ARTICLE
9 April 2026

NAIC Spring 2026 Meeting Update: Life Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
On March 22, 2026, the NAIC Life Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group met for the Spring 2026 Meeting.
United States Finance and Banking
Chad M. Tucker’s articles from Foley & Lardner are most popular:
  • within Finance and Banking topic(s)
  • with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Healthcare and Technology industries
Foley & Lardner are most popular:
  • within Coronavirus (COVID-19) topic(s)

Summary and Takeaways

  • The Life Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group is considering Proposal 2025-16-L MOD on collateral loans, which would reject look‑through treatment for loans backed by JVs/LPs/LLCs or residual interests, instead calibrating RBC to loan-to-value (with a proposed generic haircut) and continuing existing treatment for mortgage-backed collateral loans under Proposal 2024-15-L, while key AVR items remain set to zero pending actuarial input.
  • Regulators and industry commenters generally support refining collateral loan RBC but differ on timing and calibration: some argue current rules under-recognize risk yet view the proposal’s charges as too punitive or insufficiently tied to structural features; they urge empirically grounded, proportional charges, more reliance on look-through where appropriate, and an implementation date no earlier than year-end 2027.

On March 22, 2026, the NAIC Life Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group met for the Spring 2026 Meeting. The Working Group is considering a proposal affecting collateral loans, an area where insurers frequently rely on third-party data and models to assess underlying collateral and structural protections.

The RBC Proposal 2025-16-L MOD (Collateral Loans) rejects a “look-through” approach for collateral loans backed by joint ventures, partnerships, limited liability companies, or residual interests, emphasizing that collateral loans are structurally distinct and benefit from features such as borrower equity subordination and first-loss buffers that warrant different regulatory treatment. A modified framework would calibrate RBC charges to loan-to-value (LTV), apply a generic haircut (e.g., a proposed 20% adjustment), and continue existing treatment for mortgage-backed collateral loans adopted under Proposal 2024-15-L. Key defined concepts include collateral loans, look-through, LTV, borrower equity subordination, and first-loss buffers.

The proposal was discussed for public comment at the February 10, 2026, Working Group meeting. As of the Spring Meeting, the proposal remains exposed; related elements reference continuation of treatments under Proposal 2024-15-L and setting specified asset valuation reserve items to zero pending advice from the American Academy of Actuaries.

NAIC commissioners support refinements but contend a year-end 2026 effective date is premature and that proposed charges do not accurately reflect collateral loan risk; they urge calibration to structural features, proportionality to exposure, and implementation no earlier than year-end 2027. Implementation of this proposal is slated for 2027. NAIC grounds its position in RBC Principles of Materiality, Process, and Accuracy, calling for empirically supported calibration, additional information, and a reasonable runway to avoid retroactive rule making. The Utah Insurance Department agrees that current rules under-recognize risk but views the proposal as too punitive; it supports higher look-through for JV/LP/LLC-backed loans while advocating RBC charges that reflect both collateral riskiness and collateral amount through an LTV-based sliding scale. The Alternative Credit Council commends consideration of collateral type and LTV, urges a data-driven analysis to set charge ranges by LTV (noting the proposed 20% generic haircut), and supports setting AVR Basic Contribution, Reserve Objective, and Maximum Reserve to zero until advised by the American Academy of Actuaries.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More