Every year, millions of Americans send their hard-earned money to life insurance companies, in return for a promise that it would grow and provide them with regular income in old age. These fixed annuities make up a large part of the nation’s retirement savings — at last count, more than US$3 trillion.
They could also become a nexus of the next financial crisis, if regulators do not act to mitigate mounting risks.
The annuity business should be simple and boring. Invest in high-quality assets that mature when the time comes to pay policy holders; take a small cut of the returns for your efforts. Thanks to penalties for early withdrawal, insurers should not have to worry about customers suddenly demanding their money back, as sometimes happens to banks. As long as the company’s owners provide enough equity to cover the occasional bad investment, everyone should be fine.
In recent years, however, insurers have made things more complicated. In pursuit of cheaper funding, they have turned to shorter-term borrowing — via wholesale credit markets and Federal Home Loan Banks. They have juiced returns in part by investing in collateralized loan obligations (CLO), which contain loans to highly indebted businesses. They have channeled billions of dollars through affiliated reinsurers in Bermuda, where tax and other rules are less burdensome.
The transformation has coincided with a big shift in the industry’s ownership. Private investment firms have taken stakes in companies accounting for more than 10 percent of all US life and annuity assets. In some cases they might be adding value, by identifying higher-yielding yet hard-to-sell assets — such as corporate vehicle fleets — that serve annuity holders’ interests. Yet research suggests they are boosting returns primarily by increasing risks and by circumventing taxes and capital requirements. Much of the industry — comprising about US$2 trillion in annuity liabilities, including transferred corporate pension plans — has adopted similar strategies.
In effect, life insurers have become more like banks, but without their backstops and safeguards. Their funding has become less secure: Annuity holders could more easily afford withdrawal penalties when other investments are paying higher returns than before. Their assets are also vulnerable to rising corporate bankruptcies. Although CLOs have historically performed well, certain tranches carry a greater risk of total loss than a diversified portfolio of corporate bonds. All this increases the chances that an economic downturn or distress at one insurer could trigger a rush to the exits.
This worst-case scenario is not theoretical. Early annuity surrenders recently contributed to the failure of Italian insurer Eurovita. In 2008, wholesale creditors pulled funding from insurers such as AIG and The Hartford. Annuity providers with bank-like activities pay higher yields on short-term debt, suggesting markets view them as riskier. Overall, life insurers were holding about US$115 billion in non-AAA-rated CLO tranches at the end of last year. That is significant, set against their loss-absorbing capital of less than US$500 billion — which represents a smaller share of assets than just before the 2008 financial crisis.
Authorities are aware. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has developed stress tests of US insurers’ liquidity and CLO holdings, and is working on stricter capital standards. Yet it is only a coordinating body for the patchwork of state regulators actually responsible for supervision, which in turn have little insight into insurers’ wider operations. The US is lagging behind international efforts to develop more comprehensive and comparable measures of capital adequacy.
The Financial Stability Oversight Council needs to reassert the power granted under the Dodd-Frank Act to subject systemically important insurance groups to Federal Reserve oversight. The Fed should apply prudent capital and liquidity requirements to reduce the risk of runs. Regulators should also insist that all covered insurers disclose the data required to assess their financial condition.
Some of the innovations in the annuity business might benefit consumers, making saving for retirement cheaper and more accessible — but this must not come with an unacceptable risk of disaster or of yet another taxpayer bailout. “Shadow banking” was deeply implicated in the last big financial crisis. Regulators need to heed that lesson.
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS