“We don’t have a doom-and-gloom scenario for the industry,” said Laura Bazer, a senior credit officer at the ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service. But in recent years, even as low interest rates ate into the industry’s profits, some companies engaged in complex financial maneuvers that enabled them to pay hefty shareholder dividends. Normally, life insurers cannot pay shareholder dividends unless their balance sheets are flush. These maneuvers involve shifting a company’s future obligations to policyholders into special financial vehicles that do not appear on the insurer’s balance sheets. Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them. See more.
Many of the moves were made with the blessing of state regulators who, in some cases, waived accounting rules or also approved the dividends. For instance, one British company told investors in 2011 that it used techniques like these to navigate around “redundant” American insurance regulations requiring it to hold “excess” reserves for future claims. The firm’s American subsidiary, Banner Life Insurance, then sent the parent company “extraordinary dividends” totaling $785 million.
But now some Banner policyholders are being told their monthly payments must rise as much as sixfold, prompting a lawsuit that accuses Banner of raiding customers’ accounts to pay the dividends. Banner said in court filings that the Maryland Insurance Administration had reviewed and approved the dividends, as well as the calculations justifying them. In a similar vein, this spring, Axa Equitable Life Insurance raised the monthly payments on about 1,700 universal life policyholders who were over 70 and whose policies had a face value of over $1 million. Axa said the increase was necessary because its customers were dying sooner than it expected. Some policyholders question that argument, saying the increases were aimed at improving Axa’s bottom line.
Axa, which has been increasing its dividend payouts for shareholders, projects that the premium increases will raise its profits by approximately $500 million, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan this year by a policyholder. In its court filings, Axa included a letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services that found the proposed increase for the small group of policyholders to be “unobjectionable” and that the higher charges did “not reflect an increase in your profit goals.” In a statement, Jennifer Recine, an Axa spokeswoman, said the company believed that the lawsuit had no merit. Having to Walk Away Similar problems are playing out in the long-term care insurance business, which has sold policies designed to pay for nursing homes, assisted-living facilities and home health. Today, however, long-term care insurers face accusations of badly underpricing their policies as costs skyrocket.
Many have either left the industry or severely reduced benefits. The remaining players, contending with low interest rates, are getting state regulators across the country to approve big premium increases. Twelve years ago, Louann Sherbach, of Amityville, N.Y., bought a long-term care policy from Genworth. “I was assured when I purchased the policy, even though the premium was high for me at $2,300 a year, that the premium would not increase,” said Mrs. Sherbach, 65, who recently retired as an administrative director for a day care center.
About a month ago, the rate increased to $3,700. “That’s outrageous! I can’t afford that,” she said. After paying $27,000 in premiums over the years, Mrs. Sherbach dropped the policy, believing she was walking away empty-handed. “I feel like they mismanaged my money to pay other people’s claims and now I have nothing,” she said. But after being asked about Mrs. Sherbach’s situation, a spokeswoman for Genworth said the company was voluntarily giving customers like Mrs. Sherbach who canceled their policies new coverage, reflecting the premiums already paid. “If a policyholder had paid $27,000 in premiums and did not have any claims,” wrote Julie Westermann, a spokeswoman for Genworth, in an email, then that customer “would have a maximum available benefit of $27,000.” For Ms. Sparks — whose elderly parents, the Cooks, faced the near doubling of their life insurance bill — the insurance company’s strategy was clear: persuade her parents to simply walk away from the policy, despite a quarter-century of paying in. “There’s no doubt in my mind that they were trying to get us to drop the policy,” Ms. Sparks said. She said the insurer, Transamerica Life Insurance, sent the family charts showing the financial damage her parents would suffer if her mother lived a few more years. The charts showed that keeping the policy at the higher monthly payments “would have wiped them out for everything they had,” Ms. Sparks said. In recent years, Transamerica has used a series of complex financial transactions to shift a large share of its obligations to policyholders into off-balance-sheet vehicles. That allowed it to send about $2 billion in “extraordinary dividends” to its corporate parent in the Netherlands, Aegon.
That left a hole in Transamerica’s finances, which policyholders like the Cooks are now being forced to fill, according to one of several federal lawsuits filed against the insurer seeking class-action status. Lawyers in those cases are seeking an injunction to block the rate increase. Transamerica said it was “in full compliance with its contractual obligations, and intends to contest vigorously the recently filed litigation.” After months of considering their options, the Cooks ultimately decided to drop their life policy, walking away from the $55,000 that they had spent on it over the last 25 years, Ms. Sparks said. They took the remaining cash in the account, which totaled $4,100. Hide this content.
But now some Banner policyholders are being told their monthly payments must rise as much as sixfold, prompting a lawsuit that accuses Banner of raiding customers’ accounts to pay the dividends. Banner said in court filings that the Maryland Insurance Administration had reviewed and approved the dividends, as well as the calculations justifying them. In a similar vein, this spring, Axa Equitable Life Insurance raised the monthly payments on about 1,700 universal life policyholders who were over 70 and whose policies had a face value of over $1 million. Axa said the increase was necessary because its customers were dying sooner than it expected. Some policyholders question that argument, saying the increases were aimed at improving Axa’s bottom line.
Axa, which has been increasing its dividend payouts for shareholders, projects that the premium increases will raise its profits by approximately $500 million, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan this year by a policyholder. In its court filings, Axa included a letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services that found the proposed increase for the small group of policyholders to be “unobjectionable” and that the higher charges did “not reflect an increase in your profit goals.” In a statement, Jennifer Recine, an Axa spokeswoman, said the company believed that the lawsuit had no merit. Having to Walk Away Similar problems are playing out in the long-term care insurance business, which has sold policies designed to pay for nursing homes, assisted-living facilities and home health. Today, however, long-term care insurers face accusations of badly underpricing their policies as costs skyrocket.
Many have either left the industry or severely reduced benefits. The remaining players, contending with low interest rates, are getting state regulators across the country to approve big premium increases. Twelve years ago, Louann Sherbach, of Amityville, N.Y., bought a long-term care policy from Genworth. “I was assured when I purchased the policy, even though the premium was high for me at $2,300 a year, that the premium would not increase,” said Mrs. Sherbach, 65, who recently retired as an administrative director for a day care center.
About a month ago, the rate increased to $3,700. “That’s outrageous! I can’t afford that,” she said. After paying $27,000 in premiums over the years, Mrs. Sherbach dropped the policy, believing she was walking away empty-handed. “I feel like they mismanaged my money to pay other people’s claims and now I have nothing,” she said. But after being asked about Mrs. Sherbach’s situation, a spokeswoman for Genworth said the company was voluntarily giving customers like Mrs. Sherbach who canceled their policies new coverage, reflecting the premiums already paid. “If a policyholder had paid $27,000 in premiums and did not have any claims,” wrote Julie Westermann, a spokeswoman for Genworth, in an email, then that customer “would have a maximum available benefit of $27,000.” For Ms. Sparks — whose elderly parents, the Cooks, faced the near doubling of their life insurance bill — the insurance company’s strategy was clear: persuade her parents to simply walk away from the policy, despite a quarter-century of paying in. “There’s no doubt in my mind that they were trying to get us to drop the policy,” Ms. Sparks said. She said the insurer, Transamerica Life Insurance, sent the family charts showing the financial damage her parents would suffer if her mother lived a few more years. The charts showed that keeping the policy at the higher monthly payments “would have wiped them out for everything they had,” Ms. Sparks said. In recent years, Transamerica has used a series of complex financial transactions to shift a large share of its obligations to policyholders into off-balance-sheet vehicles. That allowed it to send about $2 billion in “extraordinary dividends” to its corporate parent in the Netherlands, Aegon.
That left a hole in Transamerica’s finances, which policyholders like the Cooks are now being forced to fill, according to one of several federal lawsuits filed against the insurer seeking class-action status. Lawyers in those cases are seeking an injunction to block the rate increase. Transamerica said it was “in full compliance with its contractual obligations, and intends to contest vigorously the recently filed litigation.” After months of considering their options, the Cooks ultimately decided to drop their life policy, walking away from the $55,000 that they had spent on it over the last 25 years, Ms. Sparks said. They took the remaining cash in the account, which totaled $4,100. Hide this content.
