Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Primary Credit Analysts: Patricia A Kwan, New York (1) 212-438-6256; patricia.kwan@standardandpoors.com Mark Button, London (44) 20-7176-7045; mark.button@standardandpoors.com Secondary Contacts: Kevin T Ahern, New York (1) 212-438-7160; kevin.ahern@standardandpoors.com Rodney A Clark, FSA, New York (1) 212-438-7245; rodney.clark@standardandpoors.com Jose M Perez-Gorozpe, Mexico City (52) 55-5081-4442; jose.perez-gorozpe@standardandpoors.com Michael J Vine, Melbourne (61) 3-9631-2102; michael.vine@standardandpoors.com

Table Of Contents
Global Indicative SACP Centers In The 'a' Range North America: Diversity, Brands, And Capital Provide Strength Western Europe: Generally Strong, Despite Sovereign-Related Risks In The Periphery CEEMEA: Economic, Political, And Financial Risks Are Generally Higher Latin America: A Tale Of Two Countries Asia Pacific: Higher Financial Risks Against Stronger Business Profiles Financial Flexibility Ratios: Coverage And Leverage Global Convergence Is More Likely Related Criteria And Research

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 1

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Rigorous rating criteria and methodology underpin all of Standard & Poor's Ratings Services' ratings. So, the revision of our global criteria for insurers earlier this year led us to perform a thorough review of ratings we've assigned to insurers worldwide. As we anticipated when we published the revised criteria in May 2013, our new insurance criteria left the bulk of our existing ratings unchanged: By August 2013, we affirmed more than 91% of our global ratings, raised 7%, and lowered 2%. In the months since then, we have assessed the differences in insurers' fundamental strengths and weaknesses that we identified during our global review, by region and by countries within the region. Market forces such as economic conditions, competitive landscape, demand/supply for insurance, access to capital markets, and regulation all affect companies in different ways based on the characteristics of their region or country. Differing management strategies and ownership can also affect credit quality across the global insurance sector. Another important factor is country risk--including economic, political, and legal conditions--which causes significant divergences, particularly when comparing insurers in developed markets against those in the developing world. Based on our revised criteria, we recently published a review of our ratings on Asia-Pacific (APAC) insurers (see Asia-Pacific Insurers are On Firm Footing as Economic Conditions Shift , published Sept. 3, 2013, on RatingsDirect). We're now expanding our review of ratings and the factors that go into them to the world's other major regions, specifically North America, Western Europe, Central & Eastern Europe/Middle East/Africa (CEEMEA), and Latin America. We believe that such a broad cross-regional review will provide market participants better insights into where the global insurance market is today. Overview After revising our insurance criteria earlier this year, we affirmed more than 91% of our global ratings, raised 7%, and lowered 2%. More than half of our global indicative SACPs are concentrated in the 'a' range, led by North America, Western Europe, and APAC. CEEMEA is at 'bbb' and Latin America is between 'bbb' and 'bb'. One explanation for the divergence between the higher- and lower-rated regions is their respective insurance industry and country risk assessments (IICRAs), with North America, Western Europe, and APAC having generally more favorable IICRAs. The majority of ratings globally have stable outlooks, although there is a slight negative bias led by insurers exposed to sovereign-related downside risks or low interest rates.

Our global review includes illustrations and analysis of insurers' indicative stand-alone credit profiles (SACPs) by regions, insurance industry and country risk assessments (IICRAs), sectors, and developed/developing markets, along with broadly summarized features unique to each region. We use the indicative SACP rather than the financial strength rating (FSR) to assess the global differences and similarities among insurers because indicative SACP (a sort of "preliminary" profile) measures credit fundamentals prior to group or government support and sovereign risk

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 2

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

considerations that can limit ratings at the sovereign level. We've excluded entities that we haven't assigned indicative SACPs, such as core or highly strategically important subsidiaries as defined by our criteria. We also provide global median ratios based on our baseline three-year average on coverage and leverage forecasts for 2013 to 2015. These credit ratios--EBITDA fixed coverage and financial leverage--aren't meant to be benchmarks but rather to show certain characteristics for the purpose of global comparisons.

Global Indicative SACP Centers In The 'a' Range

Having reviewed our ratings on insurers worldwide following our criteria revisions, overall we see strong underlying credit fundamentals globally. That's mainly because of insurers' satisfactory to strong business risk profiles, moderately strong to very strong capital and earnings, adequate financial flexibility, and strong liquidity. However, we do not foresee any positive trend in our global ratings because worldwide economic growth remains stagnant to sluggish. Moreover, sovereign-related risks are still a key threat to ratings stability in certain markets. Currently, some 60% of our global indicative SACPs are concentrated in the 'a' range, led by North America, Western Europe, and APAC; whereas CEEMEA indicative SACPs center at 'bbb' and Latin America indicative SACPs border between 'bbb' and 'bb'. Among the explanations for the lower indicative SACPs among insurers in CEEMEA and Latin America are their less-favorable IICRA scores, less-diversified and lower-quality asset portfolios, and liabilities concentrated in smaller markets that offer less geographic and risk diversity. The higher indicative SACPs among North America and Western Europe insurers are generally due to favorable IICRA scores (especially life insurers with sizable business in the U.S., Canada, U.K., and France). Giving these ratings a further head start is geographic or business diversification. The very low risk to low risk IICRA scores mainly stem from relatively stable operating conditions, low to moderate product risk, and high barriers to entry in some markets. Moreover, we found that North America and Western Europe insurers' financial risk profiles are typically stronger and their asset credit quality higher, indicating their developed capital markets.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 3

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 1

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 4

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 2

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 5

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 3

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 6

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 4

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 7

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 5

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 8

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 5b

North America: Diversity, Brands, And Capital Provide Strength

In North America, we affirmed about 90% of our ratings, raised 8%, and lowered 2%. Under our baseline economic forecast, our outlook for all North American insurance sectors (U.S., Canada, Bermuda, and Cayman Islands) remains largely stable. However, an already sluggish economic recovery in the U.S. is vulnerable to significant domestic and global risks that could hurt ratings. North America insurers have the strongest indicative SACPs among the five regions: More than 72% of their indicative SACPs are 'a' and higher, versus 52% globally. (We exclude regional data from global benchmarks in our cross-regional study; i.e., when we say "globally" we exclude North America data when comparing North America with the rest of the world.) North America's median indicative SACP is 'a', compared with 'a-' globally. This is largely because of strong geographic diversity, positive brand differentiation, and very strong capital and earnings buoyed by favorable IICRA scores. However, their moderate-risk to high-risk position partially offsets their overall financial strength because more than half of this group--mainly property/casualty (re)insurers--is exposed to material natural catastrophe risks and, to some extent, legacy liability and terrorism. Also, many of our rated health insurers have concentrated geographic scope, which makes them more susceptible to volatility because of local market dynamics.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 9

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 6

Geographic diversity is a distinct feature to this region, with more than 70% of our life and property/casualty insurers having a significant geographic footprint, compared to 11% globally. Being one of the largest insurance markets in the world, North America provides insurers ample opportunity to gain meaningful presence across continuous states. Insurance penetration in North America is high and has remained steady historically relative to GDP. The minimal cultural barriers also support insurers' ability to expand their operations to various states. We view differentiation of brand or reputation as positive for about 30% of the rated North America insurers (mainly among health insurance companies), compared to 20% globally. We believe the high percentage of positive assessments reflects the brand equity of the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) trademarks combined with BCBS's generally well-established deep local market presence, which has led to long-standing relationships with the broker and care-provider communities. Ultimately this has led to strong brand recognition and relatively high member persistency. North America insurers generally have more-robust capital and earnings than those in other regions. During the next three years beginning 2013, we expect more than 75% of insurers to maintain capital and earnings at and above "strong," compared to 43% globally. One reason for this is a well-developed and mature capital market that allows insurers to raise debt easily and efficiently at low cost relative to hybrids and common equity (debt is treated as capital in North America for up to 20% of total capitalization). The deep financial market also provides an array of investment

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 10

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

choices with different credit quality profiles to limit mismatches in the duration of assets and liabilities and to control asset risk adequately among insurers. Coincidentally, this deep financial market also lessens the need to invest in sovereign debt, unlike the situation in emerging countries or the peripheral European nations, which generally have shallower financial markets, leaving their insurers with fewer investment choices. Interestingly, many of North America's highly capitalized insurers are mutual companies (owned by policyholders rather than shareholders). This ownership structure allows them to retain excess capital as opposed to returning it to shareholders in the form of dividends. We believe the nonmutual insurers are also committed to holding on to excess capital in support of credit ratings, which can lower their funding costs given their moderately high financial leverage relative to their nonmutual global counterparts. Our assessment of relatively favorable IICRA among North America insurers (especially those with sizable life business in the U.S. and Canada) also helps explain their overall strong to very strong business risk profiles. The low to intermediate IICRA scores largely stemmed from moderate product risk (U.S. health, U.S. and Canadian life), high barriers to entry (U.S. health, Canadian life), and an effective institutional framework. We view more than 64% of property/casualty (re)insurers and 72% of health insurers in North America as having a moderate risk to high risk position, compared to 42% globally. For many (re)insurers, the negative assessment largely stems from material exposure to property catastrophe risk. For casualty writers, we see moderate adverse reserve development from long-tailed business or legacy liability, such as workers' compensation or asbestos and environmental claims. We also believe many of our rated health insurers are highly sensitive to possible negative impacts from regulatory policies and market pressures for those lacking geographical diversity.

Western Europe: Generally Strong, Despite Sovereign-Related Risks In The Periphery

Insurers in Western Europe exhibited the greatest stability in ratings after we applied our new criteria: We affirmed 98% of our ratings and raised 2%. Despite our opinion that Europe continues to be the weakest link for global credit conditions, we view the financial strength of its insurance industry as strong. However, sovereign-related risks remain a key threat to ratings stability in certain markets and a reason for the negative bias in our outlook distribution for the region. The median indicative SACP in Western Europe is 'a-', in line with the global median. Relative to the global distribution, we see Western European insurers exhibiting a greater concentration of stand-alone credit quality in the 'bbb+' to 'a' range (70% of rated insurers versus 63% globally), and a lower proportion of insurers with SACPs of 'bb+' or lower (7% versus 13%) or 'a+' or higher (18% versus 23%). Currently, the key factors supporting our ratings on most insurers in Western Europe include business risk profiles of at least strong on 55% of insurers. That's the result of a slight positive bias in operating performance, the high level of controlled distribution, and business diversification, sustained by relatively benign industry and country risks. Although risk position is a neutral rating factor for the majority of Western European insurers, moderate to high risk positions partially offset overall financial strength in about 40% of cases. Nevertheless, more than two-thirds of insurers in this

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 11

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

region have financial risk profiles of at least moderately strong. Relative strength in ERM is also present.
Chart 7

Industry and country risks are relatively benign for most insurers operating in Western Europe. Insurers exposed to the eurozone periphery, however, have seen increasing risks in the operating environment in recent years that weigh on our assessment of the business risk profile for 10% of insurers in the region. We believe our ratings coverage in certain markets is somewhat concentrated toward insurers that outperform their peers, which contributes to a modestly more-favorable assessment of operating performance for our rated universe of insurers across the region as a whole. Interestingly, the proportion of insurers with a favorable assessment of operating performance (23% compared with 20% globally) is broadly consistent with our expectations and assumptions in our criteria, which identify outperformers as insurers demonstrating top-quartile performance. The relative strength in distribution for Western European insurers reflects the importance of long-term bank ties and the continuing role of bancassurance groups (in which banks distribute the products of their related insurance companies) in certain markets such as Spain, Italy, and France, as well as use of tied agents in other countries. We note, however, that wide differences exist between markets, for example, with insurers in the U.K. having limited control over distribution given the prevalence of brokers and the increasing role of Internet aggregators in commoditized lines.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 12

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

We continue to see the composite business model (insurers with diverse businesses across life and property/casualty products) as a common feature in markets such as Germany, Austria, Italy, and The Netherlands. Many of the composite reinsurers are also based in Western Europe. Diversification across both life and property/casualty lines and/or noninsurance business--where it contributes significantly to insurers' earnings--enhances our assessment of competitive position owing to the diversification of risks. In the region as a whole, we see 30% of insurers benefiting from this business diversity, compared with 17% globally. A strong balance sheet is a prerequisite for the highest ratings, and we believe capital adequacy is generally robust in the region. Capital adequacy assessments in Western Europe are broadly distributed but with less representation at the highest levels than other regions. Conversely, only 7% of rated insurers in Western Europe operate with a capital base that is deficient at a 'BBB' level of confidence, according to our risk-based capital model, compared with 12% globally. Our study finds that insurers in this region tend to have higher-quality bond portfolios despite weaknesses in the eurozone periphery. We believe this reflects a number of features, including product preferences, regulation, less diversity of available fixed-income assets to match long-term liabilities relative to markets such as the U.S., and highly rated sovereigns relative to many developing markets. These features have contributed to a high weighting toward government bonds in investment portfolios, supporting credit quality but weighing on investment yields and limiting portfolio diversity. Financial flexibility is largely a supportive rating factor with assessments of at least adequate for 92% of Western European insurers--broadly consistent with the global picture. With debt outstanding for only about half of our rated insurers in the region, the amount of leverage is not generally a significant constraint on ratings. For insurers that employ debt in their capital structure, we observe less leverage than in markets such as the U.S. and better quality of capital, with a greater proportion of hybrids and less senior debt, largely because of regulations. Rated insurers in Western Europe exhibit a more positive bias in the distribution of ERM assessments compared with other regions. Our ERM assessments are at least "adequate with strong risk controls" on 45% of the rated population, almost 20 percentage points higher than any other region. We believe Western European insurers have made great strides in improving their ERM in recent years, thanks in part to the EU's Solvency II Directive.

CEEMEA: Economic, Political, And Financial Risks Are Generally Higher

For CEEMEA, we affirmed 90% of our ratings and raised 10% upon applying our new insurance criteria. The median indicative SACP in CEEMEA is 'bbb', a lower level than all regions except for Latin America. The key reasons for this weaker credit quality include higher-risk operating environments, less diversified and lower-quality asset portfolios, and liabilities concentrated in smaller markets offering less geographic and risk diversity.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 13

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 8

Industry and country risk factors weigh on our business risk profile assessments for 41% of insurers in the region, compared with only 6% globally. This reflects our view that the operating environment in a large proportion of CEEMEA markets is less benign owing to higher country risks. As a result, developments in the economic and political landscape and financial system risk are more sensitive rating factors in CEEMEA than in most other regions. We view competitive position most commonly as adequate, with almost all insurers in this region within the strong to less-than-adequate range. Relative to most other regions, with the exception of APAC, control over distribution is a more common feature of business models, reflecting the importance of tied agents. Although we see a lower proportion of monoline insurers in CEEMEA, many insurers lack material scale and diversity, constraining our business risk profile assessments. Capital adequacy assessments are unevenly distributed across the region, with a greater proportion of insurer balance sheets at both ends of the scale. We observe a high proportion of extremely strong outcomes and a greater share of insurers with capital deficiencies at a 'BBB' level of confidence, highlighting the contrasting profiles of rated insurers. This feature is more pronounced across CEEMEA given the broad diversity of markets, regulation, and cultures. Given the developing nature of many of these markets and the limited scale and diversity of most insurers, we view our capital model as understating risks in all cases. This heavily constrains our capital and earnings assessments.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 14

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

CEEMEA insurers generally have greater risk in their investment portfolios. This reflects both lack of investment diversity and greater exposure to high-risk assets. The weighted average credit quality of investment portfolios of almost one in five insurers in the region is less than investment grade. It is also not uncommon in certain Middle Eastern markets to see high allocations to equity and property assets, which add volatility to capital. These risk considerations affect our financial risk profile assessments in 57% of cases, compared with 44% globally. Use of leverage to support capital needs is much less common in CEEMEA compared with other regions, resulting in generally more favorable assessments of financial leverage and fixed-charge coverage. This reflects both the existing balance-sheet strength of many insurers and the region's relatively undeveloped debt capital markets. Although we do not see this more limited access to capital as an overt negative for a materially higher proportion of insurers in CEEMEA--particularly given their existing capital strength--we see this dynamic providing less upside to financial risk profiles. ERM assessments on rated insurers in CEEMEA remain generally lower than those on their Western European and global peers. Moreover, CEEMEA is the only region globally that has no insurers with ERM assessments in the highest two categories (strong and very strong). Nevertheless, improvements in ERM practices have led to a reduction in the number of weak scores in recent years, resulting in adequate assessments for almost 90% of CEEMEA insurers.

Latin America: A Tale Of Two Countries

For Latin America, we affirmed 63% of our ratings, raised 33%, and lowered 4%. One explanation to the high percentage of upgrades is due to the recalibration of business and financial risk profiles among small capitalized companies under the new criteria. The small number of rated insurers in Latin America relative to the global insurance rated universe further explains the high percentage of rating changes. Economic growth likely will be lackluster in 2013 and then pick up slightly in 2014. Despite subdued growth for Latin America, we see the regional insurance industry remaining satisfactory, largely thanks to a fair business risk profile, moderately strong capital adequacy, adequate financial flexibility, and strong liquidity. However, we view the financial risk profile as less robust because of small capital size. The median indicative SACP for Latin America is 'bbb-'. Most of our rated insurance companies in the region operate in Brazil and Mexico, which explains the group's divergent SACPs. Although 48% of the indicative SACPs are 'bbb' and higher, we also see a large number of rated insurers with indicative SACPs at and below 'bb'. Mexico-domiciled insurers with higher indicative SACPs dominate because they're generally well established in their local market and benefit from foreign parents' support through intercompany reinsurance in most cases and brand recognition to some extent. The lower-rated group reflects the significant presence of newly rated start-up companies in Brazil, which have yet to demonstrate satisfactory operating performance and growth while maintaining adequate capitalization. Despite their differences, many of our rated insurers in this region are subsidiaries of strong parents domiciled outside the region or are part of large banking groups. Our financial strength ratings generally reflect this implicit support.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 15

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 9

Our IICRA scores in Latin America range from moderate to intermediate, somewhat limiting its insurers' business positions. This is partly due to the low income levels measured by GDP per capital across the region. On the positive side, these IICRA scores are generally supported by fairly adequate regulatory frameworks, satisfactory industry profitability, relatively low product risk, high barriers to entry in most markets, and good growth prospects. One factor that supports Latin American insurers' financial profiles is adequate financial flexibility given the absence of debt and adequate access to external capital, such as reinsurance. Liquidity is generally strong. Regulators in Brazil and Mexico establish basic investment policies for insurance companies requiring them to hold a high proportion of their investment portfolio in high investment-grade domestic securities. This implies insurers are more inclined to invest in domestic government securities (which are generally liquid but rated 'A-' at best) rather than domestic corporate securities because government bonds, on average, are rated higher and viewed as less risky. Inadvertently, this has led to less-favorable investment diversification and modestly lower credit quality relative to other major regions. Moreover, we do not expect regulatory investment rules to change in the near future. Capital adequacy for many of our rated Latin American insurers is moderately strong, with many having capital adequacy levels with redundancy in line with a 'BBB' level and above. In Brazil, this is mainly because most rated entities are start-ups and so are more willing to maintain good capital-adequacy ratios, given the local regulatory requirements. In Mexico, good capitalization levels result from local subsidiaries following their parents' capitalization

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 16

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

policies, leading to redundancy levels significantly above the 'BBB' standard. Also aiding capital adequacy to some extent are local regulatory capitalization requirements, which in our opinion are fairly conservative. Furthermore, implementing the Solvency II standard during the next two years will support good capitalization levels for Mexican insurers. One factor that partially offsets our capital adequacy assessment for Latin American insurer is the relative size of capital, which in some case is fairly small.

Asia Pacific: Higher Financial Risks Against Stronger Business Profiles

For APAC, we addressed most of the key rating drivers in our Sept. 3, 2013, article, including contributions to generally stronger business risk profiles, offset by a bias toward modest financial risk profiles. In addition, for APAC insurers we viewed positive differentiation of brand at 29% as more prevalent than 23% globally. That's particularly so for markets such as Japan and China, where our ratings include major national carriers, many with long-standing reputations affiliated with mutual or government ownership. Also for markets such as Thailand, our ratings coverage is biased to market leaders with stronger brand profiles.
Chart 10

Despite the spread of ratings in more than 10 countries in the region, APAC is at a relative disadvantage in our assessment of geographic diversity, with a positive assessment generally applicable only for insurers in China and

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 17

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

those with regional diversity of premiums. These include insurers with offshore operations based in Australia and Hong Kong. We do not view markets such as Japan, despite its scale and regional economic diversity, as geographically diverse enough for a positive assessment. As a result, only 5% of APAC insurers have a positive assessment of geographic diversity compared with 38% globally. Under our assessment of additional sources of capital volatility, APAC has a bias to neutral, whereas the global distribution leans toward negative. APAC's higher score partly reflects fewer reinsurance sector ratings. Our study of management and governance achieved a higher bias to satisfactory at 78% compared with 62% globally, where there was a greater spread between strong and fair. The slightly stronger score for APAC reflects the ratings bias to the top end of the market, and smaller ratings coverage in less-developed markets. Despite some pressure on capital and earnings, ratings on Japan- and Taiwan-based life insurers were generally supported under our revised criteria, in part from a positive forward view of capital and earnings and improved conditions in investment markets. Other ratings actions were related to our reassessment of parent support under our group ratings methodology and revised holding company notching.

Financial Flexibility Ratios: Coverage And Leverage

Our 2013-2015 forward-looking estimates show a median of 8x EBITDA fixed-charge coverage and 20% financial leverage for our rated insurers that have debt and/or hybrids outstanding. In our view, North America insurers have a moderately higher median leverage at 23% than their global counterparts' at about 20%. In addition, we find more North America rated insurers using leverage to augment their balance sheets. Within the North America rated pool, we see more than 65% of insurers using debt and/or hybrids, compared with 53% in Western Europe, 35% in APAC, 25% in CEEMEA, and 19% in Latin America.
Table 1

Global Median Coverage Ratio By Sector

(x) Global (all) APAC North America Western Europe CEEMEA Latin America All sectors 8.0 15.0 7.3 7.5 7.7 6.0 Life 8.6 17.9 8.2 6.8 N.A. N.A. PC Multiline Reinsurance Health 7.5 12.5 5.9 7.5 9.8 N.A. 7.4 12.4 6.8 8.5 5.3 5.0 7.0 6.9 6.5 7.5 N.A. N.A. 9.6 N.A. 9.6 N.A. N.A. N.A.

N.A.-Not available. Excludes companies with no debt outstanding.

Table 2

Global Median Coverage Ratio By Rating Category

(x) Global (all) APAC North America Western Europe All 8.0 15.0 7.3 7.5 AAA 11.0 N.A. 11.0 N.A. AA 9.2 28.0 9.3 8.6 A 8.7 18.1 7.6 7.1 BBB 7.0 9.4 6.4 7.6 BB 5.8 12.5 4.0 6.0

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 18

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Table 2

Global Median Coverage Ratio By Rating Category (cont.)

CEEMEA Latin America 7.7 6.0 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 12.5 N.A. 4.4 7.0 5.9 5.0

N.A.-Not available. Excludes companies with no debt outstanding.

Table 3

Global Median Financial Leverage Ratio By Sector

(%) Global (all) APAC North America Western Europe CEEMEA Latin America All sectors 20.3 14.0 22.7 19.7 15.6 19.5 Life 22.0 11.0 23.1 22.0 N.A. N.A. PC Multiline Reinsurance 21.7 7.7 23.3 19.3 15.3 N.A. 20.3 20.0 23.5 19.2 17.0 26.7 17.0 14.0 18.6 16.9 1.4 N.A. Health 20.3 N.A. 20.3 N.A. N.A. N.A.

N.A.-Not available. Excludes companies with no debt outstanding.

Table 4

Global Median Financial Leverage Ratio By Rating Category

(%) Global (all) APAC North America Western Europe CEEMEA Latin America All 20.3 14.0 22.7 19.7 15.6 19.5 AAA 8.7 N.A. 8.7 N.A. N.A. N.A. AA 22.4 6.2 24.0 22.0 N.A. N.A. A 20.0 18.0 22.6 19.9 10.1 N.A. BBB 20.2 8.8 22.0 12.3 21.0 12.4 BB 31.0 41.0 65.7 23.0 5.5 26.7

N.A.-Not available. Excludes companies with no debt outstanding.

Global Convergence Is More Likely

Our fundamental analysis and view of the key drivers of insurers' credit quality haven't changed under our revised global criteria. Instead, our global framework for rating insurance companies has enhanced the transparency, specificity, and forward-looking nature of our view through a consistent standard, explicitly reflecting comparative analysis. Through this comparative lens, we are able to describe the unique characteristics and differences we see across the global insurance markets. These unique features and variations will likely remain the status quo, but we also think these characteristics are more likely to change for insurers in developing markets than for those in developed world. As globalization continues to expand through integration and interaction among companies, people, and even regulators, we expect to see more convergence than divergence over time.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 19

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Chart 11

Related Criteria And Research

Global Credit Conditions: Despite Improvements, The Markets Await The Fed, Dec. 17, 2013 Asia-Pacific Insurers Are On Firm Footing As Economic Conditions Shift, Sept. 3, 2013 S&P's Insurance Industry And Country Risk Assessments Offer A Global View Of The Forces Shaping Insurance

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 20

1229206 | 301674531

Around The World Of Insurance: A Global Review Of Ratings

Markets, May 22, 2013 Insurers: Rating Methodology, May 7, 2013

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 21

1229206 | 301674531

Copyright 2013 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription) and www.spcapitaliq.com (subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT

DECEMBER 18, 2013 22

1229206 | 301674531