Annuity reserve requirements refer to the amount of capital that insurance companies must set aside to ensure they can meet future obligations to policyholders. These reserves are mandated by law to ensure that insurance companies can pay out the annuity benefits that policyholders are promised, even as they accrue over time.
 

Minimum Reserve Requirements

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), which is an organization that provides model regulations for the insurance industry, mandates that insurance companies maintain certain reserve levels to protect against potential insolvency. The minimum reserve requirement for annuities in the U.S. often involves the company holding at least $1.04 in reserves for every $1.00 it takes in from policyholders. This is based on actuarial assumptions, which take into account factors like mortality, interest rates, and expected payouts over the life of the annuity. The idea is to ensure that an insurer remains solvent and has the necessary funds to meet its obligations, even in adverse economic conditions.
 

Comparison with the FDIC and Fractional Reserve Banking
 

In contrast to insurance companies, other financial institutions like banks typically practice fractional reserve banking, where they hold only a fraction of the total deposits on hand and lend out the remainder. For example, if a bank receives $1 million in deposits, it may only be required to keep a fraction (say 10%, or $100,000) in reserves and can lend out the rest. This system relies on the assumption that not all depositors will demand their funds simultaneously (i.e., it assumes that only a small portion of depositors will withdraw funds at any given time).
 

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures bank deposits up to a certain limit, does not require banks to hold full reserves but instead guarantees deposits up to a specified amount (currently $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank). While the FDIC has reserves to cover insured deposits, it does not hold one dollar in reserve for every dollar deposited in the way that insurance companies do with their annuity reserves.
 

This difference highlights the varying risk management strategies between the insurance industry and the banking sector. Banks' fractional reserve system works under the assumption of liquidity management (and potential interventions like FDIC insurance in case of a run), while insurance companies hold more stringent reserve requirements to cover future liabilities.
 

The Stability of the North American Insurance Industry
 

The North American insurance industry has a long history of stability, particularly in contrast to other financial sectors. Insurance companies have survived numerous economic downturns, including the Great Depression, because of their conservative approach to risk management. During the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent Depression, the insurance industry maintained financial strength due to several key factors:
 

1. Reserve Requirements: The mandatory reserves meant that insurers had enough capital set aside to cover claims, even when investment returns were poor. This gave them greater stability compared to other sectors, like banks, which faced insolvency due to loan defaults and stock market losses.
    

2. Investment Philosophy: Insurance companies typically invest conservatively in bonds and other relatively stable instruments, rather than relying heavily on the stock market or speculative investments. This conservative approach to asset management protected insurers during periods of financial turbulence.
    

3. Diversification: Insurance companies tend to be highly diversified in terms of both their portfolios and the types of policies they issue (life, health, annuities, property and casualty, etc.). This diversification reduced their exposure to any single risk or market event.
    

4. Regulation: Insurance companies are heavily regulated at both the state and federal levels, ensuring that they maintain solvency through regular assessments and adherence to reserve requirements, capital standards, and other financial regulations.
   
    

Insurance Companies and the Great Depression
 

During the Great Depression, many banks failed, and the financial system was under severe stress. However, insurance companies fared much better due to their strong reserve systems. In fact, some insurance companies played a pivotal role in stabilizing the financial system. For example:
 

• Bailing out the banking sector: As banks struggled during the Great Depression, insurance companies with large cash reserves were able to invest in bonds and provide liquidity to the system, effectively helping to bail out the banks. Many banks had invested heavily in stocks, and as the market crashed, they were left with large losses and an inability to meet depositor demands. Insurance companies, with their substantial reserves, were able to purchase government bonds and other assets, providing much-needed capital during the crisis.
   

• A stable source of income: While many other sectors saw severe losses, insurance companies were able to continue paying out annuities and life insurance benefits because of their robust reserve policies and conservative investment strategies.
   

• Post-crash recovery: As the U.S. government instituted reforms like the creation of the FDIC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), insurance companies remained a stable part of the financial system. They were able to rebuild public confidence and continue their role in the economy.
  
   

​

AIG: The Real Story
 

Ever since the government bailout of AIG during the 2008 financial crisis, some people continue to mistakenly cite it as an example of how the insurance industry is just as unsafe as the rest of the financial services industry, and that it represents an argument against the desirability of fixed annuities and insurance.

 

The belief is that if the largest, A+ rated insurance company on the planet can be brought down, any other insurance company can as well. However, when you “pull back the curtain” and understand what really happened at AIG, you may begin to believe, as we do, that if anything, the AIG debacle is actually an argument FOR the safety of the insurance industry, not against it. How is that possible? 

​

Remember, AIG was a multi-services financial company, not just a pure life insurance and annuity company. They had banking, lending, and brokerage divisions that may have carried the same name, but were completely separate entities from the pure life insurance and annuity division.

 

During his interview in front of congress in March of 2009, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke was asked how the problems at AIG could have been allowed to get this bad, how the regulation of AIG’s internal investment activity could have failed this significantly, and wasn’t it the New York state insurance commissioner’s job to have kept the internal problems at AIG from getting so bad.

 

Bernanke’s response was absolutely correct. He told congress that the divisions of AIG that were heavily leveraged in the defaulting sub-prime mortgaged-backed securities and credit default swaps were limited to the banking, lending, and brokerage divisions, which fell outside the jurisdiction of the New York state insurance commissioner’s regulatory authority.  This is why the insurance division never received a dime of the bailout money.  They didn't need it, because they were never in trouble!

 

He went on further by saying that the proof of this was in the fact that at the time of his testimony before congress, the insurance and annuity division within AIG remained the only stable and profitable side of the entire company, that the regulatory standard already in place within the insurance industry had prevented the insurance and annuity division from participating in any of the risky decisions of the rest of the company, and that the other divisions were not allowed (by law) to “raid” the huge reserves contained within the annuity division in order to help cover the mistakes throughout the rest of the company - because those reserves rightfully & legally belonged to the policyholders!

 

It has been widely speculated that had the government bailout of AIG not taken place, the insurance and annuity division would have simply spun off and started operating under a separate name and entity. However, all the life insurance and annuity policyholders of that company would have continued to receive uninterrupted service, benefits, and guarantees of their contracts.

Therefore, the AIG incident in 2008 was a front row seat testament FOR the safety and security of insurance/annuity industry reserve requirements and regulations operating exactly as they were designed (and protecting policyholders) NOT evidence against it.  

​

 

Conclusion
 

The contrast between annuity reserve requirements and fractional reserve banking highlights the difference in risk management strategies between insurance companies and banks. While the insurance industry is required to maintain substantial reserves to ensure it can meet its future obligations, the banking sector operates on a more fluid model, relying on fractional reserves and the backing of the FDIC.
 

The historical stability of the North American insurance industry, particularly during times of crisis like the Great Depression, demonstrates the value of conservative reserve management and the important role insurance companies have played in stabilizing the broader economy. While banks were struggling with insolvencies and depositor runs, insurers were able to weather the storm and even provide a stabilizing force in the financial system. This history underscores the resilience of the insurance industry and its capacity to survive and thrive through periods of extreme economic stress.