The essence of a Life and Annuity (L&A) insurance carrier is the long-term promise: a commitment to pay a future death benefit or provide retirement income decades down the line. To keep this promise, a carrier must operate with prudence, prioritize solvency and maintain transparent, conservative financial practices. However, the growing influence of Private Equity (PE) ownership in the L&A sector has introduced an intrinsic and fundamental conflict of interest, setting the stage for a classic financial tug-of-war where the urgency of short-term profit often strains the necessity of long-term security.
The Investor Mandate vs. The Policyholder Promise
For a PE group, an L&A carrier represents a massive pool of patient capital — the policyholders' reserves — that can be leveraged to generate a high return for the fund's investors over a short horizon, typically five to seven years. This model is starkly different from the industry's historical foundation, which was rooted in the mutual company structure that prioritized the policyholders' interests above all else.
The shift to a stock company model, which primarily serves the investor, is a root cause of the current tension. When a PE firm takes the reins, the pressure on management to extract value rapidly is immense, often compelling a departure from the conservative practices traditionally associated with fulfilling multi-decade liabilities.
The Drive Toward Risky, Illiquid Assets
The most visible mechanism of value extraction is a strategic shift in the carrier’s investment portfolio. Traditional L&A carriers invest primarily in high-grade, liquid corporate and government bonds to match the timing and certainty of future policy payouts.
PE-owned carriers, under pressure to boost returns for their shareholders and executives, often pivot to risky, illiquid, and high-yielding assets such as private credit, real estate and collateralized loan obligations.
While these assets may offer higher yields, they introduce significant new risks: less liquidity to pay claims in a crisis and increased exposure to potential credit default. This strategic move directly addresses the investor mandate for profit, but it simultaneously thins the cushion of safety for policyholders and leaves a very thin surplus to respond to any financial crisis or market downturn.
The Veil of Opacity: Reinsurance Engineering
Another key lever for value extraction is the aggressive use of financial engineering to manipulate the carrier’s balance sheet. This involves using captive or offshore reinsurance to move policy liabilities off the carrier's primary books, a practice sometimes referred to by regulators as "Shadow Insurance."
By ceding liabilities to an affiliated, non-transparent offshore or captive reinsurer — often domiciled in jurisdictions with less stringent financial reporting — the primary L&A carrier is able to free up statutory capital. This capital can then be remitted to the parent company, becoming profits for the shareholders and executives.
The core issue here is opacity, as billions of dollars in ceded risk move behind a veil. This benefits investors by creating an incomplete, and potentially misleading, picture of the carrier’s true financial foundation for everyone from policyholders to rating agencies.
In a system built on faith and long-term security, the PE model’s drive for immediate value extraction — manifested through the adoption of risky investments and opaque reinsurance —introduces a corrosive element of short-term thinking.
This environment necessitates that financial professionals and consumers conduct a deep-dive analysis of an insurer's financial statement to distinguish a solid company from a potential “house of cards” built on leveraged financial schemes. Contact Tom Gober, CFE at Deep Dive Analytics today to learn more.
Tags:
Comments