Unum 2009 Annual Report Download - page 106

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 106 of the 2009 Unum annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 160

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160

104
Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements
Unum
2009
liabilities wherein the counterparty is exposed to our credit risk when the LIBOR-based valuation of our derivatives obtained from pricing
sources does not effectively include an adequate credit component for our own credit risk.
Fair values for our embedded derivative in a modified coinsurance arrangement are estimated using internal pricing models and
represent the hypothetical value of the duration mismatch of assets and liabilities, interest rate risk, and third party credit risk embedded
in the modified coinsurance arrangement.
Certain of our investments do not have readily determinable market prices and/or observable inputs or may at times be affected by
the lack of market liquidity. For these securities, we use internally prepared valuations combining matrix pricing with vendor purchased
software programs, including valuations based on estimates of future profitability, to estimate the fair value. Additionally, we may obtain
prices from independent third-party brokers to aid in establishing valuations for certain of these securities. Key assumptions used by us to
determine fair value for these securities include risk free interest rates, risk premiums, performance of underlying collateral (if any), and
other factors involving significant assumptions which may or may not reflect those of an active market.
At December 31, 2009, approximately 11.6 percent of our fixed maturity securities were valued using active trades from TRACE pricing
or broker market maker prices for which there was current market activity in that specific security (comparable to receiving one binding
quote). The prices obtained were not adjusted, and the assets were classified as Level 1, the highest category of the three-level fair value
hierarchy classification wherein inputs are unadjusted and represent quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
The remaining 88.4 percent of our fixed maturity securities were valued based on non-binding quotes or other observable or
unobservable inputs, as discussed below.
• Approximately 72.7 percent of our xed maturity securities were valued based on prices from pricing services that generally use
observable inputs such as prices for securities or comparable securities in active markets in their valuation techniques. These assets
were classified as Level 2. Level 2 assets or liabilities are those valued using inputs (other than prices included in Level 1) that are
either directly or indirectly observable for the asset or liability through correlation with market data at the measurement date and
for the duration of the instrument’s anticipated life.
• Approximately 5.8 percent of our xed maturity securities were valued based on one or more non-binding broker price levels, if
validated by observable market data, or on TRACE prices for identical or similar assets absent current market activity. When only one
price is available, it is used if observable inputs and analysis confirm that it is appropriate. These assets, for which we were able to
validate the price using other observable market data, were classified as Level 2.
• Approximately 9.9 percent of our xed maturity securities were valued based on prices of comparable securities, matrix pricing,
market models, and/or internal models or were valued based on non-binding quotes with no other observable market data. These
assets were classified as either Level 2 or Level 3, with the categorization dependent on whether there was other observable market
data. Level 3 is the lowest category of the fair value hierarchy and reflects the judgment of management regarding what market
participants would use in pricing assets or liabilities at the measurement date. Financial assets and liabilities categorized as Level 3
are generally those that are valued using unobservable inputs to extrapolate an estimated fair value.
We consider transactions in inactive or disorderly markets to be less representative of fair value. We use all available observable
inputs when measuring fair value, but when significant other unobservable inputs and adjustments are necessary, we classify these assets
or liabilities as Level 3.