MetLife to Pay SEC $10 Million Fine Over Pension Accounting Violations

Firm assumed annuitants were dead or unreachable if they didn’t respond to two mailings.

MetLife has agreed to pay $10 million to settle SEC charges that it violated federal securities laws relating to its accounting for reserves associated with its annuity businesses.

According to a cease-and-desist order from the SEC, MetLife failed to keep accurate books and records and create and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls with respect to its accounting for reserves associated with certain annuity products.

The regulator said that for more than 25 years, it was MetLife’s policy to presume annuitants had died or would never be found if they didn’t respond to only two mailing attempts made approximately five and half years apart. It also said the company didn’t take enough steps to verify annuitants’ address information, which could be years or even decades old, before sending the letter. This resulted in a reduction of liability for future policy benefits, with a corresponding increase in income.

MetLife determined eventually that its processes for locating and contacting unresponsive annuitants were inadequate to justify the release of reserves.  To correct the error, the company increased reserves by $510 million pre-tax as of the end of 2017 to reinstate reserves previously released, and to reflect accrued interest and other related liabilities accumulated over the 25-year period.

Of the $510 million adjustment, $372 million was considered an “error,” or a revision of prior period results. The remaining $138 million reflected a change in estimate for fiscal year 2017.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

“MetLife’s historical practices were insufficient to justify that presumption and the release of reserves,” said the order, “as was later confirmed when MetLife employed enhanced outreach procedures.”

The SEC’s order said that MetLife also overstated reserves and understated income relating to variable annuity guarantees assumed by one of its subsidiaries.  MetLife disclosed this error was caused by data mistakes, including a failure to properly incorporate policyholder withdrawals into MetLife’s valuation model. 

To correct the second error, MetLife reduced reserves by $896 million pre-tax as of the end of 2017 and recognized the same amount as income. Of the $896 million adjustment, $682 million represented a correction of prior-period errors going back more than a decade, while the remaining $214 million was recognized as a change estimate for fiscal year 2017.

MetLife attributed the second error to a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting relating to data validation and monitoring of reserves for the variable annuity guarantees issued by its former joint venture in Japan.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, MetLife has agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of these provisions and to pay a civil penalty of $10 million.

“Investors are entitled to the reliability and accuracy of financial information,” said Marc Berger, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “The Commission found that MetLife’s insufficient internal controls caused longstanding accounting errors.”

Related Stories:

MetLife Sued over Pension Calculations

FedEx Sending $6 Billion in Pension Liabilities to MetLife

FCA Fines Standard Life Nearly £31 Million over Annuities Sales

Tags: , , , ,

EU Pension Plans Show Massive Shortfalls in Stress Test

Only 30% of plans have processes to manage ESG risks.

Pension plans in the European Union could lose as much as €270 billion ($298 billion), or 25% of their asset value, under adverse economic conditions, according to a recent stress test conducted by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA). EIOPA is the EU’s insurance and pension watchdog.

 The biennial Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORPs) stress test assesses the resilience and potential vulnerabilities of European defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans. This year’s test was the first one that covered the analysis of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors.

“Long-term obligations and long investment horizons arguably require IORPs to consider ESG factors and enable IORPs to sustain short-term volatility and market downturns for longer periods than other financial institutions,” Gabriel Bernardino, chairman of EIOPA, said in a release.  “The supervisory monitoring and the applied supervisory tools need to be capable of detecting adverse market trends and market developments that can have long-term negative effects.”

The EIOPA applied an adverse market scenario that was characterized by a sudden reassessment of risk premiums and shocks to interest rates on short maturities that resulted in increased yields and widening credit spreads. The adverse market scenario was applied to the end-2018 baseline balance sheet of a representative sample of European Economic Area (EEA) IORPs. In the baseline, the plans were underfunded by €41 billion on aggregate.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

“The adverse market scenario would have led to substantial aggregate shortfalls of €180 billion according to national methodologies and €216 billion following the stress test’s common methodology,” said the EIOPA in its stress test report. “Under the assumptions of the common methodology, the shortfalls in the adverse scenario would have triggered aggregate benefit reductions of €173 billion and sponsoring undertakings would have to provide financial support of €49 billion.”

Nineteen countries participated in the exercise, covering more than 60% of the national defined benefit and 50% of the national defined contribution sectors in terms of assets – in most countries. The report said 176 plans participated, 99 of which were defined benefit plans and 77 were defined contribution plans.

“The majority of IORPs in the sample indicated having taken appropriate steps to identify sustainability factors and ESG risks for their investment decisions, which is important for an effective implementation of the IORP II Directive,” said EIOPA. “Yet only 30% of them have processes in place to manage ESG risks. Further, only 19% of the IORPs in the sample assess the impact of ESG factors on investments’ risk and returns.”

EIOPA said it will  follow the findings and analyze in more depth the investment behavior of EU pension plans, in particular in the “ultra-low” and negative interest rate environment.

“Going forward, EIOPA wants to further improve its analytical tool set for stress testing” the watchdog said, “extending the horizontal approach and with that assessing the common exposures and vulnerabilities of the DB and DC sectors together.”

Related Stories:

Pew: Hawaii’s State Pension Ready to Withstand Recession

Virginia Pension in Worse Shape to Weather Crash than in 2008

Many Institutional Investors Confuse ESG with Socially Responsible Investing

Tags: , , , ,

«