreign currency rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
—
(3
)
7
—
4
Net
increase (decrease) in cash
(222
)
168
130
—
76
Cash
– beginning of period
106
382
126
—
614
Cash
– end of period(3)
$
(116
)
$
550
$
256
$
—
$
690
(1)
Includes
all other subsidiaries of ACE Limited and intercompany eliminations.
(2)
Includes ACE Limited parent company eliminations and certain consolidating adjustments.
(3)
ACE maintains two notional multicurrency cash pools (Pools) with a third-party bank. Various ACE entities participate in one or the other of the Pools, pursuant to which credit
and debit balances in individual ACE accounts are translated daily into a single currency and pooled on a notional basis. Individual ACE entities are permitted to overdraw on their individual accounts provided the overall Pool balances do not fall below zero. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the cash balance of one or more entities was negative; however, the overall Pool balances were positive.
ITEM
2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following is a discussion of our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity and capital resources as of and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013.
All comparisons in this discussion are to the corresponding prior year periods unless otherwise indicated.
Our results of operations and cash flows for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of our results for the full year. This discussion should be read in conjunction with
our consolidated financial statements and related notes and our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (2012 Form 10-K).
Effective first quarter 2013, the Insurance – North American segment is presented in two distinct reportable segments: Insurance – North American P&C and Insurance – North American Agriculture. Prior year amounts contained in this report have been adjusted to conform to the new segment presentation.
Other Information
We routinely post important information
for investors on our website (www.acegroup.com) under the Investor Information section. We use this website as a means of disclosing material, non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure). Accordingly, investors should monitor the Investor Information portion of our website, in addition to following our press releases,
SEC filings, public conference calls, and webcasts. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into, and is not a part of, this report.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements. Any written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements that reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could, should potential events occur, cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. These risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which are described in more detail elsewhere herein and in other documents
we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), include but are not limited to:
•
developments in global financial markets, including changes in interest rates, stock markets, and other financial markets, increased government involvement or intervention in the financial services industry, the cost and availability of financing, and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations (which we refer to in this report as foreign exchange and foreign currency exchange), which could affect our statement of operations, investment portfolio, financial condition, and financing plans;
•
general
economic and business conditions resulting from volatility in the stock and credit markets and the depth and duration of potential recession;
•
losses arising out of natural or man-made catastrophes such as hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, floods, climate change (including effects on weather patterns; greenhouse gases; sea; land and air temperatures; sea levels; and rain and snow), nuclear accidents, or terrorism which could be affected by:
•
the number of insureds and ceding companies affected;
•
the
amount and timing of losses actually incurred and reported by insureds;
•
the impact of these losses on our reinsurers and the amount and timing of reinsurance recoverable actually received;
•
the cost of building materials and labor to reconstruct properties or to perform environmental remediation following a catastrophic event; and
•
complex
coverage and regulatory issues such as whether losses occurred from storm surge or flooding and related lawsuits;
•
actions that rating agencies may take from time to time, such as financial strength or credit ratings downgrades or placing these ratings on credit watch negative or the equivalent;
•
global political conditions, the occurrence of any terrorist attacks, including any nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical events, or the outbreak and effects of war, and possible business disruption or economic contraction
that may result from such events;
•
the ability to collect reinsurance recoverable, credit developments of reinsurers, and any delays with respect thereto and changes in the cost, quality, or availability of reinsurance;
•
actual loss experience from insured or reinsured events and the timing of claim payments;
•
the
uncertainties of the loss-reserving and claims-settlement processes, including the difficulties associated with assessing environmental damage and asbestos-related latent injuries, the impact of aggregate-policy-coverage limits, the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other related businesses, and the timing of loss payments;
•
changes to our assessment as to whether it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell, or have the intent to sell, available for sale fixed maturity investments before their anticipated recovery;
•
infection
rates and severity of pandemics and their effects on our business operations and claims activity;
•
judicial decisions and rulings, new theories of liability, legal tactics, and settlement terms;
•
the effects of public company bankruptcies and/or accounting restatements, as well as disclosures by and investigations of public companies relating to possible accounting irregularities, and other corporate governance issues, including the effects of such events on:
•
the
capital markets;
•
the markets for directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) insurance; and
•
claims and litigation arising out of such disclosures or practices by other companies;
uncertainties relating to governmental, legislative and regulatory policies, developments, actions, investigations, and treaties, which, among other things, could subject us to insurance regulation or taxation in additional jurisdictions or affect our current operations;
•
the actual amount of new and renewal business, market acceptance of our products, and risks associated with the introduction of new products and services and entering new markets, including regulatory
constraints on exit strategies;
•
the competitive environment in which we operate, including trends in pricing or in policy terms and conditions, which may differ from our projections and changes in market conditions that could render our business strategies ineffective or obsolete;
•
acquisitions made by us performing differently than expected, our failure to realize anticipated expense-related efficiencies or growth from acquisitions, the impact of acquisitions on our pre-existing organization, or announced acquisitions
not closing;
•
risks associated with being a Swiss corporation, including reduced flexibility with respect to certain aspects of capital management and the potential for additional regulatory burdens;
•
the potential impact from government-mandated insurance coverage for acts of terrorism;
•
the
availability of borrowings and letters of credit under our credit facilities;
•
the adequacy of collateral supporting funded high deductible programs;
•
changes in the distribution or placement of risks due to increased consolidation of insurance and reinsurance brokers;
•
material differences
between actual and expected assessments for guaranty funds and mandatory pooling arrangements;
•
the effects of investigations into market practices in the property and casualty (P&C) industry;
•
changing rates of inflation and other economic conditions, for example, recession;
•
the amount
of dividends received from subsidiaries;
•
loss of the services of any of our executive officers without suitable replacements being recruited in a reasonable time frame;
•
the ability of our technology resources to perform as anticipated; and
•
management’s
response to these factors and actual events (including, but not limited to, those described above).
The words “believe,”“anticipate,”“estimate,”“project,”“should,”“plan,”“expect,”“intend,”“hope,”“feel,”“foresee,”“will likely result,” or “will continue,” and variations thereof and similar expressions, identify forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of their dates. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or review any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
ACE Limited is the Swiss-incorporated holding company of the ACE Group of Companies. ACE opened its business office in Bermuda in 1985 and continues to maintain operations in Bermuda. ACE, which is headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, are a global insurance and reinsurance organization, serving the needs of a diverse group of clients around the world. We are predominantly a global P&C insurance company with both a commercial and specialty product orientation. We offer commercial insurance, specialty products
and accident and health (A&H) solutions and are expanding our personal lines and international life insurance businesses. As we have grown, we have developed products and diversified our offerings to meet the needs of our customers. At September 30, 2013, we had total assets of $95 billion and shareholders’ equity of $28 billion.
We operate through the following business segments: Insurance – North American P&C, Insurance – North American Agriculture, Insurance – Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life.
The Insurance – North American P&C segment includes retail divisions: ACE USA
(including ACE Canada), ACE Commercial Risk Services, and ACE Private Risk Services; our wholesale and specialty divisions of ACE Westchester and ACE Bermuda; and various run-off operations, including Brandywine Holdings Corporation (Brandywine). Our retail products range from commercial lines with service offerings such as risk management, loss control and engineering programs, specialty commercial P&C, and A&H coverages to personal lines homeowners, automobile, liability, valuables, and marine coverages. Our wholesale and specialty products include excess and surplus property, D&O, professional liability, inland marine, specialty casualty, environmental, and political risk.
The Insurance – North American Agriculture segment provides coverage for agriculture business, writing a variety of commercial coverages including comprehensive Multiple Peril Crop Insurance
(MPCI), crop-hail, and farm P&C insurance protection to customers in the U.S. and Canada through Rain and Hail Insurance Service, Inc. (Rain and Hail) as well as specialty P&C insurance coverages offered by ACE Agribusiness to companies that manufacture, process, and distribute agriculture products. The MPCI program is offered in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) sets the policy terms and conditions, rates and forms, and is also responsible for setting compliance standards. As a participating company, we report all details of policies underwritten to the RMA and are party to a Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA). The SRA sets out the relationship between private insurance companies and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) concerning the terms and conditions regarding the risks each will bear including the pro-rata and state stop-loss provisions which allow companies to limit the exposure
of any one state or group of states on their underwriting results. In addition to the pro-rata and excess of loss reinsurance protections inherent in the SRA, we also purchase third party proportional and stop-loss reinsurance for our MPCI business to reduce our exposure.
The Insurance – Overseas General segment comprises ACE International, our retail business serving territories outside the U.S., Bermuda, and Canada; the international A&H business of Combined Insurance (Combined); and the wholesale insurance business of ACE Global Markets (AGM). ACE International has a presence in major developed markets and growing economies serving multinational clients and local customers. A significant amount of our global business is with local companies, offering traditional and specialty P&C products including D&O, professional liability, specialty personal lines, and energy
products. ACE International expanded its global business through the acquisitions of ABA Seguros on May 2, 2013 and Fianzas Monterrey on April 1, 2013. Refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on these acquisitions. The consolidated financial statements include the results of the acquired businesses from the acquisition dates. Our international A&H business primarily focuses on personal accident and supplemental medical. AGM offers specialty products including aviation, marine, financial lines, energy, and political risk.
The Global Reinsurance segment represents our reinsurance operations comprising ACE Tempest Re Bermuda, ACE Tempest Re USA, ACE Tempest Re International, ACE Tempest Re Canada, and the reinsurance operations of
AGM. Global Reinsurance provides solutions for customers ranging from small commercial insureds to multinational ceding companies. Global Reinsurance offers products such as property and workers' compensation catastrophe, D&O, professional liability, specialty casualty, and specialty property.
The Life segment includes our international life operations (ACE Life), ACE Tempest Life Re (ACE Life Re), and the North American supplemental A&H and life business of Combined Insurance.
For more information on our segments refer to “Segment Information” in our 2012 Form 10-K.
Net income was $916 million compared with $640 million in the prior year period.
•
Total
company net premiums written decreased 2.0 percent. On a constant-dollar basis total company net premiums written decreased 0.9 percent. The constant dollar decrease in net premiums written was primarily due to a $359 million decrease in our Insurance - North American Agriculture segment and a $41 million decrease in our Global Reinsurance segment substantially offset by strong growth in net premiums written in our Insurance - Overseas General and Insurance - North American P&C segments of $233 million (17.4 percent increase) and $129 million (9.4 percent increase), respectively.
•
Total pre-tax and after-tax catastrophe losses including reinstatement premiums were $78 million (1.8 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $70 million,
respectively, compared with $53 million and $41 million, respectively, in the prior year period.
•
Favorable prior period development pre-tax was $210 million, representing 5.1 percentage points of the combined ratio, compared with $236 million in the prior year period.
•
The P&C combined ratio was 86.5 percent compared with 92.0 percent in the prior year period.
•
The
current accident year P&C combined ratio excluding catastrophe losses was 89.8 percent compared with 96.5 percent in the prior year period.
•
The P&C expense ratio was 25.8 percent compared with 23.1 percent in the prior year period primarily due to lower agriculture premiums, which carry a lower expense ratio.
•
Operating cash flow was $928 million.
•
Net
investment income was $522 million compared to $533 million in the prior year period due to lower reinvestment rates, lower private equity distributions, and the negative impact of foreign exchange.
The following table presents the approximate effect of changes in foreign currency exchange rates on the growth of net premiums written and earned for the periods indicated:
Net
premiums written reflect the premiums we retain after purchasing reinsurance protection. Net premiums written decreased for the three months ended September 30, 2013 and increased for the nine months ended September 30, 2013. The decrease in net premiums written for the three months ended September 30, 2013 is primarily due to lower premium retention in our Insurance – North American Agriculture segment’s MPCI program. Retention for the current year was lower due to the purchase of proportional reinsurance on the MPCI business for the 2013 crop year, which is in addition to the excess of loss reinsurance coverage historically purchased. In addition, the prior year retention was significantly impacted by the drought conditions in the U.S. that required MPCI insurers to retain
a greater percentage of premium. Our Global Reinsurance segment also reported a decrease in net premiums written for the three months ended September 30, 2013 due to a non-recurring loss portfolio transfer (LPT) treaty written in the prior year. These decreases were partially offset by higher net premiums written in our Insurance – Overseas General segment driven by strong performance in our retail operations in all of our product lines - P&C, A&H, and personal lines. The acquisitions of ABA Seguros in May 2013 and Fianzas Monterrey in April 2013 (Mexican Acquisitions), and Jaya Proteksi in September 2012 also added to premium growth. Our Insurance – North American P&C segment also reported increases in net premiums written in our retail division from growth across a broad range of our product portfolio including risk
management business, specialty casualty, A&H, and professional lines of business reflecting rate increases, exposure changes, strong renewal retention, and new business.
For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, net premiums written increased primarily in our Insurance – Overseas General and Insurance – North American P&C segments due to the factors described above, as well as from higher production in personal lines and property business. This increase was partially offset by lower net premiums written in our Insurance – North American Agriculture segment and, to a lesser extent, our Global Reinsurance segment due to the factors described above. Net premiums
written also decreased in the Global Reinsurance segment due to increased property catastrophe cessions to a reinsurance sidecar that more than offset strong renewal retention and new business written.
Net premiums earned for short-duration contracts, typically P&C contracts, generally reflect the portion of net premiums written that were recorded as revenues for the period as the exposure periods expire. Net premiums earned for long-duration contracts, typically traditional life contracts, generally are recognized
as earned when due from policyholders. Net premiums earned decreased for the three months ended September 30, 2013 and increased for the nine months ended September 30, 2013. The decrease in net premiums earned for the three months ended September 30, 2013 is primarily due to our Insurance – North American Agriculture segment from lower written premiums as described above. Our Global Reinsurance segment added to the decline primarily due to a non-recurring LPT treaty written in the prior year period, which was fully earned when written. These decreases were offset by increases in net premiums earned in our Insurance – Overseas General segment driven by strong performance in all product lines and from the acquisitions
described above. Our Insurance – North American P&C segment also reported increases in net premiums earned from higher net premiums written as described above. For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, net premiums earned increased primarily in our Insurance – North American P&C and Insurance – Overseas General segments as described above. This increase was partially offset by lower net premiums earned in our Insurance – North American Agriculture and Global Reinsurance segments as described above.
In evaluating our segments excluding Life, we use the combined ratio, the loss and loss expense ratio, the policy acquisition cost ratio,
and the administrative expense ratio. We calculate these ratios by dividing the respective expense amounts by net premiums earned. We do not calculate these ratios for the Life segment as we do not use these measures to monitor or manage that segment. The combined ratio is determined by adding the loss and loss expense ratio, the policy acquisition cost ratio, and
the administrative expense ratio. A combined ratio under 100 percent indicates underwriting income, and a combined ratio exceeding 100 percent indicates underwriting loss.
The
following table presents our consolidated loss and loss expense ratio, policy acquisition cost ratio, administrative expense ratio, and combined ratio for the periods indicated:
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September
30
September 30
2013
2012
2013
2012
Loss
and loss expense ratio
60.7
%
68.9
%
59.0
%
62.6
%
Policy acquisition cost ratio
14.3
%
12.7
%
15.7
%
15.0
%
Administrative
expense ratio
11.5
%
10.4
%
12.8
%
12.6
%
Combined ratio
86.5
%
92.0
%
87.5
%
90.2
%
The
following table presents the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and the impact of prior period reserve development on our consolidated loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated:
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September
30
September 30
2013
2012
2013
2012
Loss
and loss expense ratio, as reported
60.7
%
68.9
%
59.0
%
62.6
%
Catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums
(1.9
)%
(1.3
)%
(1.8
)%
(1.2
)%
Prior
period development
5.3
%
5.8
%
3.9
%
4.3
%
Loss and loss expense ratio, adjusted
64.1
%
73.4
%
61.1
%
65.7
%
Total
net pre-tax catastrophe losses, excluding related reinstatement premiums, were $80 million and $193 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $55 million and $129 million in the prior year periods, respectively. Catastrophe losses through September 30, 2013 were primarily related to flooding in Canada and Australia and severe weather-related events in the U.S. Catastrophe losses in the prior year periods were primarily related to Hurricane Isaac, flooding in the U.K. and other severe weather-related events in North America. The adjusted loss and loss expense ratio decreased for the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to the U.S. drought conditions in the prior year which unfavorably impacted the prior year ratio.
Prior period development arises from changes to loss estimates recognized in the current year that relate to loss reserves first reported in previous calendar years and excludes the effect of losses from the development of earned premium from previous accident years. We experienced net favorable prior period development of $210 million and $408 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively. This
compares with net favorable prior period development of $236 million and $442 million in the prior year periods, respectively. Refer to “Prior Period Development” for additional information.
Net investment income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 was $522 million and $1.6 billion compared with $533 million and $1.6 billion for the prior year periods, respectively. Refer to “Net Investment Income” and “Investments” for
additional information.
Policy acquisition costs consist of commissions, premium taxes, and certain underwriting costs related directly to the successful acquisition of a new or renewal insurance contract. Our policy acquisition cost ratio increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to a decrease in net premiums earned and higher agent commissions in our Insurance – North American Agriculture segment's MPCI business. The prior year ratio was favorably impacted by the drought conditions in the U.S. which resulted in higher premium retention and lower agent commissions. This increase was partially offset by a lower policy acquisition cost ratio in our Insurance
– Overseas General segment primarily due to the Mexican Acquisitions.
Our administrative expense ratio increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to a decrease in our Insurance – North American Agriculture segment's net premiums earned as well as the impact of lower Administrative and Operating expense (A&O) reimbursements in our MPCI business.
Our
effective income tax rate, which we calculate as income tax expense divided by income before income tax, is dependent upon the mix of earnings from different jurisdictions with various tax rates. A change in the geographic mix of earnings would change the effective income tax rate. Our effective income tax rate was 14.4 percent and 12.4 percent for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively. Our effective income tax rate was 18.7 percent and 17.3 percent for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2012, respectively. The effective tax rate was lower due to both net realized gains on derivatives and a higher percentage of earnings being generated in lower tax paying jurisdictions during the current year.
Prior Period Development
The following tables summarize (favorable) and adverse prior period development (PPD) by segment. In the sections following the tables below, significant prior period movements within each reporting segment, principally driven by reserve reviews completed during each respective quarter and year to date periods, are discussed in more detail. Long-tail lines include lines such as workers' compensation, general liability, and professional liability; while short-tail lines
include lines such as most property lines, energy, personal accident, aviation, marine (including associated liability-related exposures) and agriculture.
Three Months Ended September 30
Long-tail
Short-tail
Total
%
of net
unpaid
reserves(1)
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
Insurance
– North American P&C
$
(21
)
$
2
$
(19
)
0.1
%
Insurance
– North American Agriculture
—
(10
)
(10
)
2.6
%
Insurance – Overseas General
(121
)
(28
)
(149
)
1.9
%
Global
Reinsurance
(28
)
(4
)
(32
)
1.4
%
Total
$
(170
)
$
(40
)
$
(210
)
0.8
%
2012
Insurance
– North American P&C
$
(76
)
$
(4
)
$
(80
)
0.5
%
Insurance
– North American Agriculture
—
—
—
—
Insurance – Overseas General
(110
)
(25
)
(135
)
1.8
%
Global
Reinsurance
(17
)
(4
)
(21
)
1.0
%
Total
$
(203
)
$
(33
)
$
(236
)
0.9
%
(1) Calculated
based on the segment's total beginning of period net unpaid loss and loss expenses reserves.
Nine Months Ended September 30
Long-tail
Short-tail
Total
%
of net
unpaid
reserves(1)
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
Insurance
– North American P&C
$
(69
)
$
(37
)
$
(106
)
0.7
%
Insurance
– North American Agriculture
—
(13
)
(13
)
4.0
%
Insurance – Overseas General
(120
)
(103
)
(223
)
2.8
%
Global
Reinsurance
(57
)
(9
)
(66
)
2.9
%
Total
$
(246
)
$
(162
)
$
(408
)
1.5
%
2012
Insurance
– North American P&C
$
(150
)
$
(38
)
$
(188
)
1.2
%
Insurance
– North American Agriculture
—
(11
)
(11
)
2.4
%
Insurance – Overseas General
(110
)
(86
)
(196
)
2.7
%
Global
Reinsurance
(33
)
(14
)
(47
)
2.1
%
Total
$
(293
)
$
(149
)
$
(442
)
1.7
%
(1) Calculated
based on the segment's total beginning of period net unpaid loss and loss expenses reserves.
For the three months ended September 30, 2013, net favorable PPD was $19 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements,
driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net favorable development of $21 million on long-tail business, including:
•
Favorable development of $61 million in our medical risk operations, primarily impacting the 2007 to 2009 accident years. Paid and reported loss activity for this business in these accident years continue to be lower than expected and we have increased our weighting applied
to experience-based methods;
•
Favorable development of $25 million in our foreign casualty Controlled Master Program and Cash Flow portfolios affecting the 2009 and prior accident years. Paid and reported loss activity for this business in these accident years continue to be lower than expected and we have increased our weighting applied to experience-based methods; and
•
Adverse development of $59 million on our Brandywine
environmental liabilities and adverse $2 million for other exposures including unallocated loss adjustment expenses for the runoff operations, impacting accident years 1995 and prior. The increase was due to a number of factors including adverse court rulings, higher future cost estimates, and higher than expected payment activity.
For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, net favorable PPD was $106 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net
favorable development of $69 million on long-tail business, including:
•
Favorable development of $61 million in our medical risk operations, primarily impacting the 2007 to 2009 accident years due to the same factors experienced for the three months ended September 30, 2013 as described above;
•
Favorable
development of $50 million on our U.S. excess casualty and umbrella businesses primarily affecting the 2007 and prior accident years. Reported activity on loss and allocated loss expenses was lower than expected based on estimates from our prior review. In addition, increased weighting was applied to experience-based methods in the current review for these accident periods;
•
Net favorable development of $28 million on our national accounts portfolios which consist of commercial auto, general liability and workers' compensation lines of business. This favorable movement was the net impact of favorable and adverse movements, including:
•
Favorable
development of $40 million related to our annual assessment of multi-claimant events including industrial accidents, impacting the 2012 accident year. Consistent with prior years, we reviewed these potential exposures after the close of the accident year to allow for late reporting or identification of significant losses;
•
Adverse development of $40 million predominantly in workers' compensation, primarily impacting the 2006 and prior accident years. The development was a function of higher than expected reported loss activity, higher allocated loss adjustment expenses, as well as an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods; and
•
Net
favorable development of $28 million across a number of lines and accident years, none of which was significant individually or in the aggregate.
•
Favorable development of $25 million in our foreign casualty Controlled Master Program and Cash Flow portfolios affecting the 2009 and prior accident years due to the same factors experienced for the three months ended September 30, 2013 as described above;
•
Favorable
development of $22 million on our surety business primarily affecting the 2011 accident year. Reported claims to date on the 2011 accident year are lower than historical averages which in turn has generated lower than expected reported loss activity since our prior review;
Adverse development of $23 million on our construction business
affecting the 2012 and prior accident years. The adverse development was realized in both our workers' compensation and general liability product lines where loss activity was higher than expected since our prior review; and
•
Net adverse development of $92 million on our Brandywine environmental and run-off portfolios of general liability and workers' compensation, including unallocated loss adjustment expenses, impacting the 1995 and prior accident years. Environmental increased due to a number of factors including adverse court rulings, higher future cost estimates and higher than expected payment activity. Adverse case incurred emergence drove the increase in general liability and workers'
compensation.
•
Net favorable development of $37 million on short-tail business primarily in our U.S. retail and wholesale property and inland marine portfolios. Retail property improved across all accident years, primarily in 2010 and 2011, mainly due to favorable case incurred emergence and favorable settlements of several large claims. Wholesale estimates for prior year improved, primarily in the 2011 and 2012 accident years as paid and reported loss activity were lower than expected.
2012
For
the three months ended September 30, 2012, net favorable PPD was $80 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net favorable development of $76 million on long-tail business, principally from:
•
Favorable
development of $56 million in our medical risk operations, primarily in the 2007 and prior accident years. Reported and paid loss activity for these accident years was lower than expected based on our prior review and our original pricing assumptions.
For the nine months ended September 30, 2012, net favorable PPD was $188 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net
favorable development of $150 million on long-tail business, including:
•
Favorable development of $69 million on a collection of portfolios of umbrella and excess casualty business, affecting the 2006 and prior accident years. The favorable development was the function of both the continuation of the lower than expected reported loss activity in the period since our prior review and an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods, particularly for the 2006 accident year, as these accident periods continued to mature;
•
Favorable
development of $56 million in our medical risk operations, primarily in the 2007 and prior accident years due to the same factors experienced for the three months ended September 30, 2012 as described above; and
•
Net favorable development of $39 million on our national accounts portfolios which consists of commercial auto liability, general liability, and workers' compensation lines of business. This favorable development was the net impact of favorable and adverse movements, including:
•
Favorable
development of $41 million on the 2011 accident year related to our annual assessment of multi-claimant events including industrial accidents. Consistent with prior years, we reviewed these potential exposures after the close of the accident year to allow for late reporting or identification of significant losses;
•
Favorable development of $34 million in the 2007 accident year, primarily in workers' compensation. The favorable development was the combined effect of lower than expected incurred loss activity and an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods; and
•
Adverse
development of $36 million affecting the 2006 and prior accident years largely in workers' compensation. The causes for this adverse movement were various and included adverse development on several specific large claims, higher than expected loss activity on certain accident years, an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods, and a refinement of our treatment of ceded reinsurance recoveries on a few select treaties due to information which became known since our prior review.
Favorable
development of $38 million on short-tail business, primarily from:
•
Favorable development of $23 million in our general aviation product lines (both hull and liability) affecting the 2009 and prior accident years. Actual paid and incurred loss activity continued to be lower than expected based on long term historical averages leading to a reduction in our estimate of ultimate losses.
Insurance – North American Agriculture
For the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2013, favorable PPD was $10 million and $13 million, respectively, compared with favorable PPD of nil and $11 million for the prior year periods, respectively, on short-tail business across a number of accident years, none of which was significant individually or in the aggregate.
Insurance – Overseas General
2013
For the three months ended September 30, 2013, net favorable
PPD was $149 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net favorable development of $121 million on long-tail business, including:
•
Favorable development of $86 million in casualty (primary and excess). Actuarial reviews indicated favorable claim activity
of $118 million in accident years 2009 and prior. These reviews reflected an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods as these accident years continued to mature. Adverse development of $32 million in accident years 2010 to 2012 was primarily due to development on specific individual large claims and also on several accounts now exposed on an excess basis following adverse loss development of the underlying aggregate retention layer; and
•
Favorable development of $35 million in financial lines. Actuarial reviews indicated favorable claim activity of $63 million in accident years 2009 and prior. These reviews reflected an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods
as these accident years continued to mature. Adverse development of $28 million in accident year 2012 was incurred due to notifications on specific large claims.
•
Net favorable development of $28 million on short-tail business primarily in aviation lines, mainly in accident years 2009 and prior. Case specific claim reductions since the last actuarial review was the predominant reason for the releases.
For the nine months ended September 30,
2013, net favorable PPD was $223 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net favorable development of $120 million on long-tail business due to the same factors experienced for the three months ended September 30, 2013 as described above.
•
Net
favorable development of $103 million on short-tail business, including:
•
Net favorable development of $47 million in property and marine lines. Favorable development of $34 million was in accident years 2009 to 2012 and was spread across most of the individual property and marine lines. There was no predominant source of this emergence which reflects general favorable experience. Favorable development of $13 million on accident years 2007 and prior was due to developments on specific litigated claims;
•
Net
favorable development of $34 million across all other short-tail lines. The favorable development was predominantly for A&H and personal lines businesses in accident years 2010 to 2012. Favorable case developments led to lower experience-based indications in these lines and accident years; and
•
Net favorable development of $22 million in aviation lines, mainly in accident years 2009 and prior. Case specific claim reductions since the last actuarial review was the predominant reason for the releases.
For the three months ended September 30, 2012, net favorable PPD was $135 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net favorable development of $110 million on long-tail business, including:
•
Favorable
development of $146 million in casualty (primary and excess) and financial lines in the 2008 and prior accident years. Actuarial reviews indicated favorable claim activity and reflected an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods as these accident years continued to mature; and
•
Adverse development of $36 million in casualty (mainly primary) and financial lines in the 2009 to 2011 accident years. An actuarial review indicated increased frequency trends in accident year 2011 primary casualty as well as individual large losses in excess of expectations.
•
Net
favorable development of $25 million on short-tail business, including:
•
Net favorable development of $13 million in aviation, which is the net result of a $21 million reduction in the 2005 to 2010 accident years, partially offset by increases of $8 million in the 2004 and prior accident years. A claims review provided information on a number of significant claims, which was the predominant source of the changes across all the years; and
•
Favorable
development of $13 million in Political Risk business, mainly in the 2008 to 2010 accident years. A review indicated favorable loss activity on smaller claims as well as a reduction in the estimate of a large claim.
For the nine months ended September 30, 2012, net favorable PPD was $196 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net
favorable development of $110 million on long-tail business due to the same factors experienced for the three months ended September 30, 2012 as described above.
•
Net favorable development of $86 million on short-tail business, including:
•
Favorable development of $37 million on
marine business. Favorable loss emergence across accident years 2008 to 2011 led to lower experience-based indications during actuarial reviews. In addition, case reductions on specific claims in older accident years drove reserve releases;
•
Net favorable development of $25 million in aviation and political lines business, which mainly reflect favorable experience-based indications for the 2005 to 2010 accident years. A claims review provided information on a number of significant claims, which was the predominant source of the changes across all the years; and
•
Net
favorable development of $24 million on short-tail property and technical lines, which was the net result of favorable and unfavorable development across a number of accident years. The most significant favorable loss emergence was in the boiler and machinery (B&M) business, driven by better than expected loss activity on large accounts, primarily in accident years 2010 and 2011. Across the fire and energy businesses, adverse movement in accident year 2011 driven by large losses was largely offset by favorable loss emergence in accident years 2008 to 2010.
Global Reinsurance
2013
For the three months ended September 30, 2013, net favorable PPD was $32
million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal change:
•
Net favorable development of $28 million on long-tail business primarily on medical malpractice business principally in treaty years 2005 to 2010. Following reserve studies, we reflected an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods. Since experience has tended to be generally favorable, compared with assumptions, the changes resulted in favorable development.
For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, net favorable PPD was $66 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net favorable development of $57 million on long-tail business, including:
•
Favorable
development of $20 million on medical malpractice business principally in treaty years 2005 to 2010 due to the same factors experienced for the three months ended September 30, 2013 as described above; and
•
Favorable development of $43 million comprised of $18 million in the casualty line of business principally in treaty years 2007 and prior, and $25 million in the professional liability/D&O line of business principally in treaty years 2008 and prior. Following reserve studies, we reflected an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods. Since experience has tended to be generally favorable compared with assumptions, the changes
resulted in the favorable development referenced above.
2012
For the three months ended September 30, 2012, net favorable PPD was $21 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven by the following principal changes:
•
Net favorable development of $17 million on long-tail business, primarily from:
•
Favorable
development of $18 million on medical malpractice business principally in treaty years 2005 to 2009. Following reserve studies, we reflected an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods. Since experience has tended to be generally favorable, compared with assumptions, the changes resulted in favorable development.
For the nine months ended September 30, 2012, net favorable PPD was $47 million, which was the net result of several underlying favorable and adverse movements, driven principally by favorable development of $36 million on long-tail business in the casualty line of business principally in treaty years 2007 and prior. Following reserve studies,
we reflected an increase in weighting applied to experience-based methods. Since experience had tended to be generally favorable compared with assumptions, the changes resulted in the favorable development referenced above.
The discussions that follow include tables that show our segment operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012.
We operate through the following business segments: Insurance – North American P&C, Insurance – North American Agriculture, Insurance – Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life. For additional information on our segments refer to “Segment Information” in our 2012 Form 10-K under Item 1.
Insurance
– North American
Insurance – North American P&C
The Insurance – North American P&C segment comprises our operations in the U.S., Canada, and Bermuda. This segment includes our retail divisions: ACE USA (including ACE Canada), ACE Commercial Risk Services, and ACE Private Risk Services; our wholesale and specialty divisions of ACE Westchester and ACE Bermuda; and various run-off operations, including Brandywine Holdings Corporation (Brandywine).
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September
30
% Change
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
2012
Q-13 vs. Q-12
2013
2012
YTD-13
vs. YTD-12
Net premiums written
$
1,500
$
1,373
9.3
%
$
4,313
$
3,915
10.2
%
Net
premiums earned
1,444
1,306
10.6
%
4,210
3,802
10.7
%
Losses
and loss expenses
963
819
17.6
%
2,791
2,474
12.8
%
Policy
acquisition costs
159
147
8.2
%
444
419
6.0
%
Administrative
expenses
153
148
3.4
%
437
451
(3.1
)%
Underwriting
income
169
192
(12.0
)%
538
458
17.5
%
Net
investment income
254
257
(1.2
)%
755
789
(4.3
)%
Net
realized gains (losses)
9
(2
)
NM
63
15
320.0
%
Interest
expense
3
3
—
4
9
(55.6
)%
Other
(income) expense
(13
)
(13
)
—
(38
)
(20
)
90.0
%
Income
tax expense
79
129
(38.8
)%
264
308
(14.3
)%
Net
income
$
363
$
328
10.7
%
$
1,126
$
965
16.7
%
Loss
and loss expense ratio
66.7
%
62.7
%
66.3
%
65.1
%
Policy
acquisition cost ratio
11.1
%
11.3
%
10.6
%
11.0
%
Administrative
expense ratio
10.5
%
11.4
%
10.3
%
11.9
%
Combined
ratio
88.3
%
85.3
%
87.2
%
88.0
%
Net
premiums written increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 in our retail division from growth across a broad range of our product portfolio including our risk management business, specialty casualty, A&H, and professional lines of business reflecting rate increases, exposure changes, strong renewal retention, and new business. Growth in net premiums written for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 also reflected higher property production. In addition, we generated higher personal lines production including growth in the homeowners, automobile, and umbrella business offered through ACE Private Risk Services. Our wholesale and specialty division contributed to the increase in net premiums written for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 due to higher production from our property,
casualty, and professional lines of business.
Net premiums earned increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to the increase in net premiums written as described above. For the nine month period, growth in net premiums earned for the retail division was partially offset by lower earned premiums from our program business.
The following tables present a line of business breakdown of Insurance – North American P&C
net premiums earned for the periods indicated:
Three Months Ended
Nine
Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September 30
% Change
(in
millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
2012
Q-13 vs. Q-12
2013
2012
YTD-13
vs. YTD-12
Property and all other
$
388
$
353
9.9
%
$
1,103
$
1,022
7.9
%
Casualty
957
860
11.3
%
2,826
2,505
12.8
%
Personal
accident (A&H)
99
93
6.5
%
281
275
2.2
%
Net
premiums earned
$
1,444
$
1,306
10.6
%
$
4,210
$
3,802
10.7
%
2013
%
of Total
2012
% of Total
2013
% of Total
2012
%
of Total
Property and all other
27
%
27
%
26
%
27
%
Casualty
66
%
66
%
67
%
66
%
Personal
accident (A&H)
7
%
7
%
7
%
7
%
Net
premiums earned
100
%
100
%
100
%
100
%
The
following table presents the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and prior period reserve development on our loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated:
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September
30
September 30
2013
2012
2013
2012
Loss
and loss expense ratio, as reported
66.7
%
62.7
%
66.3
%
65.1
%
Catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums
(1.5
)%
(2.8
)%
(2.0
)%
(2.6
)%
Prior
period development
1.7
%
6.8
%
2.7
%
5.2
%
Loss and loss expense ratio, adjusted
66.9
%
66.7
%
67.0
%
67.7
%
Net
pre-tax catastrophe losses, excluding reinstatement premiums, were $21 million and $82 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $37 million and $96 million for the prior year periods, respectively. Catastrophe losses through September 30, 2013 and 2012 were primarily from flooding in Canada and severe weather-related events in the U.S. Net favorable prior period development was $19 million and $106
million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $80 million and $188 million in the prior year periods, respectively. Net favorable prior period development decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to adverse development on legacy environmental claims. Refer to the “Prior Period Development” section for additional information. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, the adjusted loss and loss expense ratio benefited from lower loss ratios in several of our professional, personal, and property lines where execution of detailed
portfolio management plans has resulted in improved current accident year loss ratio performance. Higher assumed loss portfolio business, which is written at a higher loss ratio than our other types of business, more than offset the benefit of improved accident year loss ratio performance for the three months and only partially offset the benefit for the nine month period.
The policy acquisition cost ratio decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to growth in certain businesses, primarily risk management, which incur lower acquisition expenses.
The administrative expense ratio decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to growth in net premiums
earned that outpaced the growth in administrative expenses. In addition, the nine months benefited from the favorable impact of a $29 million legal settlement in the current year.
The Insurance – North American Agriculture segment comprises our North American based businesses that provide a variety of coverages in the U.S. and Canada including crop insurance, primarily
MPCI and crop-hail through Rain and Hail as well as farm and ranch and specialty P&C commercial insurance products and services through our newly formed ACE Agribusiness unit.
Three Months Ended
Nine
Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September 30
% Change
(in
millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
2012
Q-13 vs. Q-12
2013
2012
YTD-13
vs. YTD-12
Net premiums written
$
805
$
1,164
(30.8
)%
$
1,371
$
1,775
(22.8
)%
Net
premiums earned
849
1,166
(27.2
)%
1,252
1,609
(22.2
)%
Losses
and loss expenses (1)
747
1,291
(42.1
)%
1,072
1,648
(35.0
)%
Policy
acquisition costs
32
13
146.2
%
56
25
124.0
%
Administrative
expenses
5
—
NM
13
(3
)
NM
Underwriting
income (loss)
65
(138
)
NM
111
(61
)
NM
Net
investment income
6
6
—
19
19
—
Net
realized gains (losses) (1)
1
1
—
2
1
100.0
%
Other
(income) expense
8
8
—
24
24
—
Income
tax expense (benefit)
14
(48
)
NM
24
(29
)
NM
Net
income (loss)
$
50
$
(91
)
NM
$
84
$
(36
)
NM
Loss
and loss expense ratio
88.0
%
110.7
%
85.6
%
102.4
%
Policy
acquisition cost ratio
3.8
%
1.1
%
4.4
%
1.6
%
Administrative
expense ratio
0.5
%
—
1.1
%
(0.2
)%
Combined
ratio
92.3
%
111.8
%
91.1
%
103.8
%
(1)
Losses
from fair value changes on crop derivatives are reclassified from Net realized gains (losses) to Losses and loss expenses for purposes of presenting Insurance - North American Agriculture underwriting income. Refer to Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements for more information on these derivatives.
Net premiums written decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to lower premium retention in our MPCI program. Retention for the current year was lower due to the purchase of proportional reinsurance on the MPCI business for the 2013 crop year, which is in addition to the excess of loss reinsurance coverage historically purchased. In addition, the prior year retention was significantly impacted by the drought conditions in the U.S. that required MPCI insurers to retain a greater percentage of premium. The decrease
in net premiums written also reflects lower production in our MPCI and crop hail business.
Net premiums earned decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to lower written premiums as described above.
The following table presents the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and prior period reserve development on our loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated:
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
September 30
2013
2012
2013
2012
Loss
and loss expense ratio, as reported
88.0
%
110.7
%
85.6
%
102.4
%
Catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums
(0.3
)%
(0.1
)%
(0.4
)%
(0.4
)%
Prior
period development
1.2
%
—
1.1
%
0.6
%
Loss and loss expense ratio, adjusted
88.9
%
110.6
%
86.3
%
102.6
%
Net
pre-tax catastrophe losses, excluding reinstatement premiums, were $2 million and $5 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $1 million and $7 million for the prior year periods, respectively. Net favorable prior period development was $10 million and $13 million for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2013, compared with nil and $11 million in the prior year periods, respectively. The adjusted loss and loss expense ratio was lower for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 due to the impact of the U.S. drought on our MPCI business in the prior year period.
The policy acquisition cost ratio increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to lower agent commission accruals in the prior year. The U.S. drought significantly impacted the profitability of the MPCI
business in 2012. In years when the MPCI program is in an unprofitable position as defined in the SRA, agent profit share commissions are not paid. The increase for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 also reflects a $14 million benefit in the prior year period related to a revision in estimated agent profit share commissions for the MPCI business.
The administrative expense ratio increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily reflecting higher Administrative and Operating expense (A&O) reimbursements on the MPCI business in the prior year mainly due to additional reimbursements earned for high loss ratio states and underserved states.
Insurance
– Overseas General
The Insurance – Overseas General segment comprises ACE International, our retail commercial P&C, A&H, and personal lines businesses serving territories outside the U.S., Bermuda, and Canada; the international supplemental A&H business of Combined Insurance; and the wholesale insurance business of AGM, our London-based excess and surplus lines business that includes Lloyd’s of London Syndicate 2488. The reinsurance operation of AGM is included in the Global Reinsurance segment.
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September
30
% Change
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
Insurance – Overseas General conducts business internationally and in most major foreign currencies.
The following table summarizes by major product line the approximate effect of changes in foreign currency exchange rates on the growth of net premiums written and earned for the periods indicated:
Net
premiums written increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 driven by strong performance in our retail operations and from acquisitions. Growth was reported in our retail operations in all of our product lines – P&C, A&H, and personal lines. P&C growth was reported across all regions of our retail operations driven by strong renewal retention and improved new business writings. A&H growth was primarily driven by strong results in Latin America, Asia, and Europe. Personal lines growth reflected new business opportunities in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. In addition, the acquisitions of ABA Seguros in May 2013 and Fianzas Monterrey in April 2013, and Jaya Proteksi in September 2012 added to premium growth. The unfavorable impact of foreign
exchange partially offset this growth.
Net premiums earned increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 driven by strong performance in all product lines and from the acquisitions described above. Regionally, the increase was in our European, Latin American, and Asian operations. This growth was partially offset by the unfavorable impact of foreign exchange.
The following tables present a line of business breakdown of Insurance – Overseas General net premiums earned for the periods indicated:
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September
30
% Change
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
The following table presents the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and prior period reserve development on our loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated:
Three Months Ended
Nine
Months Ended
September 30
September 30
2013
2012
2013
2012
Loss
and loss expense ratio, as reported
44.2
%
43.4
%
48.1
%
47.8
%
Catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums
(2.0
)%
(0.3
)%
(1.6
)%
(0.3
)%
Prior
period development
9.2
%
9.5
%
4.8
%
4.7
%
Loss and loss expense ratio, adjusted
51.4
%
52.6
%
51.3
%
52.2
%
Net
pre-tax catastrophe losses, excluding reinstatement premiums, were $33 million and $71 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $4 million and $11 million in the prior year periods, respectively. Catastrophe losses through September 30, 2013 were primarily related to flooding in Australia, Europe, and Canada; hurricanes in Latin America; and the earthquake in New Zealand. Catastrophe losses through September 30, 2012
were primarily related to Hurricane Isaac and flooding in the U.K. Net favorable prior period development was $149 million and $223 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $135 million and $196 million in the prior year periods, respectively. Refer to the “Prior Period Development” section for additional information. The adjusted loss and loss expense ratio decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 due primarily to the reduction in
the current accident year loss ratio in A&H and Personal lines, a favorable change in the mix of business, and large property losses in the prior year which unfavorably impacted the prior year ratio.
The policy acquisition cost ratio decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to the Mexican Acquisitions. As a result of purchase accounting requirements, the unearned premiums at the date of purchase related to the Mexican Acquisitions are recognized over the remaining coverage period with no expense for the associated historical acquisition costs that were incurred to underwrite those policies.
The administrative
expense ratio increased slightly for the three months ended September 30, 2013 due to increased spending to support business growth. This increased spending was more than offset for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 due to the acquisitions described above, which generate lower expenses than our other businesses, and A&H regulatory fees paid in Europe in the prior year period.
The Global Reinsurance segment represents our reinsurance operations comprising ACE Tempest Re Bermuda, ACE Tempest Re USA, ACE Tempest Re International, and ACE Tempest Re Canada. Global Reinsurance markets its reinsurance products worldwide under the ACE Tempest Re brand name and provides a broad range of coverage to a diverse array of primary P&C companies.
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September
30
% Change
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
2012
Q-13 vs. Q-12
2013
2012
YTD-13
vs. YTD-12
Net premiums written
$
265
$
307
(13.6
)%
$
836
$
879
(4.8
)%
Net
premiums earned
239
281
(15.0
)%
731
748
(2.3
)%
Losses
and loss expenses
93
151
(38.4
)%
292
355
(17.7
)%
Policy
acquisition costs
52
40
30.0
%
148
125
18.4
%
Administrative
expenses
12
13
(7.7
)%
36
38
(5.3
)%
Underwriting
income
82
77
6.5
%
255
230
10.9
%
Net
investment income
66
72
(8.3
)%
209
213
(1.9
)%
Net
realized gains (losses)
(5
)
(2
)
150.0
%
46
(6
)
NM
Interest
expense
2
1
100.0
%
4
3
33.3
%
Other
(income) expense
(7
)
(5
)
40.0
%
(13
)
(7
)
85.7
%
Income
tax expense
16
11
45.5
%
31
17
82.4
%
Net
income
$
132
$
140
(5.7
)%
$
488
$
424
15.1
%
Loss
and loss expense ratio
38.9
%
53.9
%
39.9
%
47.4
%
Policy
acquisition cost ratio
21.7
%
14.1
%
20.2
%
16.7
%
Administrative
expense ratio
5.2
%
4.7
%
5.0
%
5.1
%
Combined
ratio
65.8
%
72.7
%
65.1
%
69.2
%
Net
premiums written decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 due to a non-recurring LPT treaty written in the prior year period. In addition, for the nine months ended September 30, 2013, net premiums written decreased due to increased property catastrophe cessions to a newly formed sidecar, Altair Re, that more than offset strong renewal retention and new business written, primarily in our U.S. property and U.S. automobile lines of business.
Net premiums earned decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013
due to a non-recurring LPT treaty written in the prior year period, which was fully earned when written and, to a lesser extent, the higher property catastrophe cessions noted above. This decrease was partially offset for the nine months ended September 30, 2013, by higher net premiums earned in our U.S. property lines due to higher premiums written in the current and prior years.
The following tables present a line of business breakdown
of Global Reinsurance net premiums earned for the periods indicated:
Three Months Ended
Nine
Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September 30
% Change
(in
millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
2012
Q-13 vs. Q-12
2013
2012
YTD
-13 vs. YTD -12
Property and all other
$
66
$
54
22.2
%
$
185
$
138
34.1
%
Casualty
98
150
(34.7
)%
323
393
(17.8
)%
Property
catastrophe
75
77
(2.6
)%
223
217
2.8
%
Net
premiums earned
$
239
$
281
(15.0
)%
$
731
$
748
(2.3
)%
2013
%
of Total
2012
% of Total
2013
% of Total
2012
%
of Total
Property and all other
28
%
19
%
25
%
18
%
Casualty
41
%
53
%
44
%
53
%
Property
catastrophe
31
%
28
%
31
%
29
%
Net
premiums earned
100
%
100
%
100
%
100
%
The
following table presents the impact of catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums and prior period reserve development on our loss and loss expense ratio for the periods indicated:
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September
30
September 30
2013
2012
2013
2012
Loss
and loss expense ratio, as reported
38.9
%
53.9
%
39.9
%
47.4
%
Catastrophe losses and related reinstatement premiums
(9.3
)%
(4.3
)%
(4.5
)%
(1.9
)%
Prior
period development
15.0
%
8.1
%
9.5
%
6.5
%
Loss and loss expense ratio, adjusted
44.6
%
57.7
%
44.9
%
52.0
%
Net
pre-tax catastrophe losses were $24 million and $35 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively, compared with $13 million and $15 million in the prior year periods, respectively. Catastrophe losses through September 30, 2013 were primarily related to flooding in Canada and Europe. Catastrophe losses through September 30, 2012 were primarily from Hurricane Isaac and other North American weather-related events. Net favorable prior period development was $32
million and $66 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively (both of which are net of $8 million of unfavorable premium adjustments to loss sensitive treaties). This compares with $21 million and $47 million in the prior year periods, respectively (both of which are net of $4 million of unfavorable premium adjustments to loss sensitive treaties). Refer to the “Prior Period Development” section for additional information. The adjusted loss and loss expense ratio decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013
primarily due to the prior year LPT treaty which unfavorably impacted the prior year ratio. In addition, the adjusted loss and loss expense ratio decreased due to a change in the mix of business towards lower loss ratio products and favorable current accident year loss experience.
The policy acquisition cost ratio increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 due to a change in the mix of business towards products that have a higher acquisition cost ratio as well as the LPT treaty written in the prior year, which did not generate acquisition costs.
The administrative expense ratio increased for the three months ended September 30,
2013 primarily as a result of the decrease in net premiums earned. The administrative expense ratio was relatively flat for the nine months ended September 30, 2013.
The Life segment includes our international life operations (ACE Life), ACE Tempest Life Re (ACE Life Re), and the North American supplemental A&H and life business
of Combined Insurance. We assess the performance of our life business based on Life underwriting income, which includes Net investment income and (Gains) losses from fair value changes in separate account assets that do not qualify for separate account reporting under GAAP.
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September
30
% Change
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
2012
Q-13 vs. Q-12
2013
2012
YTD-13
vs. YTD-12
Net premiums written
$
479
$
488
(1.9
)%
$
1,468
$
1,462
0.4
%
Net
premiums earned
467
480
(2.7
)%
1,424
1,427
(0.2
)%
Losses
and loss expenses
141
164
(14.0
)%
443
463
(4.3
)%
Policy
benefits
138
130
6.2
%
379
379
—
(Gains)
losses from fair value changes in separate account assets(1)
(14
)
(14
)
—
(7
)
(18
)
(61.1
)%
Policy
acquisition costs
86
80
7.5
%
261
244
7.0
%
Administrative
expenses
85
81
4.9
%
256
237
8.0
%
Net
investment income
61
63
(3.2
)%
187
186
0.5
%
Life
underwriting income
92
102
(9.8
)%
279
308
(9.4
)%
Net
realized gains (losses)
43
(71
)
NM
206
(261
)
NM
Interest
expense
4
3
33.3
%
12
9
33.3
%
Other
(income) expense(1)
4
—
NM
7
14
(50.0
)%
Income
tax expense
10
14
(28.6
)%
33
44
(25.0
)%
Net
income (loss)
$
117
$
14
NM
$
433
$
(20
)
NM
(1)
(Gains)
losses from fair value changes in separate account assets that do not qualify for separate account reporting under GAAP are reclassified from Other (income) expense for purposes of presenting Life underwriting income.
The following table presents a line of business breakdown of Life net premiums written and deposits collected on universal life and investment contracts for the periods indicated:
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
% Change
September
30
% Change
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
2012
Q-13 vs. Q-12
2013
2012
YTD-13
vs. YTD-12
A&H
$
246
$
255
(3.5
)%
$
759
$
742
2.3
%
Life
insurance
163
156
4.5
%
493
482
2.3
%
Life
reinsurance
70
77
(9.1
)%
216
238
(9.2
)%
Net
premiums written (excludes deposits below)
$
479
$
488
(1.9
)%
$
1,468
$
1,462
0.4
%
Deposits
collected on universal life and investment contracts
$
183
$
151
21.2
%
$
607
$
412
47.3
%
A&H
net premiums written decreased for the three months ended September 30, 2013 due primarily to a catch-up in premium registrations in the prior year period. A&H net premiums written increased for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 due to growth in certain program business and improved new business production. Life insurance net premiums written increased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 primarily due to growth in our Asian markets. Life reinsurance net premiums written decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013
because no new life reinsurance business is currently being written.
Deposits collected on universal life and investment contracts (life deposits) are not reflected as revenues in our consolidated statements of operations in accordance with GAAP. New life deposits are an important component of production and key to our efforts to grow our business. Although life deposits do not significantly
affect current period income from operations, they are an important indicator of future profitability. The increase in life deposits collected for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 is primarily due to growth in our Asian markets.
Net realized gains (losses), which are excluded from Life underwriting income, relate primarily to the change in the net fair value of reported GLB reinsurance liabilities and changes in the fair value of derivatives used to partially offset the risk in the variable annuity guarantee portfolio. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013,
realized gains of $138 million and $608 million, respectively, were associated with net decreases in the value of GLB liabilities; these decreases were primarily due to rising equity levels, higher interest rates, and a weakening yen, partially offset by an increased value of GLB liabilities due to the unfavorable impact of discounting future claims for one and three fewer quarters, respectively. In addition, we experienced realized losses of $95 million and $413 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively, due to a decrease in the value of the derivative instruments, which decrease in value when the S&P 500 index increases.
Equity
in net (income) loss of partially-owned entities
(32
)
(33
)
(81
)
(47
)
(Gains) losses from fair value changes in separate account assets
(14
)
(14
)
(7
)
(18
)
Federal
excise and capital taxes
7
7
18
16
Acquisition-related costs
1
8
3
11
Other
3
3
21
16
Other
(income) expense
$
(5
)
$
(17
)
$
22
$
14
Other
(income) expense includes Amortization of intangible assets, which is higher in 2013 due primarily to the acquisitions of Fianzas Monterrey (completed April 1, 2013) and ABA Seguros (completed May 2, 2013). Equity in net (income) loss of partially-owned entities includes our share of net (income) loss related to investment funds, limited partnerships, partially-owned investment companies, and partially-owned insurance companies. Also included in Other (income) expense are (Gains) losses from fair value changes in separate account assets that do not qualify for separate account reporting under GAAP. The offsetting movement in the separate account liabilities is included in Policy benefits in the consolidated statements of operations. Certain federal excise and capital taxes incurred as a result of capital management initiatives are included in Other (income) expense as
these are considered capital transactions and are excluded from underwriting results.
The following table presents, as of September 30, 2013, the estimated pre-tax amortization expense related to intangible assets for the fourth quarter of 2013 and the next five years:
Net
investment income is influenced by a number of factors including the amounts and timing of inward and outward cash flows, the level of interest rates, and changes in overall asset allocation. Net investment income decreased two percent for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with the prior year periods. The decline in net investment income for the three months ended September 30, 2013 was primarily due to lower reinvestment rates, lower private equity distributions, and the negative impact of foreign exchange, partially offset by a higher overall invested asset base. The decline in net investment income for the
nine months ended September 30, 2013 was primarily due to lower reinvestment rates partially offset by a higher overall invested asset base and to a lesser extent, higher private equity and other distributions.
The investment portfolio’s average market yield on fixed maturities was 2.9 percent and 2.2 percent at September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Average market yield on fixed maturities represents the weighted average yield to maturity of our fixed income portfolio based on the market prices
of the holdings at that date.
The 1.3 percent and 1.2 percent yields on short-term investments for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively, reflect the global nature of our insurance operations. For example, yields on short-term investments in Malaysia, Mexico, and Indonesia range from 3.0 percent to 6.0 percent.
The yield on our equity securities portfolio is high relative to the yield on
the S&P 500 Index because of dividends on preferred equity securities and because we classify our strategic emerging debt portfolio, which is a mutual fund, as equity. The preferred equity securities and strategic emerging debt portfolio represent approximately 56 percent of our equity securities portfolio.
We take a long-term view with our investment strategy, and our investment managers manage our investment portfolio to maximize total return within certain specific
guidelines designed to minimize risk. The majority of our investment portfolio is available for sale and reported at fair value. Our held to maturity investment portfolio is reported at amortized cost.
The effect of market movements on our available for sale investment portfolio impacts Net income (through Net realized gains (losses)) when securities are sold or when we record an Other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) charge in net income. For a discussion related to how we assess OTTI for all of our investments, including credit-related OTTI, and the related impact on Net income, refer to Note 3 c) to the consolidated financial statements. Additionally, Net income is impacted through the reporting of changes in the fair value of derivatives, including financial futures, options, swaps, and GLB reinsurance. Changes in unrealized
appreciation and depreciation on available for sale securities, which result from the revaluation of securities held, are reported as a separate component of Accumulated other comprehensive income in Shareholders’ equity in the consolidated balance sheets.
For
the three months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 other-than-temporary impairments include $4 million and $10 million, respectively, for fixed maturities.
For
the nine months ended September 30, 2013 other-than-temporary impairments includes $11 million for fixed maturities, $2 million for private equity, and $1 million for public equity. For the nine months ended September 30, 2012 other-than-temporary impairments includes $18 million for fixed maturities, $7 million for private equity, and $5 million for public equity.
At September 30, 2013, our investment portfolios held by U.S. legal entities included approximately $188 million of gross unrealized losses on fixed income investments. Our tax planning strategy related to these losses is based on our view that we will hold these fixed income investments until they recover their cost. As such, we have recognized a deferred tax asset of approximately $66 million related to these fixed income investments. This strategy allows us to recognize the associated deferred tax asset related to these fixed income investments as we do not believe these losses will ever be realized.
We engage in a securities lending program which involves lending
investments to other institutions for short periods of time. ACE invests the collateral received in securities of high credit quality and liquidity, with the objective of maintaining a stable principal balance. Certain investments purchased with the securities lending collateral declined in value resulting in an unrealized loss of $3 million at September 30, 2013. The unrealized loss is attributable to fluctuations in market values of the underlying performing debt instruments held by the respective mutual funds, rather than default of a debt issuer. It is our view that the decline in value is temporary.
Our investment portfolio is invested primarily in publicly traded, investment grade, fixed income securities with an average credit quality of A/Aa as rated by the independent investment rating services Standard and Poor’s (S&P)/ Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s). The portfolio is externally managed by independent, professional investment managers and is broadly diversified across geographies, sectors, and issuers. Other investments principally comprise direct investments, investment funds, and limited partnerships. We hold no collateralized debt obligations or collateralized loan obligations in our investment portfolio, and we provide no credit default protection. We have long-standing global credit limits for our entire portfolio across the organization. Exposures are aggregated, monitored, and actively managed by our Global Credit Committee, comprising senior
executives, including our Chief Financial Officer, our Chief Risk Officer, our Chief Investment Officer, and our Treasurer. We also have well-established, strict contractual investment rules requiring managers to maintain highly diversified exposures to individual issuers and closely monitor investment manager compliance with portfolio guidelines.
The average duration of our fixed income securities, including the effect of options and swaps, was 4.0 years and 3.9 years at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. We estimate that a 100 basis point (bps) increase in interest rates would reduce the valuation of our fixed income
portfolio by approximately $2.3 billion at September 30, 2013.
The following table shows the fair value and cost/amortized cost of our invested assets:
The
fair value of our total investments decreased $98 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2013, primarily due to the negative impact of rising interest rates on the valuation of our portfolio and unfavorable foreign exchange, partially offset by the investing of operating cash flows.
The following tables show the market value of our fixed maturities and short-term investments at September 30,
2013 and December 31, 2012. The first table lists investments according to type and the second according to S&P credit rating:
Additional details on the mortgage-backed component of our investment portfolio at September 30, 2013, are provided below:
S&P
Credit Rating
Market Value
Amortized Cost
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
AAA
AA
A
BBB
BB
and
below
Total
Total
Agency
residential mortgage-backed (RMBS)
$
—
$
9,965
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
9,965
$
9,853
Non-agency
RMBS
60
9
28
20
191
308
315
Commercial
mortgage-backed
1,557
15
10
7
—
1,589
1,567
Total
mortgage-backed securities
$
1,617
$
9,989
$
38
$
27
$
191
$
11,862
$
11,735
Municipal
As
part of our overall investment strategy, we may invest in states, municipalities, and other political subdivisions fixed maturity securities (Municipal). We apply the same investment selection process described previously to our Municipal investments. The portfolio is highly diversified primarily in state general obligation bonds and essential service revenue bonds including education and utilities (water, power, and sewers).
Non-U.S.
Our exposure to the Euro results primarily from ACE European Group which is headquartered in London and offers a broad range of coverages throughout the European Union, Central, and Eastern Europe. Our gross and net Eurozone non-U.S. securities exposure is the same. ACE primarily invests in Euro denominated investments to support its local currency insurance obligations and required capital levels. ACE’s
local currency investment portfolios have strict contractual investment guidelines requiring managers to maintain a high quality and diversified portfolio to both sector and individual issuers. Investment portfolios are monitored daily to ensure investment manager compliance with portfolio guidelines.
Our non-U.S. investment grade fixed income portfolios are currency-matched with the insurance liabilities of our non-U.S. operations. The average credit quality of our non-U.S. fixed income securities is A and 54 percent of our holdings are rated AAA or guaranteed by governments or quasi-government agencies. Within the context of these investment portfolios, our government and corporate bond holdings are highly diversified across industries and geographies. Issuer limits are based on credit rating (AA—two
percent, A—one percent, BBB—0.5 percent of the total portfolio) and are monitored daily via an internal compliance system. Because of this investment approach we do not have a direct exposure to troubled sovereign borrowers in Europe. We manage our indirect exposure using the same credit rating based investment approach. Accordingly, we do not believe our indirect exposure is material.
The table below summarizes the market value and amortized cost of our non-U.S. fixed income portfolio by country/sovereign
for non-U.S. government securities at September 30, 2013:
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Market Value
Amortized Cost
United
Kingdom
$
1,192
$
1,192
Republic of Korea
647
617
Canada
580
574
United
Mexican States
489
489
Germany
452
450
Province of Ontario
336
330
Japan
302
302
Federative
Republic of Brazil
273
275
Province of Quebec
271
267
Kingdom of Thailand
246
248
Other
Non-U.S. Government(1)
2,484
2,451
Total
$
7,272
$
7,195
(1)
There
are no investments in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece or Spain.
The table below summarizes the market value and amortized cost of our non-U.S. fixed income portfolio by country/sovereign for non-U.S. corporate securities at September 30, 2013:
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Market Value
Amortized Cost
United
Kingdom
$
1,454
$
1,384
Canada
1,073
1,028
Australia
690
673
United
States
564
541
France
537
518
Netherlands
512
495
Germany
472
453
Supranational
266
257
Switzerland
216
205
Sweden
214
207
Other
Non-U.S. Corporates
2,243
2,214
Total
$
8,241
$
7,975
The
countries that are listed in the non-U.S. corporate fixed income portfolio above represent the ultimate parent company's country of risk. Non-U.S. corporate securities could be issued by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations.
Below-investment grade corporate fixed income portfolio
Below-investment grade securities have different characteristics than investment grade corporate debt securities. Risk of loss from default by the borrower is greater with below-investment grade securities. Below-investment grade securities are generally unsecured and are often subordinated to other creditors of the issuer. Also, issuers of below-investment grade securities usually have higher levels of debt and are more sensitive to adverse economic conditions,
such as recession or increasing interest rates, than are investment grade issuers. At September 30, 2013, our corporate fixed income investment portfolio included below-investment grade and non-rated securities which, in total, comprised approximately 14 percent of our fixed income portfolio. Our below-investment grade and non-rated portfolio includes approximately 1,100 issuers, with the greatest single exposure being $97 million.
We manage high-yield bonds as a distinct and separate asset class from investment grade bonds. The allocation to high-yield bonds is explicitly set by internal management and is targeted to securities in the upper
tier of credit quality (BB/B). Our
minimum rating for initial purchase is BB/B. Six external investment managers are responsible for high-yield security selection and portfolio construction. Our high-yield managers have a conservative approach to credit selection and very low historical default experience. Holdings are highly diversified across industries and subject to a 1.5 percent issuer limit as a percentage of high-yield allocation. We monitor position limits daily through an internal compliance system. Derivative
and structured securities (e.g., credit default swaps and collateralized loan obligations) are not permitted in the high-yield portfolio.
As of September 30, 2013, there were no material changes to our critical accounting estimates. For full discussion of our critical accounting estimates, refer to Item 7 in our 2012 Form 10-K.
Reinsurance
recoverable on ceded reinsurance
The following table presents a composition of our reinsurance recoverable for the periods indicated:
September 30
December 31
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
2013
2012
Reinsurance
recoverable on unpaid losses and loss expenses (1)
$
10,819
$
11,399
Reinsurance recoverable on paid losses and loss expenses (1)
658
679
Net
reinsurance recoverable on losses and loss expenses
$
11,477
$
12,078
Reinsurance recoverable on policy benefits
$
237
$
241
(1)
Net
of provision for uncollectible reinsurance
We evaluate the financial condition of our reinsurers and potential reinsurers on a regular basis and also monitor concentrations of credit risk with reinsurers. The provision for uncollectible reinsurance is required principally due to the potential failure of reinsurers to indemnify us, primarily because of disputes under reinsurance contracts and insolvencies. The provision for uncollectible reinsurance is based on a default analysis applied to gross reinsurance recoverables, net of approximately $2.5 billion of collateral at both September 30, 2013 and December 31,
2012. The decrease in net reinsurance recoverable on losses and loss expenses was primarily due to lower MPCI losses, collections relating to run-off operations, favorable PPD, and lower natural catastrophe losses.
Unpaid losses and loss expenses
As an insurance and reinsurance company, we are required by applicable laws and regulations and GAAP to establish loss and loss expense reserves for the estimated unpaid portion of the ultimate liability for losses and loss expenses under the terms of our policies and agreements with our insured and reinsured customers. The estimate of the liabilities includes provisions for claims that have been reported but are unpaid at the balance sheet date (case reserves) and for obligations
on claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNR) at the balance sheet date. IBNR may also include provisions to account for the possibility that reported claims may settle for amounts that differ from the established reserves. Loss reserves also include an estimate of expenses associated with processing and settling unpaid claims (loss expenses). At September 30, 2013, our gross unpaid loss and loss expense reserves were $37.9 billion and our net unpaid loss and loss expense reserves were $27.1 billion. With the exception of certain structured settlements, for which the timing and amount of future claim payments are reliably determinable, and certain reserves for unsettled claims that are discounted in statutory filings, our loss reserves are not discounted for the time
value of money.
The following table presents a roll-forward of our unpaid losses and loss expenses:
The process of establishing loss reserves for property and casualty claims can be complex and is subject to considerable uncertainty as it requires the use of informed estimates and judgments based on circumstances known at the date of accrual.
The following table presents our total reserves segregated between case reserves (including loss expense reserves) and IBNR reserves:
Asbestos
and Environmental (A&E) and Other Run-off Liabilities
During the three months ended September 30, 2013, an internal review was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of environmental liabilities. As a result of the internal review, we increased environmental gross reserves for Brandywine operations by $102 million while the net loss reserves increased by $59 million. Refer to our 2012 Form 10-K for additional information on A&E and Other Run-off Liabilities.
Fair value measurements
The accounting guidance on fair value measurements defines fair value as the price to sell an asset or transfer a liability
in an orderly transaction between market participants and establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy in which inputs into valuation techniques used to measure fair value are classified.
The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets (Level 1 inputs) and the lowest priority to unobservable data (Level 3 inputs). Inputs in Level 1 are unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets. Level 2 includes inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for assets or liabilities either directly or indirectly. Level 2 inputs include, among other items, quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets and liabilities in markets that are not active, and inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability
such as interest rates and yield curves. Level 3 inputs are unobservable and reflect our judgments about assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability.
We categorize financial instruments within the valuation hierarchy at the balance sheet date based upon the lowest level of inputs that are significant to the fair value measurement. Accordingly, transfers between levels within the valuation hierarchy occur when there are significant changes to the inputs, such as increases or decreases in market activity, changes to the availability of current prices, changes to the transparency to underlying inputs, and whether there are significant variances in quoted prices. Transfers in and/or out of any level are assumed to occur at the end of the period.
While we
obtain values for the majority of the investment securities we hold from one or more pricing services, it is ultimately management’s responsibility to determine whether the values obtained and recorded in the financial statements are representative of fair value. We periodically update our understanding of the methodologies used by our pricing services in order to validate that the prices obtained from those services are consistent with the GAAP definition of fair value as an exit price. Based on our understanding of the methodologies, our pricing services only produce an estimate of fair value if there is observable market information that would allow them to make a fair value estimate. Based on our understanding of the market inputs used by our pricing services, all applicable investments have been valued in accordance with GAAP valuation principles. We have controls to review significant price changes and stale pricing, and to ensure that prices received from pricing
services have been accurately reflected in the consolidated financial statements. We do not typically adjust prices obtained from pricing services.
Additionally, the valuation of fixed maturities is more subjective when markets are less liquid due to the lack of market based inputs (i.e., stale pricing), which may increase the potential that the estimated fair value of an investment is not reflective of the price at which an actual transaction would occur. For a small number of fixed maturities, we obtain a quote from a broker (typically a market maker). Due to the disclaimers on the quotes that indicate that the price is indicative only, we include these fair value estimates in Level 3.
At September 30, 2013,
Level 3 assets represented five percent of assets that are measured at fair value and three percent of total assets. At September 30, 2013, Level 3 liabilities represented 100 percent of liabilities that are measured at fair value
and one percent of our total
liabilities. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, we transferred assets of $14 million and $77 million, respectively, into our Level 3 assets from other levels of the valuation hierarchy. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, we transferred assets of $11 million and $82 million, respectively, out of our Level 3 assets to other levels of the valuation hierarchy. Refer to Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements
for a description of the valuation techniques and inputs used to determine fair values for our financial instruments measured or disclosed at fair value by valuation hierarchy (Levels 1, 2, and 3) as well as a roll-forward of Level 3 financial instruments measured at fair value for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012.
Guaranteed living benefits (GLB) derivatives
Under life reinsurance programs covering living benefit guarantees, we assumed the risk of GLBs associated with variable annuity (VA) contracts.
We ceased writing this business in 2007. Our GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative for accounting purposes and is therefore carried at fair value. We believe that the most meaningful presentation of these derivatives is to reflect cash inflows or revenue as net premiums earned, and to record estimates of the average modeled value of future cash outflows as incurred losses. Accordingly, we recognize benefit reserves consistent with the accounting guidance related to accounting and reporting by insurance enterprises for certain non-traditional long-duration contracts and for separate accounts. Changes in the benefit reserves are reflected as Policy benefits expense, which is included in life underwriting income. The incremental difference between fair value and benefit reserves is reflected in Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other liabilities in the
consolidated balance sheets and related changes in fair value are reflected in Net realized gains (losses) in the consolidated statement of operations. We intend to hold these derivative contracts to maturity (i.e., the expiration of the underlying liabilities through lapse, annuitization, death, or expiration of the reinsurance contract). To partially offset the risk in the VA guarantee reinsurance portfolio, we invest in derivative hedge instruments. At maturity, the cumulative gains and losses will net to zero (excluding cumulative hedge gains or losses) because, over time, the insurance liability will be increased or decreased to equal our obligation. For a sensitivity discussion of the effect of changes in interest rates, equity indices, and other assumptions on the fair value of GLBs,
and the resulting impact on our net income, refer to Item 3.
The fair value of GLB reinsurance is estimated using an internal valuation model, which includes current market information and estimates of policyholder behavior from the perspective of a theoretical market participant that would assume these liabilities. All of our treaties contain claim limits, which are factored into the valuation model. The fair value depends on a number of factors, including interest rates, current account value, market volatility, expected annuitization rates and other policyholder behavior, and changes in policyholder mortality. The model and related assumptions are continuously re-evaluated by management and enhanced, as appropriate, based upon additional experience obtained related to policyholder behavior and availability of more timely market information, such as market conditions and demographics
of in-force annuities. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the assumptions used in the valuation models to determine the fair value of these derivative products, actual experience may differ from the estimates reflected in our consolidated financial statements, and the differences may be material. For further information on the estimates and assumptions used in determining the fair value of GLB reinsurance, refer to Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, no material changes were made to actuarial or behavioral assumptions.
During the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2013, realized gains of $138 million and $608 million, respectively, were associated with a decreased value of GLB liabilities primarily due to rising equity levels and the favorable impact of foreign exchange and interest rate movements partially offset by the impact of discounting future claims for one and three fewer quarters, respectively. This excludes realized losses of $95 million and $413 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively,
on derivative hedge instruments held to partially offset the risk in the VA guarantee reinsurance portfolio. These derivatives do not receive hedge accounting treatment. Refer to the “Net Realized and Unrealized Gains (Losses)” section for a breakdown of the realized gains (losses) on GLB reinsurance and derivatives for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012.
ACE Tempest Life Re employs a strategy to manage the financial market and policyholder behavior risks embedded in the reinsurance of VA guarantees. Risk management begins with underwriting a prospective client and guarantee design, with particular focus on
protecting our position from policyholder options that, because of anti-selective behavior, could adversely impact our obligation.
A second layer of risk management is the structure of the reinsurance contracts. All VA guarantee reinsurance contracts include some form of annual or aggregate claim limit(s). The different categories of claim limits are described below:
Reinsurance
programs covering guaranteed minimum death benefits (GMDB) with an annual claim limit of two percent of account value. This category accounts for approximately 60 percent of the total reinsured GMDB guaranteed value. Approximately two percent of the guaranteed value in this category has additional reinsurance coverage for GLB.
•
Reinsurance programs covering GMDB with claim limit(s) that are a function of the underlying guaranteed value. This category accounts for approximately 25 percent of the total reinsured GMDB guaranteed value. The annual claim limit expressed as a percentage of guaranteed value
ranges from 0.4 percent to 2 percent. Approximately 65 percent of guaranteed value in this category is also subject to annual claim deductibles that range from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of guaranteed value (i.e., our reinsurance coverage would only pay total annual claims in excess of 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the total guaranteed value). Approximately 45 percent of guaranteed value in this category is also subject to an aggregate claim limit which was approximately $383 million as of September 30,
2013. Approximately 75 percent of guaranteed value in this category has additional reinsurance coverage for GLB.
•
Reinsurance programs covering GMDB and guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits (GMAB). This category accounts for approximately 15 percent of the total reinsured GLB guaranteed value and 15 percent of the total reinsured GMDB guaranteed value. These reinsurance programs are quota-share agreements with the quota-share decreasing as the ratio of account value to guaranteed value decreases. The quota-share is 100
percent for ratios between 100 percent and 75 percent, 60 percent for additional losses on ratios between 75 percent and 45 percent, and 30 percent for further losses on ratios below 45 percent. Approximately 35 percent of guaranteed value in this category is also subject to a claim deductible of 8.8 percent of guaranteed value (i.e., our reinsurance coverage would only pay when the ratio of account value to guaranteed value is below 91.2 percent).
•
Reinsurance programs covering GMIB with an annual claim limit.
This category accounts for approximately 55 percent of the total reinsured GLB guaranteed value. The annual claim limit is 10 percent of guaranteed value on over 95 percent of the guaranteed value in this category. Additionally, reinsurance programs in this category have an annual annuitization limit that ranges between 17.5 percent and 30 percent with approximately 45 percent of guaranteed value subject to an annuitization limit of 20 percent or under, and the remaining 55 percent subject to an annuitization limit of 30 percent. Approximately 40 percent of guaranteed value in this category is also
subject to minimum annuity conversion factors that limit the exposure to low interest rates. Approximately 45 percent of guaranteed value in this category has additional reinsurance coverage for GMDB.
•
Reinsurance programs covering GMIB with aggregate claim limit. This category accounts for approximately 30 percent of the total reinsured GLB guaranteed value. The aggregate claim limit for reinsurance programs in this category is approximately $1.9 billion. Additionally, reinsurance programs in this category have an annual annuitization limit of 20
percent and approximately 60 percent of guaranteed value in this category is also subject to minimum annuity conversion factors that limit the exposure to low interest rates. Approximately 40 percent of guaranteed value in this category has additional reinsurance coverage for GMDB.
A third layer of risk management is the hedging strategy which looks to mitigate both long-term economic loss over time as well as dampen income statement volatility. ACE Tempest Life Re owned financial market instruments as part of the hedging strategy with a fair value asset of $17 million and $24 million at September 30, 2013
and December 31, 2012, respectively. The instruments are substantially collateralized by our counterparties, on a daily basis.
We also limit the aggregate amount of variable annuity reinsurance guarantee risk we are willing to assume. The last substantive U.S. transaction was quoted in mid-2007 and the last transaction in Japan was quoted in late 2007. The aggregate number of policyholders is currently decreasing through policyholder withdrawals, annuitizations, and deaths at a rate of 5 percent – 10 percent annually.
Note that GLB claims cannot occur for any reinsured policy until it has reached the end of its “waiting period”. The vast majority of policies we reinsure reach the end of their “waiting periods” in 2013 or later, as shown in the table below.
The following table presents the historical cash flows under these policies for the periods indicated. The amounts represent accrued past premium received and claims paid, split by benefit type.
Three
Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30
September 30
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
2013
2012
2013
2012
Death
Benefits (GMDB)
Premium
$
19
$
21
$
59
$
64
Less
paid claims
11
24
53
76
Net
$
8
$
(3
)
$
6
$
(12
)
Living
Benefits (Includes GMIB and GMAB)
Premium
$
37
$
40
$
113
$
120
Less
paid claims
6
4
19
6
Net
$
31
$
36
$
94
$
114
Total
VA Guaranteed Benefits
Premium
$
56
$
61
$
172
$
184
Less
paid claims
17
28
72
82
Net
$
39
$
33
$
100
$
102
Death
Benefits (GMDB)
For premiums and claims from VA contracts reinsuring GMDBs, at current market levels, we expect approximately $49 million of claims and $70 million of premium on death benefits over the next 12 months.
GLB (includes GMIB and GMAB)
Our GLBs predominantly include premiums and claims from VA contracts reinsuring GMIB and GMAB. Approximately 75 percent of our living benefit reinsurance clients’ policyholders are currently ineligible to trigger a claim payment. The vast majority of these policyholders become
eligible between years 2013 and 2018. At current market levels, we expect approximately $8 million of claims and $138 million of premium on living benefits over the next 12 months.
Collateral
ACE Tempest Life Re holds collateral on behalf of most of its clients in the form of qualified assets in trust or letters of credit, typically in an amount sufficient for the client to obtain statutory reserve credit for the reinsurance. The timing of the calculation and amount of the collateral varies by client according to the particulars of the reinsurance treaty and the statutory reserve guidelines of the client’s domicile.
We actively monitor our catastrophe risk accumulation around the world. The following modeled loss information reflects our in-force portfolio and reinsurance program at July 1, 2013.
The table below presents our modeled annual aggregate pre-tax probable maximum loss (PML), net of reinsurance, for 100-year and 250-year return periods for U.S. hurricanes and California earthquakes at September 30, 2013
and 2012. The table also presents ACE’s corresponding share of pre-tax industry losses for each of the return periods for U.S. hurricanes and California earthquakes at September 30, 2013 and 2012. For example, according to the model, for the 1-in-100 return period scenario, there is a one percent chance that our losses incurred in any year from U.S. hurricanes could be in excess of $1,693 million (or 6.0 percent of our total shareholders’ equity at September 30, 2013). We estimate that at such hypothetical loss levels, ACE’s share of aggregate
industry losses would be approximately one percent.
U.S.
Hurricanes
California Earthquakes
September 30
September 30
September 30
September 30
2013
2012
2013
2012
Modeled
Annual Aggregate Net PML
ACE
% of Total
Shareholders’
Equity
% of
Industry
ACE
ACE
%
of Total
Shareholders’
Equity
% of
Industry
ACE
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
1-in-100
$
1,693
6.0
%
1.0
%
$
1,743
$
771
2.7
%
1.9
%
$
820
1-in-250
$
2,268
8.0
%
1.0
%
$
2,325
$
1,015
3.6
%
1.6
%
$
1,094
The
modeling estimates of both ACE and industry loss levels are inherently uncertain owing to key assumptions. First, while the use of third-party catastrophe modeling packages to simulate potential hurricane and earthquake losses is prevalent within the insurance industry, the models are reliant upon significant meteorology, seismology, and engineering assumptions to estimate hurricane and earthquake losses. In particular, modeled hurricane and earthquake events are not always a representation of actual events and ensuing additional loss potential. Second, there is no universal standard in the preparation of insured data for use in the models and the running of the modeling software. Third, we are reliant upon third-party estimates of industry insured exposures and there is significant variation possible around the relationship between our loss and that of the industry following an event. Fourth, we assume that our reinsurance recoveries following an event are fully collectible.
These loss estimates do not represent our potential maximum exposures and it is highly likely that our actual incurred losses would vary materially from the modeled estimates.
ACE’s core property catastrophe reinsurance program provides protection against natural catastrophes impacting its primary property operations (i.e., excluding our Global Reinsurance and Life segments) and consists of two separate towers.
We regularly review our reinsurance protection and corresponding property
catastrophe exposures. This may or may not lead to the purchase of additional reinsurance prior to a program’s renewal date. In addition, prior to each renewal date, we consider how much, if any, coverage we intend to buy and we may make material changes to the current structure in light of various factors, including modeled PML assessment at various return periods, reinsurance pricing, our risk tolerance and exposures, and various other structuring considerations.
There were no significant changes to ACE's coverage under its North American Core Property Catastrophe Program during the third quarter. However, with respect to our International Property Catastrophe Program, we renewed the layers of reinsurance protection in excess of $150 million on our Core Program for the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30,
2014. We expanded our all perils coverage from $250 million to $350 million (by expanding perils covered in what was historically the $300 million to $450 million layer) and eliminated the $500 million to $550 million layer of coverage. There is an additional $75 million global top layer that continues to sit above the International Property Catastrophe Program and the North American Core Program that expires at January 1st and now attaches at $500 million on our International Program. There were no other significant changes in coverage from the expiring program. Refer to our 2012 Form 10-K for additional information.
We are, and have been since the 1980s, one of the leading writers of crop insurance in the U.S. and have conducted that business through a managing general agent subsidiary of Rain and Hail. We provide protection throughout the U.S. on a variety of crops and are therefore geographically diversified, which reduces the risk of exposure to a single event or a heavy accumulation of losses in any one region. Our crop insurance business comprises two components - Multiple Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) and crop-hail insurance.
The MPCI program is offered in conjunction
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The policies cover revenue shortfalls or production losses due to natural causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost, insects, and disease. Generally, policies have deductibles ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent of the insured's risk. The USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) sets the policy terms and conditions, rates and forms, and is also responsible for setting compliance standards. As a participating company, we report all details of policies underwritten to the RMA and are party to a Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA). The SRA sets out the relationship between private insurance companies and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) concerning the terms and conditions regarding the risks each will bear including the pro-rata and state stop-loss provisions which allows companies to limit the exposure of any one state or group of states on their underwriting results. In addition to the
pro-rata and excess of loss reinsurance protections inherent in the SRA, we also purchase third party proportional and stop-loss reinsurance for our MPCI business to reduce our exposure.
Each year the RMA issues a final SRA for the subsequent reinsurance year. In June 2013, the RMA released the 2014 SRA which establishes the terms and conditions for the 2014 reinsurance year (i.e., July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014) that replaced the 2013 SRA. There were no significant changes in the terms and conditions.
On the MPCI business, we recognize net premiums written as soon as estimable, which is generally when we receive acreage reports from the policyholders on the various crops throughout
the U.S. This allows us to best determine the premium associated with the liability that is being planted. The MPCI program has specific timeframes as to when producers must report acreage to us and in certain cases, the reporting occurs after the close of the respective reinsurance year. Once the net premium written has been recorded, the premium is then earned over the growing season for the crops. A majority of the crops that are covered in the program are typically subject to the SRA in effect at the beginning of the year. Given the major crops covered in the program, we typically see a substantial written and earned premium impact in the second and third quarters.
The pricing of MPCI premium is determined using a number of factors including commodity prices and related volatility. For instance, in most states the pricing for the MPCI Revenue Product for corn includes
a factor that is based on the average price in February of the Chicago Board of Trade December corn futures. To the extent that the corn commodity prices are higher in February than they were in the previous February, and all other factors are the same, the increase in corn prices will increase the corn premium year over year.
Our crop-hail program is a private offering. Premium is earned on the crop-hail program over the coverage period of the policy. Given the very short nature of the growing season, most crop-hail business is typically written in the second and third quarters with the earned premium also more heavily occurring during this time frame. We use industry data to develop our own rates and forms for the coverage offered. The policy primarily protects farmers against yield reduction caused by hail and/or fire, and related costs such as transit to storage. We
offer various deductibles to allow the grower to partially self-insure for a reduced premium cost. We limit our crop-hail exposures through the use of township liability limits and third party proportional and stop-loss reinsurance on our net retained hail business.
We anticipate that positive cash flows from operations (underwriting activities and investment income) should be sufficient to cover cash outflows under most loss scenarios for the near term. In addition to cash from operations, routine sales of investments, and financing arrangements, we have agreements with a third-party bank provider
which implemented two international multi-currency notional cash pooling programs to enhance cash management efficiency during periods of short-term timing mismatches between expected inflows and outflows of cash by currency. The programs allow us to optimize investment income by avoiding portfolio disruption. Should the need arise, we generally have access to capital markets and available credit facilities. At September 30, 2013, our available credit lines totaled $1.9 billion and usage to support issued letters of credit was $1.3 billion. Our access to funds under existing credit facilities is dependent on the ability of the banks that are parties to the facilities to meet their funding commitments. Our existing credit facilities have remaining terms expiring between 2014 and 2017
and require that we maintain certain financial covenants, all of which we met at September 30,
2013. Should any of our existing credit providers experience financial difficulty, we may be required to replace credit sources, possibly in a difficult market. If we cannot obtain adequate capital or sources of credit on favorable terms, on a timely basis, or at all, our business, operating results, and financial condition could be adversely affected. To date, we have not experienced difficulty accessing any of our credit facilities.
Refer to “Credit Facilities” in our 2012 Form 10-K for additional information.
The payment of dividends or other statutorily permissible distributions from our operating companies are subject to the laws and regulations applicable to each jurisdiction as well as the need to maintain capital levels adequate to support the insurance and reinsurance operations, including financial strength ratings issued by independent rating agencies. During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, we were able to meet all of our obligations, including the payments of dividends on our Common Shares, with our net cash flows.
We
assess which subsidiaries to draw dividends from based on a number of factors. Considerations such as regulatory and legal restrictions as well as the subsidiary’s financial condition are paramount to the dividend decision. ACE Limited did not receive any dividends from its Bermuda subsidiaries during the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012.
The payment of any dividends from AGM or its subsidiaries
is subject to applicable U.K. insurance laws and regulations. In addition, the release of funds by Syndicate 2488 to subsidiaries of AGM is subject to regulations promulgated by the Society of Lloyd’s. The U.S. insurance subsidiaries of ACE INA may pay dividends, without prior regulatory approval, subject to restrictions set out in state law of the subsidiary’s domicile (or, if applicable, commercial domicile). ACE INA’s international subsidiaries are also subject to insurance laws and regulations particular to the countries in which the subsidiaries operate. These laws and regulations sometimes include restrictions
that limit the amount of dividends payable without prior approval of regulatory insurance authorities. ACE Limited did not receive any dividends from AGM or ACE INA during the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012. Debt issued by ACE INA is serviced by statutorily permissible distributions by ACE INA’s insurance subsidiaries to ACE INA as well as other group resources.
Cash Flows
Sources of liquidity include cash from operations, routine sales of investments, and financing arrangements. The following
is a discussion of our cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012.
Our consolidated net cash flows from operating activities were $2.7 billion in the nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $3.0 billion in the prior year period. The decrease in operating cash flows was primarily due to $539 million of higher premiums remitted to the federal government under the MPCI program
in 2013 relative to the prior year period. Prior year remittances were primarily paid in the fourth quarter 2012. The decrease was partially offset by lower income taxes paid of $173 million.
Our consolidated net cash flows used for investing activities were $3.1 billion in the nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $2.7 billion in the prior year period. The increase in cash flows used for investing activities was primarily due to the acquisitions of ABA Seguros and Fianzas Monterrey in the second quarter 2013.
Our consolidated net cash
flows from financing activities were $552 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with net cash flows used for financing activities of $271 million in the prior year period. Financing cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 included $947 million of proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt. Refer to Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the long-term debt issuance. The prior year period financing cash flows included $151 million of proceeds from the issuance of short-term
debt, net of repayments. Share repurchases and dividends paid on Common Shares were $233 million and $343 million, respectively, in the nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared with $11 million and $484 million, respectively, in the nine months ended September 30, 2012. Dividends paid on Common Shares decreased due to the accelerated payment of the fourth quarter 2012 dividend in December 2012, which would normally have been paid during the first quarter 2013.
Both internal and external forces
influence our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Claim settlements, premium levels, and investment returns may be impacted by changing rates of inflation and other economic conditions. In many cases, significant periods of time, ranging up to several years or more, may lapse between the occurrence of an insured loss, the reporting of the loss to us, and the settlement of the liability for that loss.
In the current low interest rate environment, we utilize repurchase agreements as a low-cost alternative for short-term funding needs and to address short-term cash timing differences without disrupting our investment portfolio holdings. At September 30, 2013, there were $1.4 billion in repurchase agreements outstanding.
Capital resources consist of funds deployed or available to be deployed to support our business operations. The following table summarizes the components of our capital resources:
September
30
December 31
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2013
2012
Short-term debt
$
1,902
$
1,401
Long-term
debt
3,807
3,360
Total debt
5,709
4,761
Trust preferred securities
309
309
Total
shareholders’ equity
28,218
27,531
Total capitalization
$
34,236
$
32,601
Ratio
of debt to total capitalization
16.7
%
14.6
%
Ratio of debt plus trust preferred securities to total capitalization
17.6
%
15.6
%
In
June 2013, we reclassified $500 million of 5.875 percent senior notes, due to mature on June 15, 2014, from Long-term debt to Short-term debt in the consolidated balance sheet.
Our ratios of debt to total capitalization and debt plus trust preferred securities to total capitalization increased primarily due to the issuance of $475 million of 2.7 percent senior notes due March 2023 and $475 million of 4.15 percent senior notes due March 2043 during the nine months ended September 30,
2013. The proceeds from the debt issuance are expected to be used to repay at maturity the $500 million 5.875 percent senior notes due June 2014 and the $450 million 5.6 percent senior notes due May 2015.
The following table reports the significant movements in our shareholders’ equity:
Change in net unrealized depreciation on investments, net of tax
(1,314
)
Dividends
on Common Shares
(518
)
Change in net cumulative translation, net of tax
(210
)
Repurchase of shares
(233
)
Share-based compensation expense
138
Exercise
of stock options
65
Other movements, net of tax
(1
)
Balance – end of period
$
28,218
During the nine months ended September 30,
2013, we repurchased $233 million of Common Shares in a series of open market transactions under the November 2012, August 2011 and November 2010 Board of Directors authorizations, primarily to offset dilution from our incentive compensation plans. At September 30, 2013, $228 million in share repurchase authorizations remained through December 31, 2013. At September 30, 2013 there were 2,762,440 Common Shares in treasury with a weighted average cost of $80.27 per share.
We
generally maintain the ability to issue certain classes of debt and equity securities via an unlimited Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shelf registration which is renewed every three years. This allows us capital market access for refinancing as well as for unforeseen or opportunistic capital needs. Our current shelf registration on file with the SEC expires in December 2014.
We have paid dividends each quarter since we became a public company in 1993. Under Swiss law, dividends must
be stated in Swiss francs though dividend payments are made by ACE in U.S. dollars. Following ACE’s redomestication to Switzerland in July 2008 through March 2011, dividends were distributed by way of a par value reduction. At our May 2011 annual general meeting, our shareholders approved dividend distributions from capital contribution reserves (Additional paid-in capital) through the transfer of dividends from Additional paid-in capital to Retained earnings. At our May 2012 annual general meeting, our shareholders approved an annual dividend distribution for the following year by way of a par value reduction equal to $1.96 per share, or CHF 1.80 per share, calculated using the USD/CHF exchange rate as published in the Wall Street Journal on May 10, 2012. At our May 2013 annual general meeting, our shareholders approved an annual dividend distribution for the following year by way of a par value reduction equal to $2.04
per share, or CHF 1.92 per share, calculated using the USD/CHF exchange rate as published in the Wall Street Journal on May 10, 2013.
The annual dividend approved in May 2013 is payable in four quarterly installments, with each installment equaling $0.51 per share, provided that the Swiss franc equivalent of that amount per share (based on the then-current USD/CHF exchange rate), taken together with the Swiss franc equivalents of all other installments of this annual dividend, will not exceed 150 percent of CHF 1.92 (the aggregate distribution cap). If the Swiss franc equivalent of an upcoming dividend installment would cause the aggregate distribution cap to be exceeded, then that dividend
installment will be reduced to equal the Swiss franc amount remaining available under the aggregate distribution cap, and the U.S. dollar amount distributed for that installment will be the then-applicable U.S. dollar equivalent of the remaining Swiss franc amount.
The following table represents dividends paid per Common Share to shareholders of record on each of the following dates:
ITEM 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
Refer to Item 7A included in our 2012 Form 10-K.
Reinsurance of GMDB and GLB guarantees
Our net income is directly impacted by changes in the benefit reserves calculated in connection with the reinsurance of variable annuity guarantees, primarily GMDB and GLB. The benefit reserves are calculated in accordance
with the guidance related to accounting and reporting by insurance enterprises for certain non-traditional long-duration contracts and for separate accounts. Changes in the benefit reserves are reflected as policy benefits expense, which is included in life underwriting income. In addition, our net income is directly impacted by the change in the fair value of the GLB liability (FVL), which is classified as a derivative for accounting purposes. The FVL established for a GLB reinsurance contract represents the difference between the fair value of the contract and the benefit reserves. Changes in the FVL, net of associated changes in the calculated benefit reserves, are reflected as realized gains or
losses.
ACE views its variable annuity reinsurance business as having a similar risk profile to that of catastrophe reinsurance with the probability of long-term economic loss relatively small, at the time of pricing. Adverse changes in market factors and policyholder behavior will have an impact on both life underwriting income and net income. When evaluating these risks, we expect to be compensated for taking both the risk of a cumulative long-term economic net loss, as well as the short-term accounting variations caused by these market movements. Therefore, we evaluate this business in terms of its long-term economic risk and reward.
At September 30, 2013, management established benefit
reserves based on the benefit ratio calculated using assumptions reflecting management’s best estimate of the future performance of the variable annuity line of business. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent to which short-term market movements impact the benefit reserves. The benefit reserves are based on the calculation of a long-term benefit ratio (or loss ratio) for the variable annuity guarantee reinsurance. Despite the long-term nature of the risk, the benefit ratio calculation is impacted by short-term market movements that may be judged by management to be temporary or transient. Management’s best estimate reflected a judgment that the equity markets will exhibit growth somewhat lower than historical average levels. Management regularly examines both quantitative and qualitative analysis and for the quarter ended September 30, 2013, determined that
no change to the benefit ratio was warranted. The
benefit ratio used to establish the benefit reserves at September 30, 2013, has averaged less than 1/4 standard deviation from the calculated benefit ratios, averaging the periodic results from a 2-year rolling period ending September 30, 2013.
The
guidance requires us to “regularly evaluate estimates used and adjust the liability balance... if actual experience or other evidence suggests that earlier assumptions should be revised.” ACE evaluates its estimates regularly and management uses judgment to determine the extent to which the assumptions underlying the benefit ratio calculation used to establish benefit reserves should be adjusted. The benefit ratio will be calculated based on management’s expectation for the short-term and long-term performance of the variable annuity guarantee liability. Management’s quantitative analysis includes a review of the differential between the benefit ratio used at the most recent valuation date and the benefit ratio calculated on subsequent dates. The differential is measured in terms of the standard deviation of the distribution of benefit ratios (reflecting 1,000 stochastic scenarios) calculated on subsequent dates.
The
benefit reserves and FVL calculations are directly affected by market factors, including equity levels, interest rate levels, credit risk, and implied volatilities, as well as policyholder behaviors, such as annuitization and lapse rates. The tables below assume no changes to the benefit ratio used to establish the benefit reserves at September 30, 2013 and show the sensitivity, at September 30, 2013, of the FVL associated with the variable annuity guarantee reinsurance portfolio. In addition, the tables below present the sensitivity of the fair value of specific derivative instruments held (hedge value) to partially offset the risk in the variable annuity guarantee reinsurance portfolio. The tables below are estimates of the sensitivities to instantaneous changes in economic
inputs or actuarial assumptions.
The tables below do not reflect the expected quarterly run rate of net income generated by the variable annuity guarantee reinsurance portfolio if markets remain unchanged during the period. All else equal, if markets remain unchanged during the period, the Gross FVL will increase, resulting in a realized loss. The realized loss occurs primarily because, during the period, we will collect premium while paying little or no claims on our GLB reinsurance (since most policies are not eligible to annuitize until after September 30, 2013). This increases the Gross FVL because future premiums are lower by the amount collected in the quarter, and also because future claims are discounted for a shorter period. We refer to this increase in Gross FVL as “timing
effect”. The unfavorable impact of timing effect on our Gross FVL in a quarter is not reflected in the sensitivity tables below. For this reason, when using the tables below to estimate the sensitivity of Gross FVL in the fourth quarter to various changes, it is necessary to assume an additional $25 million to $55 million increase in Gross FVL and realized losses. However, the impact to Net income is substantially mitigated because the majority of this realized loss is offset by the positive quarterly run rate of life underwriting income generated by the variable annuity guarantee reinsurance portfolio if markets remain unchanged during the period. Note that both the timing effect and the quarterly run rate of life underwriting income change over time as the book ages.
The
above tables assume equity shocks impact all global equity markets equally and that the interest rate shock is a parallel shift in the U.S. yield curve. Our liabilities are sensitive to global equity markets in the following proportions: 70 percent—80 percent U.S. equity, 10 percent—20 percent international equity ex-Japan, 5 percent—15 percent Japan equity. Our current hedge portfolio is sensitive to global equity markets in the following proportions: 100 percent U.S. equity. We would suggest using the S&P 500 index as a proxy for U.S. equity, the MSCI EAFE index as a proxy for international equity, and the TOPIX as a proxy for Japan equity.
Our
liabilities are also sensitive to global interest rates at various points on the yield curve, mainly the U.S. Treasury curve in the following proportions: 5 percent—15 percent short-term rates (maturing in less than 5 years), 20 percent—30 percent medium-term rates (maturing between 5 years and 10 years, inclusive), and 60 percent—70 percent long-term rates (maturing beyond 10 years). A change in AA-rated credit spreads (AA-rated credit spreads are a proxy for both our own credit spreads and
the credit spreads of the ceding insurers) impacts the rate used to discount cash flows in the fair value model. The hedge sensitivity is from September 30, 2013 market levels.
The above sensitivities are not directly additive because changes in one factor will affect the sensitivity to changes in other factors. Also, the sensitivities do not scale linearly and may be proportionally greater for larger movements in the market factors. Sensitivities may also vary due to foreign exchange rate fluctuations. The calculation of the FVL is based on internal models that include assumptions regarding future policyholder behavior, including lapse, annuitization, and asset allocation.
These assumptions impact both the absolute level of the FVL as well as the sensitivities to changes in market factors shown above. Additionally, actual sensitivity of our net income may differ from those disclosed in the tables above due to differences between short-term market movements and management judgment regarding the long-term assumptions implicit in our benefit ratios. Furthermore, the sensitivities above could vary by multiples of the sensitivities in the tables above.
Variable Annuity Net Amount at Risk
The tables below present the net amount at risk at September 30, 2013 following an immediate change in equity market levels, assuming all global equity markets are impacted equally. For further information on the net amount at
risk, refer to Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements.
a) Reinsurance covering the GMDB risk only
Equity
Shock
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except percentages)
+20%
Flat
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
GMDB
net amount at risk
$
502
$
751
$
1,292
$
1,892
$
1,911
$
1,628
Claims
at 100% immediate mortality
790
618
361
296
265
239
The
treaty claim limits function as a ceiling on the net amount at risk as equity markets fall. In addition, the claims payable if all of the policyholders were to die immediately declines as equity markets fall due to the specific nature of these claim limits, many of which are annual claim limits calculated as a percentage of the reinsured account value. There is also some impact due to a small portion of the GMDB reinsurance under which claims are positively correlated to equity markets (claims decrease as equity markets fall).
b) Reinsurance covering the GLB risk only
Equity
Shock
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except percentages)
+20%
Flat
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
GLB
net amount at risk
$
67
$
220
$
800
$
1,701
$
2,491
$
2,749
The
treaty claim limits cause the net amount at risk to increase at a declining rate as equity markets fall.
c) Reinsurance covering both the GMDB and GLB risks on the same underlying policyholders
Equity
Shock
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except percentages)
+20%
Flat
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
GMDB
net amount at risk
$
55
$
85
$
125
$
165
$
200
$
232
GLB
net amount at risk
78
241
694
1,336
1,959
2,388
Claims
at 100% immediate mortality
37
199
552
792
1,006
1,186
The
treaty limits control the increase in the GMDB net amount at risk as equity markets fall. The GMDB net amount at risk continues to grow as equity markets fall because most of these reinsurance treaties do not have annual claim limits calculated as a percentage of the underlying account value.
The treaty limits cause the GLB net amount at risk to increase at a declining rate as equity markets fall.
ACE’s management, with the participation of ACE’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of ACE’s disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as of September 30, 2013. Based upon that evaluation, ACE’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that ACE’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective in allowing information required to be disclosed in reports filed under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to be recorded, processed, summarized and reported within time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to ACE’s management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate
to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
There has been no change in ACE’s internal controls over financial reporting during the three months ended September 30, 2013 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, ACE’s internal controls over financial reporting.
PART II OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. Legal Proceedings
The information required with respect to this
item is included in Note 7 d) to the Consolidated Financial Statements which is hereby incorporated by reference.
ITEM 1A. Risk Factors
Refer to “Risk Factors” under Item 1A of Part I of our 2012 Form 10-K. There have been no material changes to the risk factors disclosed in Item 1A of Part I of our 2012 Form 10-K.
ITEM 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds and Issuer
Repurchases of Equity Securities
Issuer’s Repurchases of Equity Securities
The following table provides information with respect to purchases by ACE of its Common Shares during the three months ended September 30, 2013:
Period
Total
Number
of
Shares
Purchased(1)
Average Price Paid per Share
Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plan(2)
Approximate Dollar
Value of Shares that
May
Yet be
Purchased Under the Plan(3)
July 1 through July 31
2,347
$
89.41
—
$
249
million
August
1 through August 31
188,734
$
89.64
188,544
$
232
million
September
1 through September 30
51,067
$
87.93
50,000
$
228
million
Total
242,148
238,544
(1)
This column primarily represents open market share repurchases. Other activity during the three months ended September 30, 2013 is related to the surrender to ACE of Common Shares to satisfy tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of restricted stock issued to employees and the exercising of options by employees.
(2) The aggregate value of shares purchased in the three months ended September 30, 2013 as part of the publicly announced plan was $21 million.
(3) Refer to Note 8 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements for more information on the ACE Limited securities repurchase authorization. The $228 million of remaining authorizations as of September 30, 2013 expire on December 31, 2013.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
First
Supplemental Indenture dated as of March 13, 2013 to the Indenture dated as of August 1, 1999 among ACE INA Holdings, Inc., as Issuer, ACE Limited, as Guarantor, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Successor Trustee
The following financial information from ACE Limited’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2013 formatted in XBRL: (i) Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2013, and December 31, 2012; (ii)
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012; (iii) Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012; (iv) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012; and (v) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
