Requirements for Principle-Based Reserves for Life Products VM-20
© 2023 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 20-41
K. Modeling of Derivative Programs
1. When determining the DR and the SR, the company shall include in the projections the
appropriate costs and benefits of derivative instruments that are currently held by the
company in support of the policies subject to these requirements. The company shall also
include the appropriate costs and benefits of anticipated future derivative instrument
transactions associated with the execution of future hedging strategies supporting the
policies, as well as the appropriate costs and benefits of anticipated future derivative
instrument transactions associated with non-hedging derivative programs (e.g., replication,
income generation) undertaken as part of the investment strategy supporting the policies,
provided they are normally modeled as part of the company’s risk assessment and
evaluation processes.
2. F
or each derivative program that is modeled, the company shall reflect the company’s
established investment policy and procedures for that program; project expected program
performance along each scenario; and recognize all benefits, residual risks and associated
frictional costs. The residual risks include, but are not limited to: basis, gap, price,
parameter estimation and variation in assumptions (mortality, persistency, withdrawal,
etc.). Frictional costs include, but are not limited to: transaction, margin (opportunity costs
associated with margin requirements) and administration. For future hedging strategies
supporting the policies, the company may not assume that residual risks and frictional costs
have a value of zero, unless the company demonstrates in the PBR Actuarial Report that
“zero” is an appropriate expectation. VM-21, Section 1.B, Principle 5 applies as a general
principle for the modeling of future hedging strategies.
3. In circumstances where one or more material risk factors related to a derivative program
are not fully captured within the cash-flow model used to calculate CTE 70, the company
shall reflect the approximation, simplification or model limitations in the modeling of such
risk factors by increasing the SR as described in Section 5.E. The company shall also be
able to justify that the method appropriately reflects the potential error using historical
experience, e.g., analysis of historical performance or backtesting.
Guidance Note: The previous two paragraphs address a variety of possible situations. Some
hedging programs may truly have zero or minimal residual risk exposure, such as when the hedge
program exactly replicates the liability being hedged. With dynamic hedging strategies, residual
risks are typically expected; however, in some cases, the cash-flow model supporting the CTE
calculation may be able to adequately reflect such risks through margins in program assumptions,
adjustments to costs and benefits, etc. In other cases, reference to additional external models or
analyses may be necessary where such results cannot be readily expressed in a format directly
amenable to a CTE calculation. In such cases, the company will need to combine the results of such
models by some method that is consistent with the objectives of these requirements. Emerging
actuarial practice will be relied on to provide approaches for a range of situations that may be
encountered.
4. In circumstances where documentation outlining the future hedging strategies is
incomplete, the company shall reflect the future hedging strategies not being clearly
defined by increasing the SR as described in Section 5.E. To support no increase to the SR,
there should be very robust documentation outlining each future hedging strategy. In
particular, if the documentation is materially incomplete for any of the individual CDHS
attributes (a) through (j), as listed in VM-01, the SR shall be at least as great as the SR that
would result if a future hedging strategy were not reflected in the SR.