Wisconsin Commissioner Nathan Houdek's Financial Condition (E) Committee approved a referral in Columbus on August 14 sending two assignments to the Life Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group: a recapture charge on reserves and modified coinsurance balances ceded outside reciprocal jurisdictions, and a rating-differentiated credit-risk charge for reinsurance recoverables modeled on the property-casualty formula. Both target year-end 2027 (Norton Rose Fulbright, August 2026).

The evidence came from the first annual reports filed under Actuarial Guideline 55, due April 1 and covering roughly 80 ceding companies and 100 treaties. The NAIC's initial read of those filings found that business ceded to unauthorized reinsurers "tends to produce larger reductions in total asset requirements, potentially increasing capital strain if business must be recaptured" (NAIC Financial Condition (E) Committee referral, August 2026). The referral adds that "many state insurance regulators believe this risk warrants immediate attention."

What makes the referral more consequential than a typical calibration exercise is the starting point. The life RBC formula does not currently apply a small charge to unauthorized offshore cessions. On the counterparty dimension, it applies no net charge at all.

What the Referral Actually Directs

The two workstreams answer different questions and would sit in different places in the formula. The recapture factor asks what capital the ceding company would need if the business came back onto its balance sheet. The credit-risk revision asks whether the reinsurer will pay what it owes, and calibrates that to the reinsurer's financial strength rating rather than treating every counterparty alike.

The recapture factor is scoped to ceded reserves and modified coinsurance balances for reinsurers located outside reciprocal jurisdictions, with an offset for overcollateralization. Including modco in the scope is the most technically revealing detail in the referral. A modco or funds-withheld arrangement generates no reinsurance recoverable to charge, because the assets never leave the cedant's balance sheet. Any factor built on recoverables alone would miss the structures that dominate asset-intensive annuity cessions. Scoping to reserve balances instead of recoverables closes that gap before it opens.

The credit-risk piece is a methodology transplant. Property-casualty RBC already differentiates by counterparty rating and by whether the balance is collateralized; life RBC does neither. The referral notes that the NAIC's existing contract with Bridgeway Analytics makes that firm available to assist, which signals the working group under chair Ben Slutsker is expected to produce calibrated factors rather than reopen the framework debate.

Former Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Thomas Leonardi, a persistent critic of offshore capital arbitrage, welcomed the direction: "I applaud the NAIC's direction to make changes to its Risk-Based Capital formula that will help ensure capital requirements appropriately reflect differences in reinsurance risk" (The Royal Gazette, August 2026).

Why Unauthorized Cessions Showed the Largest Relief

AG 55 asks the ceding company's appointed actuary to run asset adequacy testing on ceded asset-intensive business as though it had been retained, and to disclose the total asset requirement that results. The disclosure is the whole mechanism. For the first time regulators can set the assets a cedant would need to support a block against the reserve credit it took for handing the block away.

The gap runs widest on cessions to unauthorized reinsurers because those are the treaties engineered for maximum reserve efficiency. An asset-intensive coinsurance or modco treaty moves a fixed annuity or payout block to an assuming company that values it on a scenario-based or economic basis, backs it with a higher-yielding and less liquid portfolio, and holds capital under a regime the cedant's formula does not replicate. The cedant releases the reserve, releases the C-1 charges on the transferred assets, and releases C-3 interest rate risk. What stays behind is a reserve credit and a collateral position.

None of that is improper, and the reserve credit rules under Model #785 require collateral precisely to make it safe. The AG 55 numbers simply established the size of the delta. A treaty that cuts the cedant's total asset requirement by a large margin is, mechanically, a treaty whose recapture restores an equally large requirement. That arithmetic turned a disclosure exercise into a capital referral within four and a half months of the first filing deadline.

The 0.78% Factor That Offsets Itself

Page LR016 of the life RBC formula carries the counterparty charge. The NAIC Life and Fraternal RBC instructions describe the risk as "comparable to that represented by bonds between risk classes 1 and 2" and assign a pre-tax factor of 0.78% against all reinsurance recoverables and ceded reserve credits reported in Schedule S (NAIC Life RBC Instructions, October 2024).

Then the formula gives most of it back. The same instructions grant an offsetting negative 0.78% pre-tax factor to a list of categories that reads like an inventory of the offshore annuity market:

  • Reinsurance with non-authorized and certified companies
  • Reinsurance among affiliated companies
  • Reinsurance with funds withheld
  • Reinsurance with authorized reinsurers supported by equivalent trusteed collateral meeting Appendix A-785, where bona fide withdrawals occurred during the year
  • Reinsurance involving policy loans

The logic is defensible in isolation. Liabilities ceded to an unauthorized reinsurer are reestablished on Page 3 of the annual statement through Line 24.02, Reinsurance in Unauthorized and Certified Companies, and Line 24.03, Funds Held under Reinsurance Treaties with Unauthorized and Certified Reinsurers. The cedant already holds a balance sheet provision, so charging RBC on top would double count.

The result on the offshore book is a wash. An affiliated Cayman coinsurance treaty with funds withheld draws a 0.78% charge and a 0.78% credit, netting to zero. The formula treats the cession as counterparty-riskless because collateral and a reestablished liability are assumed to be sufficient. It does not ask whether the collateral is liquid, whether it is valued on a scenario-based approach the cedant cannot replicate, or whether the ceding company could carry the recaptured block on its own capital.

That last question is precisely what AG 55 was built to surface, which is why the disclosure and the capital referral arrived in the same year. The site's coverage of the first AG 55 filing cycle flagged the mismatch between what appointed actuaries were being asked to test and what the capital formula did with the answer.

The Property-Casualty Template Life RBC Would Inherit

The P&C formula solves the same problem with considerably more machinery. Under the R3 credit risk charge, the net recoverable is first stressed by 120%, then split between collateralized amounts from Schedule F Part 3 Column 32 and uncollateralized amounts from Column 33, and finally charged at factors keyed to the reinsurer designation equivalent recorded in Column 34 (NAIC Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force, Proposal 2021-03-P).

Reinsurer designation equivalent Collateralized factor Uncollateralized factor
Secure 13.6%3.6%
Secure 24.1%4.1%
Secure 34.8%4.8%
Secure 45.0%5.3%
Secure 55.0%7.1%
Vulnerable 6 or unrated5.0%14.0%

Two features of that grid matter more than the headline range. First, the floor is 3.6%, roughly four and a half times the life formula's gross 0.78% and infinitely more than its net zero. A P&C insurer ceding to the strongest rated reinsurer in the world still books capital against the recoverable.

Second, the ratings requirement has teeth that bite unusually hard offshore. The instructions specify that ratings "shall be based on interactive communication between the rating agency and the reinsurer and shall not be based solely on publicly available information," and that a reinsurer without at least one financial strength rating is assigned the Vulnerable 6 or unrated equivalent. Sidecars, newly capitalized affiliated reinsurers, and single-cedant vehicles frequently carry no interactive rating. Transplanted without modification, that rule would drop a meaningful slice of the offshore annuity book into the 14.0% uncollateralized column, or the 5.0% collateralized column where trust assets and funds withheld cover the balance.

The collateralized-versus-uncollateralized split is also where the offshore structures would land softly. Most asset-intensive cessions to unauthorized reinsurers are fully collateralized by construction, because Model #785 requires it for the cedant to take reserve credit. On a straight transplant, those balances draw 3.6% to 5.0% rather than 14.0%. The severity of the change depends far less on the top of the grid than on how the working group treats collateral whose valuation the cedant does not control.

Recapture Risk Is a Different Calculation

The recapture factor has no P&C analogue, which is why it is the harder of the two assignments. Credit risk asks about a shortfall on a recoverable. Recapture asks about a balance sheet event.

When a ceding company recaptures an asset-intensive annuity block, several things happen at once. The reserve returns to the cedant at its own statutory basis, which for a block ceded to a Bermuda or Cayman reinsurer using a scenario-based or economic valuation is generally higher than the basis the assuming company held. Assets transfer back from the trust or the funds-withheld account, and those assets carry C-1 charges that the cedant had released on cession. Interest rate risk returns as C-3. Where the ceded block was fixed indexed or registered index-linked, hedging obligations return with it.

The economically correct recapture charge is therefore the difference between the cedant's post-recapture RBC and its current RBC, floored at zero and reduced by whatever overcollateralization the treaty provides above the reserve. A factor-based approximation of that quantity has to make assumptions the formula has never had to make before: what asset mix comes back, at what NAIC designation, and how much of the collateral cushion survives the stress that triggered the recapture in the first place.

That is a structurally different problem from the one the working group solved for collateral loans, where a look-through to the underlying asset produced a defensible factor. Here the look-through runs to a portfolio the cedant does not own and may not be able to inspect at the granularity C-1 requires. Overcollateralization measured on the assuming company's valuation basis is not the same cushion measured on the cedant's.

Where the Reciprocal Jurisdiction Line Falls

The scoping language creates a gap worth watching. The referral targets reinsurers "located outside of reciprocal jurisdictions." The AG 55 evidence concerned business ceded to unauthorized reinsurers. Those are not the same population.

The NAIC maintains seven reciprocal jurisdictions: Bermuda, Japan and Switzerland, which are reapproved annually, plus France, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom, which remain reciprocal jurisdictions automatically as parties to covered agreements (NAIC Financial Condition (E) Committee minutes, December 2025). Bermuda's presence on that list is not incidental to the offshore annuity market. It is the market.

AM Best data puts Bermuda at 39.9% of ceded U.S. life and annuity reserves in 2025, down slightly from 40.9% in 2024, with Cayman rising to 2.3% from 2.0% (The Royal Gazette, August 2026). Offshore reinsurers hold 55.9% of ceded annuity reserves. Bermuda life reinsurers manage more than $1.5 trillion in assets. The ten largest unaffiliated life and annuity reinsurance transactions in 2025 totaled $106.9 billion, against $35 billion for the ten largest in 2024, a threefold jump in a single year.

Read literally, a jurisdiction-level scope exempts the vast majority of the book the AG 55 data implicated. The distinction that saves it is that reciprocal jurisdiction status attaches to a reinsurer, not to a postcode. A Bermuda-domiciled assuming company qualifies as a reciprocal jurisdiction reinsurer only if it is individually approved by the ceding state under the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law, and many affiliated vehicles and single-cedant sidecars never seek that status. They post collateral as unauthorized reinsurers instead, which is cheaper and faster than qualifying.

Whether the working group drafts to jurisdiction or to entity status is therefore the single largest determinant of how much capital this factor raises. Houdek has been careful not to frame the referral as a verdict on Bermuda supervision, noting that "overall, many of the regulatory changes adopted by the Bermuda Monetary Authority have been viewed positively by US regulators" (The Royal Gazette, August 2026). Cayman, which is not on the reciprocal list and whose life and annuity sector grew to roughly $101 billion in assets by year-end 2025 from $23 billion in 2020, is in scope on any reading.

Modeling the 2027 Strain

Year-end 2027 sounds distant and is not. Exposure drafts and comment cycles will consume most of 2027, which leaves the 2026 and early 2027 pricing calendar as the window in which cession economics can still be renegotiated before the capital charge is known.

The date also stacks. At the same series of meetings the E Committee adopted new life RBC factors for collateral loans backed by joint venture, partnership and LLC interests and by residual interests, also effective December 31, 2027 (Mayer Brown, 2026). A private-equity-backed annuity writer that both cedes offshore and lends against sponsor-affiliated equity would absorb an asset-side factor increase and a cession-side recapture charge in the same RBC filing. Modeled separately, each looks survivable. The number that governs is the RBC ratio, total adjusted capital over authorized control level RBC, and it only means anything if both changes are run against the same balance sheet in the same projection.

The calculation a ceding company can run today, without waiting for factors, has four inputs:

  1. Treaty inventory by counterparty status. Separate cessions by whether the assuming company holds licensed, accredited, certified, reciprocal jurisdiction, or unauthorized status in the ceding state, and by domicile. The two cuts diverge, and the divergence is the exposure.
  2. Shadow recapture RBC per treaty. Recompute C-0 through C-4 as if each material block returned at the cedant's statutory basis with the trust or funds-withheld portfolio at its current NAIC designations. The delta against today's RBC is the unfloored recapture charge.
  3. Collateral cushion measured on the cedant's basis. Restate the collateral against the cedant's reserve rather than the assuming company's, since the overcollateralization offset in the referral is what determines how much of the shadow charge survives.
  4. Interactive rating coverage. Identify which assuming companies carry a financial strength rating from interactive communication with the agency. Unrated counterparties are the ones a P&C-style transplant repositions most sharply.

The AG 55 total asset requirement work already produces much of input two. Cedants that built the asset adequacy model for the April filing have the cash flow infrastructure; the incremental step is converting the asset requirement into an RBC delta rather than a reserve adequacy conclusion.

For carriers that use sidecar structures to place new annuity production, the pricing consequence lands earlier than the capital consequence. A recapture factor that raises the cedant's RBC on ceded business reduces the capital relief the cession was bought for, which changes the ceding commission at which the trade clears. Deals priced in 2026 on a zero-net-counterparty-charge assumption and running past 2027 will carry that repricing without a renegotiation clause.

What Follows

The Life RBC Working Group will take up the referral on its regular call schedule ahead of the Fall National Meeting. The sequence to watch is whether the credit-risk revision advances first, since it is a transplant of an existing calibrated grid and could plausibly be exposed within months, while the recapture factor requires original calibration work and a scoping decision the committee did not make for it.

An adoption path that delivers the credit-risk change on time and defers recapture is the outcome the referral's structure makes most likely. It is also the outcome that leaves the AG 55 finding least addressed, because a rating-based recoverable charge does very little to a fully collateralized affiliated cession. The larger of the two numbers sits with the harder of the two assignments, and the working group has roughly fifteen months to produce it.

Further Reading

Sources