home

TARP To Be Extended To Life Insurance Companies

Via John Cole, it turns out life insurance companies are also a lynchpin to the financial system:

The Treasury Department has decided to extend bailout funds to a number of struggling life-insurance companies, helping an industry that is a linchpin of the U.S. financial system, people familiar with the matter said.

Remember the saving the "non-banks" issue? It is front and center here:

Only insurers that own federally chartered banks will qualify for the program. Treasury had said last year that life insurers could be eligible for TARP funds if they owned bank-holding companies, but it hadn't officially decided to give funds to these companies as it focused much of its energies on banks and auto makers.

The life-insurance companies will have access to Treasury's Capital Purchase Program, which injects funds into banks. How much money would now be available to the insurers, and which particular insurers would be beneficiaries, remains unclear. The Treasury says it has about $130 billion remaining in TARP money.

A number of life insurers, including Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Genworth Financial Inc. and Lincoln National Corp., struck deals last fall to buy regulated savings and loans so they could call themselves banks and qualify for government funds. Hartford and Lincoln have applied for TARP funds. Genworth said it has applied with the Office of Thrift Supervision to approve its thrift purchase as a step toward gaining access to the federal funds.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think if I owned a business and had the capital available, I would try and buy a small bank to get in on the giveaway.

Speaking for me only

< Powerline Perspective On MN-Sen: Franken Won | TPM Cafe: STFU You Obama Hating Fifth Column! >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't fault every (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:31:24 AM EST
    government and business for trying to get something out of the stimulus package, but grasping for TARP funds gets on my nerves.

    Note that insurance companies (none / 0) (#2)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:40:39 AM EST
    are also major lenders and purchasers of securities. They invest insurance premiums until funds are needed to pay on policies. Historically, insurance companies have been major lenders in real estate. I assume that insurance companies also have some of the toxic assets.

    If insurance companies have toxic assets, and these are a drag on the companies, it would make some sense for them to be able to participate in TARP.

    Insurance companies can not be lenders (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:41:37 AM EST
    as a matter of law.

    They "invest," they do not lend.

    Parent

    Can You Direct Me To... (none / 0) (#5)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    the legal authority for that proposition?  

    Parent
    Do you require such direction? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    Really? Answer my question and I will gladly help you.

    Do you REALLY not know  that an insurance company can not be in the lending business?

    Parent

    Must Be A Trick Question. n/t (none / 0) (#7)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    Straight forward one (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    Are you aware that the insurance business is regulated?

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#10)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:20:26 AM EST
    but I am also aware that major Insurance Companies like The Prudential Insurance Company of New Jersey are lenders.  Insurance companies have been major players in commercial real estate lending at the capital markets level.  It's been a while (4 years) since I've been involved in any of those transactions.  So maybe something has changed in the last four years.  

    The repeal of Glass-Steagall was motivated in large part because the insurance companies were taking market share in lending from the banks and mutual funds were taking market share in deposits.  They wanted to diversify their income sources The insurance companies were not happy about the repeal of Glass-Steagall.  

    Now maybe there are state regulations and large insurance companies get around restrictions by holding company-subsidiary mechanisms.

    Parent

    That is simply not true (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:22:47 AM EST
    They have INVESTED in commercial real estate. they have not been lenders.

    Parent
    So the $61 Billion called Loans on Met Life's (none / 0) (#19)
    by steviez314 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    balance sheet are ...?

    Parent
    On the holding company's balance sheet? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    Because if it is on the insurance companies balance sheet, they are in violation of the law?

    Parent
    Life insurance balance sheets hold almost (none / 0) (#41)
    by steviez314 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:32:45 AM EST
    no assets besides the investments in the insurance subsidiaries.

    My understanding of insurance regulation is that the regulators:  set policy guidelines; require a risk-adjusted reserve the insurance company must have against liabilities to be held; may set maximum dividends paid by the insurance sub to the parent; and may set limits on amounts of investments by category.

    Mortgage, construction and even mezzanine loans are done by insurance companies.  And of course, policy loans too.

    Parent

    Not through the insurance company they do not (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    I am sorry but this is simply inaccurate.

    The solvency and regulatory requirements and allowances for insurance companies and their reserves are simply different than for lending institutions.

    Again, an insurance company may be owned by an entity that does lending, owns another entity that does lending, etc., but the entity that sells insurance is walled off from that.

    When an company that owns an insurance company collects, let's say dividends, from the insurance company it owns, it is not restricted by insurance company regulations from doing anything it wants with that money.

    But the insurance company IS restricted.

    Glass Steagall did not repeal insurance regulation.

    Parent

    The repeal of Glass Steagall (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    I mean.

    Parent
    After the seder I'm going to try and find some (none / 0) (#52)
    by steviez314 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    un-consolidated balance sheets since I'm curious about this.

    I did do a quick search of the NYS insurance regulator website and didn't find anything about investment restrictions though.

    Parent

    Look for "loan restrictions" (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:54:37 AM EST
    Lincoln National Corp is the parent of both (none / 0) (#58)
    by steviez314 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York.  

    Each of those subsidiary balance sheets have lines called "mortgage loans" on them, and they are the regulated insurance entities.

    Parent

    Pretty interesting (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:12:54 PM EST
    Here is the provision on permitted investments:

    "In this article: (1) "Invested assets" means the admitted assets of an insurer that conform to the requirements of paragraphs one and two of subsection (a) of section one thousand three hundred one of this chapter, but excluding the income due or accrued thereon.

    (2) "Mortgage-related security" means an obligation that is rated AA or higher (or the equivalent thereto) by a nationally recognized securities rating agency and either:

    (A) represents ownership of one or more promissory notes or certificates of interest or participation in such notes (including any rights designed to assure servicing of, or the receipt or timeliness of receipt by the holders of such notes, certificates, or participation of amounts payable under, such notes, certificates, or participation), which notes:

    (i) are directly secured by a first lien on a single parcel of real estate, including stock allocated to a dwelling unit in a residential cooperative housing corporation, upon which is located a dwelling or mixed residential and commercial structure, or on a residential manufactured home as defined in section 5402(6) of Title 42 of the U.S.C.A., whether such manufactured home is considered real or personal property under the laws of the state in which it is to be located; and

    (ii) were originated by a savings and loan association, savings bank, commercial bank, credit union, insurance company, or similar institution which is supervised and examined by a federal or state authority, or by a mortgage approved by the secretary of housing and urban development pursuant to sections 1709 and 1715-b of Title 12 of the U.S.C.A., or, where such notes involve a lien on the manufactured home, by any such institution or by any financial institution approved for insurance by the secretary of housing and urban development pursuant to section 1703 of Title 12 of the U.S.C.A.; or

    (B) is secured by one or more promissory notes or certificates of interest or participations [FN1] in such notes (with or without recourse to the issuer thereof) and, by its terms, provides for payments of principal in relation to payments, or reasonable projections of payments, or notes meeting the requirements of items (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph or certificates of interest or participation in promissory notes meeting such requirements.

    For the purpose of this paragraph the term "promissory note", when used in connection with a manufactured home, shall also include a loan, advance or credit sale as evidence [FN2] by a retail installment sales contract or other instrument.

    (3) "Partnership interests" when used in connection with the permissible types of investments made by any domestic insurer, other than a domestic life insurer, means, an interest as a limited partner in a limited partnership. A "limited partnership" means a partnership formed by two or more persons pursuant to the provisions of the applicable law, having as members one or more general partners and one or more limited partners. The limited partners as such shall not be bound by the obligations of the partnership.

    (4) "United States" means, when used to signify place, only the states of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and includes lands and waters adjacent to the foregoing and under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    (5) "Cap" means an agreement obligating the seller to make payments to the buyer with each payment based on the amount by which a reference price or level or the performance or value of one or more underlying interests exceeds a predetermined number, sometimes called the strike rate or strike price.

    (6) "Collar" means an agreement to receive payments as the buyer of an option, cap or floor and to make payments as the seller of a different option, cap or floor.

    (7) "Derivative instrument" means an agreement, option, instrument or a series or combination thereof:

    (A) to make or take delivery of, or assume or relinquish, a specified amount of one or more underlying interests, or to make a cash settlement in lieu thereof; or

    (B) that has a price, performance, value or cash flow based primarily upon the actual or expected price, level, performance, value or cash flow of one or more underlying interests.

    The term "derivative instrument" includes options, warrants, caps, floors, collars, swaps, swaptions, forwards, and futures.

    (8) "Derivative transaction" means a transaction involving the use of one or more derivative instruments.

    (9) "Floor" means an agreement obligating the seller to make payments to the buyer in which each payment is based on the amount by which a predetermined number, sometimes called the floor rate or price, exceeds a reference price, level, performance or value of one or more underlying interests.

    (10) "Forward" means an agreement (other than a future) to make or take delivery in the future of one or more underlying interests, or effect a cash settlement, based on the actual or expected price, level, performance or value of such underlying interests, but shall not mean or include spot transactions effected within customary settlement periods, when-issued purchases, or other similar cash market transactions.

    (11) "Future" means agreement traded on a futures exchange, to make or take delivery of, or effect a cash settlement based on the actual or expected price, level, performance or value of, one or more underlying interests.

    (12) "Hedging transaction" means a derivative transaction which is entered into and at all times maintained to reduce:

    (A) the risk of economic loss due to a change in the value, yield, price, cash flow or quantity of assets or liabilities which the insurer has acquired or incurred or anticipates acquiring or incurring; or

    (B) the risk of economic loss due to changes in the currency exchange rate or the degree of exposure as to assets or liabilities denominated in a foreign currency which an insurer has acquired or incurred or anticipates acquiring or incurring.

    (13) "Option" means an agreement giving the buyer the right to buy or receive (a "call option"), sell or deliver (a "put option"), enter into, extend or terminate or effect a cash settlement based on the actual or expected price, spread, level, performance or value of one or more underlying interests.

    (14) "Swap" means an agreement to exchange or to net payments at one or more times based on the actual or expected price, yield, level, performance or value of one or more underlying interests.

    (15) "Swaption" means an option to purchase or sell a swap at a given price and time or at a series of prices and times. A swaption does not mean a swap with an embedded option.

    (16) "Underlying interest" means the assets, liabilities, other interests, or a combination thereof, underlying a derivative instrument, such as any one or more securities, currencies, rates, indices, commodities or derivative instruments.

    (17) "Warrant" means an instrument that gives the holder the right to purchase or sell the underlying interest at a given price and time or at a series of prices and times outlined in the warrant agreement.

    (18) "Replication transaction" means a derivative transaction or combination of derivative transactions effected either separately or in conjunction with cash market investments included in the insurer's investment portfolio in order to replicate the investment characteristic of another authorized transaction, investment or instrument and/or operate as a substitute for cash market transactions. A derivative transaction entered into by the insurer as a hedging transaction or income generation transaction authorized pursuant to this section shall not be considered a replication transaction.

    (b) All financial tests and other requirements for the making of any investment are satisfied if complied with on the date of acquisition by the insurer, except as otherwise permitted by this chapter or by regulation.

    (c) None of the financial tests or other requirements for the making of any investment under this article, or as otherwise required by this chapter or by regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, are preempted by the provisions of section 106 of Title I of the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. § 77r-1) ("SMMEA"). The provisions of this chapter and any regulation promulgated pursuant thereto that pertain to investments in the categories of securities specified in paragraphs one and two of subsection (a) of section 106 of such act shall remain in full force and effect notwithstanding the enactment of SMMEA."


    Parent

    What you see is (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    that insurance companies can not issue loans, but they can purchase the paper secondarily subject to conditions, basically a AA rating.

    Parent
    To make the record clear (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:01:44 PM EST
    Stevie and santarita pointed out my gross error on this subject and now given me a new topic to research - how long have insurance companies been banks?

    Parent
    NY Code Sections... (none / 0) (#69)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:26:58 PM EST
    1404(a)(4) and 1405(a)(3) seem to permit insurance companies to have properly secured mortgage loans.

    Parent
    To invest in (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:39:13 PM EST
    Not to originate.

    Parent
    But your Section 2 A (ii) says: (none / 0) (#79)
    by steviez314 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    were originated by a savings and loan association, savings bank, commercial bank, credit union, insurance company, or similar institution which is supervised and examined by a federal or state authority


    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    Stevie.

    I thought it was prohibited for an insurance company to originate loans in New York, well everywhere frankly.

    I wonder what type of laons they are allowed to originate? They are certainly restricted in the types of loan instruments they can invest in.


    Parent

    Here's Connecticut's Allowed Investments: (none / 0) (#109)
    by steviez314 on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:43:28 AM EST
    Sec. 38a-102c. Investments of admitted assets. Limitations. (a) A domestic insurer may invest up to ten per cent of admitted assets per obligor in obligations (1) issued, assumed or guaranteed by any agency, political subdivision or instrumentality of any state which obligations are not general obligations thereof; and (2) issued, assumed or guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International Finance Corporation and any other agency or entity engaged in similar activities and in which the government of the United States participates.

          (b) A domestic insurer may invest up to five per cent of admitted assets in obligations of any single institution other than high yield obligations. The foregoing limitation shall not apply to obligations with a final maturity of one year or less from the date of acquisition.

          (c) A domestic insurer may invest up to one per cent of admitted assets in high yield obligations of any one institution and up to ten per cent of admitted assets in the aggregate in high yield obligations registered under the Securities Act of 1933. The commissioner may adopt regulations limiting the percentage of admitted assets that may be invested in high yield obligations not registered under the Securities Act of 1933.

          (d) A domestic insurer may invest in foreign obligations and investments (1) up to ten per cent of admitted assets in any exempted country, and (2) up to two per cent of admitted assets in any other foreign country and up to fifteen per cent of admitted assets in the aggregate in all such other foreign countries. The aggregate foreign obligations and investments shall not exceed thirty per cent of admitted assets. All such foreign obligations and investments made within the limitation of this subsection shall also be subject to the percentage limitations prescribed by subsections (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of this section as applicable to such investment class, but this subsection shall not apply to investments which otherwise constitute an ownership interest in a subsidiary or affiliate of the domestic insurer. In addition to the foregoing, a domestic insurer transacting insurance in a foreign country or countries may invest funds necessary to meet its obligations in connection with such foreign insurance business without limitations under sections 38a-102 to 38a-102h, inclusive.

          (e) A domestic insurer may invest up to five per cent of admitted assets in the common stock, preferred stock, limited partnership interests or other equity interests of any single institution other than subsidiaries and affiliates or in the shares of investment companies and up to twenty-five per cent of admitted assets in all such investments other than preferred stocks, which shall not be subject to such aggregate limitation.

          (f) A domestic insurer may invest (1) up to five per cent of admitted assets in any single real estate investment or other tangible investment, and (2) up to ten per cent of admitted assets in the aggregate in (A) tangible investments and non-income-producing real estate and (B) that portion of any loan secured by mortgages or other interests in real estate which when made exceeds a loan-to-value ratio of more than seventy-five per cent. A "real estate investment" means any interest in real estate including, without limitation, a direct equity interest, joint venture interest, partnership interest and an interest in obligations secured by a mortgage or deed of trust but shall not include investments in subsidiaries.

    So, while they set maximum percentage limits on various asset classes, they do allow by (f) secured mortgage loans.

    Parent

    Insurance companies orginate loans (none / 0) (#83)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    all the time. They do not have to buy the loans in the secondary market. The loans don't have to be AA rated. Insurance companies lend to all kinds of of real estate developers. Insurance companies make loans to farmers and ranchers. All loans are evidenced by notes, whether made by banks or insurance companies.

    Parent
    They Are Major Competitors... (none / 0) (#84)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    in the commercial real estate sector.

    Perhaps they make loans under their investment authorities.  Maybe someone could dig up the Articles of Incorporation to see.

    If they are prohibited from making loans, there are an awful lot of loans that are voidable.

    Parent

    I never heard of an (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:29:07 PM EST
    insurance company making a loan. EVER.

    This has me nonplussed. How is that not a banking activity?

    Parent

    One of the Issues... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    is whether or not the insurance companies are appropriately regulated by just the states, given they engage in a major banking activity -lending.

    Parent
    That's a huge issue (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:00:42 PM EST
    apparently.

    Parent
    I have to ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    admit that you made me work hard  on this issue.  I now know more about NY law on insurance company investments than I ever wanted to know.

    Parent
    Some could have saved time (none / 0) (#106)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 07:49:44 PM EST
    on research and/or had less egg on face, if they would have just believed me when I said insurance companies were major lenders.

    Just kidding.

    As I've said before, I've been involved in business and finance for about 35 years. Even though I knew I was right on this, I did later contact a buddy at a large NYC law firm which specializes in representing insurance companies.

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    I stand corrected.

    My question is when did insurance companies become banks?

    I mean is the only difference no deposits?

    Parent

    Different Charters, Different.. (none / 0) (#91)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:41:39 PM EST
    regulators than banks and no deposits (or deposit insurance) are the differences.  

    I can't vouch for when they started making loans but I recall that they were competing for the loans my bank made over 25 years ago.  So they've been in that business for at least that long.  

    I think they are restricted to loan secured by real estate.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#102)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    ...the difference is that they may hold only a certain percentage of their admitted assets in mortgage backed assets, along with the type of guarantee/rating assigned to the instruments.

    For instance, 10-3-215, C.R.S., states in part:

    (2) Domestic insurance companies may invest in mortgage-backed securities, including, without limitation, collateralized mortgage obligations and other obligations for the payment of money secured by participation certificates or loans secured, directly or indirectly, by real estate mortgages or deeds of trust if, at the time the investment is made, the entity issuing the obligation is not in default in the payment of interest on the obligation and:

    (a) The obligation or each participation certificate or loan is fully guaranteed or insured as to principal and interest by the United States or by any state, territory, or district thereof, or by any agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision of one or more of the foregoing; but the aggregate value of any one issue of such obligations which may be admitted assets pursuant to this paragraph (a) shall not exceed five percent of the domestic insurance company's admitted assets; or

    (b) The obligations have received a "1" or "2" quality designation by the securities valuation office of the national association of insurance commissioners as set forth in its most recently published valuations of securities manual or are rated investment grade in Standard & Poor's (at least BBB-) or Moody's (at least Baa3) bond guides, or have received comparable designations or ratings in the event the method of presenting such designations or ratings later changes or such designations or ratings are provided by successor entities, or have received comparable investment grade designations or ratings by any similar organization approved by the commissioner; but the aggregate value of any one issue of such obligations which may be admitted assets pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall not exceed three percent of the domestic insurance company's admitted assets.

    Parent

    My question (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    was about originations.

    Parent
    Insurance companies have been major lenders (none / 0) (#90)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:32:08 PM EST
    for a long time. While I don't know, I assume insurance companies have been permitted to lend since they were created.

    Here's an article discussing ag lending by insurance companies:

    http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:YAqCcGqXwnUJ:www.winebusiness.com/wbm/%3Fgo%3DgetArticle%26dataI d%3D59841+lending+by+insurance+companies&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Parent

    Farmers too? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    Who knew? Never heard of such a thing.

    Parent
    Ag Lending... (none / 0) (#100)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:08:54 PM EST
    is my specialty.  The insurance companies have been major players in timber financing and vineyard financing.

    Parent
    See also comment #40 (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 05:19:14 PM EST
    re the huge cattle farms in the west, big agribusiness whose owners bought the biggest policies, too, and by far from the life insurance company with which I'm familiar.  Now, with what I also have learned here, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those "farmers" also were able to get loans from the company, not just borrow out on their policies.

    On the other hand, the company I know also took leadership decades ago in investing in solar irrigation power in those western areas, reducing energy use.  Maybe such huge companies also invest in other good green things.  The downside is that if they were a source of funding for such good things, they will not be able to do as much now -- all the more reason for the government to step up to fill that gap (and many, many others in this economy) in funding ecoprojects.  

    Parent

    They May Give A Reduction In... (none / 0) (#105)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 06:13:40 PM EST
    interest rates for the more products that you have with them.  

    For the larger entities the general liabilities insurance and key person insurance are probably in the mix.

    Not all financial institutions are bad and/or incompetent.  Some are even progressive.

    Parent

    Steve pointed this out to me (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    Apparently I am talking through my hat.

    I personally never heard of an insurance company originating a loan ever.

    I do not see how this does not make insurance companies banks.

    Parent

    Here's a better way of thinking about this (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    What counts as an "asset" for an insurance company:

    In New York, here is the list:

    "(a) In determining the financial condition of a domestic or foreign insurer or the United States branch of an alien insurer for the purposes of this chapter, there may be allowed as admitted assets of such insurer, unless otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, only the following assets owned by such insurer

    (1) Cash, including legal tender or the equivalent in any office of such insurer or in transit under its control and the true balance of any deposit in a solvent bank, trust company or thrift institution.

    (2) Investments acquired or held in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter, and the income due or accrued thereon subject to paragraphs three and four of this subsection as to dividends, interest, rents and accrued taxes paid.

    (3) Declared and unpaid dividends on shares, unless the amount has otherwise been allowed as an admitted asset.

    (4) Investment income due and accrued. Such amounts shall be assessed for collectibility. If it is probable that the investment income due and accrued balance is uncollectible, the amount shall be written off and shall be charged against investment income in the period such determination is made. Any remaining investment income due and accrued (i.e., amounts considered probable of collection) representing either (i) amounts that are over ninety days past due (generated by any invested asset except mortgage loans in default), or (ii) amounts otherwise designated as nonadmitted shall be considered nonadmitted. If a mortgage loan in default has interest one hundred eighty days past due that has been assessed as collectible, all interest shall be considered a nonadmitted asset. Such nonadmitted amounts shall be subject to continuing assessments of collectibility and, if determined to be uncollectible, a write-off shall be recorded in the period such determination is made. For purposes of this paragraph, "probable" shall mean that the future event or events are likely to occur.

    (5) Premium notes, policy loans and other policy assets and liens on policies, contracts or certificates of a life insurance company or fraternal benefit society, in an amount not exceeding the legal reserve and other policy liabilities carried on each individual contract; the net amount of uncollected and deferred premiums, considerations or assessments of a life insurance company or of a fraternal benefit society which carries the full mean tabular reserve liability; for a fraternal benefit society which does not carry such reserve liability, the net amount of uncollected premiums.

    (6) Premiums in course of collection, other than life insurance premiums, not more than ninety days past due, less commissions payable thereon. The foregoing limitation of ninety days shall not apply to: (i) premiums payable directly or indirectly by the United States government or any of its instrumentalities, (ii) reinsurance premiums payable by ceding insurers authorized to transact such business in this state, or (iii) reinsurance premiums payable which may be offset by amounts carried by the assuming insurer as liabilities for amounts due to the ceding insurer for unpaid losses or other mutual debts. However reinsurance premiums more than ninety days past due shall not be allowed in excess of ten per centum of the reinsurer's total admitted assets as shown on its most recent annual statement on file in the office of the superintendent pursuant to section three hundred seven of this chapter.

    (7) Instalment premiums, other than life insurance premiums, as prescribed by regulation.

    (8) Notes and like written obligations, not past due, taken for premiums other than life insurance premiums, on policies permitted to be issued on such basis, to the extent of the unearned premium reserves carried thereon except as otherwise prescribed by regulation.

    (9) Reinsurance recoverable by a ceding insurer: (i) from an insurer authorized to transact such business in this state, except from a captive insurance company licensed pursuant to the provisions of article seventy of this chapter, in the full amount thereof; (ii) from an accredited reinsurer, as defined in subsection (a) of section one hundred seven of this chapter, to the extent allowed by the superintendent on the basis of the insurer's compliance with the conditions of any applicable regulation; or (iii) from an insurer not so authorized or accredited or from a captive insurance company licensed pursuant to the provisions of article seventy of this chapter, in an amount not exceeding the liabilities carried by the ceding insurer for amounts withheld under a reinsurance treaty with such unauthorized insurer or captive insurance company licensed pursuant to the provisions of article seventy of this chapter as security for the payment of obligations thereunder if such funds are held subject to withdrawal by, and under the control of, the ceding insurer. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the superintendent may by regulation prescribe the conditions under which a ceding insurer may be allowed credit, as an asset or as a deduction from loss and unearned premium reserves, for reinsurance recoverable from an accredited reinsurer, an insurer not authorized in this state or a captive insurance company licensed pursuant to the provisions of article seventy of this chapter.

    (10) Amounts receivable by an assuming insurer for funds withheld by a ceding insurer under a reinsurance treaty, not exceeding the amounts carried by such assuming insurer as liabilities for unpaid losses and reserves under such contracts.

    (11) Amounts receivable under a funding agreement issued pursuant to section three thousand two hundred twenty-two of this chapter.

    (12) Deposits or equities recoverable from underwriting associations, syndicates and reinsurance funds, or from suspended banking institutions, to the extent deemed by the superintendent available for the payment of losses and claims and at values determined by him.

    (13)(A) Electronic data processing apparatus and related equipment constituting a data processing, record keeping, or accounting system and operating system software, provided that such assets shall be deemed admitted, subject to such regulations as may be promulgated by the superintendent in an amount not to exceed three percent of the insurer's capital and surplus, or such other amount that the superintendent, in a regulation, determines to be appropriate in specified circumstances, as required to be shown on its statutory balance sheet for its most recently filed statement with the superintendent adjusted to exclude any net positive goodwill, electronic data processing apparatus and related equipment, operating system software and net deferred tax assets, provided that electronic data processing apparatus and related equipment and operating system software shall be amortized over the lesser of its useful life or three years. Nonoperating system software shall be nonadmitted and depreciated over the lesser of its useful life or five years.

    (B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, until December thirty-first, two thousand eleven, electronic data processing apparatus and related equipment constituting a data processing, record keeping, or accounting system and operating system software of article forty-three corporations and public health law article forty-four health maintenance organizations, integrated delivery systems, prepaid health service plans and comprehensive special needs plans may be allowed as admitted assets if the cost of each such system is fifty thousand dollars or more and provided that such cost shall be amortized over a period not to exceed ten years. Effective January first, two thousand twelve, the provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall apply to article forty-three corporations and public health law article forty-four health maintenance organizations, integrated delivery systems, prepaid health service plans and comprehensive special needs plans.

    (14) Positive goodwill, provided that such asset shall be deemed admitted, subject to such limitations and conditions in regulations as may be promulgated by the superintendent in an amount not to exceed ten percent of the insurer's capital and surplus as required to be shown on its statutory balance sheet for its most recently filed statement with the superintendent adjusted to exclude any net positive goodwill, electronic data processing apparatus and related equipment, operating system software and net deferred tax assets, and provided further that such positive goodwill shall be amortized in full over the period in which the insurer benefits economically, not to exceed ten years. When negative goodwill exists, it shall be recorded as a contra-asset.

    (15) Amounts payable to the insurer from the property/casualty insurance security fund on behalf of insureds with medical malpractice insurance claims-made policies pursuant to subparagraph (G) of paragraph one of subsection (a) of section seven thousand six hundred three of this chapter.

    (16) Gross deferred tax assets, provided that such assets shall be deemed admitted to the extent provided by regulations promulgated by the superintendent in an amount not to exceed the sum of:

    (A) federal income taxes paid in prior years that can be recovered through loss carrybacks for existing temporary differences that reverse by the end of the subsequent calendar year;

    (B) the lesser of:

    (i) the amount of gross deferred tax assets after the application of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph expected to be realized within one year of the balance sheet date; or

    (ii) ten percent of the insurer's statutory capital and surplus as required to be shown on its statutory balance sheet for its most recently filed statement with the superintendent adjusted to exclude any net positive goodwill, electronic data processing apparatus and related equipment, operating system software and net deferred tax assets; and

    (C) the amount of gross deferred tax assets after application of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph that can be offset against existing gross deferred tax liabilities.

    (17) Other assets, not inconsistent with the foregoing provisions, deemed by the superintendent available for the payment of losses and claims, at values determined by the superintendent.

    (18) The superintendent may, be [FN1] regulation, modify any requirement of this subsection to conform to any subsequent amendment to the accounting practices and procedures manual as adopted from time to time by the national association of insurance commissioners.

    (b) Admitted assets may be allowed as deductions from corresponding liabilities, liabilities may be charged as deductions from assets, and deductions from assets may be charged as liabilities, in accordance with the form of annual statement applicable to such insurer as prescribed by the superintendent, or otherwise in his discretion.

    (c) The superintendent may by regulation prescribe the application of the provisions of this section."

    Parent

    look at (a) (4)... (none / 0) (#65)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:27:47 PM EST
    in the middle of the paragraph it talks about a mortgage loan coming past due.  I'd have to look at the whole statute to see what the defined terms are but that suggests that the Ins. Commission may regard mortgage loans as investments.  

    But in any event, the parent, affiliate or subsidiary is making direct loans.  My guess is that the way to square all this up is to say that the entity that issues insurance in some states is prohibited from lending except on policies.

    And from the TARP perspective, the only entities that Treasury is looking at are insurance entities that have a banking subsidiary.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    The rationale for the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the reverse of what you state - that bank holding companies wanted to be able to own securities firms the way insurance companies did.

    Moreover, the way insurance companies ate into the commercial real estate lending business was by buying assets in real estate, not by lending to real estate ventures.

    I repeat, insurance companies can not lend. they can, obviously own corporations that DO lend.  

    Parent

    Insurance Companies and/or... (none / 0) (#21)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:51:15 AM EST
    their subsidiaries are major players in the commercial real estate lending arena.  Shopping Centers, real estate developments, etc.  Yes they invest directly in some of these projects but they also are lenders and syndicate members.  They style loans as investments because they are investing in the obligation.

    Banks (and their holding companies) wanted to diversify their sources of income from just interest income because they had trouble offering the low interest rates that insurance companies and investment banking firms could offer.  Insurance companies and investment bankers had become to eat into the bank's market share.  I remember the Citibank - Traveler's Insurance Company merger because we had just closed a loan participation with Traveler's when the merger was announced.

    Parent

    Absolutely correct. (none / 0) (#35)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:17:20 AM EST
    It all ties into the reserving requirements that the states and the NAIC set-forth to make sure that insurer's can cover their contractual obligations to pay claims.  

     

    Parent

    What Is Absolutely Correct? n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    State Farm Insurance has its own bank (none / 0) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    I have my auto loan through it. Could have all other banking accounts through it as well, but they don't have branches and I need that visual.

    State Farm Bank


    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    It owns a bank.

    Parent
    Invest vs. Lend (none / 0) (#23)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    is an argument of semantics. Insurance companies are  source of RE lending and because of that should be recognized as an important player in the economy.

    I lifted this in a quick google:

    "The ultimate source or origination of commercial real estate funding...Generally, funding sources include insurance companies and pension funds, either directly or through correspondents, mortgage banking firms, savings & loan institutions, regional banks, and specialized firms acting as "conduits".

    I also know that insurance company funding goes to the residential property arena also.

    So anyone here can call it what they want to but it does not change where some of the actual capital for RE loans originates from. In Green26's post it is insurance companies.

    To add, when the insurance companies buy banks those banks also provide RE loans and other types of loans such as business loans. It is entirely legitimate for insurance companies to buy banks and if those banks qualified for TARP or TALF money before the insurance company bought them them then qualify after. One could say that if the insurance company is financially strong then it was in the banks best interest to have it purchased by the insurance company.

    Green26 is correct that it is entirely probable that the insurance companies own some of the assets in question. Many different types of companies own those type of assets and their health along with their employees' health and the business sphere around them health is affected.

    Parent

    It's more than semantics (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    It is at the center of the bailout debate.

    The "non-banks" issue.

    Investing is not lending.

    Parent

    Your Statement... (none / 0) (#29)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    doesn't square with either my experience or knowledge.  So I'm looking for the explanation that squares both.

    Parent
    Tell me about your experience and (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    knowledge - to wit, do you have experience with and/or knowledge of an INSURANCE COMPANY, not the company that owns an insurance company, issuing a real estate loan to another party?

    Parent
    Yes - It was insurance company... (none / 0) (#42)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    more than likely the holding company.

    I think the problem here is that major insurance companies have subsidiary insurance companies that do business in the states.  So State Farm of California gives you the insurance policy on your house.  That entity probably can't make loans (other than loans against the cash value of the life insurance policy).  While State Farm can.  Some insurance companies will form bank subsidiaries but the ones that I've dealt with were not bank subsidiaries.

    Now State Farm is not one of the companies that I've dealt with on capital market transactions.  But I've dealt with Pru and Met Life in participations and syndications.  And they are the ones that often come up with the more exotic means of financing.  

    Parent

    The come up with (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:42:59 AM EST
    "more exotic means of financing" precisely because they CAN'T LEND. They must INVEST.

    Participation and syndications in say, mortgage backed securities is not, legally speaking, lending.

    You own an asset.

    Now you can argue, as some have, that this is semantics. I say it is not.

    Not all capital markets are the same.

    They should not be treated as such.

    Parent

    The Syndications or Participations are (none / 0) (#49)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    in loans.  Insurance Companies are direct lenders.  By more exotic transactions I meant loans with equity kickers not investing in MBS.

    Maybe your state has special rules.

    Parent

    Then it is not the insurance company (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    It is a different entity created by the holding company.

    Parent
    It's The Parent Company. n/t (none / 0) (#55)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:02:03 PM EST
    As I said before, I'm trying to square my experience in capital markets transactions involving with insurance companies with your statement.  If you can direct me to some statute that would be helpful.

    But in the final analysis does it make a difference?  Either the parent or some affiliate of large insurance companies are significantly involved in commercial and large real estate projects financing  transactions  and would be adversely affected by the current economic and financial crises.  

    Parent

    In the final analysis (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    I think it makes a great deal of difference.

    Parent
    Why? n/t (none / 0) (#66)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    I thought I explained my views on this (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    But I am inspired with this insurance company business to write another  post about it.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:53:58 AM EST
    "equity kickers" is a revealing description there no?

    If the "insurance company" is getting equity, then it is buying an asset.

    Sounds like they are purchasing preferred shares with a guaranteed dividend to me.

    Now is this a loan? Legally it is not.

    What state are we talking about? Not New York.

    Parent

    California... (none / 0) (#57)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    Loans with equity kickers means that the lender has certain conversion rights.

    But they are also involved in straightforward term financing and revolving lines of credit.  They are lenders.

    Parent

    What non-banks? (none / 0) (#37)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    if they bought banks they are now banks. Or at least bank holding companies who have always qualified for TARP.

    Investing vs Lending? Such a thin line. When I lend I do so expecting an ROI but do so with risk. When I invest I do so expecting an ROI but do so with risk.

    So the dynamics are the same. The only difference in what is being discussed is that lending is providing money directly to the RE purchaser which isn't very relevant to the bigger discussion imo. And then when you consider that the lending may have never happened without the investment then the two must be looked at as pretty much hand and glove. imo.

    Parent

    IF they bought banks (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    they OWN banks, they do not BECOME banks.

    If I was the sole owner of the shares of a bank, I would not become a bank. I would own a bank.

    If I was in financial straits because I lost all my personal money in Vegas, the status of my bank would be the same. I would probably have to sell my bank, but my bank would be fine.

    This is an extremely simple concept my friends.

    Parent

    Yes they own banks, (none / 0) (#50)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:51:42 AM EST
    & they do not become them. They become Bank Holding Companies. So what is the difference when it comes to TARP? There is none.

    To my credit I said:

    Or at least bank holding companies who have always qualified for TARP.

    Which is true. Bank holding companies have always qualified for TARP. And this "non-bank" issue you are trying to put forth is not a new issue - not that it is an issue at all.

    Discover To Participate in TARP, Becomes Bank Holding Company

    In an 8-K filing with the SEC, Discover Financial Services reported that it has received preliminary approval from the U.S. Department of the Treasury to participate in the U.S. Treasury's Capital Purchase Program. "In connection with participating in the Program, the Company intends to become a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and a financial holding company under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As previously announced, the Company's application to become a bank holding company was approved by the U.S. Federal Reserve on December 19, 2008."



    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    Quite the flaw in TARP. Let's not repeat that mistake in the Geithner Plan.

    Parent
    Why a flaw? (none / 0) (#80)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    Other than a bank having to report it's reserves and ratios all other accounting is done through the holding company with many banks. So to not include holding companies in TARP would have been to exclude a entire class of banks based just on their method of accounting. That would not make good sense as  how they chose to account is legal.

    Parent
    Insurance companies are permitted (none / 0) (#71)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:53:36 PM EST
    to lend. There is no meaningful distinction between lending and investing in this context. They sometimes lend under documents called loan agreements. They sometimes invest (i.e. lend) in private placements. Much of the debt they hold is so-called fixed income. Insurance companies can also invest in equity. As already stated, they are huge players in real estate. They also lend and invest in many other industries.

    Insurance companies have certain limitations, including limitations on concentration of risk.

    They have some bad stuff on their books these days.

    Parent

    Here are some articles confirming (none / 0) (#72)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    that insurance companies can lend.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/2977980  [Look at the title and the first para. of the article]

    http://books.google.com/books?id=8ELJnEyWEl0C&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=can+insurance+compan ies+lend&source=bl&ots=DdrLA5nKKm&sig=wU7w48OxFZqMFuBcDudQsOFWLwI&hl=en&ei=-_LcS fT1GdDflQfo9pHsDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA124,M1 [scroll down to Insurance Companies and Pension Funds, at about page 124]

    "Life insurance companies lent $21 billion last year to the real estate industry and are expected to increase their allocation to mortgage lending this year." http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:0TKAKL7KW_IJ:www.ciremagazine.com/article.php%3Farticle_id%3D175 +how+much+have+insurance+companies+lent+in+real+estate&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
    [These stats were from 2003."

    Parent

    As a matter of law (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    That is not "lending." It is investing.

    Parent
    They May Be ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:23:42 PM EST
    restricted as to the type of lending - i.e. first and second real estate secured loans.

    Parent
    Here they come... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    like flies to sh&t...free money!

    Leeches.

    kdog (none / 0) (#32)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:06:04 AM EST
    If the banks already qualified for assistance then what is wrong with a insurance company buying them? Like I said upthread if the insurance company is financially strong then it is in the banks best long term interest that they were bought by the insurance company. But even if the insurance company is strong that does not mean the bank they own should not participate in the government program.

    Parent
    Listen to yourself Mike... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:49:50 AM EST
    we're talking about public assistance, aka welfare, for banks!  BANKS!!!  

    And now insurance companies see the free money and want in on the action.  I say if an insurance company is in good enough of shape to buy a bank, they should pay to fix the banks books....not the taxpayer.

    Parent

    kdog my friend (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    TARP loans. Loans is not welfare.

    Equity in exchange for money. Giving up equity is not welfare.

    In fact when the government took equity they did so at a very low stock price. When the bank can afford to buy that equity back it will be highly likely that the stock prices would have gone up and they will pay more than they originally gave. So we the people make money!

    Quit listening to people who call this a giveaway or welfare. TARP Loans repayable with interest is not a give away or welfare. Equity that will likely be sod back at a profit is not a giveaway or welfare.

    Parent

    Lets just say... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:16:21 PM EST
    I'm not confident we'll see a dime make its way back into the treasury, or should I say a dime will make its way back to make an interest payment to China.

    This is the same outfit that said the Iraq war would pay for itself, your social security number is not to be used for identification purposes, and prohibits the possession of reefer for god's sake...their word is worth less than dogsh*t.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#81)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    You can think what you want about getting paid back. But what we are doing in TARP is not "aka welfare". As long as you understand that it's all good.

    Parent
    I don't understand that... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:30:38 PM EST
    its welfare...aka reverse Robin Hood.

    Parent
    Whatever man (none / 0) (#94)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:49:43 PM EST
    Emotions always overrule logic.

    Parent
    I may be emotional... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:52:52 PM EST
    but emotion or not I see not a shred of logic behind any of the "loans that shall never be repaid".  Unless there is logic in plugging a leak in a dam with bubblegum that I'm not aware of.

    Actually its worse than that...its like a multi-trillion dollar government contract to buy gum to plug a leak in a dam, and the contractor takes off with the loot and never even applies the bubble-gum.

    Parent

    most of these companies don't have (none / 0) (#108)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:41:05 AM EST
    the financial stability right now to get a real loan...so they have to get a handout loan from the government...

    seems like a form of welfare to me...

    or at least as much as student loans are for impoverished students...

    Parent

    Well that's just foolish (none / 0) (#75)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    to think that our government is going to require banks to buy back equity at market price sometime in the future when the economy recovers.  What country do you think you live in?

    Parent
    Who said "require"? (none / 0) (#82)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:14:27 PM EST
    What I do think is that the banks will want to buy back their equity asap because not to do so dilutes their own position in their companies. Many companies buy back stock from the market even in good times. I have no doubt that those who can buy back the equity positions will.

    Parent
    Yeah, they'll buy it back (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:51:31 PM EST
    And we won't make a penny on it.  Just watch.  They won't be required to buy it back at market prices if and when the economy recovers.  They own our government.  

    Parent
    Don't know about elsewhere (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    but I bet it generally holds true what is so in my state:  A life insurance company, the oldest company in the state, long has been far more wealthy than even the oldest banks here.  Its investments are massive.  And I'm sure that some are toxic, as it has reduced dividends.  But there is no way that it is in trouble.

    So this is odd on several levels, it seems to me.

    While a lot of people have not realized it (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    AIG's domestic life insurance subsidiaries were a big recipient/beneficiary of the bailout too.  AIG's domestic life and annuity companies had large losses from their participation in a securities lending program.  

    AIG Investments, another company within the AIG holding system, managed investments for the affiliated life insurance companies.  In 2006 AIG Investments devised a new strategy to increase profits by investing a greater percentage of the cash collateral from the securities lending in asset backed securities with exposure to subprime mortgages.  AIG apparently had internal control problems because AIG Investments started putting more money into the subprime related investments just as AIG Financial Products determined the subprime exposure was too risky and stopped writing credit default swaps on them.  

    They started having realized and unrealized losses in the securities lending collateral account in the last two quarters of 2007.  AIG, the parent holding company, covered the losses to the life insurance companies up to a point through a make whole agreement.  But as problems continued to get worse for AIG, the borrowers of the securities decided they wanted their collateral back.  The weekend before the government stepped in with the first $85 billion, AIG thought they were on the way to raising the $40 billion needed when they received some crushing news on Sunday morning - they needed an additional $20 billion to cover a run on the securities lending collateral account.  In the end roughly $44 billion of the bailout funds went to wind down the securities lending program.  

    I don't know if any of the other life insurance companies have made the same mistake as AIG.  Maybe we will be learning more as they should come under greater scrutiny too.

    Parent

    Excellent summary (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    Thanks for posting it.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    and you are welcome.  

    Parent
    Not All Banks Are In Trouble ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    so not all insurance companies would be in trouble.

    Parent
    True. But I don't see evidence (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    in the link, just the ocnclusion that some of the life insurance companies are in serious trouble.  And knowing more than a bit about how they are run, I would want to see the evidence.  I.e., will there be "stress tests" for them, too, to make them open up their books?  (And if so, that could raise legal questions and really get complicated, as they are regulated state by state.)  

    Beyond such specifics, I simply don't agree with this continual extension of TARP -- of my money being tossed rather widely to the winds without more careful scrutiny and oversight.

    Parent

    The states are required by statute... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:40:02 AM EST
    ...to perform "stress tests" or financial examinations of their domestic insurers.  So, those books are already regulary reviewed.  

    And unlike the Feds, we are not shy about stepping in and taking over failing entities.  

    Parent

    Insurance Company Investments... (none / 0) (#26)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:01:09 AM EST
    are primarily in real estate and stocks and bonds.  Those sectors have taken some major hits.  Insurance Companies offer annuities that are premised on a certain level of return.  I wouldn't be surprise if some insurance companies are stretched.  In fact, I've thought that Geithner's and Bernanke's actions have been in part designed to benefit indirectly the insurance companies.  In fact that has been an explicit rationale by Bernanke in connection with AIG's bailout.

    Parent
    Life Insurance (none / 0) (#16)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:38:30 AM EST
    companies invest heavily in real estate. I once worked in a temporary position with the people who bought and sold commercial real estate for the life insurance group at GE Financial.

    With the real estate value and sales so far in the tank, those life insurance companies would be in trouble trying to pay off on big life insurance claims.

    Parent

    Yes, they sure do (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    But I have not seen evidence that the rich are dying off at a greatly increased rate to require paying off so much in claims that it would put these companies in such serious trouble.

    Parent
    I heard about this on CNBC this (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    morning and I was trying to figure out why they needed money too and had the exact same thought about death rates - because CNBC kept saying that it is only being extended to the life insurance companies and not those that insure other things.  Insurance is one of the businesses that I have very little understanding of except in the context of AIG's and the Lloyds' failures.  I used to think of it as sort of a boring industry, but I suspect that like everything else it has become much, much more exciting in the past ten years.

    Parent
    :) Yes, very true, but (none / 0) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    they probably own a lot of properties that are either already seriously underwater or sinking fast and are hoping to get some assistance in making up for those losses.

    Parent
    Paying off life insurance claims is not the issue. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by steviez314 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:04:39 AM EST
    These companies have written many Guaranteed Investment contracts and annuities that they might have problems paying off, between the stock market collapse and deflation in other assets.

    Of course, if they couldn't pay off their GICs and annuities, people will start to think they couldn't pay off their life insurance obligations (even though these claims are fairly predictable and actuarially spaced out over many years).  Then there might be a run to cash out of life insurance policies, like a bank run.

    Parent

    That seems right to me (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    Like the FDIC... (none / 0) (#34)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    ...each State has a back-stop fund that provides insured's with some protection of their life insurance benefits in the event of their insurer going under.  

    Companies are required to pay into the fund.

    Parent

    Okay, a run on life insurance policies (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    as personal lending instruments makes more sense, since the rich are not dying off like flies.

    But then, the question becomes whether TARP is for this purpose -- propping up companies so that people can turn to these pseudo-savings accounts (as that is how agents often sell them)?

    Parent

    And by "people" raiding these accounts (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:32:26 AM EST
    I recognize this also can mean companies, in a way.  That is, for those life insurance outfits that do not mainly do group policies but do personal policies, the massive policies are for the self-employed business owners.  (For example, at the life insurance company with which I am familiar, the lead agent for years sold huge policies to western cattleowners as, essentially, insurance for their estates to protect their heirs, allowing them to pay off the huge estate taxes that would come without losing the land.)

    Parent
    There are many types of large... (none / 0) (#45)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    ...or "Jumbo" individual policies written--and they cover much more than self-employed business owners.  The is COLI/BOLI and key-man coverage--all to provide funding to allow a business to continue operations upon the death of an executie or other "key" person vital to the organization.  There is also a large market for coverage for the well-to-do that is part of a larger estate planning stategy.  

    Insurance companies rarely, if ever retain these large risks themselves, rather they are farmed out to many Reinsurance pools to "spread the risk".  

    Parent

    Right -- the company I know (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    about also went into insuring executives to an extent, as other key persons along with the owners.  As you say, it basically went into estate planning in a big way in several ways.

    I didn't know much about the reinsurance pools, but I am not surprised; I will ask my contact more about that aspect.  It historically has been an incredibly low-risk company, but if it went into these pools, that changed.  And if so, since the life insurance company is one of the largest employers in my city and state, as well as (at least maybe until now) the wealthiest company in my state, the ripple effect could be worrisome.

    Parent

    Reinsurance is (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    not a bad practice and is standard part of the insurance industry.  I doubt there are any many insurance companies today that don't use reinsurance.  If it is used properly, it helps a company to do more business with less risk on large losses.  

    The key is to be certain the reinsurer is in sound financial condition.  The insurer may have reinsurance in place to cover for certain losses but the insurer is never fully released from their obligation under the original risk of the policy they issued.  So if the reinsurer is not able to pay a claim, the full liability of the claim goes back to the insurance company who sold the policy.  And in a situation where a reinsurer becomes insolvent, the insurance company is at risk at also being undercapitalized or insolvent as they have to bring the risk that was reinsured back onto their books.  

    There are ways that reinsurance can be used improperly for accounting fraud but I don't believe that is generally the case.        

    Parent

    Thanks; the 1 is (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    for further educating me, as much of this thread has done.

    Parent
    Sorry, rushing out of the house -- (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:39:40 PM EST
    for Passover.  I mean the deserved 5! not a 1.  (And that was typed even before all the wine.:-) Thanks, again, for the time taken to relay all the info.

    Parent
    Plus, they often own the big box (none / 0) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    buildings that are leased to those big box companies for both retail and warehousing. If those buildings are now empty, they have only debt and no asset in that investment.

    They also go for strip malls, shopping centers and office buildings. With every lost tenant, they take a negative hit.

    Parent