Introduction to Credit Risk Exposure of Life Insurers

Link: https://www.soa.org/sections/joint-risk-mgmt/joint-risk-mgmt-newsletter/2022/september/rm-2022-09-fritz/

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Under the old regime, the impairment was the incurred credit losses, in determining which only past events and current conditions are used. Credit losses were booked after a credit event had taken place, thus the name “incurred.” ECL and CECL require the incorporation of forward-looking information in addition to the past/current info in the calculation of impairment. There will be an allowance for credit losses since initial recognition regardless of the creditworthiness of the investment asset. The allowance can be perceived as the reserve or capital for credit risks. In practice, the allowance could be zero if there are no expected default losses for the instrument, US Treasury bonds, US Agency MBS, just to name a few.

ECL under IFRS 9 is typically calculated as a probability weighted estimate of the present value of cash shortfalls over the expected life of the financial instrument. It Is an unbiased best estimate with all cash shortfalls taking into consideration the collaterals or other credit enhancement. Four typical parameters underlying its calculation are: Probability of default (PD), loss given default (LGD, i.e., 1-Recovery Rate), exposure at default (EAD) and discounting factor (DF). Prepayments, usage given default (UGD) and other parameters can also play a role in the calculations. In the general approach the loss allowance for a financial instrument is 12-month ECL regardless of credit risk at the reporting date, unless there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition: The PD is only considered for the next 12 months while the cash shortfalls are predicted over the full lifetime; as the creditworthiness deteriorates significantly, the loss allowance is increased to full lifetime ECL in Stage 2, which should always precede stage 3 (credit impairment). Even without change of stages, any credit condition changes should be flowing into the credit loss allowance via updates in some of the underlying parameters. Exhibit 1 has an illustrative comparison between ECL, CECL, and incurred loss model.

CECL is similar to ECL except FASBs doesn’t have so-called staging as IFRS 9, which requires that only 12-month ECL is calculated in stage 1 (in the general model). In other words, CECL requires a full lifetime ECL from Day 1. There are also other differences: IFRS 9 requires certain consideration of time value of money, multiple scenarios, etc., in measurement of ECL while US GAAP CECL doesn’t.

Under US GAAP, different from CECL, currently the impairment for AFS assets, while also recorded as an allowance (with a couple exceptions), is only needed for those whose fair value is less than the amortized cost. Once it is triggered, the credit losses are then measured as the excess of the amortized cost basis over the probability weighted estimate of the present value of cash flows expected to be collected. Only the fair value change related to credit is considered in the calculation of AFS impairment. The quantitative calculation behind the probability weighted best estimate is like CECL/ECL. Both can use discounted cash flow methods with parameters such as PD although one is calculating expected cash shortfalls directly in CECL and the other is calculating the expected collectible cash payments and then is used to back out the impairment.

Author(s): Jing Fritz

Publication Date: September 2022

Publication Site: Risk Management newsletter, SOA

What’s New in Financial Reporting

Link: https://cfany.gallery.video/fullconference/detail/videos/most-recent/video/6299420346001/what%E2%80%99s-new-in-financial-reporting?autoStart=true

Graphic:

Description:

Program will bring you up to date with most recent and coming important financial reporting developments for 2022 from FASB. Speakers include two FASB Board members and SEC’s Senior Associate Chief Accountant.

Author(s): multiple presenters

Publication Date: 1 Mar 2022 originally presented, recording accessed 16 Mar 2022

Publication Site: CFA Society of New York

Elizabeth Warren’s War on Accounting

Link:https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-accounting-standards-corporate-minimum-tax-fasb-reconciliation-taxation-11636921275

Excerpt:

The Democrats’ proposed 15% levy on the world-wide financial-accounting earnings of large, highly profitable companies may sound familiar. It was originally proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren during her bid for president. Democrats are pushing this tax again now, hoping it will encourage passage of a $1.85 billion reconciliation bill to fund President Biden’s Build Back Better plan.

Any plan to tax financial-accounting earnings is ill-conceived, as I argued on these pages in May 2019. Blurring the lines between taxable income and financial-accounting profit would inevitably lead to political meddling in financial-accounting rules and damage the usefulness of financial accounting for investors.

…..

Politicians and the FASB have vastly different objectives. Financial-accounting rules are created by the apolitical FASB to provide information useful to investors. In contrast, tax-accounting rules are largely determined by Congress to achieve such objectives as raising revenue, encouraging or discouraging certain behavior, and redistributing wealth. Two accounting systems are necessary, one for pursuing social objectives through the tax system, the other for giving investors comparable, reliable and timely information. The U.S. is not unique in this regard. Every developed country has a tax-accounting system that is separate from its financial-accounting system.

Because the objectives of the two systems are different, the income they compute is different. 

…..

If Congress wants to raise more revenue and prevent companies from reporting low tax rates, it should change the tax code. 

Author(s): Scott Dyreng

Publication Date: 14 Nov 2021

Publication Site: Wall Street Journal

Comment letter by TIA Board Member John Kayser on recent GASB Exposure Drafts

Link: https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/comment-letter-by-tia-board-member-john-kayser-on-recent-gasb-exposure-drafts

Excerpt:

Several months ago, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued two new Exposure Drafts for proposals that would lead to a new government accounting concept statement and related standard. GASB invited comment on those proposals, a process in which Truth in Accounting participated directly and also encouraged others to participate.

…..

… The following information is on the State of Illinois, the city of Chicago and the Chicago Public School (“CPS”) system … The severe financial decline in those three entities have not been at all adequately communicated to the various users of the information. The accounting standards and reporting have not required it. Those governmental units are financially unsustainable and their services to their citizens have not been sustained. The financial accounting standards have been fundamentally flawed for decades and border on gross negligence.

… The GASB must have a higher level of accounting standards. There are no independent third parties overseeing their government accountings standards like there is with FASB and nongovernmental entities. The financial and service sustainability of State and local entities are in question. The services they provide are of the utmost importance to the public and their citizenry. … Requiring fund balance accounting using total financial resources focus measurement and accrual basis of accounting is the tool necessary for the political system and the public to successfully address these issues.

Author(s): Bill Bergman, John Kayser

Publication Date: 22 March 2021

Publication Site: Truth in Accounting