UK: Insurance Accounting Newsletter - Filing For Divorce?

Last Updated: 27 August 2009
Article by Deloitte Financial Services Group

Most Read Contributor in UK, August 2017

Great expectations hung on the outcomes of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) meetings in July. The two Boards met on 23 July 2009 to agree on a single measurement basis for the accounting of insurance contracts. However, two significant differences of opinion emerged and there is a risk now that convergence between IFRS and US GAAP could be more difficult.

Unless the two Boards reach an agreement on these differences of opinion in the next Joint Board Meeting on 26 – 28 October 2009, it is likely that each Board will publish an exposure draft containing its selected approach, asking respondents to indicate their preference.

Primary areas of agreement between the two Boards

The work of the IASB and the FASB has progressed substantially on several issues which would represent the foundation of any further convergence debate in the remaining few months of the work towards an exposure draft. Indeed both Boards support the use of a single model for all insurance contracts. They believe that the best model is one using the 'three building blocks' approach to the measurement of an insurance contract; the three building blocks being:

  1. the undiscounted probability-weighted estimate of future cash flows;
  2. the effect of the time value of money on a market consistent basis (a decision the FASB only reached at their 21 July meeting); and
  3. a margin or margins.

Both Boards agree on the fundamental principles informing blocks 1 and 2, including the requirement that they should be re-measured at every reporting date to include the most up to date information, avoiding the "locking-in" of assumptions set at inception. The Boards also agreed that, should the measurement of the liability on day one exceed the amount of premium paid (e.g. an onerous contract), the loss should be taken immediately through income.

Our appendix details all the current decisions highlighting the areas where the Boards share the same view and those where they have now agreed to disagree.

Areas of divergence between the two Boards

The Boards have a fundamentally different view on the objective of initial measurement of an insurance contract. This comes down to the role of acquisition costs in the initial calibration of an insurance contract liability against the price policyholders pay. Stemming from this difference, they are also divided over the nature and purpose of the margins, block 3 in the "three-building-blocks" approach.

These two differences are considered in more detail in the following paragraphs and illustrated in the diagram below:

Difference 1 – the initial measurement objective and the role of acquisition costs

The first difference of opinion between the two Boards is the fundamental principle that an insurer should apply when first measuring the liability when a contract is sold. In practical terms, the different perspectives crystallise at the point of initial calibration of the insurance contract's liability, i.e. when it is sold and the premium is paid by the policyholder. Each Board see the roles attributed to an insurer's acquisition costs at that point in time differently, as explained below.

IASB's view

The IASB believes that contracts with the same risk should be accounted for at the same amount regardless of how the contract was sold. In arriving at this decision last April, the IASB considered the example of an insurer distributing identical contracts through two different channels with two different acquisition costs reflected in the premium. To arrive at equivalent measurement amounts for the same policy, the IASB requires that the initial liability be calculated by calibrating the three building blocks against the premium receivable after the deduction of incremental acquisition costs. Without such an adjustment, the same liability, sold via a more expensive distribution channel, is likely to produce a higher amount due to the presence of a portion in the premium that the policyholder purely pays to fund the cost of signing the policy with a particular high street broker.

This decision requires the recognition of what we called "new business revenue" (see IAN issue 3). This revenue is capped to the incremental acquisition costs incurred because the IASB (and the FASB) agreed that there should never be an accounting profit from selling insurance. In addition, to assist the objective of consistent application of this principle, the IASB decided that only acquisition costs which are incremental and directly attributable to the insurance contract being measured will be included in the calibration. All acquisition costs, whether incremental or not, must always be expensed through income as incurred, although a portion of those acquisition costs would normally be offset by the "new business revenue" on day one of the contract that we explained above.

The IASB has noted that its decision on incremental acquisition costs is consistent with the general IFRS literature on the subject, in particular with IAS 39, and it is a less arbitrary and complex basis than other definitions of acquisition costs; these characteristics should translate into consistent application of the principle across all IFRS preparers. However, several industry players have suggested that a definition of acquisition costs to include all costs directly related to the issue of the contract irrespective of their incremental nature, would more closely align the IASB principle to the underlying economics of insurance business.

FASB's view

The FASB emphasised the principle of revenue recognition in its analysis. They believe the contract liability should be measured as a function of the revenue that would be accounted for and thus, the initial calibration should be with the amount of the consideration paid since no service has been provided at that point in time.

Incurring acquisition costs has no part in the measurement of the revenue. When the FASB considered existing pricing practices among insurers, they argued that many insurers either charge the same amount for a given risk regardless of the method of distribution or, that any difference does not reflect solely the recovery of acquisition costs. Under the proposed revenue recognition standard, revenue can only be recognised once a service has been performed and, at the point of sale, the FASB argues that no service has been performed. Hence the insurance liability should follow that principle with no revenue recognised on day one of the contract.

However, the FASB agrees with the IASB that all acquisition costs should be expensed as incurred. While many industries have up-front acquisition costs, and there are several instances in US GAAP where deferral is permitted, the current FASB view does not support the deferral of any acquisition costs.

The tentative decisions of the Boards result in an IASB model with day one revenue capped by the amount of associated incremental acquisition costs and a FASB model with no day one revenue (i.e. larger day one loss, with more revenue earned in subsequent periods, all other things being equal) and a larger initial insurance contract liability.

The IASB decision to release day one revenue capped by incremental acquisition costs would mean that insurers' revenue recognition patterns will be determined by their decisions on whether to incur direct or incremental costs to sell their policies.

Difference 2 – nature and purpose of block 3 (margins)

The second difference of opinion between the two Boards is on the nature and purpose of the third block – margins. At the centre of this debate are the different views on the best approach to represent uncertainty of outcomes in financial reporting.

IASB's view

For quite some time now, the IASB has believed that estimation uncertainty should be accounted for on an explicit, current and unbiased basis. It believes that a margin for risk added to the probability weighted net present value of future cash flows is the most appropriate way to address this principle. Its work on accounting for uncertainty within the insurance project has informed the IASB project on all other liabilities where a new model based on the three building blocks will be the core of the updated IAS 37 liability measurement model. As we reported in our IAN issue 5, the IASB agreed in June to establish a clear parallel between the projects, revising general liability accounting and reporting of insurance contracts liabilities. At their pre-joint meeting discussion on 22 July, the IASB only agreed "directional" support of the plan to use the IAS 37 model for insurance accounting. The caveats will be removed only once the IASB Staff have satisfactorily resolved the issues raised so far, particularly on accounting for the margins.

The revised IAS 37 model that received the IASB support is based on the principle of the value to the entity of not having to fulfil an obligation. The measurement is based on entity specific estimates or, where there is a transfer market, the transfer value in the market. However, there are significant differences in the details of the IAS 37 approach when compared to the FASB fulfilment value model. In particular, the IAS 37 model, when adapted to the situation of selling insurance policies, includes explicit margins for risk, profit/service and, in certain situations, also a residual margin.

Under the IAS 37 model as would be applied to insurance contracts, the liability measurement would include a risk margin based on the recognition that an insurer would charge more for a high-risk probability weighted cash flow than for a low-risk probability weighted cash flow.

For example: Contract A has a 50% likely cash flow of CU90 and a 50% likely cash flow of CU10. Contract B has a 50% likely cash flow of CU51 and a 50% likely cash flow of CU 49. Both contracts have a probability weighted cash flow of CU 50; however there is significantly more risk in Contract A. Hence, based on the IAS 37 model, Contract A will have a higher liability due to the recognition of a larger risk margin than would result from considering the estimation uncertainty of the possible outcomes under Contract B.

The value to an entity of being relieved from an obligation would include the estimated costs of fulfilling the contract, a margin for risk (as discussed above) and an element of profit which should be estimated from an entity perspective if no reliable information from a "subcontractor" market exists. This principle in an insurance context would refer to the expected profit an insurer would make from providing any services other than acceptance of insurance risk, the latter being captured already in the margin for risk. Blocks 1 and 2 would include the probability weighted net present value of all the contractual cash flows including both expected claims (risk cash flows) and servicing costs (non-risk or non-contingent cash flows).

This model would apply to all general liabilities accounted for under IFRS. However, for insurance contracts, the IASB Staff proposed an additional step incorporating the previous decision the IASB reached on the initial calibration against the net premium to capture in the total insurance liability any positive amount not explained by the three-building-block valuation. Negative amounts would be taken immediately to the income statement as "day one losses".

At this point in time, the IASB has concluded that risk and service/profit margins should be remeasured at each reporting date. The fine details of this crucial principle and its impact on the resulting accounting profit pattern will be finalised after the IASB's August break.

FASB's view

Consistent with its revenue recognition focussed approach, the FASB believes that estimation uncertainty from the risks of the various cash flows is already accounted for through the use of a probability weighted cash flows estimate. The calibration to the gross premium paid would reflect (to the extent the price does that) the variability of the insured outcomes.

The resulting model is a current fulfilment value (known as "candidate 4" in the list the IASB and the FASB considered at their first meetings in February – see our IAN issue 1) where the active measurement is done for the first two building blocks while the third is determined by the calibration process.

The FASB agrees that its view on the margin results in a third building block that includes all of the components of the IASB proposal, defined as a "composite" margin to reflect its multiple facets.

The FASB has criticised the IASB's approach as one that is not accounting for insurance contracts on a true fulfilment value approach. They argued that the explicit measure of margins for risk and service introduces concepts that are akin to the current exit price approach both Boards rejected as unsuitable for insurance reporting.

As they made their concluding remarks at the joint meeting, the FASB members noted that they have yet to discuss the subsequent accounting of the composite margin. Some of the IASB members observed that in their view, the production of reliable accounting values at dates subsequent to the sale of an insurance contract is the area where they felt the FASB model would fall short of the IASB proposals.

The FASB model would produce a lower liability for onerous contracts as the liability would never include risk or service margins. Where contracts are not onerous the IASB and FASB liabilities will depend, among other things, on the subsequent measurement and earning patterns the various margins would be required to follow.

The IASB has agreed that the risk and service margins would be remeasured at each reporting date; at this point in time, the IASB has not discussed how the residual margin would be earned. Similarly, the FASB has not yet discussed how the composite margin would be earned after its initial recognition.

In particular, both Boards wish to discuss in greater detail the interaction between their proposed margin approaches and the changes in the expected value (blocks 1 and 2) due to positive and negative deviations from the estimate.

The decisions still to be taken on the earning pattern for both the IASB and the FASB margin models as well as their approaches to dealing with subsequent deviations from initial estimates are likely to have significant effects on the overall profit signature from different types of insurance contact. Consequently, the final version of the IFRS for insurance contracts may have a significant effect on the relative pricing of different types of insurance contract.

Other decisions made by the IASB

At its meeting on 22 July 2009, the IASB also decided to require the use of the unearned premium method to account for the pre-claim liability for all contracts which meet all of the following conditions:

  • cover 12 months or less;
  • no embedded options or guarantees; and
  • where the insurer is unlikely to become aware of events which could result in significant decreases in the expected cash outflows.

While the first two conditions are fairly standard for short term general insurance contracts, the third condition will result in significantly different accounting approach between high frequency, low variability risks (e.g. a large book of individual motor policies) and low frequency, high variability risks (e.g. catastrophe policies).

It is unclear whether this decision would result in different accounting profit patterns between insurers required to apply the unearned premium method and those which would not be required to use it. The unearned premium method would require all margins implicit in the initial liability to be earned over the period of cover. The post-claim liability would be accounted for as claims are incurred.

The discussion to date does not indicate whether the post-claim liability would require the recognition of the portion of the residual margin that would not be earned by the end of the cover period if the three building blocks approach had been used. It is also unclear whether the IASB will conclude that a service/profit margin should also be measured for the post-claim liability.

If the unearned premium method is refined so that a part of the residual margin (and service margin if any) is earned after the cover period, the profit pattern among insurers using the two different methods would be consistently reported. However in this case the main benefit of simplifying the accounting via the unearned premium would be substantially removed from the use of the three building block approach for claims incurred from the first year.

If such a refinement to the unearned premium approach is not part of the new IFRS there is a risk that the application of the three building blocks would produce, all other things being equal, significantly smaller accounting profits in the first twelve months of the life of an insurance contract with the opposite being true in subsequent financial periods.

The distinction between the pre-claim and post-claim approach has not posed a significant challenge to the debate to date. However we believe that the decision to require the unearned premium method for a subset of insurance contracts would call for even more careful attention on the consistency between the two resulting profit patterns as well as an assessment of the real benefits of requiring the simpler computation of preclaim liabilities.

The effect of the unearned premium method would potentially mean that residual margins be earned more quickly than under the IAS 37 model, unless the post-claim liability is required to include the portion of the residual and service margins not earned at the end of the cover period under the IAS 37 approach.

Next steps

The IASB Staff have a substantial amount of urgent work ahead of them before the September IASB meeting. They will need to prepare proposals on the accounting principles to be used for the release of margins to income, recommend an approach for the presentation of premiums and claims in the income statement, and finalise the development of the IAS 37 model being used as the base for the measurement of insurance contract liabilities.

The FASB does not take a break in August and it could take advantage of its meetings this month to further develop its own model and also to deal with all the other matters already tentatively decided by the IASB (e.g. renewal and cancellation options or the requirement to use the unearned premium method).

In addition, other important issues will also have to be considered before the publication of the exposure draft, for example:

  • the criteria for the selection of an appropriate discount rate;
  • how participating contracts will be accounted for;
  • whether insurance liabilities should be measured by contract, by portfolio, or on some other wider basis; and
  • the assessment of the results of the targeted field testing.

There is much still to do but the Boards are committed to delivering the exposure draft (or drafts) at the end of 2009.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.