We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Life Insurance Customers Push Back Over Surprise Cost Increases

    September 1, 2016 by Leslie Scism

    Americans are starting to fight back against a wave of insurance-price increases on decades-old life policies.

    Over the past year, several major insurers have notified tens of thousands of people of higher costs to keep their policies in force, with increases ranging from midsingle-digit percentages to more than 200%, according to financial advisers. To justify the increases, they blamed the impact on their investments from the Federal Reserve’s decision to keep interest rates lower for longer.

    At least a half-dozen lawsuits have been filed in federal courts against insurers including Aegon NV’s Transamerica unit and Legal & General Group PLC’s Banner Life.

    In many of the suits, which seek class-action status and damages, the plaintiffs contend insurance firms are hiding behind little-used contract provisions to rummage up cash for shareholder dividends. They also argue that increased lifespans have offset the negative impact on profits of lower bond yields.

    The insurers counter that these cost increases are permitted under provisions that allow them to charge up to a maximum amount, based on expectations of future policy performance. The insurers claim those expectations have plummeted with the Fed keeping short-term interest rates at near zero for nearly eight consecutive years.
    Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen signaled last week that the central bank could possibly start to raise rates this month, but many analysts don’t see rates increasing meaningfully enough soon to change the situation for insurers.

    “Companies are under a lot of pressure to boost returns in this low-interest-rate environment, and this is one lever they have,” said Scott Robinson, an associate managing director at Moody’s Investors Service. “Companies have to weigh the right they may have versus what impact it might have on their reputation in the marketplace with the various parties.”

    Among upset policyholders is Raymond Foos, an 87-year-old retired manufacturing chief executive who purchased an $11 million policy in 2003 to benefit his children. This spring, Transamerica informed him of an increase that he said will cost him nearly $300,000 a year, on top of the $2.25 million he paid as a lump sum to buy the policy and which he thought would cover costs through his and his wife’s death.
    Mr. Foos, who said he is exploring legal action, regrets not asking enough questions about risks when he bought the policy.

    He said Transamerica should “bite the bullet.” Drawing from his years of running a business, he said, “when you have a sale that you lose money on, you don’t go to the customer and say, ‘Give me some more money.’ You generally figure out how to live with your problem and go on….You tighten your belt.”

    Speaking generally, a Transamerica spokesman said the insurer’s increases leave costs “at or below the maximum rates allowable” by contract.

    Life insurers have been among the companies hardest hit by the Fed’s policies, which have been mirrored by many central banks around the world. These firms earn much of their profit by investing customers’ premiums in bonds until claims come due. Shares of big U.S. life insurers have dropped 5.4% since the start of 2008 through Wednesday, according to the S&P Composite 1500 Life & Health Insurance Index, compared with a 48% gain for the S&P 500.

    At issue are “universal life” policies. In short, the policies combine a death benefit with a tax-advantaged savings account that has a minimum interest rate. Such policies accounted for more than a quarter of all individual life-insurance sales in some years past. Millions of Americans own them.

    Insurers’ problem is that many older policies guarantee annual interest rates of 4% to 5%. In the mid-1980s, when universal life policies surged in popularity, the average investment portfolio yield for life insurers was nearly 10%, according to ratings firm A.M. Best Co.

    Today, that yield is just under 5%, thanks to a general decline in rates over the decades, followed by the more recent sharp leg down.

    In selling universal life, insurers typically aim to earn 1 to 2 percentage points more on the premiums they invest than they pay out in interest to policyholders, said Deloitte Consulting LLP principal Matthew Clark. Most insurers aren’t earning this spread today, and “with continued low rates some could face a situation where they are paying out more to policyholders than their investments earn,” he said.

    The lawsuits argue the policies are profitable enough even with shrunken investment yields. They also contend the insurance industry is raising rates to force consumers to cancel policies, thus reducing insurers’ future payouts.

    Of the triple-digit-percentage increases, W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, a lawyer suing Banner, said “there is no way they could have missed the mark that bad.”

    In court filings, Banner asserts that plaintiffs’ lawyers are using “entirely unrelated legal controversies…to muddy the waters in a relatively straightforward case.”

    Also at issue in the lawsuits is “mortality” experience. In setting initial policy charges, actuaries make assumptions about the life expectancy of people who will buy the policies. The lawsuits maintain that the insurers have profited from rising life expectancies across the U.S. population, and that is among reasons they said cost increases shouldn’t be allowed.

    In general, if an insurer ends up with customers who live longer than its actuaries anticipated, it can earn bigger profits because it collects more years of premium than anticipated before having to pay death benefits.

    Between the investment shortfalls and better-than-expected life expectancies, “the policies are still profitable” on an industrywide basis, said McKinsey & Co. senior partner Giambattista Taglioni. But experience varies across companies. “Some blocks of business are already underwater, and some others have reduced profitability but are still profitable.”

    At least two cost-increase cases involving universal life were settled out of court in recent years, said James S. Bainbridge, an attorney who follows litigation for the Association for Advanced Life Underwriting, a lobbying group for insurance professionals.

    Write to Leslie Scism at leslie.scism@wsj.com

    Originally Posted at The Wall Street Journal on September 1, 2016 by Leslie Scism.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency