Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 Internal Controls and Actuarial Processes Chris Nyce KPMG LLP

1. Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 Internal Controls and Actuarial ProcessesChris NyceKPMG LLP September 2006

2. Disclaimer • Views and opinions expressed in this presentation and the underlying paper are those of the authors. • Needless to say then, they do not represent the opinions of the CAS, nor any employer of the presenters, nor any sponsors of the meeting. • Anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but is clearly itching for a fight.

3. Note • Risks to financial reporting are unique to each company • The following discussion highlights things that should commonly be considered, but companies may need to consider other types of controls, and do not necessarily need all types of controls discussed. • Companies should consider their unique risk profile and consult professional advisors when implementing and evaluating their own controls.

4. Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 Internal Controls and Actuarial Processes • Background • COSO Framework • Scope for Actuarial Processes • Issues • Information Integrity & Availability • Analysis • End User Applications • Management’s Best Estimate • Documentation • Considerations by Size of Company • Status

5. Comments by Harvey Pitt (SEC Chairman when SOX was Passed) • Question: How is SOX like the weather • Answer: Everyone talks about it, but no-one does anything about it • Quote from Mr. Pitt • “The statute was hastily – and, therefore, badly – drafted; but it was and remains, necessary Source: Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2006

6. Background

7. Background • SOX Section 404 Company Requirements: • State management’s role in establishing and maintaining an adequate central structure and procedures for financial reporting; • Report on the effectiveness of their internal controls over financial reporting procedures • Including supporting documentation of controls, and testing of their effectiveness. • SOX Section 404 Auditor Requirements: • Attest to and report on management’s assessment of internal controls; • Attest to the effectiveness of internal controls.

8. Background • Deficiency = situation arises where internal controls are identified as not effective • Responses • Identify and implement remediation steps • Evaluate seriousness of the deficiency

9. The COSO Framework

10. The COSO Framework • Committee of Sponsoring Organizations issued in 1992 • AKA The Treadway Commission; • Provides a basic framework for all internal controls; • Implementers not required to use this framework– But most do. • What is the framework • Control Environment; • Risk Assessment; • Control Activities; • Information and Communication; • Monitoring.

11. *Presented with thanks to “Tone at the Top” published by the Institute of Internal Auditors Diagram of COSO Based Internal Control Structure

12. Elements of COSO Based Internal Control Structure *Presented with thanks to “Tone at the Top” published by the Institute of Internal Auditors

13. Scope for Actuarial Processes

14. Business Design Underwriting Process Product Rate Plan and Coverage Underwriting Guides Markets Targeted Underwriting/Claims Transaction Producer solicits/binds coverage, or policy renews Policy expires and may be renewed or audited Underwriter verifies risk acceptability and price Claims are received or estimated Property/Casualty Insurance Operations Chain: Policy is submitted to Underwriter Transactional Data Systems Resulting Financial Flows Underwriting Expenses result Premiums Written and Earned Losses received, recorded, estimated 14

15. Business Design Underwriting Process Product Rate Plan and Coverage Underwriting Guides Markets Targeted Underwriting/Claims Transaction Producer solicits/binds coverage, or policy renews Policy expires and may be renewed or audited Underwriter verifies risk acceptability and price Claims are received or estimated Policy is submitted to Underwriter Traditional Financial Statement Audit Focus Transactional Data Systems Resulting Financial Flows Underwriting Expenses result Premiums Written and Earned Losses received, recorded, estimated Property/Casualty Insurance Operations Chain: 15

16. Business Design Underwriting Process Markets Targeted Product Rate Plan and Coverage Underwriting Guides Underwriting/Claims Transaction Producer solicits/binds coverage, or policy renews Policy expires and may be renewed or audited Property/Casualty Insurance Internal Controls affecting Estimated Balance Sheet and Income Statement Items Underwriter verifies risk acceptability and price Claims are received or estimated Policy is submitted to Underwriter Transactional Data Systems Additional Focus Areas for Internal Controls Resulting Financial Flows Underwriting Expenses result Premiums Written and Earned Losses received, recorded, estimated 16

17. Estimated Balances Must Properly Reflect the Following Company Operations Source A Company Risk Assumption/ Underwriting Practices Information and Communication Source B Source C Perform Estimates and Analysis Company IT/ Data Design and Collection Process Review and Communication Process Committee Process Input into Accounting System & Review Source Z Company Claims Handling and Settlement Practices Information and Communication

18. Estimated Balances Must Properly Reflect the Following Company Operations Source A Company Risk Assumption/ Underwriting Practices Information and Communication Source B Source C Perform Estimates and Analysis Company IT/ Data Design and Collection Process Review and Communication Process Committee Process Input into Accounting System & Review Source Z Company Claims Handling and Settlement Practices Information and Communication Underwriting and Claims Management Review Process Analysis Data

19. Comments on Operational Internal Controls and Sarbanes-Oxley, Section 404 • AICPA gives guidance as to how Sarbanes-Oxley applies to Internal controls in operational areas • Only controls which affect financial statement reporting are subject to Sarbanes-Oxley; • Includes items with significant input to financial reporting; • Should be taken to include disclosures. • Examples and the AICPA guidance are in the following table.

20. Operational Controls; Management Responsibility Contrasted with Section 404 Goals

21. Industry Track Record

22. Industry Track Record

23. Information Integrity and Availability

24. Management Review Process Analysis Data Underwriting and Claims Information Integrity and Availability • Data • Controls to ensure data is accurate and complete • Data is available to enable comprehensive analysis • Data is available to monitor compliance with Claims and Underwriting controls • Data is available to support management review needs, including tracking of trends

25. Management Review Process Analysis Data Underwriting and Claims Actuarial Analysis • Analysis • Access to data is sufficiently convenient to analysts • Available information is incorporated in analysis • Communication process with underwriting, claims, management is sufficient • Appropriate methods are used • Communication of results to management is clear Peer Review !

26. End User Applications • Spreadsheets, databases, word documents,…. • One of the most problematic pieces of control documentation • There is a group dedicated to spreadsheet risks, lots of stories available • See Website http://www.eusprig.org/stories.htm • University of Hawaii research that error rates on spreadsheets near 90% • And this goes near 100% if more than 200 lines

27. Financial Reporting Extensive Controls Moderate Controls Analytical Simple Controls Moderate Controls Operational Complex Simple Priority of Spreadsheet Controls For more information see “The Use of Spreadsheets: Considerations for Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act” Available at www.Pwcglobal.com

28. What Controls to Consider • Backups • Archiving • Security • Controls over Access • Change Control and Version Control • Such as Formula Locking • Baselining – In depth review of calculations and functions • Internal Data Reconciliations • Peer Review – Sometimes outside the chain of reporting • Documentation

29. Management’s Best Estimate vs. Actuarial Best Estimate

30. Management Review Process Analysis Data Underwriting and Claims Management’s Best Estimate vs. Actuarial Best Estimate • Management Review Process • Process to determine booked reserves is reasonable • Reserve Committee and management review is effective • Underlying assumptions, such as trends, are validated Review controls to ensure the estimate selection process is consistent with the outcome of the underlying estimates, or reasons for departure are documented – including quantification of reasons;

31. Management Review Process Analysis Data Underwriting & Claims Control Activities, Information and Communication, Monitoring Management ReviewProcess • Reserve Committee Process (best practices) • Charter spelling out charge and operation of Committee; • Participation by Senior Management, Finance, Claims, Underwriting, Actuarial; • Access to a well documented actuarial estimate and range prepared prior to the Committee meeting; • Active questioning by Committee; • Well documented outcome of Committee meetings, including approved reserve amount; • Documentation of differences between management’s best estimate and actuarial best estimate. Completeness Accuracy Judgmental Areas

32. Documentation Issues

33. Documentation • While SOX has changed the documentation commonly used in Actuarial work, Accounting documentation requirements are similar to common standards prior to SOX. • Most Common Pitfalls • Controls should be specific • What is the control?, who performs?, who reviews?, what is the documentation?, how often?, where maintained? • Informal processes do not fully replace controls; • Conservatism doesn’t take the place of controls; • Lack of misstatement in the past doesn’t obviate the need for controls.

34. Documentation (continued) • Most Common Pitfalls • Controls over reserves usually just at year end, but release of results to markets quarterly; • Controls over processes with significant input to financial statement balances missing; • “Common knowledge” instead of rigorous analysis; • Considering the auditor as part of the control process; • Forgetting controls over significant actuarial balances other than reserves.

35. Considerations by Size of Company

36. Considerations by Size of Company • All companies need to weight costs and benefits associated with implementation of SOX 404. Management may consider some deficiencies acceptable relative to costs associated with remediation. • Larger companies generally have the actuarial resources to implement internal controls effectively. • Smaller companies likely have resource constraints, most apparently relative to peer review. • Third party actuarial analysis; • Thorough review (and documentation) of reserves by all professionals in the organization that would be best versed in reasonability of reserves --- senior claims, underwriting, and finance management.

37. Status of Implementation

38. Status – Recent Events • For most large domestic entities; Implemented 2004 • Large foreign filers; Implementation in 2006 • NAIC considering statutory rules • Current form would affect large entities, newly impacting about 190 Companies; • Proposed effective for 2009; • No external audit requirement. • Canadian Securities Administrator has proposed SOX type requirements • No external audit requirement.