Equity-Based Insurance Guarantees Conference November 18-19, 2013 Atlanta, GA Lessons Learned: “What is the Cost of Your Hedging Program?” Frank Zhang Lessons Learned: “What is the Cost of Your Hedging Program?” Equity Based Insurance Guarantees Conference 13:15-14:00 November 19, 19 2013 Atlanta, GA Frank Zhang, CFA, FRM, FSA, MSCF, PRM Vice President, Risk Management (ALM and VA Risk Mgt) Pacific Life Insurance Company 1 Disclaimer This presentation contains the current opinions of the author and not of my employer Pacific Life Insurance Company or the Society of Actuaries. Any such opinions are subject to change without notice. This presentation is distributed for educational purposes only. 2 2 Table of contents The question of “the cost of hedging” Basics of derivatives pricing and dynamic hedging replications Review of the question of “the cost of hedging” 3 3 The question of “the cost of hedging hedging” 4 4 One of the most asked questions What is the cost of hedging? Does it depend on the point of view from the person asking the question? 5 5 Is it the hedge losses you see each year? Q3 2008, Company 1: “… the capital markets in the third quarter represented a real challenge for any dynamic hedging program as equity fell and volatility soared. These factors contributed to a GMWB loss of $133 million pre-tax in the third quarter” Q4 2008, Company 1: “In the fourth quarter, the GMWB hedging program managed through the tremendous volatility of the markets reasonably well. We finished with an after tax loss of $384 million. This was driven mostly by our under hedged vega position, basis risk and intraday market volatility." All company information is from public company earnings calls 6 6 Is it the cost of guarantees? Q3 2008 Company 2: “In addition to reducing our risk profile and decreasing our exposure to changes in hedging costs, this rebalancing has protected our customers from substantial account value declines through recent financial market conditions.” Q2 2013 Company 3: "Our risk managed fund strategies on our VA products continue to anchor new deposit flow... These solutions embed volatility management inside client accounts, enhancing account value stability and lowering our hedging costs." Q3 2008 Company 4: “…increase in volatility that causes an increase in our hedging cost..” All company information is from public company earnings calls 7 7 Is it the Milliman Hedge Cost Index™ (MHCI)? MHCI provides the estimated hedging cost for a hypothetical lifetime guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit (“Lifetime GMWB”) block. The expected hedge costs are calculated using product features for a generic Lifetime GMWB in line with product designs common in the market. Likewise, the modeling assumptions are based on typical actuarial and behavioral assumptions widely used by VA writers in the market place. MHCI- Expected Hedge Cost 130 120 (bps) 110 100 90 80 70 MHCITM is provided by Milliman Financial Risk Management LLC Jul--13 Apr--13 Jan--13 Oct--12 Jul--12 Apr--12 Jan--12 60 8 8 Is it the hedge breakage or ineffectiveness? Q3 2008, Company 3 : “The breakage in the quarter can be attributed to a combination of basis risk, currency movements and the impact of an extreme, intraday volatility..“ Q3 2008 Company 2: “The The adjusted operating income we report also includes breakage between changes in the values of our living benefit guarantees and our hedging instruments. With the turbulent financial markets in the current quarter, we experienced negative breakage of $37 million…” Q1 2009 Company 2: “In the Annuity business, we've we have consistently reflected the impact of hedging breakage within adjusted operating income. The hedging breakage represents the difference between changes in fair value of the embedded derivative liabilities to our living benefits, and changes in value of the derivatives we use to hedge these liabilities or guarantees. All company information is from public company earnings calls 9 9 Is it the cost of macro hedging? Q4 2012 Company 1: "the cost structure of our macro hedge program has improved, which is now estimated to be approximately $75 million to $100 million annual cash spend, down from the previous $200 million to $250 million." Q4 2012 Company 5: "The The notional value for our macro hedging program increased in the quarter resulting in higher expected hedging costs.“ Q2 2013 Company 5: " During the second quarter, we took advantage of favorable market conditions to improve the effectiveness of our hedging program by adding $2 billion in guarantee value to our dynamic hedging program... And in addition, we unwound macro hedge positions to maintain our equity risk targets. In the early part of the third quarter, we also added an additional $5.7 billion in guarantee value to our dynamic hedging programs in the U.S. and Japan. The reduction in (macro) hedge positions increased our second quarter core earnings by approximately $20 million" million All company information is from public company earnings calls 10 10 Is it the losses from change in assumptions? Q3 2013 Company 2: "The $1.7 billion loss from product-related embedded derivatives and hedging was largely driven by reducing our assumed level of lapses on variable annuity contracts based on our annual actuarial review. While lower assumed lapses contributed to a positive unlocking for our AOI results, they produced a charge here because of the capital markets assumptions we are required to use for embedded derivatives under GAAP.“ All company information is from public company earnings calls 11 11 Does the cost depend on when/how the hedging is built? Q2 2013 Company 3: "I think what you see at a lot of companies is companies that weren't protected -- didn't have hedge programs in place coming into the crisis and had to build those hedge programs at costs that are probably twice what we had to spend to put that hedge program in place." All company information is from public company earnings calls 12 12 Cost in business projections Company 2 2013 Investor Day: “base scenario projection with 8% equity grow return.” “the hedge costs in this analysis or in the business is to think of it as like a cost of goods sold. This is the sum cost for doing business with optional living benefits.” “In the stress scenarios, we adjusted our hedge effectiveness assumption. So in the baseline assumption, we're assuming 100% hedge effectiveness. In the stresses, we're assuming 80%. So we've accounted for some increased cost associated with hedging and in stress." All company information is from public company earnings calls 13 13 Basics of derivatives pricing and dynamic hedging replications 14 14 Capital market one price – Risk neutral valuation Derivatives can be replicated using risk free instruments It turns out risk neutral pricing is a very convenient trick to simplify derivatives calculations Risk neutral replications is dynamic hedging The objective of dynamic hedging is to fully fund at maturity/payoff the derivatives obligations whatever happens Martingale or risk neutral measure: Ht = EQ(HT|Ft) Girsanov theorem and Radon-Nikodym derivative: R l ti Relationship hi between b t risk i k neutral t l and d reall world ld measures 15 15 Dynamic replications – Whether or not market goes down Example of GMAB block with $5M option value Two paths of market performance of replicating strategies Whether or not market goes down – the hedging is to track against the change in liability with small net P/L Dynamic y Hedge g Performance ((Hedging g g Target g vs. Hedge g Assets)) 160,000 140,000 25,000,000 AV 120,000 20,000,000 100,000 15,000,000 80,000 60,000 Account Value A Hedged ta arget vs. Hedging g Assets 30,000,000 10,000,000 Hedged Target = GMAB Liability 40,000 5,000,000 20,000 Hedging Assets = Prem + P/L - 0 100 Option Value 200 300 Cum Futures G/(L) + PV of Option Premium 400 500 Weeks Account Value 16 16 Dynamic replications – Whether or not market goes up Example of GMAB block with $5M option value Two paths of market performance of replicating strategies Whether or not market goes up – the hedging is to track against the change in liability with small net P/L Dynamic y Hedge g Performance ((Hedging g g Target g vs. Hedge g Assets)) 12,000,000 180,000 AV 140,000 8,000,000 , , 120,000 6,000,000 100,000 80,000 4,000,000 Hedged Target = GMAB Liability 60,000 Acco ount Value Hedged ta arget vs. Hedging g Assets 160,000 10,000,000 2,000,000 40,000 20,000 Hedging Assets = Prem + P/L (2,000,000) 0 100 Option Value 200 300 Cum Futures G/(L) + PV of Option Premium 400 500 Weeks Account Value 17 17 Hedging with options vs. dynamic delta hedging Does dynamically delta hedging cost less than using options? The following example show that without paying for option price but dynamically hedging from time zero The difference (of option premium) is carried forward with interests and paid back later, whether h th th the market k t is i up or down d Dynamic Hedge Performance (Hedging Target vs. Hedge Assets) AV 25,000,000 160,000 140,000 20,000,000 120,000 15,000,000 100,000 Hedged Target = GMAB Liability 10,000,000 80,000 5,000,000 60,000 - 40,000 (5,000,000) 20,000 Hedging Assets = P/L “saved” initial option prem will be paid back at end plus interest (10,000,000) 0 100 Option Value 200 300 Cum Futures G/(L) + PV of Option Premium Accountt Value Hedged ta arget vs. Hedging g Assets 30,000,000 400 500 Weeks Account Value 18 18 Hedge breakage with dynamic delta hedging Dynamic delta hedging cost without the initial option premium There is always a “breakage” or cost of financing every single period due to accrued interest from the option premium This will be a bigger problem when interest rate is higher Dynamic delta hedging can not lock in the guarantees perfectly The breakages depend on the realized volatility during the hedging periods (gamma cost) If the realized volatility is higher, the cost of hedging (negative hedge breakage) will be higher Dynamic delta hedging is buy-high-and sell-low This is the way how dynamic delta hedging will eventually pay for gamma Dynamic delta hedging does not necessarily save company money, relative to static hedging with options Uncertain results of using delta hedging without gamma hedging to cover tail events Option premium (rider fees) will have to be collected over time 19 19 Dynamic hedging boils down to gamma risk 2. Why volatility matters Higher Hi h realized li d volatility l ili iincreases cost off d dynamic i h hedging d i program Hedge cost increases during periods when underlying funds moves sharply, resulting in elevated transaction costs and increased “buy-high-and-sell-low” round trip trades Volatility equals cost of options One up-anddown-cycle Account Value and Dynamic Hedging 160,000 Sell at lower and lower prices, AFTER market is down 140,000 120,000 Accou unt Value 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 Buy at higher and higher prices, AFTER market is up 20,000 ‐ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time 20 20 Review of the question of “the the cost of hedging” hedging 21 21 The Milliman Hedge Cost Index™ (MHCI) MHCITM provides the estimated hedging cost for a hypothetical lifetime guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit (“Lifetime GMWB”) block. The expected hedge costs are calculated using product features for a generic Lifetime GMWB in line with product designs common in the market. Likewise, the modeling assumptions are based on typical actuarial and behavioral assumptions widely used by VA writers in the market place. MHCI- Expected Hedge Cost 130 120 (bps) 110 100 90 80 70 Jul-13 Apr-13 Jan-13 Oct-12 Jul-12 Apr-12 Jan-12 60 Hedge cost here is the cost of option embedded in the VA guarantees MHCITM is provided by Milliman Financial Risk Management LLC 22 22 The cost of guarantees is estimated future cost of hedging Q3 2008 Company 2: “In addition to reducing our risk profile and decreasing our exposure to changes in hedging costs, this rebalancing has protected our customers from substantial account value declines through recent financial market conditions.” Q2 2013 Company 3: "Our risk managed fund strategies on our VA products continue to anchor new deposit flow... These solutions embed volatility management inside client accounts, enhancing account value stability and lowering our hedging costs." The cost of option embedded in the VA guarantees is the estimated future cost of hedging that replicates the claim payoffs All company information is from public company earnings calls 23 23 Hedge breakage is against hedging target Q3 2008, Company 3 : “The breakage in the quarter can be attributed to a combination of basis risk, currency movements and the impact of an extreme, intraday volatility..“ Q3 2008 Company 2: “The The adjusted operating income we report also includes breakage between changes in the values of our living benefit guarantees and our hedging instruments. With the turbulent financial markets in the current quarter, we experienced negative breakage of $37 million…” Q1 2009 Company 2: “In the Annuity business, we've we have consistently reflected the impact of hedging breakage within adjusted operating income. The hedging breakage represents the difference between changes in fair value of the embedded derivative liabilities to our living benefits, and changes in value of the derivatives we use to hedge these liabilities or guarantees. Q3 2008 C Company 4 4: ““…increase i iin volatility l tilit th thatt causes an iincrease iin our h hedging d i cost..” Against a hedging target, hedge breakage is the cost of hedge! All company information is from public company earnings calls 24 24 What are some typical hedge breakages? What they are? Difference between targeted liability and hedging assets Typically implied as cost of hedging by most companies at their earnings calls Capital market hedge targets Delta, Vega (Mark-to market based on expected vol), Rho Gamma (realized vol against expected vol) Basis risk (funds (funds, indices indices, trading instruments) And many other more subtle items easily missed Actual vs. expected decrements Accrued/borrowed interests Time decay and liability roll Future expected fees vs. reserve fees Higher order or cross Greeks Etc Etc. 25 25 These hedge losses are hedge breakages Q3 2008, Company 1: “… the capital markets in the third quarter represented a real challenge for any dynamic hedging program as equity fell and volatility soared. These factors contributed to a GMWB loss of $133 million pre-tax in the third quarter” Q4 2008, Company 1: “In the fourth quarter, the GMWB hedging program managed through the tremendous volatility of the markets reasonably well. We finished with an after tax loss of $384 million. This was driven mostly by our under hedged vega position, basis risk and intraday market volatility." These losses are actually hedge breakages All company information is from public company earnings calls 26 26 Dynamic replications – Delayed hedging during initial up or down market Example of GMAB block with $5M option value Dynamic hedging delayed for 2 years when market went up Delayed hedging missed out the losses from initial up market and resulted in “permanent” gains Dynamic Hedge Performance (Hedging Target vs. vs Hedge Assets) 160,000 140,000 30,000,000 AV 120,000 25 000 000 25,000,000 100,000 Market went up 20,000,000 80,000 Hedging Assets = Prem + P/L 15,000,000 60,000 Start hedging Acco ount Value Hedged ta arget vs. Hedging g Assets 35,000,000 10,000,000 40,000 5,000,000 20,000 Hedged Target = GMAB Liability - - 0 100 Option Value 200 300 Cum Futures G/(L) + PV of Option Premium 400 500 Weeks Account Value 27 27 The estimate of future cost of hedging depend on when/how the hedging is built Q2 2013 Company 3: "I think what you see at a lot of companies is companies that weren't protected -- didn't have hedge programs in place coming into the crisis and had to build those hedge programs at costs that are probably twice what we had to spend to put that hedge program in place." • The cost of option embedded in the VA guarantees is the estimate of future claims cost hedged by dynamic replication • Delayed hedge locked in losses, resulting higher cost of covering for the claims • Cost of guarantees is not “locked in” unless hedged immediately All company information is from public company earnings calls 28 28 Hedge breakage with assumption or model change A change in between liability run created mark-to-market impact not mitigated by hedging Such as change in interest rate, volatility, actuarial assumptions, or models 300 Hedge Effectiveness - Assets vs. Liabilities 200 Liability 100 $ Assets Breakage 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -100 100 Time -200 -300 300 Hedge Effectiveness ‐ Assets vs. Liabilities (with MTM Change) 200 Liability Assets Breakage 100 $ 0 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -100 100 Time -200 This liability MTM change impact is missed by hedging and causes additional loss -300 29 29 Cost of change in assumptions or models Non-capital market components Change of actuarial assumptions Missed Greeks Assuming constant or updating frequently enough Interest rate Implied or assumed volatility The impact of change constant assumption Interest rate (Rho G/L) Implied or assumed volatility (Vega G/L) Model changes At the end of day, CEO of the company is responsible for its business performance, no matter what is the reason 30 30 Change in assumptions means lower hedge effectiveness Q3 2013 Company 2: "The $1.7 billion loss from product-related embedded derivatives and hedging was largely driven by reducing our assumed level of lapses on variable annuity contracts based on our annual actuarial review. While lower assumed lapses contributed to a positive unlocking for our AOI results, they produced a charge here because of the capital markets assumptions we are required to use for embedded derivatives under GAAP.“ Uncertain models and assumptions are the key differences between insurance hedging and bank’s hedging programs All company information is from public company earnings calls 31 31 Cost of no hedging No hedging – No hedge breakage No replicating the liabilities Could pocket gains or suffer losses, but will not have any certainty for outcome Company might make an implicit assumptions about the market This is often true about volatility or interest rate Decision not to hedge might be related to GAAP/STAT accounting SOP 03-1 products Statutory AG43 and C3P2 “flaws” Cost of hedging vs vs. cost of no hedging Difference between hedge and unhedged can be attributed separately There could be hidden cost to show up as surprise 32 32 Cost and benefit of hedge program operations Operating cost of hedging program setup/operations Transactions costs Systems, people and operations Benefit of hedging program capabilities Benefit of ability to prevent large financial losses Cost of hedging program operations is small compared to what companies have lost during the financial crisis Ability to prevent similar losses is valuable 33 33 Macro hedge program – Conservative hedging Macro hedges may not target dynamic replications Usually conservative and sometimes target the tail stress scenarios Gains/losses are directly booked if there is no matching liability Over the long run, the market is not in tails and the macro hedges tend to lose money Initial industry movements after the recent financial crisis Moving g from economic hedge g to more of statutory y hedge g Those hedges may cost money Most recent industry trend Reduce macro hedge and back to more economic hedge To reduce the cost of non-matching macro hedge 34 34 Macro hedging typically costs money Q4 2012 Company 1: "the cost structure of our macro hedge program has improved, which is now estimated to be approximately $75 million to $100 million annual cash spend, down from the previous $200 million to $250 million." Q4 2012 Company 5: "The The notional value for our macro hedging program increased in the quarter resulting in higher expected hedging costs.“ Q2 2013 Company 5: " During the second quarter, we took advantage of favorable market conditions to improve the effectiveness of our hedging program by adding $2 billion in guarantee value to our dynamic hedging program... And in addition, we unwound macro hedge positions to maintain our equity risk targets. In the early part of the third quarter, we also added an additional $5.7 billion in guarantee value to our dynamic hedging programs in the U.S. and Japan. The reduction in (macro) hedge positions increased our second quarter core earnings by approximately $20 million" million Recent movements from macro hedge to dynamic hedge to reduce macro hedge cost All company information is from public company earnings calls 35 35 Hedging with or without a target Q3 2013 Company 7: “… fair value hedging programs, where we largely have an accounting match, continue to be effective. Fair value hedging without an accounting match resulted in a loss of EUR 116 million, in line with expectations. Strong equity market performance drove losses on both the equity collar hedge, as wellll as on th the macro h hedge.“ d “ All company information is from public company earnings calls • Hedge breakage/effectiv eness is used for hedging program matched with liability target • Hedge without li bilit match liability t h (macro hedge) can be costly in “good” market 36 36 Business projections – Optimistic ongoing business What about the potential cost of equity hedging, when equity market is projected to return 7-9%, as many companies’ strategic plans even in current low rate environment? What about the potential cost of interest rate hedging, if rate is projected increase by 2-3% in two years? What about the potential cost of equity hedging in DAC projects, where the expected equity returns are more than 7-9%? 37 37 Projection example Company 2 2013 Investor Day: “base scenario projection with 8% equity grow return.” “the hedge costs in this analysis or in the business is to think of it as like a cost of goods sold. This is the sum cost for doing business with optional living benefits.” • In normal business projections hedge program “cost” money • Even though the hedge results offset the future claims (reserves) All company information is from public company earnings calls 38 38 Risk management goals Goals #1 Reduce the expected cost of future guarantees Unc certainty #2 Reduce the uncertainty of cost of providing actual future guarantee claims Initial option value sold = Future expected cost Difference between target and actual is breakage Goal #1 Before Time 0 Goal #2 Hedging to lock in the cost of providing guarantees Final Payoff 39 39 Key Takeaways Cost of guarantees is the estimate of future hedge cost Lock in the cost of guarantee with hedge immediately after the product is sold to reduce breakage The best strategy to reduce the cost of guarantees is by product design No hedging expose company to risk and increase earnings/capital volatility (with implicit cost) Cost of hedging against a matching target Hedge breakages – hedge assets against hedged liabilities Plus some cost of hedge program – systems, people, liquidity, operations, accounting mismatch Cost of hedging against no matching target Macro hedge may or may not have specific replicating liability target to track against Paying for the tail events that may or may not happen normally (over the long time on average) Oft necessary tto protect Often t t capital it l and d solvency l Best way to reduce hedging program breakage Improve hedge program effectiveness (against the hedged target) Focus on hedging performance attribution Tighten all components of hedge breakages, such as fund basis, fund volatility, policyholder optional behavior 40 40 Frank Zhang, CFA, FRM, FSA, MSCF, PRM E il [email protected] Email: k h @ ifi lif LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/zhangfrank 41
© Copyright 2024