MET-12.31.2013-10K

 
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
__________________________
Form 10-K
(Mark One)
þ
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
or
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to  
Commission file number 001-15787
MetLife, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware
 
13-4075851
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
 
 
200 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y.
 
10166-0188
(Address of principal
executive offices)
 
(Zip Code)
(212) 578-2211
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class
 
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value $0.01
 
New York Stock Exchange
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series A, par value $0.01
 
New York Stock Exchange
6.50% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series B, par value $0.01
 
New York Stock Exchange
Common Equity Units
 
New York Stock Exchange
5.875% Senior Notes
 
New York Stock Exchange
5.375% Senior Notes
 
Irish Stock Exchange
5.25% Senior Notes
 
Irish Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ No ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer þ
 
Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer ¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 
Smaller reporting company o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No þ
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant at June 30, 2013 was approximately $50.2 billion. At February 19, 2014, 1,123,537,362 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on April 22, 2014, to be filed by the registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the year ended December 31, 2013.
 




Table of Contents
 
 
 
 
Page
Part I
Item 1.
 
 
Item 1A.
 
 
Item 1B.
 
 
Item 2.
 
 
Item 3.
 
 
Item 4.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part II
Item 5.
 
 
Item 6.
 
 
Item 7.
 
 
Item 7A.
 
 
Item 8.
 
 
Item 9.
 
 
Item 9A.
 
 
Item 9B.
 
 
 
Part III
Item 10.
 
 
Item 11.
 
 
Item 12.
 
 
Item 13.
 
 
Item 14.
 
 
 
Part IV
Item 15.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Table of Contents

As used in this Form 10-K, “MetLife,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MetLife, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1999, its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, may contain or incorporate by reference information that includes or is based upon forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe” and other words and terms of similar meaning, or are tied to future periods, in connection with a discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, prospective services or products, future performance or results of current and anticipated services or products, sales efforts, expenses, the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings, trends in operations and financial results.
Any or all forward-looking statements may turn out to be wrong. They can be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known or unknown risks and uncertainties. Many such factors will be important in determining the actual future results of MetLife, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates. These statements are based on current expectations and the current economic environment. They involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. These statements are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Risks, uncertainties, and other factors that might cause such differences include the risks, uncertainties and other factors identified in MetLife, Inc.’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). These factors include: (1) difficult conditions in the global capital markets; (2) increased volatility and disruption of the capital and credit markets, which may affect our ability to meet liquidity needs and access capital, including through our credit facilities, generate fee income and market-related revenue and finance statutory reserve requirements and may require us to pledge collateral or make payments related to declines in value of specified assets, including assets supporting risks ceded to certain of our captive reinsurers or hedging arrangements associated with those risks; (3) exposure to financial and capital market risks, including as a result of the disruption in Europe; (4) impact of comprehensive financial services regulation reform on us, as a potential non-bank systemically important financial institution, or otherwise; (5) numerous rulemaking initiatives required or permitted by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which may impact how we conduct our business, including those compelling the liquidation of certain financial institutions; (6) regulatory, legislative or tax changes relating to our insurance, international, or other operations that may affect the cost of, or demand for, our products or services, or increase the cost or administrative burdens of providing benefits to employees; (7) adverse results or other consequences from litigation, arbitration or regulatory investigations; (8) potential liquidity and other risks resulting from our participation in a securities lending program and other transactions; (9) investment losses and defaults, and changes to investment valuations; (10) changes in assumptions related to investment valuations, deferred policy acquisition costs, deferred sales inducements, value of business acquired or goodwill; (11) impairments of goodwill and realized losses or market value impairments to illiquid assets; (12) defaults on our mortgage loans; (13) the defaults or deteriorating credit of other financial institutions that could adversely affect us; (14) economic, political, legal, currency and other risks relating to our international operations, including with respect to fluctuations of exchange rates; (15) downgrades in our claims paying ability, financial strength or credit ratings; (16) a deterioration in the experience of the “closed block” established in connection with the reorganization of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (17) availability and effectiveness of reinsurance or indemnification arrangements, as well as any default or failure of counterparties to perform; (18) differences between actual claims experience and underwriting and reserving assumptions; (19) ineffectiveness of risk management policies and procedures; (20) catastrophe losses; (21) increasing cost and limited market capacity for statutory life insurance reserve financings; (22) heightened competition, including with respect to pricing, entry of new competitors, consolidation of distributors, the development of new products by new and existing competitors, and for personnel; (23) exposure to losses related to variable annuity guarantee benefits, including from significant and sustained downturns or extreme volatility in equity markets, reduced interest rates, unanticipated policyholder behavior, mortality or longevity, and the adjustment for nonperformance risk; (24) our ability to address difficulties, unforeseen liabilities, asset impairments, or rating agency actions arising from business acquisitions, including our acquisition of American Life Insurance Company and Delaware American Life Insurance Company, and integrating and managing the growth of such acquired businesses, or arising from dispositions of businesses or legal entity reorganizations; (25) the dilutive impact on our stockholders resulting from the settlement of our outstanding common equity units; (26) regulatory and other restrictions affecting MetLife, Inc.’s ability to pay dividends and repurchase common stock; (27) MetLife, Inc.’s primary reliance, as a holding company, on dividends from its subsidiaries to meet debt payment obligations and the applicable regulatory restrictions on the ability of the subsidiaries to pay such dividends; (28) the possibility that MetLife, Inc.’s Board of Directors may influence the outcome of stockholder votes through the voting provisions of the MetLife Policyholder Trust; (29) changes in accounting standards, practices and/or policies; (30) increased expenses relating to pension and postretirement benefit plans, as well as health care and other employee benefits; (31) inability to protect our intellectual property rights or claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of others; (32) inability to attract and retain sales representatives; (33) provisions of laws and our incorporation documents may delay, deter or prevent takeovers and corporate combinations involving MetLife; (34) the effects of business disruption or economic contraction due to disasters such as terrorist attacks, cyberattacks, other hostilities, or natural catastrophes, including any related impact on the value of our investment portfolio, our disaster recovery systems, cyber- or other information security systems and management continuity planning; (35) the effectiveness of our programs and practices in avoiding giving our associates incentives to take excessive risks; and (36) other risks and uncertainties described from time to time in MetLife, Inc.’s filings with the SEC.
MetLife, Inc. does not undertake any obligation to publicly correct or update any forward-looking statement if MetLife, Inc. later becomes aware that such statement is not likely to be achieved. Please consult any further disclosures MetLife, Inc. makes on related subjects in reports to the SEC.
Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts
See “Exhibit Index — Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts” for information regarding agreements included as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

2

Table of Contents

Part I

Item 1. Business
Index to Business
 
Page

3

Table of Contents

Overview
As used in this Form 10-K, “MetLife,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MetLife, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1999, its subsidiaries and affiliates.
We have grown to become a leading global provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs. Through our subsidiaries and affiliates, we hold leading market positions in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Over the past several years, we have grown our core businesses, as well as successfully executed on our growth strategy. This has included completing a number of transactions that have resulted in the acquisition and, in some cases, divestiture of certain businesses while also further strengthening our balance sheet to position MetLife for continued growth.
MetLife is organized into six segments, reflecting three broad geographic regions: Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits; Corporate Benefit Funding; and Latin America (collectively, the “Americas”); Asia; and Europe, the Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”). In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other, which includes MetLife Home Loans LLC (“MLHL”), the surviving, non-bank entity of the merger of MetLife Bank, National Association (“MetLife Bank”) with and into MLHL. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding MetLife Bank’s exit from substantially all of its businesses (the “MetLife Bank Divestiture”) and other business activities.
On October 1, 2013, MetLife, Inc. completed its previously announced acquisition of Administradora de Fondos de Pensiones Provida S.A. (“ProVida”), the largest private pension fund administrator in Chile based on assets under management and number of pension fund contributors. The acquisition of ProVida supports the Company's growth strategy in emerging markets and further strengthens the Company's overall position in Chile. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the acquisition of ProVida.
In the second quarter of 2013, MetLife, Inc. announced its plans to merge three U.S.-based life insurance companies and an offshore reinsurance subsidiary to create one larger U.S.-based and U.S.-regulated life insurance company (the “Mergers”). The companies to be merged are MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut (“MICC”), MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company and MetLife Investors Insurance Company, each a U.S. insurance company that issues variable annuity products in addition to other products, and Exeter Reassurance Company, Ltd., a reinsurance company that mainly reinsures guarantees associated with variable annuity products. MICC, which is expected to be renamed and domiciled in Delaware, will be the surviving entity. The Mergers are expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2014, subject to regulatory approvals. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Executive Summary” for further information on the Mergers.
Management continues to evaluate the Company’s segment performance and allocated resources and may adjust related measurements in the future to better reflect segment profitability. For example, starting in the first quarter of 2013, the Latin America segment includes U.S. sponsored direct business, comprised of group and individual products sold through sponsoring organizations and affinity groups. Products included are life, dental, group short- and long-term disability, accidental death & dismemberment (“AD&D”) coverages, property & casualty and other accident and health coverages, as well as non-insurance products such as identity protection. See Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the Company’s segments and Corporate & Other.
On November 1, 2010, MetLife, Inc. completed the acquisition of American Life Insurance Company (“American Life”) from AM Holdings LLC (formerly known as ALICO Holdings LLC) (“AM Holdings”), a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”), and Delaware American Life Insurance Company (“DelAm”) from AIG (American Life, together with DelAm, collectively, “ALICO”) (the “ALICO Acquisition”). The assets, liabilities and operating results relating to the ALICO Acquisition are included in the Latin America, Asia and EMEA segments. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Certain international subsidiaries have a fiscal year-end of November 30. Accordingly, the Company’s consolidated financial statements reflect the assets and liabilities of such subsidiaries as of November 30, 2013 and 2012 and the operating results of such subsidiaries for the years ended November 30, 2013, 2012 and 2011.
In the U.S., we provide a variety of insurance and financial services products, including life, dental, disability, property & casualty, guaranteed interest, stable value and annuities, through both proprietary and independent retail distribution channels, as well as at the workplace. This business serves approximately 60,000 group customers, serving 90 of the FORTUNE 100® companies, and provides protection and retirement solutions to millions of individuals.

4

Table of Contents

Outside the U.S., we operate in Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. MetLife is the largest life insurer in both Mexico and Chile and also holds leading market positions in Japan, Korea, Poland, the Persian Gulf and Russia. Our businesses outside the U.S. provide life insurance, accident & health insurance, credit insurance, annuities, endowment and retirement & savings products to both individuals and groups. We believe these businesses will continue to grow more quickly than our U.S. businesses.
Revenues derived from any customer did not exceed 10% of consolidated premiums, universal life and investment-type product policy fees and other revenues for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. Financial information, including revenues, expenses, operating earnings, and total assets by segment, as well as premiums, universal life and investment-type product policy fees and other revenues by major product groups, is provided in Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Operating revenues and operating earnings are performance measures that are not based on accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for definitions of such measures.
For financial information related to revenues, total assets, and goodwill balances by geographic region, see Notes 2 and 11 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
We are one of the largest institutional investors in the U.S. with a $496.4 billion general account portfolio invested primarily in investment grade corporate bonds, structured finance securities, commercial and agricultural mortgage loans, U.S. Treasury and agency securities, as well as real estate and corporate equity at December 31, 2013. Over the past several years, we have taken a number of actions to further diversify and strengthen our general account portfolio.
Our well-recognized brand, leading market positions, competitive and innovative product offerings and financial strength and expertise should help drive future growth and enhance shareholder value, building on a long history of fairness, honesty and integrity. Over the course of the next several years, we will pursue the following objectives to position the Company for continued growth and achieve our vision of being recognized as the leading global life insurance and employee benefits provider:
 
Ÿ
 
Refocus the U.S. businesses
 
 
Shift product mix away from capital intensive products
 
 
Invest in growth initiatives for the voluntary/worksite, accident & health, and direct channels
 
 
Drive margin improvement
 
Ÿ
 
Build the Global Employee Benefits business
 
 
Accelerate our local employee benefits businesses in key markets outside the United States
 
 
Grow our global benefits businesses through multinational and expatriate solutions
 
Ÿ
 
Grow emerging markets presence
 
 
Accelerate earnings in emerging markets in which we already have a strong presence
 
 
Seek opportunistic mergers and acquisitions to complement our organic growth
 
Ÿ
 
Drive toward customer centricity and a global brand
 
 
Institutionalize customer centric actions and culture at MetLife
 
 
Grow consideration and preference for MetLife’s brand in key markets

5

Table of Contents

Segments and Corporate & Other
Americas
Overview
Our businesses in the Americas offer a broad range of protection products and services aimed at serving the financial needs of our customers throughout their lives. These products are sold to individuals and corporations, as well as other institutions, and their respective employees.
Retail
Our Retail segment is organized into two businesses: Life & Other and Annuities.
The major products within Life & Other are as follows:
Variable Life. Variable life products provide insurance coverage through a contract that gives the policyholder flexibility in investment choices and, depending on the product, in premium payments and coverage amounts, with certain guarantees. Most importantly, with variable life products, premiums and account balances can be directed by the policyholder into a variety of separate account investment options or directed to the Company’s general account. In the separate account investment options, the policyholder bears the entire risk of the investment results. We collect specified fees for the management of the investment options. The policyholder’s cash value reflects the investment return of the selected investment options, net of management fees and insurance-related and other charges. In some instances, third-party money management firms manage these investment options. With some products, by maintaining a certain premium level, policyholders may have the advantage of various guarantees that may protect the death benefit from adverse investment experience.
Universal Life. Universal life products provide insurance coverage on the same basis as variable life, except that premiums, and the resulting accumulated balances, are allocated only to the Company’s general account. Universal life products may allow the insured to increase or decrease the amount of death benefit coverage over the term of the contract and the owner to adjust the frequency and amount of premium payments. We credit premiums to an account maintained for the policyholder. Premiums are credited net of specified expenses. Interest is credited to the policyholder’s account at interest rates we determine, subject to specified minimums. Specific charges are made against the policyholder’s account for the cost of insurance protection and for expenses. With some products, by maintaining a certain premium level, policyholders may have the advantage of various guarantees that may protect the death benefit from adverse investment experience.
Term Life. Term life products provide a guaranteed benefit upon the death of the insured for a specified time period in return for the periodic payment of premiums. Specified coverage periods range from one year to 30 years, but in no event are they longer than the period over which premiums are paid. Death benefits may be level over the period or decreasing. Premiums may be guaranteed at a level amount for the coverage period or may be non-level and non-guaranteed. Term insurance products are sometimes referred to as pure protection products, in that there are typically no savings or investment elements. Term contracts expire without value at the end of the coverage period when the insured party is still living.
Whole Life. Whole life products provide a guaranteed benefit upon the death of the insured in return for the periodic payment of a fixed premium over a predetermined period. Premium payments may be required for the entire life of the contract period, to a specified age or period, and may be level or change in accordance with a predetermined schedule. Whole life insurance includes policies that provide a participation feature in the form of dividends. Policyholders may receive dividends in cash or apply them to increase death benefits, increase cash values available upon surrender or reduce the premiums required to maintain the contract in-force. Because the use of dividends is specified by the policyholder, this group of products provides significant flexibility to individuals to tailor the product to suit their specific needs and circumstances, while at the same time providing guaranteed benefits.
Disability. Disability products provide a benefit in the event of the disability of the insured. In most instances, this benefit is in the form of monthly income paid until the insured reaches age 65. In addition to income replacement, the product may be used to provide for the payment of business overhead expenses for disabled business owners or mortgage payment protection.
Property & Casualty. These products include personal lines property & casualty insurance offered to individuals through a variety of retail distribution channels, including independent agents, property & casualty specialists, and the MetLife Premier Client Group, formerly known as our individual distribution sales force.

6

Table of Contents

Auto insurance policies provide coverage for private passenger automobiles, utility automobiles and vans, motorcycles, motor homes, antique or classic automobiles and trailers. We also offer traditional coverage such as liability, uninsured motorist, no fault or personal injury protection, as well as collision and comprehensive insurance.
Homeowners’ insurance policies provide protection for homeowners, renters, condominium owners and residential landlords against losses arising out of damage to dwellings and contents from a wide variety of perils, as well as coverage for liability arising from ownership or occupancy. Other insurance includes personal excess liability (protection against losses in excess of amounts covered by other liability insurance policies), and coverage for recreational vehicles and boat owners. Most of our homeowners’ policies are traditional insurance policies for dwellings, providing protection for loss on a “replacement cost” basis. These policies also provide additional coverage for reasonable, normal living expenses incurred by policyholders that have been displaced from their homes.
Auto insurance represented 57%, while homeowners and other insurance represented the remaining 43%, of the total net earned premiums on these products in 2013. In 2013, our property & casualty business was concentrated in New York and Illinois, as measured by the percentage of total direct earned premiums, of 13% and 10%, respectively, followed by Texas and Connecticut, with 7% and 5%, respectively.
Other. Additionally, through our broker-dealer affiliates, we offer a full range of mutual funds and other securities products. The elimination of transactions from activity between the segments within the Americas occurs within Life & Other.
Our Annuities business offers a variety of variable and fixed annuities that are primarily sold to individuals and tax-qualified groups in the education, healthcare and not-for-profit sectors.
The major products within Annuities are as follows:
Variable Annuities. Variable annuities provide for both asset accumulation and asset distribution needs. Variable annuities allow the contractholder to make deposits into various investment options in a separate account, as determined by the contractholder. The risks associated with such investment options are borne entirely by the contractholder, except where guaranteed minimum benefits are involved. In certain variable annuity products, contractholders may also choose to allocate all or a portion of their account to the Company’s general account and are credited with interest at rates we determine, subject to specified minimums. In addition, contractholders may also elect certain minimum death benefit and minimum living benefit guarantees for which additional fees are charged and where asset allocation restrictions may apply.
Fixed Annuities. Fixed annuities provide for both asset accumulation and asset distribution needs. Fixed annuities do not allow the same investment flexibility provided by variable annuities, but provide guarantees related to the preservation of principal and interest credited. Deposits made into deferred annuity contracts are allocated to the Company’s general account and are credited with interest at rates we determine, subject to specified minimums. Credited interest rates are guaranteed not to change for certain limited periods of time, ranging from one to 10 years. Fixed income annuities provide a guaranteed monthly income for a specified period of years and/or for the life of the annuitant.
Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits
We have built a leading position in the U.S. group insurance market through long-standing relationships with many of the largest corporate employers in the U.S. Our Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits segment is organized into two businesses: Group and Voluntary & Worksite.
Our Group insurance products and services include life, dental, group short- and long-term disability and AD&D coverages. We also sell administrative services-only (“ASO”) arrangements to some employers. Under such ASO arrangements, the employer is at risk, as we have not issued an insurance policy. We pay claims funded by the employer and perform other administrative services on behalf of the employer.

7

Table of Contents

The major products within Group are as follows:
Life. Life insurance products and services include variable life, universal life, and term life products. These are similar to the products offered by the Retail Life & Other business except we offer group insurance products as employer-paid benefits or as voluntary benefits where all or a portion of the premiums are paid by the employee. These life insurance products and services also include employee paid supplemental life and are offered as standard products or may be tailored to meet specific customer needs.
Dental. Dental products provide insurance and ASO arrangements that assist employees, retirees and their families in maintaining oral health while reducing out-of-pocket expenses and providing superior customer service. Dental plans include the Preferred Dentist Program and the Dental Health Maintenance Organization.
Disability. Disability products provide a benefit in the event of the disability of the insured. In most instances, this benefit is in the form of monthly income paid until the insured reaches age 65.
Our Voluntary & Worksite products and services include long-term care (“LTC”), prepaid legal plans, critical illness and property & casualty products.
The major products within Voluntary & Worksite are as follows:
Long-term Care. LTC products provide protection against the potentially high costs of LTC services. They generally pay benefits to insureds who need assistance with activities of daily living or have a cognitive impairment. Although we discontinued the sale of these products in 2010, we continue to support our existing policyholders.
Property & Casualty. These products include personal lines property & casualty insurance offered directly to employees at their employer’s worksite through a variety of distribution channels, including independent agents, property & casualty specialists and direct marketing. The property & casualty products offered by the Voluntary & Worksite business are the same products offered by the Retail property & casualty business. Auto insurance represented 74%, while homeowners and other insurance represented the remaining 26%, of the total net earned premiums on these products in 2013. In 2013, our property & casualty business was concentrated in Massachusetts, New York and Florida, as measured by the percentage of total direct earned premiums, of 13%, 9% and 7%, respectively, followed by Texas, New Jersey and California, each with 6%.
Corporate Benefit Funding
The Corporate Benefit Funding segment provides funding and financing solutions that help institutional customers mitigate and manage liabilities primarily associated with their qualified, nonqualified and welfare employee benefit programs using a spectrum of life and annuity-based insurance and investment products.
The major products within Corporate Benefit Funding are as follows:
Stable Value Products. We offer general account guaranteed interest contracts, separate account guaranteed interest contracts, and similar products used to support the stable value option of defined contribution plans. We also offer private floating rate funding agreements that are used for money market funds, securities lending cash collateral portfolios and short-term investment funds.
General account guaranteed interest contracts are designed to provide stable value investment options within tax-qualified defined contribution plans. Traditional general account guaranteed interest contracts integrate a general account fixed or determinable fixed maturity investment with a general account guarantee of liquidity at contract value for participant transactions.
Separate account guaranteed interest contracts are available to defined contribution plan sponsors. These contracts integrate market value returns on separate account investments with a general account guarantee of liquidity at contract value to the extent the separate account assets are not sufficient. The contracts do not have a fixed maturity date and are terminable by each party on notice.
Private floating rate funding agreements are generally privately-placed, unregistered investment contracts issued as general account obligations. Interest is credited based on an external index, generally the three-month London Interbank Offered Rate (also, LIBOR). Contracts may contain put provisions (of 90 days or longer) that allow for the contractholder to receive the account balance prior to the stated maturity date.
Pension Closeouts. We offer general account and separate account annuity products, generally in connection with the termination of defined benefit pension plans, both in the U.S. and the United Kingdom (“U.K.”). These risk transfer products include single premium buyouts that allow for full or partial transfers of pension liabilities.

8

Table of Contents

General account annuity products include nonparticipating closeout contracts and terminal funding annuity contracts. Under nonparticipating closeout contracts, group annuity benefits may be purchased for retired and terminated employees or employees covered under terminating or ongoing pension plans. Both immediate and deferred annuities may be purchased by a single premium at issue. There are generally no cash surrender rights, with some exceptions including certain contracts that include liabilities for cash balance pension plans. A terminal funding contract is a nonparticipating group annuity contract that is available for purchasing guaranteed payout annuities for employees upon retirement or termination of employment. These annuities can be either life contingent or non-life contingent. These annuities are nonparticipating, do not provide for any loan or cash surrender value, and with few exceptions do not permit future considerations.
Separate account annuity products include participating closeout contracts. Under participating closeout contracts, group annuity benefits are purchased for retired, terminated, or active employees covered under active or terminated pension plans. Both immediate and deferred fixed annuities are purchased with a single premium. Under some contracts, additional annuities may be periodically purchased at then current purchase rates. The assets supporting the guaranteed benefits for each contract are held in a separate account. Some contracts require the contractholder to make periodic payments to cover investment and insurance expenses. The Company fully guarantees benefit payments and is ultimately responsible for all benefit payments.
Torts and Settlements. We offer innovative strategies for complex litigation settlements, primarily structured settlement annuities.
Structured settlement annuities are customized annuities designed to serve as an alternative to a lump sum payment in a lawsuit initiated because of personal injury, wrongful death, or a workers’ compensation claim or other claim for damages. Surrenders are generally not allowed, although commutations are permitted in certain circumstances. Guaranteed payments consist of life contingent annuities, term certain annuities and lump sums.
Capital Markets Investment Products. Products we offer include funding agreements, funding agreement-backed notes and funding agreement-backed commercial paper. We also issue funding agreements to receive Federal Home Loan Bank advances and through a program with the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (“Farmer Mac”).
Funding agreement-backed notes are part of a medium term note program, under which funding agreements are issued to a special-purpose trust that issues marketable notes in U.S. dollars or foreign currencies. The proceeds of the issuance of a series of notes are used by the trust to acquire a funding agreement with matching interest and maturity payment terms from the Company. The notes are underwritten and marketed by major investment banks’ broker-dealer operations and are sold to institutional investors.
Funding agreement-backed commercial paper is issued by a special purpose limited liability company which deposits the proceeds under a master funding agreement issued to it by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MLIC”) or MICC. The commercial paper receives the same short-term credit rating as MLIC or MICC and is marketed by major investment banks’ broker-dealer operations. The program allows for funding agreement-backed commercial paper to be issued in U.S. dollars or foreign currencies.
Through the Farmer Mac program, funding agreements have been issued by MLIC to Farmer Mac, as well as to certain special purpose entities that have issued debt securities for which payment of interest and principal is secured by such funding agreements, and such debt securities are also guaranteed as to payment of interest and principal by Farmer Mac.
Other Corporate Benefit Funding Products and Services. We offer specialized life insurance products and funding agreements designed specifically to provide solutions for funding postretirement benefits and company-, bank- or trust-owned life insurance used to finance nonqualified benefit programs for executives.
Latin America
We operate in seven countries in Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Uruguay. Our largest operations are in Mexico, Chile and Argentina. Starting in the first quarter of 2013, the Latin America segment includes U.S. sponsored direct business, comprised of group and individual products sold through sponsoring organizations and affinity groups. In addition to the various products discussed in other segments within the Americas, Latin America engages in the following businesses:
Accident & health insurance. We offer group and individual major medical, accidental, and supplemental health products, including accidental death and disability, medical reimbursement, hospital indemnity and medical coverage for serious medical conditions.
Administradora de Fondos de Ahorro para el Retiro (“AFORE”). Through our AFORE company in Mexico, we offer a savings oriented pension product under the mandatory privatized social security system for all non-government employees.

9

Table of Contents

Credit insurance. We offer credit insurance policies designed to fulfill certain loan obligations in the event of the policyholder’s death.
ProVida. Through our ProVida company in Chile, we offer a savings oriented pension product under a mandatory privatized social security system.
See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information on the disposition of insurance operations in the Caribbean region, Panama and Costa Rica and on the acquisition of ProVida in Chile.
Asia
We operate in nine countries in Asia, with our largest operations in Japan and Korea. Other operations in Asia include Australia, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Nepal and Pakistan, as well as an unconsolidated operating joint venture in China, the results of which are reflected in net investment income and a consolidated operating joint venture in India. Our Asia segment engages in the following businesses:
Life insurance. We offer both traditional and non-traditional life insurance products, such as whole life, term life, endowments, universal life and variable life products. We offer group life programs in most markets.
Accident & health insurance. We offer individual and group personal accident and supplemental health products, including accidental death and dismemberment, hospital indemnity, scheduled medical reimbursement plans, and coverage for serious medical conditions. In addition, we offer individual and group major medical coverage in select markets.
Retirement and savings products. We offer both fixed and variable annuity products in select markets, with our largest markets in Japan, Korea and China.
Credit insurance. We offer credit insurance policies designed to fulfill certain obligations in the event of the policyholder’s death in select markets, including Japan, Australia and Bangladesh.
See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Acquisitions and Dispositions” for information regarding (i) an agreement to form a strategic partnership in Malaysia, and (ii) an agreement to establish a life insurance joint venture in Vietnam. Also, see Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding the sale of the Company’s 50% interest in its former operating joint venture in Japan.
EMEA
We operate in 30 countries across EMEA, with our largest operations in Poland, the Persian Gulf and Russia. EMEA engages in the following businesses:
Life insurance. We offer both traditional and non-traditional life insurance products, such as whole life, term life, endowments, universal life and variable life products. We offer group term life programs in most markets.
Accident & health insurance. We offer individual and group personal accident and supplemental health products, including accidental death and dismemberment, hospital indemnity, scheduled medical reimbursement plans, and coverage for serious medical conditions. In addition, we offer individual and group major medical coverage in select markets.
Retirement and savings products. We offer both fixed and variable annuity products and pension products, including group pension programs in select markets. In Poland and Romania we offer through specialized pension companies a savings oriented pension product under the mandatory privatized social security systems.
Credit insurance. We offer credit insurance policies designed to fulfill certain obligations in the event of the policyholder’s death.

10

Table of Contents

Corporate & Other
The Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other, which includes MLHL, the surviving, non-bank entity of the merger of MetLife Bank with and into MLHL (see Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding the MetLife Bank Divestiture) and other business activities. Corporate & Other contains the excess capital not allocated to the segments, external integration costs, internal resource costs for associates committed to acquisitions, enterprise-wide strategic initiative restructuring charges, and various start-up and certain run-off businesses. Start-up businesses include expatriate benefits insurance, as well as direct and digital marketing products. Corporate & Other also includes assumed reinsurance of certain variable annuity products from our former operating joint venture in Japan. Under this in-force reinsurance agreement, we reinsure living and death benefit guarantees issued in connection with variable annuity products. Corporate & Other also includes our investment management business through which we offer fee-based investment management services to institutional clients. Additionally, Corporate & Other includes interest expense related to the majority of the Company’s outstanding debt and expenses associated with certain legal proceedings and income tax audit issues. Corporate & Other also includes the elimination of intersegment amounts, which generally relate to intersegment loans, which bear interest rates commensurate with related borrowings.
Sales Distribution
Overview
In the Americas, excluding Latin America, we market our products and services through various distribution channels. Our retail life, disability and annuities products targeted to individuals are sold via sales forces, comprised of MetLife employees, as well as third-party organizations. Our group and corporate benefit funding products are sold via sales forces primarily comprised of MetLife employees. Personal lines property & casualty insurance products are directly marketed to employees at their employer’s worksite. Personal lines property & casualty insurance products are also marketed and sold to individuals by independent agents, property & casualty specialists through a direct marketing channel, and via sales forces comprised of MetLife employees. MetLife sales employees work with all distribution channels to better reach and service customers, brokers, consultants and other intermediaries.
In Asia, Latin America, and EMEA, we market our products and services through a multi-distribution strategy which varies by geographic region and stage of market development. The various distribution channels include: career agency, bancassurance, direct marketing, brokerage, other third-party distribution, and e-commerce. In developing countries, the career agency channel covers the needs of the emerging middle class with primarily traditional products (e.g., whole life, term, endowment and accident & health). In more developed and mature markets, career agents, while continuing to serve their existing customers to keep pace with their developing financial needs, also target upper middle class and mass affluent customer bases with a more sophisticated product set including more investment-sensitive products, such as universal life insurance, unit-linked life insurance, mutual funds and single premium deposit insurance. In the bancassurance channel, we leverage partnerships that span all regions and have developed extensive and far reaching capabilities in all regions. Our direct marketing operations, the largest of which is in Japan, deploy both broadcast marketing approaches (e.g. direct response TV, web-based lead generation) and traditional direct marketing techniques such as inbound and outbound telemarketing.
Americas
Retail Distribution
Retail products are sold through a diverse set of distribution networks in order to maximize penetration in the market place. These include our MetLife Premier Client Group, third-party organizations and property & casualty specialists.
Our MetLife Premier Client Group targets the large middle-income market, as well as affluent individuals, owners of small businesses and executives of small- to medium-sized companies. We have also been successful in selling our products in various multi-cultural markets.
The MetLife Premier Client Group is comprised of three channels: the MetLife distribution channel, a career agency system, the New England Financial distribution channel, a general agency system, and MetLife Resources, a career agency system.
The MetLife distribution channel had 2,897 agents under contract in 40 agencies at December 31, 2013. This career agency sales force focuses on the large middle-income and affluent markets, including multi-cultural markets. We support our efforts in multi-cultural markets through targeted advertising, specially trained agents and sales literature written in various languages.

11

Table of Contents

The New England Financial distribution channel included 33 general agencies providing support to 1,090 general agents and a network of independent brokers throughout the U.S. at December 31, 2013. The New England Financial distribution channel targets high net worth individuals, owners of small businesses and executives of small- to medium-sized companies.
MetLife Resources, a focused distribution channel of MetLife, markets retirement, annuity and other financial products on a national basis through 473 MetLife agents and independent brokers at December 31, 2013. MetLife Resources targets the nonprofit, educational and healthcare markets.
Retail products are also sold through various third-party organizations. We distribute products in a regional model through wholesalers working directly with high net worth individuals and small- to medium-sized businesses through independent general agencies, financial advisors, consultants, brokerage general agencies and other independent marketing organizations under contractual arrangements. Additionally, wholesalers sell through financial intermediaries, including regional broker-dealers, brokerage firms, financial planners and banks.
We market and sell property & casualty products through independent agents, property & casualty specialists, and the MetLife Premier Client Group. In recent years, we have increased the number of independent agents appointed to sell these products.
Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits Distribution
Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits distributes its Group products and services through a sales force that is segmented by the size of the target customer. Marketing representatives sell either directly to corporate and other group customers or through an intermediary, such as a broker or consultant. Voluntary & Worksite products are sold through the same sales channels, as well as by specialists for these products. Employers have been emphasizing voluntary products and, as a result, we have increased our focus on communicating and marketing to employees in order to further foster sales of those products. At December 31, 2013, the Group sales channels had more than 300 marketing representatives.
We are a leading provider of personal lines property & casualty insurance products offered to employees at their employer’s worksite. Marketing representatives market personal lines property & casualty insurance products to employers through a variety of means, including broker referrals and cross-selling to group customers. Once permitted by the employer, MetLife commences marketing efforts to employees, enabling them to purchase coverage and to request payroll deduction over the telephone.
We have entered into several operating joint ventures and other arrangements with third parties to expand the marketing and distribution opportunities of Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits products and services. We also seek to sell our group products and services through sponsoring organizations and affinity groups. In addition, we also provide life and dental coverage to certain employees of the U.S. Government.
Corporate Benefit Funding Distribution
Corporate Benefit Funding products and services are distributed through dedicated sales teams and relationship managers located in eight offices in the U.S. and one in the U.K. Products may be sold directly to benefit plan sponsors and advisors or through brokers, consultants or other intermediaries. In addition, these sales professionals work with individual, group and global distribution areas to better reach and service customers, brokers, consultants and other intermediaries.
Latin America Distribution
Latin America’s distribution channels include captive agents, direct marketing, bancassurance, large multinational brokers and small and medium-sized brokers, direct and group sales forces (mostly for group policies without broker intermediation), and worksite marketing. The region has an exclusive and captive agency distribution network with more than 4,000 agents also selling a variety of individual life, accident & health, and pension products. In the direct marketing channel, we work with more than 90 sponsors and have a network of more than 1,100 telesales representatives selling mainly accident & health and individual life products directly to consumers. We currently work with approximately 2,500 active brokers with registered sales of group and individual life, accident & health, group medical, dental and pension products. Worksite marketing in Mexico has over 3,200 captive agents.

12

Table of Contents

Asia
Japan’s multi-channel distribution strategy consists of captive agents, independent agents, brokers, bancassurance, and direct marketing. While face-to-face channels continue to be core to Japan’s business, other channels, including bancassurance and direct marketing, have become a critical part of Japan’s distribution strategy. Our Japan operation has maintained its position in bancassurance due to its strong distribution relationship with Japan’s mega banks, trust banks and various regional banks, as well as with the Japan Post. The direct marketing channel is supported by an industry-leading marketing platform, state-of-the-art call center infrastructure and its own campaign management system.
Our Japan operation has approximately 5,000 captive agents, 9,800 independent agents, 100 bancassurance relationships, including Japan Post, and 170 direct marketing sponsors.
Elsewhere in Asia, distribution strategies differ by country but generally utilize a combination of captive agents, bancassurance relationships and direct marketing. Agency sales are achieved through a force of approximately 40,400 agents and managers (which includes approximately 2,200 agents and managers related to our operating joint venture in China) and a growing force of independent general agents. Bancassurance is a growing channel with 51 relationships, and 56 programs providing access to thousands of bank customers.
Throughout the region, our Asia operation leverages its expertise in direct marketing operations management to conduct its own campaigns and provide those direct marketing capabilities to third-party sponsors.
While not a significant part of the region’s overall business, sales of group life and pension business are primarily achieved through independent brokers and an employee sales force.
EMEA
Our EMEA operations cover a wide geographical region from the developed markets of western Europe to the emerging markets of central and eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Our operations in central and eastern Europe employ a multi-channel distribution strategy, which includes significant face to face channels, built on a strong captive agency force of more than 7,600 agents, and relationships with more than 4,000 independent brokers and third-party multi-level agency networks. We have distribution relationships with more than 70 banks and other financial and non-financial institutions, as well as a fast growing direct marketing channel. This EMEA region also has a group/corporate business direct sales force of more than 150 spanning all geographies.
Similarly, in our Middle East and Africa operations, products are distributed via a variety of channels, including 1,600 agents, bancassurance, group brokers and direct marketing. Agency distribution is our primary distribution channel. Bancassurance is a growing channel with 50 relationships providing access to thousands of bank customers.
Our businesses in western Europe also have a multi-channel distribution strategy, including independent financial advisors, brokers, captive agents, direct marketing, banks and financial institutions. Our U.K. operation has built a strong position in the U.K. independent advisor sector with a focus on variable annuities. Our U.K. operation also has a growing group risk business serving small and medium sized employers and an agency sales force of 890 agents which distributes accident & health and term life products.
Policyholder Liabilities
We establish, and carry as liabilities, actuarially determined amounts that are calculated to meet our policy obligations when a policy matures or is surrendered, an insured dies or becomes disabled or upon the occurrence of other covered events, or to provide for future annuity payments. Our liabilities for future policy benefits and claims are established based on estimates by actuaries of how much we will need to pay for future benefits and claims. For life insurance and annuity products, we calculate these liabilities based on assumptions and estimates, including estimated premiums to be received over the assumed life of the policy, the timing of the event covered by the insurance policy, the amount of benefits or claims to be paid and the investment returns on the investments we make with the premiums we receive. We establish liabilities for claims and benefits based on assumptions and estimates of losses and liabilities incurred. Amounts for actuarial liabilities are computed and reported in the consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP. For more details on policyholder liabilities see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates — Liability for Future Policy Benefits” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Policyholder Liabilities.”

13

Table of Contents

Pursuant to state insurance laws and country regulators, MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries establish statutory reserves, reported as liabilities, to meet their obligations on their respective policies. These statutory reserves are established in amounts sufficient to meet policy and contract obligations, when taken together with expected future premiums and interest at assumed rates. Statutory reserves and actuarial liabilities for future policy benefits generally differ based on accounting guidance.
The New York Insurance Law and regulations require certain MetLife entities to submit to the New York Superintendent of Insurance or other state insurance departments, with each annual report, an opinion and memorandum of a “qualified actuary” that the statutory reserves and related actuarial amounts recorded in support of specified policies and contracts, and the assets supporting such statutory reserves and related actuarial amounts, make adequate provision for their statutory liabilities with respect to these obligations. See “— U.S. Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Policy and Contract Reserve Adequacy Analysis.”
Insurance regulators in many of the non-U.S. countries in which MetLife operates require certain MetLife entities to prepare a sufficiency analysis of the reserves presented in the locally required regulatory financial statements, and to submit that analysis to the regulatory authorities. See “— International Regulation.”
Underwriting and Pricing
Underwriting
Our Global Risk Management Department (“GRM”) contains a dedicated unit, the primary responsibility of which is the development of product pricing standards and independent pricing and underwriting oversight for MetLife’s insurance businesses. Further important controls around management of underwriting and pricing processes include regular experience studies to monitor assumptions against expectations and the use of reinsurance to manage our exposures, as appropriate. See “─ Reinsurance Activity.”
Underwriting generally involves an evaluation of applications by a professional staff of underwriters and actuaries, who determine the type and the amount of insurance risk that we are willing to accept. We employ detailed underwriting policies, guidelines and procedures designed to assist the underwriter to properly assess and quantify such risks before issuing policies to qualified applicants or groups.
Insurance underwriting considers not only an applicant’s medical history, but also other factors such as financial profile, foreign travel, vocations and alcohol, drug and tobacco use. Group underwriting generally evaluates the risk characteristics of each prospective insured group, although with certain voluntary products and for certain coverages, members of a group may be underwritten on an individual basis. We generally perform our own underwriting; however, certain policies are reviewed by intermediaries under guidelines established by us. Generally, we are not obligated to accept any risk or group of risks from, or to issue a policy or group of policies to, any employer or intermediary. Requests for coverage are reviewed on their merits and a policy is not issued unless the particular risk or group has been examined and approved by our underwriters.
The underwriting conducted by our remote underwriting offices and intermediaries, as well as our corporate underwriting office, are subject to periodic quality assurance reviews to maintain high standards of underwriting and consistency. Such offices are also subject to periodic external audits by reinsurers with whom we do business.
We have established oversight of the underwriting process that facilitates quality sales and serves the needs of our customers, while supporting our financial strength and business objectives. Our goal is to achieve the underwriting, mortality and morbidity levels reflected in the assumptions in our product pricing. This is accomplished by determining and establishing underwriting policies, guidelines, philosophies and strategies that are competitive and suitable for the customer, the agent and us.
For our property & casualty business, our underwriting function has six principal aspects: evaluating potential voluntary and worksite employer accounts and independent agencies; establishing guidelines for the binding of risks; reviewing coverage bound by agents; underwriting potential insureds, on a case by case basis, presented by agents outside the scope of their binding authority; pursuing information necessary in certain cases to enable issuance of a policy within our guidelines; and ensuring that renewal policies continue to be written at rates commensurate with risk.
Subject to very few exceptions, agents in each of the distribution channels for the Americas business, excluding Latin America, have binding authority for risks which fall within our published underwriting guidelines. Risks falling outside the underwriting guidelines may be submitted for approval to the underwriting department; alternatively, agents in such a situation may call the underwriting department to obtain authorization to bind the risk themselves. In most states, we generally have the right within a specified period (usually the first 60 days) to cancel any policy.

14

Table of Contents

Pricing
Product pricing reflects our corporate underwriting standards, which are consistent for our global businesses. GRM and regional product teams are responsible for product pricing oversight for all of our insurance businesses. Product pricing is based on the expected payout of benefits calculated through the use of assumptions for mortality, morbidity, expenses, persistency and investment returns, as well as certain macroeconomic factors, such as inflation. Investment-oriented products are priced based on various factors, which may include investment return, expenses, persistency and optionality. For certain products sold in the U.S. and certain products sold outside the U.S., pricing may include prospective and retrospective experience rating features. Prospective experience rating involves the evaluation of past experience for the purpose of determining future premium rates and all prior year gains and losses are borne by us. Retrospective experience rating also involves the evaluation of past experience for the purpose of determining the actual cost of providing insurance for the customer; however, the contract includes certain features that allow us to recoup certain losses or distribute certain gains back to the policyholder based on actual prior years’ experience.
Rates for group insurance and voluntary & worksite products (with the exception of property & casualty products) are based on anticipated results for the book of business being underwritten. Renewals are generally reevaluated annually or biannually and are repriced to reflect actual experience on such products. Products offered by Corporate Benefit Funding are priced on demand. Pricing reflects expected investment returns, as well as mortality, longevity and expense assumptions appropriate for each product. This business is generally nonparticipating and illiquid, as policyholders have few or no options or contractual rights to cash values.
Rates for individual life insurance products are highly regulated and must be approved by the regulators of the jurisdictions in which the product is sold. Generally, such products are renewed annually and may include pricing terms that are guaranteed for a certain period of time. Individual disability income products are based on anticipated results for the occupation being underwritten. Fixed and variable annuity products are also highly regulated and approved by the respective regulators. Such products generally include penalties for early withdrawals and policyholder benefit elections to tailor the form of the product’s benefits to the needs of the opting policyholder. We periodically reevaluate the costs associated with such options and will periodically adjust pricing levels on our guarantees. Further, from time to time, we may also reevaluate the type and level of guarantee features currently being offered.
Rates for our major lines of property & casualty insurance are based on our proprietary database, rather than relying on rating bureaus. We determine prices in part from a number of variables specific to each risk. The pricing of personal lines insurance products takes into account, among other things, the expected frequency and severity of losses, the costs of providing coverage (including the costs of acquiring policyholders and administering policy benefits and other administrative and overhead costs such as reinsurance), competitive factors and profit considerations. The major pricing variables for personal lines insurance include characteristics of the insured property, such as age, make and model or construction type, as well as characteristics of the insureds, such as driving record and loss experience, and the insured’s personal financial management.
As a condition of our license to do business in each state, we, like all other personal lines insurers, are required to write or share the cost of private passenger automobile and homeowners insurance for higher risk individuals who would otherwise be unable to obtain such insurance. This “involuntary” market, also called the “shared market,” is governed by the applicable laws and regulations of each state, and policies written in this market are generally written at rates higher than standard rates and typically afford less coverage.
We continually review our underwriting and pricing guidelines so that our policies remain competitive and supportive of our marketing strategies and profitability goals. For our property & casualty business, our ability to set and change rates is subject to regulatory oversight.
Reinsurance Activity
We enter into reinsurance agreements primarily as a purchaser of reinsurance for our various insurance products and also as a provider of reinsurance for some insurance products issued by third parties. We participate in reinsurance activities in order to limit losses, minimize exposure to significant risks, and provide additional capacity for future growth. We enter into various agreements with reinsurers that cover individual risks, group risks or defined blocks of business, primarily on a coinsurance, yearly renewable term, excess or catastrophe excess basis. These reinsurance agreements spread risk and minimize the effect of losses. The extent of each risk retained by us depends on our evaluation of the specific risk, subject, in certain circumstances, to maximum retention limits based on the characteristics of coverages. We also cede first dollar mortality risk under certain contracts. In addition to reinsuring mortality risk, we reinsure other risks, as well as specific coverages. We obtain reinsurance for capital requirement purposes and also when the economic impact of the reinsurance agreement makes it appropriate to do so.

15

Table of Contents

Under the terms of the reinsurance agreements, the reinsurer agrees to reimburse us for the ceded amount in the event a claim is paid. Cessions under reinsurance agreements do not discharge our obligations as the primary insurer. In the event that reinsurers do not meet their obligations under the terms of the reinsurance agreements, reinsurance recoverable balances could become uncollectible.
We reinsure our business through a diversified group of well-capitalized, highly rated reinsurers. We analyze recent trends in arbitration and litigation outcomes in disputes, if any, with our reinsurers. We monitor ratings and evaluate the financial strength of our reinsurers by analyzing their financial statements. In addition, the reinsurance recoverable balance due from each reinsurer is evaluated as part of the overall monitoring process. Recoverability of reinsurance recoverable balances is evaluated based on these analyses. We generally secure large reinsurance recoverable balances with various forms of collateral, including secured trusts, funds withheld accounts and irrevocable letters of credit. Additionally, we enter into reinsurance agreements for risk and capital management purposes with several affiliated captive reinsurers. Captive reinsurers are affiliated insurance companies licensed under specific provisions of insurance law of their respective jurisdictions, such as the Special Purpose Financial Captive law adopted by several states including Vermont and Delaware, and have a very narrow business plan that specifically restricts the majority or all of their activity to reinsuring business from their affiliates. The majority of such reinsurance activities within the affiliated captive reinsurers are eliminated in consolidation. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Capital — Affiliated Captive Reinsurance Transactions.”
Americas - Excluding Latin America
For our Retail Life & Other insurance products, we have historically reinsured the mortality risk primarily on an excess of retention basis or on a quota share basis. We currently reinsure 90% of the mortality risk in excess of $2 million for most products and reinsure up to 90% of the mortality risk for certain other products. In addition to reinsuring mortality risk as described above, we reinsure other risks, as well as specific coverages. Placement of reinsurance is done primarily on an automatic basis and also on a facultative basis for risks with specified characteristics. On a case by case basis, we may retain up to $20 million per life and reinsure 100% of amounts in excess of the amount we retain. We evaluate our reinsurance programs routinely and may increase or decrease our retention at any time.
For our Retail Annuities business, we reinsure a portion of the living and death benefit guarantees issued in connection with our variable annuities. Under these reinsurance agreements, we pay a reinsurance premium generally based on fees associated with the guarantees collected from policyholders, and receive reimbursement for benefits paid or accrued in excess of account values, subject to certain limitations.
For our Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits segment, we generally retain most of the risk and only cede particular risk on certain client arrangements. The majority of our reinsurance activity within this segment relates to the following client agreements:
Employer sponsored captive programs: through these programs, employers buy a group life insurance policy with the condition that a portion of the risk is reinsured back to a captive insurer sponsored by the client.
Risk-sharing agreements: through these programs, clients require that we reinsure a portion of the risk back to third parties, such as minority-owned reinsurers.
Multinational pooling: through these agreements, employers buy many group insurance policies which are aggregated in a single insurer via reinsurance.
The risks ceded under these agreements are generally quota shares of group life and disability policies. The cessions vary from 50% to 90% of all the risks of the policies.
For our property & casualty business within both the Retail and Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits segments, we purchase reinsurance to manage our exposure to large losses (primarily catastrophe losses) and to protect statutory surplus. We cede losses and premiums based upon the exposure of the policies subject to reinsurance. To manage exposure to large property & casualty losses, we purchase property catastrophe, casualty and property per risk excess of loss reinsurance protection.
For our Corporate Benefit Funding segment, we have periodically engaged in reinsurance activities on an opportunistic basis. There were no such transactions during the periods presented.
Latin America, Asia and EMEA
For certain life insurance products, we currently reinsure risks in excess of $5 million to external reinsurers on a yearly renewable term basis. We may also reinsure certain risks with external reinsurers depending upon the nature of the risk and local regulatory requirements.

16

Table of Contents

For selected large corporate clients, we reinsure group employee benefits or credit insurance business with various client-affiliated reinsurance companies, covering policies issued to the employees or customers of the clients. Additionally, we cede and assume risk with other insurance companies when either company requires a business partner with the appropriate local licensing to issue certain types of policies in certain countries. In these cases, the assuming company typically underwrites the risks, develops the products and assumes most or all of the risk.
We also have reinsurance agreements in-force that reinsure a portion of the living and death benefit guarantees issued in connection with variable annuity products. Under these agreements, we pay reinsurance fees associated with the guarantees collected from policyholders, and receive reimbursement for benefits paid or accrued in excess of account values, subject to certain limitations.
Corporate & Other
We reinsure through 100% quota share reinsurance agreements certain run-off LTC and workers’ compensation business written by MICC, a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
Corporate & Other also has a reinsurance agreement in-force to reinsure the living and death benefit guarantees issued in connection with certain variable annuity products. Under this agreement, we receive reinsurance fees associated with the guarantees collected from policyholders, and provide reimbursement for benefits paid or accrued in excess of account values, subject to certain limitations.
Catastrophe Coverage
We have exposure to catastrophes which could contribute to significant fluctuations in our results of operations. We use excess reinsurance agreements, under which the direct writing company reinsures risk in excess of a specific dollar value for each policy within a class of policies, to provide greater diversification of risk and minimize exposure to larger risks. Such excess reinsurance agreements include retention reinsurance agreements and quota share reinsurance agreements. Retention reinsurance agreements provide for a portion of a risk to remain with the direct writing company, and quota share reinsurance agreements provide for the direct writing company to transfer a fixed percentage of all risks of a class of policies. Our life insurance products, particularly group life, subject us to catastrophe risk which we do not reinsure other than through our ongoing mortality reinsurance program which transfers risk at the individual policy level. For the Americas, excluding Latin America, we use excess of retention and quota share reinsurance agreements to provide greater diversification of risk and minimize exposure to larger risks. Currently, for Latin America, Asia and EMEA, we purchase catastrophe coverage to insure risks within certain countries deemed by management to be exposed to the greatest catastrophic risks.
Reinsurance Recoverables
For information regarding ceded reinsurance recoverable balances, included in premiums, reinsurance and other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets, see Note 6 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

17

Table of Contents

U.S. Regulation
Insurance Regulation
The U.S. life insurance industry is regulated primarily at the state level, with some products and services also subject to federal regulation. Insurance regulation generally aims at supervising and regulating insurers individually rather than on a group-wide basis, with the goal of protecting policyholders and ensuring that each insurance company remains solvent.
Each of MetLife’s insurance subsidiaries operating in the United States is licensed and regulated in each U.S. jurisdiction where it conducts insurance business. The extent of such regulation varies, but most jurisdictions have laws and regulations governing the financial aspects and business conduct of insurers. State laws in the U.S. grant insurance regulatory authorities broad administrative powers with respect to, among other things:
licensing companies and agents to transact business;
calculating the value of assets to determine compliance with statutory requirements;
mandating certain insurance benefits;
regulating certain premium rates;
reviewing and approving policy forms;
regulating unfair trade and claims practices, including through the imposition of restrictions on marketing and sales practices, distribution arrangements and payment of inducements, and identifying and paying to the states benefits and other property that is not claimed by the owners;
regulating advertising;
protecting privacy;
establishing statutory capital and reserve requirements and solvency standards;
specifying the conditions under which a ceding company can take credit for reinsurance in its statutory financial statements (i.e., reduce its reserves by the amount of reserves ceded to a reinsurer);
fixing maximum interest rates on insurance policy loans and minimum rates for guaranteed crediting rates on life insurance policies and annuity contracts;
adopting and enforcing suitability standards with respect to the sale of annuities and other insurance products;
approving changes in control of insurance companies;
restricting the payment of dividends and other transactions between affiliates; and
regulating the types, amounts and valuation of investments.
Each insurance subsidiary is required to file reports, generally including detailed annual financial statements, with insurance regulatory authorities in each of the jurisdictions in which it does business, and its operations and accounts are subject to periodic examination by such authorities. These subsidiaries must also file, and in many jurisdictions and in some lines of insurance obtain regulatory approval for, rules, rates and forms relating to the insurance written in the jurisdictions in which they operate.
State and federal insurance and securities regulatory authorities and other state law enforcement agencies and attorneys general from time to time make inquiries regarding compliance by MetLife, Inc. and its insurance subsidiaries with insurance, securities and other laws and regulations regarding the conduct of our insurance and securities businesses. We cooperate with such inquiries and take corrective action when warranted. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

18

Table of Contents

Holding Company Regulation
MetLife, Inc. and its U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulation under the insurance holding company laws of various U.S. jurisdictions. The insurance holding company laws and regulations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally require a controlled insurance company (insurers that are subsidiaries of insurance holding companies) to register with state regulatory authorities and to file with those authorities certain reports, including information concerning its capital structure, ownership, financial condition, certain intercompany transactions and general business operations.
State insurance statutes also typically place restrictions and limitations on the amount of dividends or other distributions payable by insurance company subsidiaries to their parent companies, as well as on transactions between an insurer and its affiliates. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — MetLife, Inc. — Liquidity and Capital Sources — Dividends from Subsidiaries.”
Guaranty Associations and Similar Arrangements
Most of the U.S. jurisdictions in which our insurance subsidiaries are admitted to transact business require life and property & casualty insurers doing business within the jurisdiction to participate in guaranty associations, which are organized to pay certain contractual insurance benefits owed pursuant to insurance policies issued by impaired, insolvent or failed insurers. These associations levy assessments, up to prescribed limits, on all member insurers in a particular state on the basis of the proportionate share of the premiums written by member insurers in the lines of business in which the impaired, insolvent or failed insurer is engaged. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets.
In the past five years, the aggregate assessments levied against MetLife have not been material. We have established liabilities for guaranty fund assessments that we consider adequate. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the insolvency assessments.
Insurance Regulatory Examinations
As part of their regulatory oversight process, state insurance departments conduct periodic detailed examinations of the books, records, accounts, and business practices of insurers domiciled in their states. State insurance departments also have the authority to conduct examinations of non-domiciliary insurers that are licensed in their states. Except as otherwise disclosed in Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, during the three-year period ended December 31, 2013, MetLife has not received any material adverse findings resulting from state insurance department examinations of its insurance subsidiaries.
Regulatory authorities in a small number of states, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and, occasionally, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), have had investigations or inquiries relating to sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities or other products by MLIC, MetLife Securities, Inc., New England Life Insurance Company, New England Securities Corporation, General American Life Insurance Company and MICC. These investigations often focus on the conduct of particular financial services representatives and the sale of unregistered or unsuitable products or the misuse of client assets. Over the past several years, these and a number of investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for monetary payments and certain other relief, including restitution payments. We may continue to resolve investigations in a similar manner.
In addition, claims payment practices by insurance companies have received increased scrutiny from regulators. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information regarding retained asset accounts and unclaimed property inquiries and related litigation.

19

Table of Contents

State insurance regulators and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) are also investigating the use of affiliated captive reinsurers or off-shore entities to reinsure insurance risks. In June 2013, the New York State Department of Financial Services (the “Department of Financial Services”) issued a highly critical report setting forth its findings to date relating to its inquiry into the life insurance industry’s use of captive insurance companies. In its report, the Department of Financial Services recommended that (i) the NAIC develop enhanced disclosure requirements for reserve financing transactions involving captive insurers, (ii) the Federal Insurance Office (the “FIO”), Office of Financial Research (“OFR”), the NAIC and state insurance commissioners conduct inquiries similar to the Department of Financial Services inquiry, and (iii) state insurance commissioners consider an immediate national moratorium on new reserve financing transactions involving captive insurers until these inquiries are complete. The NAIC and certain state insurance regulators have stated that they are opposed to an immediate moratorium on new reserve financing transactions. The Financial Condition Committee of the NAIC has charged its Financial Analysis Working Group with the task of performing a peer review of captive insurer reserve financings in order to gather more information regarding their nature and how extensively they are used. Like many life insurance companies, we utilize captive reinsurers to satisfy reserve and capital requirements related to universal life and term life insurance policies. We also cede variable annuity risks to a captive reinsurer, which allows us to consolidate hedging and other risk management programs. If the Department of Financial Services or other state insurance regulators restrict the use of such captive reinsurers or if we otherwise are unable to continue to use captive reinsurers in the future, our ability to write certain products or to hedge the associated risks efficiently, and/or our risk-based capital (“RBC”) ratios and ability to deploy excess capital, could be adversely affected or we may need to increase prices on those products, which could adversely impact our competitive position and our results of operations. We will continue to evaluate product modifications, pricing structure and alternative means of managing risks, capital and statutory reserves and we expect the discontinued use of captive reinsurance on new reserve financing transactions would not have a material impact on our future consolidated financial results. In the second quarter of 2013, MetLife, Inc. announced its plans for the Mergers. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Executive Summary” for further information on the Mergers. The Mergers may mitigate to some degree the impact of any restrictions on the use of captive reinsurers that could be adopted by the Department of Financial Services or other state insurance regulators. For more information on our use of captive reinsurers see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Capital — Affiliated Captive Reinsurance Transactions” and Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The NAIC also is reviewing life insurers’ use of non-variable separate accounts that are insulated (where assets of the separate account equal to the reserves and other contract liabilities with respect to the account may not be charged with liabilities arising out of the general account in the event of an insurance company insolvency). The NAIC’s review might lead to a recommendation against the allowance of insulation for certain of our separate account products. We cannot predict what, if any, changes may result from this review and possible recommendations. If state insurance regulators change applicable laws or regulations in accordance with such recommendation, our use of insulation for certain products could be impaired and our ability to compete effectively or do business in certain markets may be adversely affected. In addition, our financial results may also be adversely affected.
The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (“IAIS”) has encouraged U.S. insurance supervisors, such as the Department of Financial Services, to establish Supervisory Colleges for U.S.-based insurance groups with international operations, including MetLife, to facilitate cooperation and coordination among the insurance groups’ supervisors and to enhance the member regulators’ understanding of an insurance group’s risk profile. In January 2013, MetLife, Inc. was the subject of a Supervisory College meeting which was chaired by the Department of Financial Services and was attended by MetLife’s key U.S. and international insurance regulators. We have not received any report or recommendations from the Supervisory College meeting, and we do not expect any outcome of the meeting to have a material adverse effect on our business. A second Supervisory College, to be chaired again by the Department of Financial Services, is scheduled to take place in March 2014.

20

Table of Contents

Policy and Contract Reserve Adequacy Analysis
Annually, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are required to conduct an analysis of the adequacy of all statutory reserves. In each case, a qualified actuary must submit an opinion which states that the statutory reserves make adequate provision, according to accepted actuarial standards of practice, for the anticipated cash flows required by the contractual obligations and related expenses of the U.S. insurance subsidiary. The adequacy of the statutory reserves is considered in light of the assets held by the insurer with respect to such reserves and related actuarial items including, but not limited to, the investment earnings on such assets, and the consideration anticipated to be received and retained under the related policies and contracts. The Company may increase reserves in order to submit an opinion without qualification. Since inception of this requirement, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries which are required by their states of domicile to provide these opinions have provided such opinions without qualifications.
NAIC
The NAIC is an organization, the mission of which is to assist state insurance regulatory authorities in serving the public interest and achieving the insurance regulatory goals of its members, the state insurance regulatory officials. Through the NAIC, state insurance regulators establish standards and best practices, conduct peer reviews, and coordinate their regulatory oversight. The NAIC provides standardized insurance industry accounting and reporting guidance through its Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual (the “Manual”). However, statutory accounting principles continue to be established by individual state laws, regulations and permitted practices. Changes to the Manual or modifications by the various state insurance departments may impact the statutory capital and surplus of MetLife, Inc.’s U.S. insurance subsidiaries.
The NAIC currently has in place its “Solvency Modernization Initiative,” which is designed to review the U.S. financial regulatory system and all aspects of financial regulation affecting insurance companies. Though broad in scope, the NAIC has stated that the Solvency Modernization Initiative will focus on: (1) capital requirements; (2) corporate governance and risk management; (3) group supervision; (4) statutory accounting and financial reporting; and (5) reinsurance. This initiative has resulted in the adoption by the NAIC in September 2012 of the Risk Management and Own Risk and Solvency Assessment Model Act (“ORSA”), which has been or is expected to be enacted by our insurance subsidiaries’ domiciliary states in the near future. ORSA requires that insurers maintain a risk management framework and conduct an internal own risk and solvency assessment of the insurer’s material risks in normal and stressed environments. The assessment must be documented in a confidential annual summary report, a copy of which must be made available to regulators as required or upon request. MetLife’s first ORSA summary report, which will be submitted on behalf of the enterprise, must be prepared beginning in 2015.
In addition, in December 2012, the NAIC approved a new valuation manual containing a principles-based approach to life insurance company reserves. Principles-based reserving is designed to better address reserving for products, including the current generation of products for which the current formulaic basis for reserve determination does not work effectively. The principles-based approach will not become effective unless it is enacted into law by a minimum number of state legislatures. Insurance commissioners of certain states oppose (e.g., New York) or do not actively support the principles-based reserve approach.
We cannot predict the additional capital requirements or compliance costs, if any, that may result from the above initiatives.
The NAIC adopted revisions to the NAIC Insurance Holding Company System Model Act and Insurance Holding Company System Model Regulation in December 2010. The revised models include a new requirement that the ultimate controlling person of a U.S. insurer file an annual enterprise risk report with the lead state of the insurer identifying risks likely to have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition or liquidity of the insurer or its insurance holding company system as a whole. To date, several states where MetLife has domestic insurers have enacted a version of the revised NAIC model act, including the enterprise risk reporting requirement.


21

Table of Contents

Surplus and Capital; Risk-Based Capital
Insurers are required to maintain their capital and surplus at or above minimum levels. Regulators have discretionary authority, in connection with the continued licensing of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, to limit or prohibit an insurer’s sales to policyholders if, in their judgment, the regulators determine that such insurer has not maintained the minimum surplus or capital or that the further transaction of business will be hazardous to policyholders. Most of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to RBC requirements and report their RBC ratios based on a formula calculated by applying factors to various asset, premium and statutory reserve items, as well as taking into account the risk characteristics of the insurer. The major categories of risk involved are asset risk, insurance risk, interest rate risk, market risk and business risk. The formula is used as an early warning regulatory tool to identify possible inadequately capitalized insurers for purposes of initiating regulatory action, and not as a means to rank insurers generally. State insurance laws provide insurance regulators the authority to require various actions by, or take various actions against, insurers whose RBC ratio does not meet or exceed certain RBC levels. As of the date of the most recent annual statutory financial statements filed with insurance regulators, the RBC of each of our subsidiaries subject to these requirements was in excess of each of those RBC levels. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Capital.”
The Department of Financial Services recently announced a discontinuation of its most recent amendment to Regulation 147 which governed the valuation of life insurance policies. The amendment reflected the recent changes made by the NAIC to Actuarial Guideline 38 (which impacts the valuation of universal life policies with secondary guarantees (“ULSG”)). Following this action, which was effective December 31, 2013, New York licensed insurers are required to comply with a prior version of the regulation. The Company will grade in over a three-year period to the new level of required reserves. Under this level grade-in, statutory reserves on in-force ULSG policies increased by the following amounts, net of reinsurance, as of December 31, 2013: $55 million for MLIC, $28 million for Exeter and $25 million for MetLife Reinsurance Company of Vermont. The change in the regulation is expected to have a minimal reserve impact on new sales of our one remaining ULSG product.
The Department of Financial Services issues an annual “Special Considerations” circular letter to New York licensed insurers dictating tests to be performed as part of insurers’ year-end asset adequacy testing. The Department of Financial Services issued its 2013 Special Considerations letter on October 31, 2013. The letter mandates the use of certain assumptions in the 2013 asset adequacy testing. The Company will grade in over three years the amount of LTC reserves required as a result of the new assumptions. Under this grade-in, MLIC increased its asset adequacy reserves for LTC policies by $300 million as of December 31, 2013 and will increase such reserves by approximately $200 million and $100 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2015, respectively. The actual 2014 and 2015 amounts may differ from current estimates due to changes in economic conditions, regulation, or policyholder behavior.
On July 26, 2013, the NAIC adopted a change to the methodology for calculating the RBC risk charges associated with commercial and agricultural mortgage loans. Prior to the adoption of this methodology change, the risk charges were calculated based on an insurance company's portfolio level experience as compared to an industry average. The newly adopted change considers each loan's risk in the calculation of these risk charges. This methodology applies to each of MetLife, Inc.'s U.S. insurance subsidiaries subject to RBC. The Company expects the impact of this adoption to have a positive effect on the RBC ratios of its U.S. insurance subsidiaries, which are provided in their statutory annual statements. We are not aware of any other potential NAIC actions that would have a material impact on the RBC of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries.
Regulation of Investments
Each of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries is subject to state laws and regulations that require diversification of our investment portfolios and limit the amount of investments in certain asset categories, such as below investment grade fixed income securities, equity real estate, other equity investments, and derivatives. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations would cause investments exceeding regulatory limitations to be treated as non-admitted assets for purposes of measuring surplus and, in some instances, would require divestiture of such nonqualifying investments. We believe that the investments made by each of MetLife, Inc.’s U.S. insurance subsidiaries complied, in all material respects, with such regulations at December 31, 2013. See “— Federal Initiatives” for information regarding the impact on our investments of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”).

22

Table of Contents

Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives
Dodd-Frank includes a new framework of regulation of the over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives markets which requires clearing of certain types of transactions currently traded OTC and imposes additional costs, including new reporting and margin requirements, and will likely impose additional regulation on the Company, including new capital requirements. Our costs of risk mitigation are increasing under Dodd-Frank. For example, Dodd-Frank imposes requirements, including the requirement to pledge initial margin (i) for “OTC-cleared” transactions (OTC derivatives that are cleared and settled through central clearing counterparties) entered into after June 10, 2013, and (ii) for “OTC-bilateral” transactions (OTC derivatives that are bilateral contracts between two counterparties) entered into after the phase-in period; these requirements would be applicable to us in 2019 if the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC adopt the final margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives published by the Bank of International Settlements and International Organization of Securities Commissions in September 2013. These increased margin requirements, combined with restrictions on securities that will qualify as eligible collateral, will require increased holdings of cash and highly liquid securities with lower yields causing a reduction in income. Centralized clearing of certain OTC derivatives exposes us to the risk of a default by a clearing member or clearinghouse with respect to our cleared derivative transactions. We use derivatives to mitigate a wide range of risks in connection with our businesses, including the impact of increased benefit exposures from our annuity products that offer guaranteed benefits. We have always been subject to the risk that hedging and other management procedures might prove ineffective in reducing the risks to which insurance policies expose us or that unanticipated policyholder behavior or mortality, combined with adverse market events, could produce economic losses beyond the scope of the risk management techniques employed. Any such losses could be increased by higher costs of writing derivatives (including customized derivatives) and the reduced availability of customized derivatives that might result from the implementation of Dodd-Frank and comparable international derivatives regulations.
Federal Initiatives
Although the insurance business in the United States is primarily regulated by the states, federal initiatives often have an impact on our business in a variety of ways. From time to time, federal measures are proposed which may significantly affect the insurance business. These areas include financial services regulation, securities regulation, derivatives regulation, pension regulation, health care regulation, privacy, tort reform legislation and taxation. In addition, various forms of direct and indirect federal regulation of insurance have been proposed from time to time, including proposals for the establishment of an optional federal charter for insurance companies. See “Risk Factors — Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth.”
Dodd-Frank effected the most far-reaching overhaul of financial regulation in the U.S. in decades. The full impact of Dodd-Frank on us will depend on the numerous rulemaking initiatives required or permitted by Dodd-Frank and the various studies mandated by Dodd-Frank, many of which remain to be completed.
Dodd-Frank established the FIO within the Department of the Treasury, which has the authority to participate in the negotiations of international insurance agreements with foreign regulators for the U.S., as well as to collect information about the insurance industry and recommend prudential standards. While not having a general supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance, the director of this office performs various functions with respect to insurance, including serving as a non-voting member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) and making recommendations to the FSOC regarding insurers to be designated for more stringent regulation. On December 12, 2013, the FIO issued a report, mandated by Dodd-Frank, setting forth recommendations with respect to modernization of insurance regulation in the United States. Many of these recommendations urged the states to take action to achieve greater uniformity in insurance regulation. However, the report also discussed potential federal solutions if states failed to modernize and improve regulation and some of the report’s recommendations favored a greater federal role in certain aspects of insurance regulation to promote uniformity, such as FIO participation in supervisory colleges to monitor financial stability and identify issues or gaps in the regulation of large national and internationally active insurers.
Dodd-Frank also includes provisions that impact the investments and investment activities of MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including the federal regulation of such activities. Until the various final regulations are promulgated pursuant to Dodd-Frank, and perhaps for some time thereafter, the full impact of Dodd-Frank on such activities will remain unclear. Such provisions and regulations include, but are not limited to, the prohibition or regulation of proprietary trading and sponsoring or investing in hedge funds or private equity funds by certain kinds of financial institutions (commonly known as the Volcker Rule), and the potential application of enhanced prudential standards and other restrictions, including the Volcker Rule, to non-bank systemically important financial institutions (“non-bank SIFIs”), all of which may affect MetLife, Inc. were it to be designated by the FSOC as a non-bank SIFI. See “— Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI.”

23

Table of Contents

Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI
On January 11, 2013, MetLife Bank and MetLife, Inc. completed the sale of the depository business of MetLife Bank to GE Capital Retail Bank. Subsequently, MetLife Bank terminated its deposit insurance and MetLife, Inc. deregistered as a bank holding company. Additionally, in August 2013, MetLife Bank merged with and into MLHL, a non-bank affiliate. As a result, MetLife is no longer regulated as a bank holding company or subject to enhanced supervision and prudential standards as a bank holding company with assets of $50 billion or more. However, if, in the future, MetLife, Inc. is designated by the FSOC as a non-bank SIFI, it could once again be subject to regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve Board”) and to enhanced supervision and prudential standards. See “— Enhanced Prudential Standards for Non-Bank SIFIs.” Regulation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI could affect our business. For example, enhanced capital requirements that would be applicable to MetLife, Inc. if MetLife, Inc. were designated as a non-bank SIFI, may adversely affect our ability to compete with other insurers that are not subject to those requirements, and counterparty exposure limits may affect our ability to engage in hedging activities. In addition, if MetLife, Inc. were designated as a non-bank SIFI, it would need to obtain Federal Reserve Bank of New York (collectively, with the Federal Reserve Board, the “Federal Reserve”) approval before acquiring, merging or consolidating with a financial company having more than $10 billion of assets or acquiring 5% or more of any voting class of securities of a bank or bank holding company. The Federal Reserve Board would also have the right to require any of our insurance companies, or insurance company affiliates, to take prompt action to correct any financial weaknesses.
The FSOC issued final rules in April 2012, outlining a three-stage process it will follow and the criteria it will use to assess whether a non-bank financial company should be subject to enhanced supervision by the Federal Reserve Board as a non-bank SIFI. On July 16, 2013, MetLife, Inc. was notified by the FSOC that it had reached Stage 3 in the process to determine whether MetLife, Inc. would be named a non-bank SIFI. We have been providing information to the FSOC to assist it in its evaluation of MetLife, Inc.
If MetLife is designated as a non-bank SIFI, it will be subject to a number of Dodd-Frank requirements that are also applicable to bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more. In August 2013, the Federal Reserve Board issued a final rule to implement Section 318 of Dodd-Frank, which directs the Federal Reserve Board to collect assessments and other charges equal to the total expenses the Federal Reserve Board thinks is necessary for its supervision of bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more and non-bank SIFIs. In accordance with this final rule, MetLife paid an assessment for 2012.
Enhanced Prudential Standards for Non-Bank SIFIs
Regulation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI could materially and adversely affect our business. In December 2011, in accordance with the requirements of section 165 of Dodd-Frank, the Federal Reserve Board proposed a set of prudential standards (“Regulation YY”) that would apply to non-bank SIFIs, including enhanced RBC requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, single counterparty exposure limits, governance requirements for risk management, stress test requirements, special debt-to-equity limits for certain companies, early remediation procedures, and recovery and resolution planning. The Federal Reserve Board’s proposal contemplates that these standards would be subject to the authority of the Federal Reserve Board to determine, on its own or in response to a recommendation by the FSOC, to tailor the application of the enhanced standards to different companies on an individual basis or by category, taking into consideration their capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and any other risk-related factors that the Federal Reserve Board deems appropriate. Since this proposal, the Federal Reserve Board has not taken further action to implement most of these requirements for non-bank SIFIs.

24

Table of Contents

In October 2013, the Federal Reserve Board proposed specific regulations relating to liquidity requirements for banking organizations and some non-bank SIFIs, although the rules would not apply to non-bank SIFIs with substantial insurance operations. On February 18, 2014, the Federal Reserve Board adopted amendments to Regulation YY to implement certain of the enhanced prudential standards for bank holding companies and foreign banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. The enhanced prudential standards include risk-based and leverage capital requirements, liquidity standards, requirements for overall risk management (including establishing a risk committee), stress-test requirements, and a 15-to-1 debt-to-equity limit for these companies. The amendments also establish risk committee requirements and capital stress testing requirements for certain bank holding companies and foreign banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. While Regulation YY, as originally proposed, would have applied to non-bank SIFIs, the final rule does not. The Federal Reserve Board indicated that it plans to apply enhanced prudential standards to non-bank SIFIs by rule or order, enabling it to more appropriately tailor the standards to non-bank SIFIs and will provide affected non-bank SIFIs with notice and the opportunity to comment prior to determination of their enhanced prudential standards. Accordingly, the manner in which MetLife, Inc. would be regulated, if it were designated as a non-bank SIFI, remains unclear. The Federal Reserve Board has stated that it believes other provisions of Dodd-Frank, known as the Collins Amendment, constrain its ability to tailor capital standards for non-bank SIFIs. See “Risk Factors — Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth — Insurance Regulation — U.S. — Federal Regulatory Agencies.”
The stress testing requirements have been implemented and require non-bank SIFIs (as well as bank holding companies with $50 billion or more of assets) to undergo three stress tests each year: an annual supervisory stress test conducted by the Federal Reserve Board and two company-run stress tests (an annual test which coincides with the timing of the supervisory stress test, and a mid-cycle test). Companies will be required to take the results of the stress tests into consideration in their annual capital planning and resolution and recovery planning. If MetLife, Inc. is designated by the FSOC as a non-bank SIFI, its competitive position and its ability to pay dividends, repurchase common stock or other securities or engage in other transactions that could affect its capital or need for capital could be adversely affected by any additional capital requirements that might be imposed as a result of the stress testing requirements, as well as enhanced prudential standards, other measures imposed as a result of the enactment of Dodd-Frank and other regulatory initiatives.
Non-bank SIFIs would also be required to submit a resolution plan setting forth how the company could be resolved under the Bankruptcy Code in the event of material financial distress. Resolution plans would have to be resubmitted annually and promptly following any event, occurrence, change in conditions or circumstances, or other change that results in, or could reasonably be foreseen to have, a material effect on the resolution plan. A failure to submit a “credible” resolution plan could result in the imposition of a variety of measures, including additional capital, leverage, or liquidity requirements, and forced divestiture of assets or operations.
In addition, if it were determined that MetLife, Inc. posed a substantial threat to U.S. financial stability, the applicable federal regulators would have the right to require it to take one or more other mitigating actions to reduce that risk, including limiting its ability to merge with or acquire another company, terminating activities, restricting its ability to offer financial products or requiring it to sell assets or off-balance sheet items to unaffiliated entities. Enhanced standards would also permit, but not require, regulators to establish requirements with respect to contingent capital, enhanced public disclosures and short-term debt limits. These standards are described as being more stringent than those otherwise imposed on bank holding companies; however, the Federal Reserve Board is permitted to apply them on an institution-by-institution basis, depending on its determination of the institution’s level of risk.
Orderly Liquidation Authority
Under the provisions of Dodd-Frank relating to the resolution or liquidation of certain types of financial institutions, if MetLife, Inc. were to become insolvent or were in danger of defaulting on its obligations, it could be compelled to undergo liquidation with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as receiver. For this new regime to be applicable, a number of determinations would have to be made, including that a default by the affected company would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the U.S. If the FDIC were to be appointed as the receiver for such a company, the liquidation of that company would occur under the provisions of the new liquidation authority, and not under the Bankruptcy Code. The FDIC’s purpose under the liquidation regime is to mitigate the systemic risks the institution’s failure poses, which is different from that of a bankruptcy trustee under the Bankruptcy Code. In such a liquidation, the holders of such company’s debt could in certain respects be treated differently than under the Bankruptcy Code. As required by Dodd-Frank, the FDIC has established rules relating to the priority of creditors’ claims and the potentially dissimilar treatment of similarly situated creditors. These provisions could apply to some financial institutions whose outstanding debt securities we hold in our investment portfolios. Dodd-Frank also provides for the assessment of bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more, non-bank SIFIs, and other financial companies with assets of $50 billion or more to cover the costs of liquidating any financial company subject to the new liquidation authority.

25

Table of Contents

Volcker Rule
Under the Volcker Rule, Dodd-Frank restricts the ability of insured depository institutions and of companies that control an insured depository institution, and their affiliates, to engage in proprietary trading and to sponsor or invest in funds (hedge funds and private equity funds) that rely on certain exemptions from the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”). Because MetLife Bank’s FDIC insurance has been terminated, MetLife, Inc. and its affiliates are not subject to the bans on proprietary trading and fund activities under the Volcker Rule. However, because the Volcker Rule nevertheless imposes additional capital requirements and quantitative limits on such trading and activities by a non-bank SIFI, MetLife, Inc. and its affiliates could be subject to such requirements and limits were MetLife, Inc. to be designated a non-bank SIFI. Regulations defining and governing such requirements and limits on non-bank SIFIs have not been proposed and were not addressed in the final regulations issued on December 10, 2013 implementing the Volcker Rule for insured depository institutions and their affiliates (“Volcker Rule Regulations”). Commencing from the date of designation, a non-bank SIFI will have a two-year period, subject to further extension by the Federal Reserve Board, to conform to any such requirements and limits. Subject to safety and soundness determinations as part of rulemaking that could require additional capital requirements and quantitative limits, Dodd-Frank provides that the exemptions under the Volcker Rule also are available to exempt any additional capital requirements and quantitative limits on non-bank SIFIs. The Volcker Rule Regulations provide an exemption, subject to certain requirements, for trading activities and fund sponsorship and investments by a regulated insurance company and its affiliates solely for the general account or separate account of such insurance company. Until final regulations applicable to non-bank SIFIs have been promulgated, it is unclear whether MetLife, Inc., were it to be designated as a non-bank SIFI, may have to alter any of its future activities to comply.
Consumer Protection Laws
Numerous federal and state laws affect MetLife, Inc.’s earnings and activities, including federal and state consumer protection laws. As part of Dodd-Frank, Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) to supervise and regulate institutions that provide certain financial products and services to consumers. Although the consumer financial services subject to the CFPB’s jurisdiction generally exclude insurance business of the kind in which we engage, the CFPB does have authority to regulate non-insurance consumer services we provide.
In August 2013, MetLife Bank merged with and into MLHL, its former subsidiary, with MLHL as the surviving, non-bank entity. The sole purpose of MLHL is to wind-down the limited remaining activities and fulfill remaining obligations and duties of MetLife Bank, some of which subject MLHL to certain federal consumer financial protection laws and certain state laws.
Securities, Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Regulation
Some of our subsidiaries and their activities in offering and selling variable insurance products are subject to extensive regulation under the federal securities laws administered by the SEC. These subsidiaries issue variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies through separate accounts that are registered with the SEC as investment companies under the Investment Company Act. Each registered separate account is generally divided into sub-accounts, each of which invests in an underlying mutual fund which is itself a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act. In addition, the variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies issued by these registered separate accounts are registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Other subsidiaries are registered with the SEC as broker-dealers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and are members of, and subject to regulation by, FINRA. Further, some of our subsidiaries are registered as investment advisers with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and are also registered as investment advisers in various states, as applicable. Certain variable contract separate accounts sponsored by our subsidiaries are exempt from registration, but may be subject to other provisions of the federal securities laws.
Federal and state securities regulatory authorities and FINRA from time to time make inquiries and conduct examinations regarding compliance by MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries with securities and other laws and regulations. We cooperate with such inquiries and examinations and take corrective action when warranted.
Federal and state securities laws and regulations are primarily intended to protect investors in the securities markets and generally grant regulatory agencies broad rulemaking and enforcement powers, including the power to limit or restrict the conduct of business for failure to comply with such laws and regulations. Dodd-Frank also authorizes the SEC to establish a standard of conduct applicable to brokers and dealers when providing personalized investment advice to retail and other customers. This standard of conduct would be to act in the best interest of the customer without regard to the financial or other interest of the broker or dealer providing the advice. See “Risk Factors — Regulatory and Legal Risks — Changes in U.S Federal and State Securities Laws and Regulations, and State Insurance Regulations Regarding Suitability of Annuity Product Sales, May Affect Our Operations and Our Profitability.” We may also be subject to similar laws and regulations in the foreign countries in which we provide investment advisory services, offer products similar to those described above, or conduct other activities.

26

Table of Contents

Environmental Considerations
As an owner and operator of real property, we are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. Inherent in such ownership and operation is also the risk that there may be potential environmental liabilities and costs in connection with any required remediation of such properties. In addition, we hold equity interests in companies that could potentially be subject to environmental liabilities. We routinely have environmental assessments performed with respect to real estate being acquired for investment and real property to be acquired through foreclosure. We cannot provide assurance that unexpected environmental liabilities will not arise. However, based on information currently available to us, we believe that any costs associated with compliance with environmental laws and regulations or any remediation of such properties will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
Unclaimed Property
We are subject to the laws and regulations of states and other jurisdictions concerning identification, reporting and escheatment of unclaimed or abandoned funds, and are subject to audit and examination for compliance with these requirements. See Note 21 of the Notes of the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Considerations
We provide products and services to certain employee benefit plans that are subject to ERISA, or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). As such, our activities are subject to the restrictions imposed by ERISA and the Code, including the requirement under ERISA that fiduciaries must perform their duties solely in the interests of ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries, and the requirement under ERISA and the Code that fiduciaries may not cause a covered plan to engage in prohibited transactions with persons who have certain relationships with respect to such plans. The applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code are subject to enforcement by the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the Internal Revenue Service and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
The prohibited transaction rules of ERISA and the Code generally restrict the provision of investment advice to ERISA plans and participants and Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) if the investment recommendation results in fees paid to the individual advisor, his or her firm or their affiliates that vary according to the investment recommendation chosen. In October 2011, the DOL issued final regulations that provide limited relief from these investment advice restrictions. If additional relief is not provided, the ability of our affiliated broker-dealers and their registered representatives to provide investment advice to ERISA plans and participants and IRAs would likely be significantly restricted. Also, the fee and revenue arrangements of certain advisory programs may be required to be revenue neutral, resulting in potential lost revenues for these broker-dealers and their affiliates.
Other proposed investment advice regulatory initiatives under ERISA also may negatively impact the current business model of our broker-dealers. In particular, the DOL issued a proposed regulation in October 2010 that would, if adopted as proposed, significantly broaden the circumstances under which a person or entity providing investment advice with respect to ERISA plans or IRAs would be deemed a fiduciary under ERISA or the Code. If adopted, the proposed regulations may make it easier for the DOL in enforcement actions, and for plaintiffs’ attorneys in ERISA litigation, to attempt to extend fiduciary status to advisors who would not be deemed fiduciaries under current regulations. In September 2011, the DOL announced it will re-propose these fiduciary definition regulations, and a new proposal is expected in 2014.
In addition, the DOL has issued a number of regulations recently that increase the level of disclosure that must be provided to plan sponsors and participants. The participant disclosure regulations and the regulations which require service providers to disclose fee and other information to plan sponsors took effect in 2012. These ERISA disclosure requirements will likely increase the regulatory and compliance burden upon us, resulting in increased costs.
In John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Harris Trust and Savings Bank (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain assets in excess of amounts necessary to satisfy guaranteed obligations under a participating group annuity general account contract are “plan assets.” Therefore, these assets are subject to certain fiduciary obligations under ERISA, which requires fiduciaries to perform their duties solely in the interest of ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries. On January 5, 2000, the Secretary of Labor issued final regulations indicating, in cases where an insurer has issued a policy backed by the insurer’s general account to or for an employee benefit plan, the extent to which assets of the insurer constitute plan assets for purposes of ERISA and the Code. The regulations apply only with respect to a policy issued by an insurer on or before December 31, 1998 (“Transition Policy”). No person will generally be liable under ERISA or the Code for conduct occurring prior to July 5, 2001, where the basis of a claim is that insurance company general account assets constitute plan assets. An insurer issuing a new policy that is backed by its general account and is issued to or for an employee benefit plan after December 31, 1998 will generally be subject to fiduciary obligations under ERISA, unless the policy is a guaranteed benefit policy.

27

Table of Contents

The regulations indicate the requirements that must be met so that assets supporting a Transition Policy will not be considered plan assets for purposes of ERISA and the Code. These requirements include detailed disclosures to be made to the employee benefits plan and the requirement that the insurer must permit the policyholder to terminate the policy on 90 day notice and receive without penalty, at the policyholder’s option, either (i) the unallocated accumulated fund balance (which may be subject to market value adjustment) or (ii) a book value payment of such amount in annual installments with interest. We have taken and continue to take steps designed to ensure compliance with these regulations.
We cannot predict what other proposals may be made, what legislation may be introduced or enacted or the impact of any such legislation on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
International Regulation
Our international insurance operations are principally regulated by insurance regulatory authorities in the jurisdictions in which they are located or operate. This regulation includes minimum capital, solvency and operational requirements. The authority of our international operations to conduct business is subject to licensing requirements, permits and approvals, and these authorizations are subject to modification and revocation. Periodic examinations of insurance company books and records, financial reporting requirements, market conduct examinations and policy filing requirements are among the techniques used by regulators to supervise our non-U.S. insurance businesses. We also have investment and pension companies in certain foreign jurisdictions that provide mutual fund, pension and other financial products and services. Those entities are subject to securities, investment, pension and other laws and regulations, and oversight by the relevant securities, pension and other authorities of the countries in which the companies operate. In some jurisdictions, some of our insurance products are considered “securities” under local law and may be subject to local securities regulations and oversight by local securities regulators.
Our international operations are exposed to increased political, legal, financial, operational and other risks. A significant portion of our revenues is generated through operations in foreign jurisdictions, including many countries in early stages of economic and political development. Our international operations may be materially adversely affected by the actions and decisions of foreign authorities and regulators, such as through nationalization or expropriation of assets, the imposition of limits on foreign ownership of local companies, changes in laws (including tax laws and regulations), their application or interpretation, political instability, dividend limitations, price controls, changes in applicable currency, currency exchange controls or other restrictions that prevent us from transferring funds from these operations out of the countries in which they operate or converting local currencies we hold into U.S. dollars or other currencies, as well as other adverse actions by foreign governmental authorities and regulators. Changes in the laws and regulations that affect our customers and independent sales intermediaries or their operations also may affect our business relationships with them and their ability to purchase or distribute our products. Such actions may negatively affect our business in these jurisdictions. For example, new legislation in Poland became effective on February 1, 2014, enacting significant changes to the country’s pension system, including redemption of Polish government bonds held by pension funds. This legislation will have a negative impact on our pension business in Poland, but will not have a material impact on our overall pension business. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Results of Operations — Segment Results and Corporate & Other — EMEA” for a discussion of a write-down of deferred policy acquisition costs (“DAC”) and value of business acquired (“VOBA”) associated with this business. Certain of our international insurance operations may be subject to assessments, generally based on their proportionate share of business written in the relevant jurisdiction, for certain obligations to policyholders and claimants resulting from the insolvency of insurance companies. We cannot predict the timing and scope of any assessments that may be made in the future, which may materially affect the results of operations of our international insurance operations in particular quarterly or annual periods. Annually, many of our international insurance operations are required to conduct an analysis of the sufficiency of all statutory reserves. In most of those cases, a locally qualified actuary must submit an analysis of the likelihood that the reserves make good and sufficient provision for the associated contractual obligations and related expenses of the insurer. Local regulatory and actuarial standards for this vary widely; the required implied certainty of the signing actuary’s opinion varies equally widely.
We expect the scope and extent of regulation outside of the U.S., as well as regulatory oversight generally, to continue to increase. The regulatory environment in the countries in which we operate and changes in laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — Our International Operations Face Political, Legal, Operational and Other Risks, Including Exposure to Local and Regional Economic Conditions, That Could Negatively Affect Those Operations or Our Profitability.”


28

Table of Contents

Solvency II
Our insurance business throughout the European Economic Area is also subject to the evolving Solvency II package of measures. Solvency II was adopted by European authorities in 2009. It codifies and harmonizes regulation for insurance undertakings established in the European Union (“EU”). It provides a framework for new risk management practices, solvency capital standards and disclosure requirements. Since its 2009 adoption, Solvency II’s application date moved from 2012 to 2014 to 2016. Through the second “Quick Fix” Directive adopted by European authorities in October 2013, Solvency II will be applied on January 1, 2016. Solvency II is accompanied by Omnibus II, a draft Directive proposed by the European Commission in 2011 intended to adapt the Solvency II Directive implementing measures to the new architecture introduced in the Lisbon Treaty and the new financial supervision measures establishing the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”). Solvency II cannot be implemented without Omnibus II. Additionally, Omnibus II proposes a package of measures to facilitate the provision of insurance products with long-term guarantees under Solvency II. While the Omnibus II package of measures were agreed by the European Council, Commission and Parliament in November 2013, it has not yet been formally adopted. Related to the delays to applying Solvency II, EIOPA has published Interim Guidelines aimed at increasing preparedness of both supervisors and insurers for Solvency II once the framework is applicable. The Interim Guidelines are applied from January 1, 2014 and include certain reporting and organizational requirements with which we intend to comply in accordance with the requirements of our local regulators. Since EIOPA and EU member states continue to consider what aspects could be adopted to continue the development of a more risk-based prudential framework, we may need to accelerate or adjust our implementation accordingly.
In addition, our insurance business in Mexico will be impacted by Mexico’s insurance law reform, adopted in February 2013 (effective in April 2015). The law reform envisions a Solvency II-type regulatory framework, instituting changes to reserve and capital requirements and corporate governance and fostering greater transparency. The new regime includes secondary regulations subject to a 16-month consultation period, during which quantitative and qualitative impact studies will be performed and input from affected companies will be reviewed. In Chile, the law implementing Solvency II-like regulation is currently in the studies stage. However, the Chilean Insurance Regulator has already issued two Pillar 2 resolutions, one for governance, and the other for Risk Management and Control Frameworks. MetLife Chile has already implemented governance changes and risk policies to comply with these resolutions. Regarding Pillar 1, a first draft of a RBC regulation was issued at the end of 2012, and a first quantitative impact study (“QIS”) was performed during first half of 2013. Plans for the second QIS have been delayed. The law is expected to be published and approved in 2015, with the RBC regulation in force in 2016.
Global Systemically Important Insurers
The IAIS, an association of insurance supervisors and regulators and a member of the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”), an international entity established to coordinate, develop and promote regulatory, supervisory and other financial sector policies in the interest of financial stability, is participating in the FSB’s initiative to identify global systemically important financial institutions and has devised and published a methodology to assess the systemic relevance of global insurers and has published a framework of policy measures to be applied to global systemically important insurers (“G-SIIs”). In July 2013, the FSB published its initial list of nine G-SIIs, based on the IAIS’ assessment methodology, which includes MetLife, Inc. The FSB will update the list annually beginning in November, 2014.
For G-SIIs which engage in activities deemed to be systemically risky, the framework of policy measures calls for imposition of additional capital requirements on those activities. The FSB has directed the IAIS to develop G-SII basic (formerly referred to as “backstop”) capital requirements (“BCR”) as the basis for the calculation of additional capital by the end of 2014; the IAIS has indicated that it expects the BCR to apply to G-SIIs in 2015 or shortly thereafter. Any additional capital requirements triggered by systemically risky activities, however, will not be applied before 2019. In addition, the IAIS has confirmed that it will develop a risk-based global insurance capital standard by 2016 which will apply to all internationally active insurance groups, including G-SIIs, with implementation to begin in 2019 after two years of testing and refinement. The FSB and IAIS propose that national authorities ensure that any insurers identified as G-SIIs be subject to additional requirements consistent with the framework of policy measures, which include preparation of a systemic risk management plan, preparation of a recovery and resolution plan, enhanced liquidity planning and management, more intensive supervision, closer coordination among regulators through global supervisory colleges led by a regulator with group-wide supervisory authority, and a policy bias in favor of separation of non-traditional insurance and non-insurance activities from traditional insurance activities. The IAIS policy measures would need to be implemented by legislation or regulation in each applicable jurisdiction, and the impact on MetLife, Inc. and other designated G-SIIs in the U.S., is uncertain.

29

Table of Contents


Japan
Our operations in Japan are subject to regulation and examination by Japan’s Financial Services Agency (“FSA”). Our operations in Japan are required to file with the FSA annual reports for each fiscal year (ending March 31) which include financial statements. These annual reports are not prepared on a U.S. GAAP basis. Similar to the U.S., Japanese law provides that insurers in Japan must maintain specified solvency standards for the protection of policyholders and to support the financial strength of licensed insurers. As of December 31, 2013, the date of our most recent regulatory filing in Japan, the solvency margin ratio of our Japan operations was in excess of four times the 200% solvency margin ratio that would require corrective action. Most Japanese life insurers maintain a solvency margin ratio well in excess of the legally mandated minimum.
A portion of the annual earnings of our Japan operations may be repatriated each year, and may further be distributed to MetLife, Inc. as a dividend. We may determine not to repatriate profits from the Japan operations or to repatriate a reduced amount in order to maintain or improve the solvency margin of the Japan operations or for other reasons. In addition, the FSA may limit or not permit profit repatriations or other transfers of funds to the U.S. if such transfers would be detrimental to the solvency or financial strength of our Japan operations or for other reasons.
Our operations in Japan are subject to assessments to cover obligations to policyholders in the event of insolvency of other insurance companies. Under the Japanese Insurance Business Law, all licensed life insurers in Japan are assessed on an annual basis by the Life Insurance Policyholders Protection Corporation of Japan. These assessments are aggregated across all licensed life insurers in Japan and, in the event of a life insurance company insolvency, are used to satisfy certain obligations to policyholders and claimants of such insolvent company. We cannot predict the amount of future assessments, which may materially affect our results of operations in Japan in particular quarterly or annual periods.
Company Ratings
Insurer financial strength ratings represent the opinions of rating agencies, including A.M. Best Company (“A.M. Best”), Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”), Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”), regarding the ability of an insurance company to meet its financial obligations to policyholders and contractholders.
Rating Stability Indicators
Rating agencies use an “outlook statement” of “positive,” “stable,” ‘‘negative’’ or “developing” to indicate a medium- or long-term trend in credit fundamentals which, if continued, may lead to a rating change. A rating may have a “stable” outlook to indicate that the rating is not expected to change; however, a “stable” rating does not preclude a rating agency from changing a rating at any time, without notice. Certain rating agencies assign rating modifiers such as “CreditWatch” or “Under Review” to indicate their opinion regarding the potential direction of a rating. These ratings modifiers are generally assigned in connection with certain events such as potential mergers and acquisitions, or material changes in a company’s results, in order for the rating agency to perform its analysis to fully determine the rating implications of the event.
Insurer Financial Strength Ratings
Our insurer financial strength ratings at the date of this filing are as follows:
 
A.M.
Best
(1)
 
Fitch
(2)
 
Moody’s*
(3)
 
S&P
(4)
American Life Insurance Company
N/R
 
N/R
 
A1
 
AA-
MetLife Alico Life Insurance KK (MetLife Alico Japan)**
N/R
 
N/R
 
N/R
 
AA-
First MetLife Investors Insurance Company
A+
 
N/R
 
N/R
 
AA-
General American Life Insurance Company
A+
 
AA-
 
Aa3
 
AA-
MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
A+
 
AA-
 
Aa3
 
AA-
MetLife Investors Insurance Company
A+
 
AA-
 
Aa3
 
AA-
MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company
A+
 
AA-
 
Aa3
 
AA-
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
A+
 
AA-
 
Aa3
 
AA-
New England Life Insurance Company
A+
 
AA-
 
Aa3
 
AA-
______________

30

Table of Contents


* Negative outlook by Moody’s effective February 5, 2013. Moody’s stated that the change in its long-term ratings outlook for MetLife, Inc. and its U.S. subsidiaries (other than American Life) to negative from stable was due to the weak economic and low interest rate environment and its impact on the profitability and financial flexibility of MetLife, Inc. and its U.S. subsidiaries.
** Negative outlook by S&P effective May 2, 2012, reflects S&P’s sovereign ratings on Japan.
(1)
A.M. Best financial strength ratings range from “A++ (superior)” to “S (Suspended).” A rating of “A+” is the second highest of sixteen rating categories.
(2)
Fitch insurer financial strength ratings range from “AAA (exceptionally strong)” to “C (ceased or interrupted payments imminent).” A “+” or “-” may be appended to ratings from “AA” to “CCC” to indicate relative position within a category. A rating of “AA-” is the fourth highest of nineteen rating categories.
(3)
Moody’s insurance financial strength ratings range from “Aaa (exceptional)” to “C (extremely poor).” A numeric modifier may be appended to ratings from “Aa” to “Caa” to indicate relative position within a category, with 1 being the highest and 3 being the lowest. A rating of “Aa3” is the fourth highest of twenty-one rating categories.
(4)
S&P long-term insurer financial strength ratings range from “AAA (extremely strong)” to “R (under regulatory supervision).” A “+” or “-” may be appended to ratings from “AA” to “CCC” to indicate relative position within a category. A rating of “AA-” is the fourth highest of twenty-two rating categories.
The foregoing insurer financial strength ratings reflect each rating agency’s opinion of MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries’ financial characteristics with respect to their ability to pay obligations under insurance policies and contracts in accordance with their terms. Insurer financial strength ratings are not statements of fact nor are they recommendations to purchase, hold or sell any security, contract or policy. Each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating. Additional information about financial strength ratings can be found on the respective websites of the rating agencies.
A ratings downgrade (or the potential for such a downgrade) of MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries could potentially, among other things, increase the number of policies surrendered and withdrawals by policyholders of cash values from their policies, adversely affect relationships with broker-dealers, banks, agents, wholesalers and other distributors of our products and services, negatively impact new sales, and adversely affect our ability to compete and thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — A Downgrade or a Potential Downgrade in Our Financial Strength or Credit Ratings Could Result in a Loss of Business and Materially Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” See also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Capital” for a more complete description of the impact of a ratings downgrade.
Competition
We believe that competition faced by our segments is based on a number of factors, including service, product features, scale, price, financial strength, claims-paying ratings, credit ratings, e-business capabilities and name recognition. We compete globally with other insurance companies, as well as non-insurance financial services companies, such as banks, broker-dealers and asset managers, for individual consumers, employer and other group customers, as well as agents and other distributors of insurance and investment products. Some of these companies offer a broader array of products, have more competitive pricing or, with respect to other insurance companies, have higher claims paying ability ratings. In the U.S. and Japan, we compete with a large number of domestic and foreign-owned life insurance companies, many of which offer products in categories on which we focus. Elsewhere, we compete with the foreign insurance operations of large U.S. insurers and with global insurance groups and local companies in particular areas in which they are active. Many of our group insurance products are underwritten annually and, accordingly, there is a risk that group purchasers may be able to obtain more favorable terms from competitors rather than renewing coverage with us.

31

Table of Contents

We believe that the continued volatility of the financial markets, its impact on the capital position of many competitors, and subsequent actions by regulators and rating agencies have altered the competitive environment. In particular, we believe that these factors have highlighted financial strength as the most significant differentiator from the perspective of some customers and certain distributors. We believe the Company is well positioned to compete in this environment. In particular, the Company distributes many of its individual products through other financial institutions such as banks and broker-dealers. These distribution partners are currently placing greater emphasis on the financial strength of the company whose products they sell. In addition, the financial market turbulence has highlighted the extent of the risk associated with certain variable annuity products and has led us, along with many companies in our industry, to re-examine the pricing and features of the products offered. The effects of current market conditions may also lead to consolidation in the life insurance industry. Although we cannot predict the ultimate impact of these conditions, we believe that the strongest companies will enjoy a competitive advantage as a result of the current circumstances.
Competition for employees in our industry is intense, and we need to be able to attract and retain the highly skilled people with knowledge of our business and industry experience to support our business. We must attract and retain productive sales representatives to sell our insurance, annuities and investment products. Insurance companies compete for sales representatives with demonstrated ability. We compete with other insurance companies for sales representatives primarily on the basis of our financial position, support services and compensation and product features. See “— Sales Distribution.” In selected global markets, we continue to undertake several initiatives to grow our career agency forces, while continuing to enhance the efficiency and production of our sales representatives. These initiatives may not succeed in attracting and retaining productive agents. Sales of individual insurance, annuities and investment products and our results of operations and financial position could be materially adversely affected if we are unsuccessful in attracting and retaining productive agents.
Numerous aspects of our business are subject to regulation. Legislative and other changes affecting the regulatory environment can affect our competitive position within the life insurance industry and within the broader financial services industry.
Employees
At December 31, 2013, we had approximately 65,000 employees. We believe that our relations with our employees are satisfactory.

32

Table of Contents

Executive Officers
Set forth below is information regarding the executive officers of MetLife, Inc.:
Name
 
Age
 
Position with MetLife and Business Experience
Steven A. Kandarian
 
61
 
 
Chairman of the Board of MetLife, Inc. (January 2012-present) (Director of MetLife, Inc. since 2011)
 
 
 
 
 
President and Chief Executive Officer (May 2011-present) of MetLife, Inc.
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of MetLife, Inc. (April 2005-April 2011)
Ricardo A. Anzaldua
 
60
 
 
Executive Vice President and General Counsel of MetLife, Inc. (December 2012-present)
 
 
 
 
 
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., an insurance and financial services company (February 2007-December 2012)
 
 
 
 
 
 
• Associate general counsel and senior vice president, director of commercial and consumer markets law (October 2010-December 2012)
 
 
 
 
 
 
• Associate general counsel and senior vice president, director of corporate law (February 2007-October 2010); corporate secretary (February 2008-October 2010)
Steven J. Goulart
 
55
 
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of MetLife, Inc. (May 2011-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Head of the Portfolio Management Unit as Senior Managing Director of MLIC (January 2011-April 2011)
 
 
 
 
 
Senior Vice President and Treasurer, MetLife, Inc. (July 2009-April 2011)
 
 
 
 
 
Head of the Mergers & Acquisitions Unit as Senior Vice President of MLIC (November 2006-July 2009)
John C.R. Hele
 
55
 
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of MetLife, Inc. (September 2012-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Executive vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer, Arch Capital Group Ltd., an insurance and reinsurance company (April 2009-August 2012)
 
 
 
 
 
Chief financial officer, ING Group, N.V., a financial services company (April 2007-March 2009)
Frans Hijkoop
 
53
 
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer of MetLife, Inc. (August 2011-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Chief personnel officer and senior vice president of human resources, American Foods division of PepsiCo Inc., a food and beverage company (January 2008-August 2011)
 
 
 
 
 
Chief personnel officer and senior vice president of human resources, PepsiCo International, a unit of PepsiCo Inc. (February 2007-January 2008)
Beth M. Hirschhorn
 
49
 
 
Executive Vice President, Global Brand and Marketing of MetLife, Inc. (July 2013-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Vice President, Global Brand, Marketing and Communications of MetLife, Inc. (November 2011-June 2013)
 
 
 
 
 
Head of Global Brand and Marketing Services, as Senior Vice President of MLIC (November 2006-October 2011)
Michel Khalaf
 
50
 
 
President, EMEA of MetLife, Inc. (November 2011-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Vice President of MLIC (January 2011-November 2011)
 
 
 
 
 
Regional President, Middle East, Africa and South Asia, Alico (November 2008-November 2011) (Mr. Khalaf joined MetLife as a result of the ALICO Acquisition)
Martin Lippert
 
54
 
 
Executive Vice President and Head of Global Technology and Operations of MetLife, Inc. (November 2011-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Vice President and Head of Global Technology of MetLife, Inc. (September 2011-November 2011)
 
 
 
 
 
Chief operations and technology officer, Citigroup, a financial services company (July 2008-March 2009)
Maria R. Morris
 
51
 
 
Executive Vice President and Head of Global Employee Benefits of MetLife, Inc. (November 2011-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Vice President, Global Operations, Integration of MetLife, Inc. (September 2011-November 2011)
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Vice President, Technology and Operations of MetLife, Inc. (January 2008-September 2011)
Christopher G. Townsend
 
45
 
 
President, Asia of MetLife, Inc. (August 2012-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Chief executive officer of the Asia Pacific region, Chartis, a unit of AIG, an insurance and financial services company (January 2010-April 2012)
 
 
 
 
 
Chief executive officer, Chartis Australasia (February 2007-January 2010)
 William J. Wheeler
 
52
 
 
President, Americas of MetLife, Inc. (November 2011-present)
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of MetLife, Inc. (December 2003-November 2011)

33

Table of Contents

Trademarks
We have a worldwide trademark portfolio that we consider important in the marketing of our products and services, including, among others, the trademark “MetLife.” We also have the exclusive global license to use the Peanuts® characters in the area of financial services and healthcare benefit services under an advertising and premium agreement with Peanuts Worldwide, LLC until December 31, 2014. We also have a non-exclusive license to use certain Citigroup-owned trademarks in connection with the marketing, distribution or sale of life insurance and annuity products under a licensing agreement with Citigroup until June 30, 2015. As a result of the ALICO Acquisition, we acquired American Life and its trademarks, including the “ALICO” trademark. In addition, as a result of our acquisition of ProVida, we acquired “PROVIDA” and other trademarks. We believe that our rights in our trademarks and under our Peanuts® characters license and our Citigroup license are well protected.
Available Information
MetLife files periodic reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Such reports, proxy statements and other information may be obtained by visiting the Public Reference Room of the SEC at its Headquarters Office, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20549 or by calling the SEC at 1-202-551-8090 or 1-800-SEC-0330 (Office of Investor Education and Advocacy). In addition, the SEC maintains an internet website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, including MetLife, Inc.
MetLife makes available, free of charge, on its website (www.metlife.com) through the Investor Relations page, its annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to all those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after filing (furnishing) such reports to the SEC. Other information found on the website is not part of this or any other report filed with or furnished to the SEC.
Item 1A.  Risk Factors
Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks
If Difficult Conditions in the Global Capital Markets and the Economy Generally Persist, They May Materially Adversely Affect Our Business and Results of Operations
Our business and results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the global capital markets and the economy generally. Stressed conditions, volatility and disruptions in financial asset classes or various markets, including global capital markets, can have an adverse effect on us, in part because we have a large investment portfolio and our insurance liabilities are sensitive to changing market factors. Global market factors, including interest rates, credit spreads, equity prices, real estate markets, foreign currency exchange rates, consumer spending, business investment, government spending, the volatility and strength of the capital markets, deflation and inflation can all affect our financial condition, as well as the volume, profitability and results of our business operations, either directly or by virtue of their impact on the business and economic environment generally and on general levels of economic activity, employment and customer behavior specifically. Disruptions in one market or asset class can also spread to other markets or asset classes. Upheavals in the financial markets can also affect our financial condition (including our liquidity and capital levels) as a result of mismatched impacts on the value of our assets and our liabilities. While our diversified business mix and geographically diverse business operations partially mitigate these risks, correlation across regions, countries and global market factors may reduce the benefits of diversification.
At times throughout the past few years, volatile conditions have characterized financial markets. Significant market volatility, and government actions taken in response, may exacerbate some of the risks we face. Concerns about economic conditions, capital markets and the solvency of certain EU member states, their banking systems and the financial institutions that have significant direct or indirect exposure to debt issued by these countries or significant exposure to their banking systems, have caused elevated levels of market volatility. This market volatility has affected the performance of various asset classes at various times, and it could continue until there is an ultimate resolution of these sovereign debt and banking system-related concerns. Concerns about sovereign debt sustainability have also expanded to other EU member states, which resulted in credit ratings downgrades or adverse credit ratings outlook changes for certain EU member states and the EU itself. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments — Current Environment.” The financial markets have also been affected by concerns over U.S. fiscal and monetary policy. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Financial and Economic Environment.” Any of these concerns could have significant adverse effects on the economic and financial markets generally.

34

Table of Contents

To the extent these uncertain financial market conditions persist, our revenues and net investment income are likely to remain under pressure. Similarly, sustained periods of low interest rates could cause our profit margins to erode. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Impact of a Sustained Low Interest Rate Environment.” Also, in the event of extreme prolonged market events, such as the recent global credit crisis, we could incur significant capital and/or operating losses due to, among other reasons, losses incurred in our general account and as a result of the impact on us of guarantees and/or collateral requirements associated with our captive reinsurers and other similar arrangements. Even in the absence of a market downturn, we are exposed to substantial risk of loss due to market volatility.
We are a significant writer of variable insurance products and certain other products issued through separate accounts. The account values of these products decrease as a result of declining equity markets. Lower interest rates generally increase account values in the near term, but may result in lower returns in fixed income options in the future. Decreases in account values reduce fees generated by these products, cause the amortization of DAC to accelerate, could increase the level of insurance liabilities we must carry to support such products issued with any associated guarantees and could require us to provide additional funding to our captive reinsurers.
In an economic downturn characterized by higher unemployment, lower family income, lower corporate earnings, lower business investment and lower consumer spending, the demand for our financial and insurance products could be adversely affected. Group insurance, in particular, is affected by higher unemployment rates. In addition, we may experience an elevated incidence of claims and lapses or surrenders of policies. Furthermore, our policyholders may choose to defer paying insurance premiums or stop paying insurance premiums altogether. Such adverse changes in the economy could negatively affect our earnings and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
The recent financial crisis has precipitated, and may continue to raise the possibility of, legislative, judicial, regulatory and other governmental actions. See “— Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth,” and “— Risks Related to Our Business — Competitive Factors May Adversely Affect Our Market Share and Profitability” below.
Adverse Capital and Credit Market Conditions May Significantly Affect Our Ability to Meet Liquidity Needs, Our Access to Capital and Our Cost of Capital
The capital and credit markets may be subject to periods of extreme volatility and disruption, which could cause our liquidity and credit capacity to be limited.
We need liquidity to pay claims and other operating expenses, interest on our debt and dividends on our capital stock, provide our subsidiaries with cash or collateral, maintain our securities lending activities and replace certain maturing liabilities. Without sufficient liquidity, we could be forced to curtail our operations, and our business and financial results may suffer. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources.”
In the event market or other conditions have an adverse impact on our capital and liquidity, or our stress-testing indicates that such conditions could have such an impact beyond expectations and our current resources do not satisfy our needs or regulatory requirements, we may have to seek additional financing. The availability of additional financing will depend on a variety of factors such as the then current market conditions, regulatory considerations, availability of credit to us and the financial services industry generally, our credit ratings and credit capacity, and the perception of our customers and lenders regarding our long- or short-term financial prospects if we incur large operating or investment losses or if the level of our business activity decreases due to a market downturn. Similarly, our access to funds may be impaired if regulatory authorities or rating agencies take negative actions against us. Our internal sources of liquidity may prove to be insufficient and, in such case, we may not be able to successfully obtain additional financing on favorable terms, or at all.
Our liquidity requirements may change if, among other things, we are required to return significant amounts of cash collateral on short notice under securities lending agreements. See “— Investments-Related Risks — Should the Need Arise, We May Have Difficulty Selling Certain Holdings in Our Investment Portfolio or in Our Securities Lending Program in a Timely Manner and Realizing Full Value Given Their Illiquid Nature” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments — Securities Lending.”
Disruptions, uncertainty or volatility in the capital and credit markets may also limit our access to capital needed to operate our business, most significantly in our insurance operations. Such market conditions may limit our ability to replace, in a timely manner, maturing liabilities; satisfy regulatory capital requirements; and access the capital necessary to grow our business. As a result, we may be forced to delay raising capital, issue different types of securities than we would have otherwise, less effectively deploy such capital, issue shorter tenor securities than we prefer, or bear an unattractive cost of capital, which could decrease our profitability and significantly reduce our financial flexibility. Our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and statutory capital position could be materially adversely affected by disruptions in the financial markets.

35

Table of Contents

We Are Exposed to Significant Financial and Capital Markets Risks Which May Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations, Financial Condition and Liquidity, and May Cause Our Net Investment Income to Vary from Period to Period
We are exposed to significant financial and capital markets risks, including changes in interest rates, credit spreads, equity prices, real estate markets, foreign currency exchange rates, market volatility, global economic performance in general, the performance of specific obligors, including governments, included in our investment portfolio and other factors outside our control.
Interest Rate Risk
Some of our products, principally traditional whole life insurance, fixed annuities and guaranteed interest contracts, expose us to the risk that changes in interest rates will reduce our investment margin or “spread,” or the difference between the amounts that we are required to pay under the contracts in our general account and the rate of return we earn on general account investments intended to support obligations under such contracts. Our spread is a key component of our net income.
In a low interest rate environment, we may be forced to reinvest proceeds from investments that have matured or have been prepaid or sold at lower yields, which will reduce our investment margin. Moreover, borrowers may prepay or redeem the fixed income securities and commercial or agricultural mortgage loans in our investment portfolio with greater frequency in order to borrow at lower market rates, thereby exacerbating this risk. Although lowering interest crediting rates can help offset decreases in spreads on some products, our ability to lower these rates could be limited by competition or contractually guaranteed minimum rates and may not match the timing or magnitude of changes in asset yields. As a result, our spread could decrease or potentially become negative. See “— Risks Related to Our Business — Guarantees Within Certain of Our Products May Decrease Our Earnings, Increase the Volatility of Our Results, Result in Higher Risk Management Costs and Expose Us to Increased Counterparty Risk.”
Our expectation for future spreads is an important component in the amortization of DAC and VOBA. Significantly lower spreads may cause us to accelerate amortization, thereby reducing net income in the affected reporting period. In addition, during periods of declining interest rates, life insurance and annuity products may be relatively more attractive investments to consumers. This could result in increased premium payments on products with flexible premium features, repayment of policy loans and increased persistency, or a higher percentage of insurance policies remaining in-force from year to year, during a period when our new investments carry lower returns. A decline in market interest rates could also reduce our return on investments that do not support particular policy obligations. During periods of sustained lower interest rates, policy liabilities may not be sufficient to meet future policy obligations and may need to be strengthened. Accordingly, declining and sustained lower interest rates may materially affect our results of operations, financial position and cash flows and significantly reduce our profitability. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Impact of a Sustained Low Interest Rate Environment.”
As a global insurance company, we are also affected by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board and of central banks around the world. The Federal Reserve Board has taken a number of actions in recent years to spur economic activity by keeping interest rates low, and, more recently, through its asset purchase programs; and may take further action to influence rates in the future. Such actions may have an impact on the pricing levels of risk-bearing investments, and may adversely impact the level of product sales. Central banks in other parts of the world have also taken action to lower interest rates. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments — Current Environment.” For a discussion of the impact of the low interest rate environment on us, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Impact of a Sustained Low Interest Rate Environment.”

36

Table of Contents

Increases in market interest rates could also negatively affect our profitability. In periods of rapidly increasing interest rates, we may not be able to replace, in a timely manner, the investments in our general account with higher yielding investments needed to fund the higher crediting rates necessary to keep interest sensitive products competitive. We therefore may have to accept a lower spread and, thus, lower profitability or face a decline in sales and greater loss of existing contracts and related assets. In addition, policy loans, surrenders and withdrawals may tend to increase as policyholders seek investments with higher perceived returns as interest rates rise. This process may result in cash outflows requiring that we sell investments at a time when the prices of those investments are adversely affected by the increase in market interest rates, which may result in realized investment losses. Unanticipated withdrawals and terminations may cause us to accelerate the amortization of DAC and VOBA, which reduces net income and may also cause us to accelerate negative VOBA, which increases net income. An increase in market interest rates could also have a material adverse effect on the value of our investment portfolio, for example, by decreasing the estimated fair values of the fixed income securities that comprise a substantial portion of our investment portfolio. Finally, an increase in interest rates could result in decreased fee income associated with a decline in the value of variable annuity account balances invested in fixed income funds. However, this increase in interest rates would typically cause any guaranteed living benefits to decline in value. We cannot predict how market interest rates will respond to the reduction, or “tapering,” of the pace of the Federal Reserve Board’s Federal Open Market Committee asset purchases. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Impact of a Sustained Low Interest Rate Environment.”
We manage interest rate risk as part of our asset and liability management strategies, which include maintaining an investment portfolio with diversified maturities that has a weighted average duration that is approximately equal to the duration of our estimated liability cash flow profile. We also use derivatives to mitigate interest rate risk. Although we take measures to manage the economic risks of investing in a changing interest rate environment, we may not be able to mitigate the interest rate risk of our fixed income investments relative to our liabilities. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”
Credit Spreads
Our exposure to credit spreads primarily relates to market price volatility and cash flow variability associated with changes in such spreads. Market volatility can make it difficult to value certain of our securities if trading becomes less frequent. In such case, valuations may include assumptions or estimates that may have significant period-to-period changes, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. If there is a resumption of significant volatility in the markets, it could cause changes in credit spreads and defaults and a lack of pricing transparency which, individually or in tandem, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or cash flows. See also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments — Investment Risks.”
Equity Risk
Our primary exposure to equity risk relates to the potential for lower earnings associated with certain of our businesses where fee income is earned based upon the estimated fair value of the assets under management. Downturns and volatility in equity markets can have a material adverse effect on the revenues and investment returns from our savings and investment products and services. The retail variable annuity business in particular is highly sensitive to equity markets, and a sustained weakness in the equity markets could decrease revenues and earnings with respect to those products. Furthermore, certain of our variable annuity products offer guaranteed benefits which increase our potential benefit exposure should equity markets decline. We use derivatives and reinsurance to mitigate the impact of such increased potential benefit exposures. We are also exposed to interest rate and equity risk based upon the discount rate and expected long-term rate of return assumptions associated with our pension and other postretirement benefit obligations. Sustained declines in long-term interest rates or equity returns likely would have a negative effect on the funded status of these plans.
In addition, we invest a portion of our investments in leveraged buy-out funds, hedge funds and other private equity funds. The amount and timing of net investment income from such funds tends to be uneven as a result of the performance of the underlying investments. The timing of distributions from such funds, which depends on particular events relating to the underlying investments, as well as the funds’ schedules for making distributions and their needs for cash, can be difficult to predict. As a result, the amount of net investment income from these investments can vary substantially from quarter to quarter. Significant volatility could adversely impact returns and net investment income on these alternative investment classes. In addition, the estimated fair value of such investments may be impacted by downturns or volatility in equity markets. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

37

Table of Contents

Real Estate Risk
Our primary exposure to real estate risk relates to commercial, agricultural and residential real estate. Our exposure to these risks stems from various factors, including the supply and demand of leasable commercial space, creditworthiness of tenants and partners, capital markets volatility and interest rate fluctuations. Although we manage credit risk and market valuation risk for our commercial, agricultural and residential real estate assets through geographic, property type and product type diversification, and asset allocation, general economic conditions and the recovery rate in the commercial, agricultural and residential real estate sectors will continue to influence the performance of these investments. These factors, which are beyond our control, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or cash flows.
Obligor-Related Risks
Our investment portfolio contains investments in government bonds issued by certain EU member states, including Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain and Cyprus, and of financial institutions that have significant direct or indirect exposure to debt issued by these countries. Recently, the EU member states have experienced above average public debt and unemployment and lower than targeted inflation. A number of member states are significantly impacted by the economies of their more influential neighbors, such as Germany, and financial troubles of one nation can lead to troubles in others. In particular, a number of large European banks hold significant amounts of sovereign and/or financial institution debt of other European nations and could experience difficulties as a result of defaults or declines in the value of such debt. Concerns regarding these difficulties could disrupt the functioning of the financial markets.
Our investment portfolio also contains investments, primarily in revenue bonds issued under the auspices of U.S. states and municipalities, and a limited amount of general obligation bonds of U.S. states and municipalities (collectively, “State and political subdivision securities”). Recently, certain U.S. states and municipalities have faced budget deficits and financial difficulties. The financial difficulties of such U.S. states and municipalities could have an adverse impact on our State and political subdivision securities.
Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Risks
Our primary foreign currency exchange rate risks are described under “— Risks Related to Our Business — Fluctuations in Foreign Currency Exchange Rates Could Negatively Affect Our Profitability.” Changes in foreign currency exchange rates can significantly affect our net investment income in any period, and such changes can be substantial. This risk will increase if a country withdraws from the Euro zone. In such case, the national currency to which such a country may revert will likely be devalued and contracts using the Euro will need to be renegotiated. Any such devaluation and its related consequences for our contracts and investments in any such country could be significant and materially adversely affect our operations and earnings in that country. Any operations we may have in any such withdrawing country could also be materially adversely affected by legal or governmental actions related to conversion from the Euro to a national currency. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”
Summary
Significant volatility in the markets could cause changes in interest rates, declines in equity prices, and the strengthening or weakening of foreign currencies against the U.S. dollar which, individually or in tandem, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or cash flows through realized investment losses, impairments, increased valuation allowances and changes in unrealized gain or loss positions.
Regulatory and Legal Risks
Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth
Our insurance operations and brokerage businesses are subject to a wide variety of insurance and other laws and regulations. See “Business — U.S. Regulation” and “Business — International Regulation,” as supplemented by discussions of regulatory developments in our subsequently filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q under the caption “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Regulatory Developments,” and as further supplemented below.

38

Table of Contents

Insurance Regulation — U.S.
State insurance regulators and the NAIC regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Changes in these laws and regulations, or in interpretations thereof, that are made for the benefit of the consumer sometimes lead to additional expense for the insurer and, thus, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Recently, the NAIC and state insurance regulators have been scrutinizing insurance companies’ use of affiliated captive reinsurers or off-shore entities, and the Department of Financial Services in June 2013 issued a highly critical report setting forth its findings to date relating to its inquiry into the life insurance industry’s use of captive insurance companies. In its report, the Department of Financial Services recommended that (i) the NAIC develop enhanced disclosure requirements for reserve financing transactions involving captive insurers, (ii) the FIO, the OFR, the NAIC and state insurance commissioners conduct inquiries similar to the Department of Financial Services inquiry, and (iii) state insurance commissioners consider an immediate national moratorium on new reserve financing transactions involving captive insurers until these inquiries are complete. Like many life insurance companies, we utilize captive reinsurers to satisfy reserve and capital requirements related to universal life and term life insurance policies. We also cede variable annuity risks to a captive reinsurer, which allows us to consolidate hedging and other risk management programs. If the Department of Financial Services or other state insurance regulators restrict the use of such captive reinsurers or if we otherwise are unable to continue to use captive reinsurers in the future, our ability to write certain products or to hedge the associated risks efficiently and/or our RBC ratios and ability to deploy excess capital, could be adversely affected, or we may need to increase prices on those products, which could adversely impact our competitive position and our results of operations. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Insurance Regulatory Examinations” and Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. For more information on our use of captive reinsurers, see also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Capital — Affiliated Captive Reinsurance Transactions.”
The NAIC is also reviewing life insurers’ use of non-variable separate accounts that are insulated from general account claims, which might lead to a recommendation against the allowance of insulation for certain of our separate account products. If state insurance regulators change applicable laws or regulations in accordance with such recommendation, our use of insulation for certain products could be impaired and our ability to compete effectively or do business in certain markets may be adversely affected. In addition, our financial results may also be adversely affected. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Insurance Regulatory Examinations.”
U.S. Federal Regulation Affecting Insurance
Currently, the U.S. federal government does not directly regulate the business of insurance. However, Dodd-Frank established the FIO within the Department of the Treasury, which has the authority to participate in the negotiations of international insurance agreements with foreign regulators for the U.S., as well as to collect information about the insurance industry and recommend prudential standards. On December 12, 2013, the FIO issued a report, mandated by Dodd-Frank, setting forth recommendations with respect to modernization of insurance regulation in the United States. The report raised the possibility of a greater role for the federal government if states do not achieve greater uniformity in their laws and regulations. We cannot predict whether any such legislation or regulatory changes will be adopted, or what impact they will have on our business, financial condition or results of operations. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Federal Initiatives.”
Federal legislation and administrative policies can significantly and adversely affect insurance companies, including policies regarding financial services regulation, securities regulation, derivatives regulation, pension regulation, health care regulation, privacy, tort reform legislation and taxation. In addition, various forms of direct and indirect federal regulation of insurance have been proposed from time to time, including proposals for the establishment of an optional federal charter for insurance companies. Other aspects of our insurance operations could also be affected by Dodd-Frank. For example, under the so-called Volcker Rule, Dodd-Frank authorizes the Federal Reserve Board to impose additional capital requirements and quantitative limits on certain trading and activities by a non-bank SIFI. MetLife, Inc. could be subject to such requirements and limits were it to be designated as a non-bank SIFI. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI.”
Non-bank SIFIs and certain other large financial companies can be assessed under Dodd-Frank for any uncovered costs arising in connection with the resolution of a systemically important financial company and to cover the expenses of the OFR, an agency established by Dodd-Frank to improve the quality of financial data available to policymakers and facilitate more robust and sophisticated analysis of the financial system.

39

Table of Contents

Federal Regulatory Agencies
Dodd-Frank established the CFPB, which supervises and regulates institutions providing certain financial products and services to consumers. Although the consumer financial services to which this legislation applies exclude insurance business of the kind in which we engage, the CFPB has authority to regulate non-insurance consumer services provided by MetLife. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Consumer Protection Laws.” MetLife, Inc.’s subsidiary, MLHL, which merged with MetLife, Inc.’s former subsidiary MetLife Bank, is regulated by the CFPB.
While MetLife, Inc. has de-registered as a bank holding company, it may, in the future, be designated by the FSOC as a non-bank SIFI, as more fully discussed below, and could once again be subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board and subject to enhanced supervision and prudential standards. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI — Enhanced Prudential Standards for Non-Bank SIFIs.”
The FSOC follows a three-stage process to assess whether a non-bank financial company should be subject to enhanced supervision by the Federal Reserve Board as a non-bank SIFI. On July 16, 2013, MetLife was notified by the FSOC that it had reached Stage 3 in the process to determine whether MetLife, Inc. would be named a non-bank SIFI. We have been providing information to the FSOC to assist it in its evaluation of MetLife, Inc. Regulation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI could materially and adversely affect our business. In December 2011, the Federal Reserve Board proposed Regulation YY that would apply a set of prudential standards to non-bank SIFIs, including enhanced RBC requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, single counterparty exposure limits, governance requirements for risk management, stress test requirements, special debt-to-equity limits for certain companies, early remediation procedures, and recovery and resolution planning. The Federal Reserve Board’s proposal contemplates that these standards would be subject to the authority of the Federal Reserve Board to determine, on its own or in response to a recommendation by the FSOC, to tailor the application of the enhanced standards to different companies on an individual basis or by category, taking into consideration their capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and any other risk-related factors that the Federal Reserve Board deems appropriate. On February 18, 2014, the Federal Reserve Board adopted amendments to Regulation YY to implement certain of the enhanced prudential standards for bank holding companies and foreign banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. While Regulation YY, as originally proposed, would have applied to non-bank SIFIs, the final rule does not, but the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that it plans to apply enhanced prudential standards to non-bank SIFIs by rule or order. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI — Enhanced Prudential Standards for Non-Bank SIFIs.” Accordingly, the manner in which these proposed standards might apply to MetLife, Inc. remains unclear. The Federal Reserve Board has stated that it believes other provisions of Dodd-Frank, known as the Collins Amendment, constrain its ability to tailor capital standards for non-bank SIFIs.
In the wake of the recent financial crisis, other national and international authorities have also proposed measures intended to increase the intensity of regulation of large financial institutions, requiring greater coordination among regulators and efforts to harmonize regulatory regimes. For example, the IAIS is participating in the FSB’s initiative to identify global systemically important financial institutions and has devised and published a methodology to assess the systemic relevance of global insurers and has published a framework of policy measures to be applied to G-SIIs. In July 2013, the FSB published its initial list of nine G-SIIs, based on the IAIS’ assessment methodology, which includes MetLife, Inc. The FSB has directed the IAIS to develop G-SII BCR, as the basis for the calculation of additional capital by the end of 2014; the IAIS has indicated that it expects the BCR to apply to G-SIIs in 2015 or shortly thereafter. In addition, the IAIS has confirmed that it will develop a risk-based global insurance capital standard by 2016 which will apply to all internationally active insurance groups, including G-SIIs, with implementation to begin in 2019 after two years of testing and refinement. The IAIS policy measures would need to be implemented by legislation or regulation in each applicable jurisdiction, and the impact on MetLife, Inc. and other designated G-SIIs in the U.S., is uncertain. See “Business — International Regulation — Global Systemically Important Insurers.”
If such measures were adopted, including as a result of our potential designation as a non-bank SIFI, they could materially adversely affect our ability to conduct business, our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends, repurchase common stock or other securities or engage in other transactions that could affect our capital. Enhanced capital requirements could adversely affect our ability to compete with other insurers that are not subject to those requirements, and our ability to issue guarantees could be constrained. We could have to raise the price of the products we offer, reduce the amount of risk we take on, or stop offering certain products altogether. Further, counterparty exposure limits could affect our ability to engage in hedging activities. The Federal Reserve Board could also have the right to require that any of our insurance companies, or insurance company affiliates, take prompt action to correct any financial weaknesses.
In the event that MetLife is designated as a non-bank SIFI, we may elect to contest such designation using all available remedies under Dodd-Frank or otherwise. If ultimately designated as a non-bank SIFI, we will consider such structural and other business alternatives that may be available to us in response to such a designation, and we cannot predict the impact that any such alternatives, if implemented, may have on the Company or its security holders.

40

Table of Contents


Mortgage and Foreclosure-Related Exposures
State and federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities have initiated various inquiries, investigations and examinations of alleged irregularities in the foreclosure practices of the residential mortgage servicing industry, mortgage origination and mortgage servicing practices. While we have reached settlements with some regulators relating to our mortgage servicing activities, it is possible that pending or additional inquiries, investigations or examinations may result in further monetary payments or other measures against us. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Mortgage and Foreclosure-Related Exposures.”
Regulation of Brokers and Dealers
Dodd-Frank also authorizes the SEC to establish a standard of conduct applicable to brokers and dealers when providing personalized investment advice to retail and other customers. This standard of conduct would be to act in the best interest of the customer without regard to the financial or other interest of the broker or dealer providing the advice. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Securities, Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Regulation.”
ERISA Considerations
We provide products and services to certain employee benefit plans that are subject to ERISA or the Code. Consequently, our activities are likewise subject to the restrictions imposed by ERISA and the Code, including the requirement that fiduciaries must perform their duties solely in the interests of ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries, and the requirement under ERISA and the Code that fiduciaries may not cause a plan to engage in prohibited transactions with persons who have certain relationships with respect to those plans.
The prohibited transaction rules generally restrict the provision of investment advice to ERISA plans and participants and IRAs if the investment recommendation results in fees paid to the individual advisor, his or her firm or their affiliates that vary according to the investment recommendation chosen. Regulations adopted in October 2011 in this area provide some relief from these investment advice restrictions. If additional relief is not provided, the ability of our affiliated broker-dealers and their registered representatives to provide investment advice to ERISA plans and participants and IRAs would likely be significantly restricted. Other proposed regulations in this area may negatively impact the current business model of our broker-dealers, including proposed changes to broaden the definition of “fiduciary,” thereby increasing the regulation of persons providing investment advice to ERISA plans and IRAs. These proposed regulations are expected in 2014. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Considerations.”
International Regulation
Our international insurance operations are principally regulated by insurance regulatory authorities in the jurisdictions in which they are located or operate. A significant portion of our revenue is generated through operations in foreign jurisdictions, including many countries in early stages of economic and political development. Our international operations may be materially adversely affected by the actions and decisions of foreign authorities and regulators, such as through nationalization or expropriation of assets, the imposition of limits on foreign ownership of local companies, changes in laws (including tax laws and regulations), their application or interpretation, political instability, dividend limitations, price controls, changes in applicable currency, currency exchange controls or other restrictions that prevent us from transferring funds from these operations out of the countries in which they operate or converting local currencies we hold to U.S. dollars or other currencies. This may also impact many of our customers and independent sales intermediaries. Changes in the laws and regulations that affect these customers and independent sales intermediaries also may affect our business relationships with them and their ability to purchase or distribute our products. Accordingly, these changes and actions may negatively affect our business in these jurisdictions. We expect the scope and extent of regulation outside of the U.S., as well as general regulatory oversight, to continue to increase. The authority of our international operations to conduct business is subject to licensing requirements, permits and approvals, and these authorizations are subject to modification and revocation. The regulatory environment in the countries in which we operate and changes in laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. See “Business — International Regulation” and “— Risks Related to Our Business — Our International Operations Face Political, Legal, Operational and Other Risks, Including Exposure to Local and Regional Economic Conditions, That Could Negatively Affect Those Operations or Our Profitability.”

41

Table of Contents

We are also subject to the evolving Solvency II insurance regulatory directive established by the European Parliament in 2009 for our insurance business throughout the European Economic Area, and may be subject to similar solvency regulations in other regions, such as Mexico and Chile. See “Business — International Regulation — Solvency II.” As requirements are finalized by the regulators, capital requirements might be impacted in a number of jurisdictions. In addition, our legal entity structure throughout Europe may impact our capital requirements, risk management infrastructure and reporting by country.
General
From time to time, regulators raise issues during examinations or audits of MetLife, Inc.’s regulated subsidiaries that could, if determined adversely, have a material impact on us. In addition, the interpretations of regulations by regulators may change and statutes may be enacted with retroactive impact, particularly in areas such as accounting or statutory reserve requirements. We are also subject to other regulations and may in the future become subject to additional regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is time consuming and personnel-intensive, and changes in these laws and regulations may materially increase our direct and indirect compliance and other expenses of doing business, thus having a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
The Dodd-Frank Provisions Compelling the Liquidation of Certain Types of Financial Institutions Could Materially and Adversely Affect MetLife, Inc., as a Potential Non-Bank SIFI and an Investor in Other Financial Institutions, and Our Investors
Under provisions of Dodd-Frank, if MetLife, Inc. is designated a non-bank SIFI and it were to become insolvent or were in danger of defaulting on its obligations, it could be compelled to undergo liquidation with the FDIC as receiver. For this new regime to be applicable, a number of determinations would have to be made, including that a default by MetLife, Inc. would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States. If the FDIC were appointed as the receiver for MetLife, Inc., liquidation would occur under the provisions of the new liquidation authority, and not under the Bankruptcy Code, which ordinarily governs liquidations. In an FDIC-managed liquidation, holders of a company’s debt could be treated differently than under the Bankruptcy Code and similarly-situated creditors could be treated differently. In particular, unsecured creditors and shareholders are intended to bear the losses of the company being liquidated. These provisions could also apply to financial institutions whose debt securities we hold in our investment portfolio and could adversely affect our position as a creditor and the value of our holdings.
Dodd-Frank also provides for the assessment of charges against certain financial institutions, including non-bank SIFIs and bank holding companies of a certain size, to cover the costs of liquidating any financial company subject to the new liquidation authority. If MetLife, Inc. is designated as a non-bank SIFI, we could be assessed for a portion of the costs of the liquidation of a financial company that is liquidated under this authority. The liquidation authority could increase the funding costs of large bank holding companies or financial companies that might be viewed as systemically significant, such as MetLife, Inc. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI — Orderly Liquidation Authority.”
Legislative and Regulatory Activity in Health Care and Other Employee Benefits Could Affect our Profitability As a Provider of Life Insurance, Annuities, and Non-Medical Health Insurance Benefit Products
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, signed into law on March 30, 2010 (together, the “Health Care Act”), may lead to fundamental changes in the way that employers, including us, provide health care benefits, other benefits, and other forms of compensation to their employees and former employees. The Health Care Act also imposes requirements on us as a provider of non-medical health insurance benefit and other products and on the purchasers of certain of these products. In 2014 we are subject to a new excise tax called the “health insurer fee,” the cost of which will primarily be passed on to group purchasers of certain of our dental and vision insurance products. Additionally, with respect to dental and vision insurance products sold to groups with fifty or fewer employees, we have changed certain of our product offerings. The cost of these product changes will also be reflected in our pricing of such products. The Health Care Act or any other related regulations or regulatory actions could adversely affect our ability to offer certain of these products in the same manner as we do today. They could also result in increased or unpredictable costs to provide certain products, and could harm our competitive position if the Health Care Act has a disparate impact on our products compared to products offered by our competitors.
In addition, we employ a substantial number of employees, including sales agents, in the United States to whom we offer employment-related benefits. We also currently provide benefits to certain of our retirees. These benefits are provided under complex plans that are subject to a variety of regulatory requirements. The Health Care Act or related regulations or regulatory actions could adversely affect our ability to attract, retain and motivate our associates. They could also result in increased or unpredictable costs to provide employee benefits, and could harm our competitive position if we are subject to fees, penalties, tax provisions or other limitations in the Health Care Act and our competitors are not.

42

Table of Contents

The Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 also includes certain provisions for defined benefit pension plan funding relief. These provisions may impact the likelihood and/or timing of corporate plan sponsors terminating their plans and/or engaging in transactions to partially or fully transfer pension obligations to an insurance company. As part of our Corporate Benefit Funding segment, we offer general account and separate account group annuity products that enable a plan sponsor to transfer these risks, often in connection with the termination of defined benefit pension plans. Consequently, this legislation could indirectly affect the mix of our business, with fewer closeouts and more non-guaranteed funding products, and adversely impact our results of operations.
Changes in U.S. Federal and State Securities Laws and Regulations, and State Insurance Regulations Regarding Suitability of Annuity Product Sales, May Affect Our Operations and Our Profitability
Federal and state securities laws and regulations apply to insurance products that are also “securities,” including variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies. As a result, some of MetLife, Inc.’s subsidiaries and their activities in offering and selling variable insurance contracts and policies are subject to extensive regulation under these securities laws.
Federal and state securities laws and regulations are primarily intended to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and to protect investors in the securities markets, and to protect investment advisory or brokerage clients. These laws and regulations generally grant regulatory agencies broad rulemaking and enforcement powers, including the power to limit or restrict the conduct of business for failure to comply with the securities laws and regulations. A number of changes have recently been suggested to the laws and regulations that govern the conduct of our variable insurance products business and our distributors that could change the way we conduct our business and the products we sell. This may adversely affect our operations and profitability, including increasing the regulatory and compliance burden upon us, resulting in increased costs. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Securities, Broker-Dealer and Investment Advisor Regulation.” We also may be subject to similar laws and regulations in the foreign countries in which we offer products or conduct other activities similar to those described above. See “Business — International Regulation.”
Changes in Tax Laws or Interpretations of Such Laws Could Reduce Our Earnings and Materially Impact Our Operations by Increasing Our Corporate Taxes and Making Some of Our Products Less Attractive to Consumers
Changes in domestic or foreign tax laws or interpretations of such laws could increase our corporate taxes and reduce our earnings. Additionally, global budget deficits make it likely that governments’ need for additional revenue will result in future tax proposals that will increase our effective tax rate. However, it remains difficult to predict the timing and effect that future tax law changes could have on our earnings both in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions.
Additionally, U.S. tax laws currently afford certain benefits to life insurance and annuity products. The Obama Administration and some members of Congress have proposed certain changes to rules applicable to certain of these products and to individual income tax rates in general. Changes in tax laws could make some of our products less attractive to consumers. A shift away from life insurance and annuity contracts and other tax-deferred products by our customers would reduce our income from sales of these products, as well as the asset base upon which we earn investment income and fees, thereby reducing our earnings and potentially affecting the value of our deferred tax assets.
Litigation and Regulatory Investigations Are Increasingly Common in Our Businesses and May Result in Significant Financial Losses and/or Harm to Our Reputation
We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In connection with our insurance operations, plaintiffs’ lawyers may bring or are bringing class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, claims payments and procedures, product design, disclosure, administration, denial or delay of benefits and breaches of fiduciary or other duties to customers. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages. Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may normally be difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law. Material pending litigation and regulatory matters affecting us and risks to our business presented by these proceedings are discussed in Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Updates are provided in the notes to our interim condensed consolidated financial statements included in our subsequently filed quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, as well as in Part II, Item 1 (“Legal Proceedings”) of those quarterly reports.

43

Table of Contents

We are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas and books and record examinations, from state and federal regulators and other authorities.
A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us, as well as regulatory inquiries or investigations could harm our reputation, result in material fines or penalties, result in significant legal costs and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, our ability to attract new customers, retain our current customers and recruit and retain employees could be materially and adversely impacted. Regulatory inquiries and litigation may also cause volatility in the price of stocks of companies in our industry.
Current claims, litigation, unasserted claims probable of assertion, investigations and other proceedings against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. It is also possible that related or unrelated claims, litigation, unasserted claims probable of assertion, investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to further investigations and have lawsuits filed or enforcement actions initiated against us. We currently have a market presence in nearly 50 countries and may be subject to additional investigations and lawsuits in these jurisdictions. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings in any of the countries where we operate could result in new legal actions and precedents and industry-wide regulations that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Investments-Related Risks
Should the Need Arise, We May Have Difficulty Selling Certain Holdings in Our Investment Portfolio or in Our Securities Lending Program in a Timely Manner and Realizing Full Value Given Their Illiquid Nature
There may be a limited market for certain investments we hold in our investment portfolio, making them relatively illiquid. These include privately-placed fixed maturity securities, mortgage loans, policy loans, leveraged leases, equity real estate, such as real estate joint ventures and funds, and other limited partnership interests. In recent years, even some of our very high quality investments experienced reduced liquidity during periods of market volatility or disruption. If we were forced to sell certain of our investments during periods of market volatility or disruption, market prices may be lower than our carrying value in such investments. This could result in realized losses which could have a material adverse effect on our net income and financial position.
Similarly, we loan blocks of our securities to third parties (primarily brokerage firms and commercial banks) through our securities lending program, including fixed maturity and equity securities, short-term investments and cash equivalents. Under this program, we obtain collateral, usually cash, at the inception of a loan and typically purchase securities with the cash collateral. Upon the return to us of these loaned securities, we must return to the third party the cash collateral we received. If the cash collateral has been invested in securities, we need to sell the securities. However, in some cases, the maturity of those securities may exceed the term of the related securities on loan and the estimated fair value of the securities we need to sell may fall below the amount of cash received.
If we are required to return significant amounts of cash collateral under our securities lending program or otherwise need significant amounts of cash on short notice and we are forced to sell securities, we may have difficulty selling such collateral that is invested in securities in a timely manner, be forced to sell securities in a volatile or illiquid market for less than we otherwise would have been able to realize under normal market conditions, or both. In the event of a forced sale, accounting guidance requires the recognition of a loss for securities in an unrealized loss position and may require the impairment of other securities based on our ability to hold those securities, which would negatively impact our financial condition. In addition, under stressful capital market and economic conditions, liquidity broadly deteriorates, which may further restrict our ability to sell securities. Furthermore, if we decrease the amount of our securities lending activities over time, the amount of net investment income generated by these activities will also likely decline. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Liquidity and Capital Uses — Securities Lending.”

44

Table of Contents

Our Requirements to Pledge Collateral or Make Payments Related to Declines in Estimated Fair Value of Derivatives Transactions or Specified Assets in Connection with OTC-Cleared and OTC-Bilateral Transactions May Adversely Affect Our Liquidity, Expose Us to Central Clearinghouse and Counterparty Credit Risk, and Increase our Costs of Hedging
Substantially all of our derivatives transactions require us to pledge collateral related to any decline in the net estimated fair value of such derivatives transactions executed through a specific broker at a clearinghouse or entered into with a specific counterparty on a bilateral basis. Certain derivatives financing transactions require us to pledge collateral or make payments related to declines in the estimated fair value of the specified assets under certain circumstances to central clearinghouses or our counterparties. The amount of collateral we may be required to pledge and the payments we may be required to make under our derivatives transactions may increase under certain circumstances and will likely increase under Dodd-Frank as a result of the requirement to pledge initial margin for OTC-cleared transactions entered into after June 10, 2013 and for OTC-bilateral transactions entered into after the phase-in period, which would be applicable to us in 2019 if the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC adopt the final margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives published by the Bank of International Settlements and International Organization of Securities Commissions in September 2013. Each of these items could also adversely affect our liquidity. Central clearinghouses and counterparties may also restrict or eliminate certain types of previously eligible collateral, which could also adversely affect our liquidity or charge us to pledge such collateral which would increase our costs. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Liquidity and Capital Uses — Pledged Collateral” and Note 9 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Gross Unrealized Losses on Fixed Maturity and Equity Securities and Defaults, Downgrades or Other Events May Result in Future Impairments to the Carrying Value of Such Securities, Resulting in a Reduction in Our Net Income
Fixed maturity securities represented 71% of our total cash and invested assets at December 31, 2013. Fixed maturity and equity securities classified as available-for-sale (“AFS”) securities are reported at their estimated fair value. Unrealized gains or losses on AFS securities are recognized as a component of other comprehensive income (loss) and are, therefore, excluded from net income. In recent periods, as a result of low interest rates, the unrealized gains on our fixed maturity securities have far exceeded the unrealized losses. However, if interest rates rise, our unrealized gains would decrease and our unrealized losses would increase, perhaps substantially. The accumulated change in estimated fair value of these AFS securities is recognized in net income when the gain or loss is realized upon the sale of the security or in the event that the decline in estimated fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary and an impairment charge to earnings is taken. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments — Fixed Maturity and Equity Securities Available-for-Sale.”
The occurrence of a major economic downturn, acts of corporate malfeasance, widening risk spreads, or other events that adversely affect the issuers or guarantors of securities or the underlying collateral of structured securities could cause the estimated fair value of our fixed maturity securities portfolio and corresponding earnings to decline and cause the default rate of the fixed maturity securities in our investment portfolio to increase. A ratings downgrade affecting issuers or guarantors of particular securities, or similar trends that could worsen the credit quality of issuers, such as the corporate issuers of securities in our investment portfolio, could also have a similar effect. With economic uncertainty, credit quality of issuers or guarantors could be adversely affected. Similarly, a ratings downgrade affecting a security we hold could indicate the credit quality of that security has deteriorated and could increase the capital we must hold to support that security to maintain our RBC levels. Levels of writedowns or impairments are impacted by intent to sell, or our assessment of the likelihood that we will be required to sell, fixed maturity securities, as well as our intent and ability to hold equity securities which have declined in value until recovery. Realized losses or impairments on these securities may have a material adverse effect on our net income in a particular quarterly or annual period.

45

Table of Contents

Our Valuation of Securities and Investments and the Determination of the Amount of Allowances and Impairments Taken on Our Investments Are Subjective and Include Methodologies, Estimations and Assumptions Which Are Subject to Differing Interpretations and Market Conditions and, if Changed, Could Materially Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations or Financial Condition
Fixed maturity, equity, fair value option and trading securities, as well as short-term investments that are reported at estimated fair value represent the majority of our total cash and investments. We define fair value generally as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability. Considerable judgment is often required in interpreting market data to develop estimates of fair value, and the use of different assumptions or valuation methodologies may have a material effect of the estimated fair value amounts. During periods of market disruption including periods of significantly rising or high interest rates, rapidly widening credit spreads or illiquidity, it may be difficult to value certain of our securities if trading becomes less frequent and/or market data becomes less observable. In addition, in times of financial market disruption, certain asset classes that were in active markets with significant observable data may become illiquid. In those cases, the valuation process includes inputs that are less observable and require more subjectivity and management judgment. Valuations may result in estimated fair values which vary significantly from the amount at which the investments may ultimately be sold. Further, rapidly changing and unprecedented credit and equity market conditions could materially impact the valuation of securities as reported within our consolidated financial statements and the period-to-period changes in estimated fair value could vary significantly. Decreases in the fair value of securities we hold may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments” and Notes 1 and 10 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The determination of the amount of allowances and impairments varies by investment type and is based upon our periodic evaluation and assessment of known and inherent risks associated with the respective asset class. Such evaluations and assessments are revised as conditions change and new information becomes available. We reflect any changes in allowances and impairments in earnings as such evaluations are revised. However, historical trends may not be indicative of future impairments or allowances. In addition, any such future impairments or allowances could have a materially adverse effect on our earnings and financial position. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates — Investment Impairments” and Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Defaults on Our Mortgage Loans and Volatility in Performance May Adversely Affect Our Profitability
Our mortgage loans face default risk and are principally collateralized by commercial, agricultural and residential properties. We establish valuation allowances for estimated impairments, which are based on loan risk characteristics, historical default rates and loss severities, real estate market fundamentals and outlooks, as well as other relevant factors. In addition, substantially all of our mortgage loans held-for-investment have balloon payment maturities. An increase in the default rate of our mortgage loan investments or fluctuations in their performance could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Further, any geographic or sector concentration of our mortgage loans may have adverse effects on our investment portfolios and consequently on our results of operations or financial condition. While we seek to mitigate this risk by having a broadly diversified portfolio, events or developments that have a negative effect on any particular geographic region or sector may have a greater adverse effect on the investment portfolios to the extent that the portfolios are concentrated. Moreover, our ability to sell assets relating to such particular groups of related assets may be limited if other market participants are seeking to sell at the same time. In addition, legislative proposals that would allow or require modifications to the terms of mortgage loans could be enacted. We cannot predict whether these proposals will be adopted, or what impact, if any, such proposals or, if enacted, such laws, could have on our business or investments. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments — Mortgage Loans.”

46

Table of Contents

 The Defaults or Deteriorating Credit of Other Financial Institutions Could Adversely Affect Us
We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, central clearinghouses, commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and investment funds and other financial institutions. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of our counterparty. In addition, with respect to secured transactions, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by us cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure due to us. We also have exposure to these financial institutions in the form of unsecured debt instruments, non-redeemable and redeemable preferred securities, derivatives, joint venture, hedge fund and equity investments. Further, potential action by governments and regulatory bodies in response to the financial crisis affecting the global banking system and financial markets, such as investment, nationalization, conservatorship, receivership and other intervention, whether under existing legal authority or any new authority that may be created, or lack of action by governments and central banks, as well as deterioration in the banks’ credit standing, could negatively impact these instruments, securities, transactions and investments or limit our ability to trade with them. Any such losses or impairments to the carrying value of these investments or other changes may materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations.
Risks Related to Our Business
Our International Operations Face Political, Legal, Operational and Other Risks, Including Exposure to Local and Regional Economic Conditions, That Could Negatively Affect Those Operations or Our Profitability
Our international operations face political, legal, financial, operational and other risks. These operations may be materially adversely affected by the actions and decisions of foreign authorities and regulators, such as through nationalization or expropriation of assets, the imposition of limits on foreign ownership of local companies, changes in laws (including tax laws and regulations), their application or interpretation, political instability, dividend limitations, price controls, changes in applicable currency, currency exchange controls or other restrictions that prevent us from transferring funds from these operations out of the countries in which they operate or converting local currencies we hold into U.S. dollars or other currencies, as well as other adverse actions by foreign governmental authorities and regulators, such as the retroactive application of new requirements on our current and prior activities or operations and the imposition of regulations limiting our ability to distribute our products. Such actions may negatively affect our business in these jurisdictions and could indirectly affect our business in other jurisdictions as well. Some of our foreign insurance operations are, and are likely to continue to be, in emerging markets where these risks are heightened. See “Business — International Regulation” and “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” as well as “— Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth.”
For example, the operating environment in Argentina has been very challenging. We were formerly principally engaged in the pension business there, but in December 2008, the Argentine government nationalized the Social Security System and moved pension fund assets into the government-run system, effectively eliminating the private pension companies in Argentina. This substantially reduced our presence in Argentina. Accordingly, we have experienced and will continue to experience reductions in the operation’s revenues and cash flows. More recent governmental actions have significantly limited our ability to independently operate our Argentine operation, which could further reduce this operation’s revenues and increase its compliance costs and other expenses. In addition, new legislation in Poland became effective on February 1, 2014, enacting significant changes to the country’s pension system, including redemption of Polish government bonds held by pension funds. This legislation will have a negative impact on our pension business in Poland, but will not have a material impact on our overall pension business. See “Business — International Regulation.” We also have operations in the Middle East where the legal and political systems and regulatory frameworks are subject to instability and disruptions. Instability has increased in many parts of the Middle East as a result of the “Arab Spring” movement. Lack of legal certainty and stability in the region exposes our operations to increased risk of disruption and to adverse or unpredictable actions by regulators and may make it more difficult for us to enforce our contracts, which may negatively impact our business in this region.

47

Table of Contents

 We have market presence in nearly 50 different countries and increased exposure to risks posed by local and regional economic conditions. Europe has recently experienced a recession and overall sluggish economic performance, with concerns over low inflation becoming more pronounced. Unfavorable economic conditions in Europe could adversely impact the demand for our products, negatively impact earnings, adversely affect the performance of our investments or result in impairments, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “— Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks — If Difficult Conditions in the Global Capital Markets and the Economy Generally Persist, They May Materially Adversely Affect Our Business and Results of Operations.” Countries in Europe’s perimeter region, as well as Cyprus, have been particularly affected by the recession, resulting in increased national debts and depressed economic activity. We have significant operations and investments in these countries which could be adversely affected by economic developments such as higher taxes, growing inflation, deflation, decreasing government spending, rising unemployment and currency instability. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Investments — Current Environment.”
In addition, we face substantial exposure to the Japanese economy given our operations there. Despite a broad recovery in GDP growth and rising inflation over the last year, structural weaknesses and debt sustainability have yet to be addressed effectively. This leaves the economy vulnerable to further disruption, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. See “— Risks Related to Our Business — Fluctuations in Foreign Currency Exchange Rates Could Negatively Affect Our Profitability,” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Financial and Economic Environment.”
Furthermore, we rely on local sales forces in these countries and may encounter labor problems resulting from workers’ associations and trade unions in some countries. In several countries, including China and India, we operate with local business partners and managing these partner relationships poses risks to our business objectives. If our business model is not successful in a particular country, we may lose all or most of our investment in building and training the sales force in that country.
Lastly, we are continuing to expand our international operations in certain markets where we operate and in selected new markets. This may require considerable management time, as well as start-up expenses for market development before any significant revenues and earnings are generated. Operations in new foreign markets may achieve low margins or may be unprofitable, and expansion in existing markets may be affected by local political, economic and market conditions. Therefore, as we expand internationally, we may not achieve expected operating margins and our results of operations may be negatively impacted.
Fluctuations in Foreign Currency Exchange Rates Could Negatively Affect Our Profitability
We are exposed to risks associated with fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates against the U.S. dollar resulting from our holdings of non-U.S. dollar denominated investments, investments in foreign subsidiaries and net income from foreign operations and issuance of non-U.S. dollar denominated instruments, including guaranteed interest contracts and funding agreements. In general, the weakening of foreign currencies versus the U.S. dollar will adversely affect the estimated fair value of our non-U.S. dollar denominated investments, our investments in foreign subsidiaries, and our net income from foreign operations. In addition, from time to time, various emerging market countries have experienced severe economic and financial disruptions, including significant devaluations of their currencies. Our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate risk is exacerbated by our investments in these emerging markets. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”
In addition, certain of our life and annuity products are exposed to foreign exchange rate risk. Payments under these contracts, depending on the circumstances, may be required to be made in different currencies and may not be the legal tender in the country whose law governs the particular product. Changes in exchange rate movements and the imposition of capital controls may also directly impact the liability valuation that may not be entirely hedged. If the currency upon which expected future payments are made strengthens, the liability valuation may increase, which may result in a reduction of net income.
 Historically, we have matched substantially all of our foreign currency liabilities in our foreign subsidiaries with investments denominated in their respective foreign currency, which limits the effect of currency exchange rate fluctuation on local operating results; however, fluctuations in such rates affect the translation of these results into our U.S. dollar basis consolidated financial statements. Although we take certain actions to address this risk, including entering into foreign currency derivatives, foreign currency exchange rate fluctuation could materially adversely affect our reported results due to unhedged positions or the failure of hedges to effectively offset the impact of the foreign currency exchange rate fluctuation. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

48

Table of Contents

We face substantial exposure to risks associated with fluctuations in the yen/U.S. dollar exchange rate because we have substantial operations in Japan and a significant portion of our premiums and investment income in Japan are received in yen. Most claims and expenses associated with our operations in Japan are also paid in yen and we primarily purchase yen-denominated assets to support yen-denominated policy liabilities. These and other yen-denominated financial statement items are, however, translated into U.S. dollars for financial reporting purposes. Accordingly, fluctuations in the yen/U.S. dollar exchange rate can have a significant effect on our reported financial position and results of operations. Our Japan operation does assume some currency exposure by backing a portion of surplus and yen-denominated liabilities with U.S. dollar assets. Although this represents risk to our Japan operation, this activity reduces yen exposure at the enterprise level.
Due to our significant international operations, during periods when any foreign currency in which we derive our revenues weakens (strengthens), translating amounts expressed in that currency into U.S. dollars causes fewer (more) U.S. dollars to be reported. Any unrealized foreign currency translation adjustments are reported in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). The weakening of a foreign currency relative to the U.S. dollar will generally adversely affect the value of investments in U.S. dollar terms and reduce the level of reserves denominated in that currency.
An Inability to Access Our Credit Facilities Could Result in a Reduction in Our Liquidity and Lead to Downgrades in Our Credit and Financial Strength Ratings
We rely on our credit facilities as a potential source of liquidity. The availability of these facilities could be critical to our credit and financial strength ratings and our ability to meet our obligations as they come due in a market when alternative sources of credit are tight. These credit facilities contain certain administrative, reporting, legal and financial covenants, including a requirement to maintain a specified minimum consolidated net worth. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Liquidity and Capital Sources — Credit and Committed Facilities” and Note 12 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Our right to borrow funds under these facilities is subject to the fulfillment of certain important conditions, including our compliance with all covenants, and our ability to borrow under these facilities is also subject to the continued willingness and ability of the lenders that are parties to the facilities to provide funds. Our failure to comply with the covenants in the credit facilities or fulfill the conditions to borrowings, or the failure of lenders to fund their lending commitments (whether due to insolvency, illiquidity or other reasons) in the amounts provided for under the terms of the facilities, would restrict our ability to access these credit facilities when needed and, consequently, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
We May Need to Fund Deficiencies in Our Closed Block; Assets Allocated to the Closed Block Benefit Only the Holders of Closed Block Policies
MLIC’s plan of reorganization, as amended, established in connection with its demutualization, required that we establish and operate an accounting mechanism, known as a closed block, to ensure that the reasonable dividend expectations of policyholders who own individual participating whole life insurance policies of MLIC in force at the time of the demutualization are met. The assets and liabilities designated to the closed block were $41.7 billion and $45.2 billion, respectively, at December 31, 2013. See Note 7 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. We allocated assets to the closed block in an amount that will produce cash flows which, together with anticipated revenue from the policies included in the closed block, are reasonably expected to be sufficient to support obligations and liabilities relating to these policies, including, but not limited to, provisions for the payment of claims and certain expenses and tax, and to provide for the continuation of the policyholder dividend scales in effect for 1999, if the experience underlying such scales continues, and for appropriate adjustments in such scales if the experience changes. The closed block assets, the cash flows generated by the closed block assets and the anticipated revenue from the policies included in the closed block may not be sufficient to provide for the benefits guaranteed under these policies. If they are not, we must fund the shortfall. Even if they are sufficient, we may choose, for competitive reasons, to support policyholder dividend payments with our general account funds.
The closed block assets, the cash flows generated by the closed block assets and the anticipated revenues from the policies in the closed block will benefit only the holders of the policies in the closed block. In addition, to the extent that these amounts are greater than the amounts estimated at the time the closed block was funded, dividends payable in respect of the policies included in the closed block may be greater than they would be in the absence of a closed block. Any excess earnings will be available for distribution over time only to closed block policyholders.

49

Table of Contents

A Downgrade or a Potential Downgrade in Our Financial Strength or Credit Ratings Could Result in a Loss of Business and Materially Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Financial strength ratings are published by various Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (“NRSRO”) and similar entities not formally recognized as NRSROs. They indicate the NRSROs’ opinion regarding an insurance company’s ability to meet contractholder and policyholder obligations, and are important to maintaining public confidence in our products and our competitive position. See “Business — Company Ratings” for additional information regarding our financial strength ratings.
Downgrades in our financial strength ratings could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations in many ways, including:
reducing new sales of insurance products, annuities and other investment products;
adversely affecting our relationships with our sales force and independent sales intermediaries;
materially increasing the number or amount of policy surrenders and withdrawals by contractholders and policyholders;
requiring us to post additional collateral under certain of our financing and derivative transactions;
requiring us to reduce prices for many of our products and services to remain competitive; and
adversely affecting our ability to obtain reinsurance at reasonable prices or at all.
 In addition to the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries, various NRSROs also publish credit ratings for MetLife, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries. Credit ratings indicate the NRSROs’ opinion regarding a debt issuer’s ability to meet the terms of debt obligations in a timely manner and are important factors in our overall funding profile and ability to access certain types of liquidity. Downgrades in our credit ratings could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations in many ways, including limiting our access to capital markets, potentially increasing the cost of debt, and requiring us to post collateral. See Note 9 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding the impact of a one-notch downgrade with respect to derivative transactions with credit rating downgrade triggers and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Liquidity and Capital Uses — Pledged Collateral” for information on the impact of a one-notch downgrade. See also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Capital — Rating Agencies.”
In view of the difficulties experienced by many financial institutions as a result of the financial crisis and ensuing global recession, including our competitors in the insurance industry, we believe it is possible that the NRSROs will continue to heighten the level of scrutiny that they apply to insurance companies, will continue to increase the frequency and scope of their credit reviews, will continue to request additional information from the companies that they rate, and may adjust upward the capital and other requirements employed in the models for maintenance of certain ratings levels. Our ratings could be downgraded at any time and without notice by any NRSRO.
Reinsurance May Not Be Available, Affordable or Adequate to Protect Us Against Losses
As part of our overall risk management strategy, we purchase reinsurance for certain risks underwritten by our various business segments. While reinsurance agreements generally bind the reinsurer for the life of the business reinsured at generally fixed pricing, market conditions beyond our control determine the availability and cost of the reinsurance protection for new business. In certain circumstances, the price of reinsurance for business already reinsured may also increase. For example, for some of our group businesses under which the policies and related reinsurance are subject to periodic (typically annual) renewal, prices may increase at any renewal. Also, for most of our traditional life reinsurance agreements, it is common for the reinsurer to have a right to increase reinsurance rates on in-force business if there is a systematic deterioration of mortality in the market as a whole. Any decrease in the amount of reinsurance will increase our risk of loss and any increase in the cost of reinsurance will, absent a decrease in the amount of reinsurance, reduce our earnings. Accordingly, we may be forced to incur additional expenses for reinsurance or may not be able to obtain sufficient reinsurance on acceptable terms, which could adversely affect our ability to write future business or result in the assumption of more risk with respect to those policies we issue. See “Business — Reinsurance Activity” and “— Risks Related to Our Business — If the Counterparties to Our Reinsurance or Indemnification Arrangements or to the Derivatives We Use to Hedge Our Business Risks Default or Fail to Perform, We May Be Exposed to Risks We Had Sought to Mitigate, Which Could Materially Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

50

Table of Contents

If the Counterparties to Our Reinsurance or Indemnification Arrangements or to the Derivatives We Use to Hedge Our Business Risks Default or Fail to Perform, We May Be Exposed to Risks We Had Sought to Mitigate, Which Could Materially Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations
We use reinsurance, indemnification and derivatives to mitigate our risks in various circumstances. In general, reinsurance, indemnification and derivatives do not relieve us of our direct liability to our policyholders, even when the reinsurer is liable to us. Accordingly, we bear credit risk with respect to our reinsurers, indemnitors, counterparties and central clearinghouses. A reinsurer’s, indemnitor’s, counterparty’s or central clearinghouse’s insolvency, inability or unwillingness to make payments under the terms of reinsurance agreements, indemnity agreements or derivatives agreements with us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, including our liquidity. See “Business — Reinsurance Activity.”
In addition, we use derivatives to hedge various business risks. We enter into a variety of derivatives, including options, forwards, interest rate, credit default and currency swaps with a number of counterparties on a bilateral basis for uncleared OTC derivatives and with clearing broker and central clearinghouses for OTC-cleared derivatives. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Derivatives.” If our counterparties, clearing brokers or central clearinghouses fail or refuse to honor their obligations under these derivatives, our hedges of the related risk will be ineffective. This risk is more pronounced in light of the stresses suffered by financial institutions over the past few years. Such failure could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Differences Between Actual Claims Experience and Underwriting and Reserving Assumptions May Adversely Affect Our Financial Results
Our earnings significantly depend upon the extent to which our actual claims experience is consistent with the assumptions we use in setting prices for our products and establishing liabilities for future policy benefits and claims. Such amounts are established based on estimates by actuaries of how much we will need to pay for future benefits and claims. To the extent that actual claims experience is less favorable than the underlying assumptions we used in establishing such liabilities, we could be required to increase our liabilities.
Due to the nature of the underlying risks and the high degree of uncertainty associated with the determination of liabilities for future policy benefits and claims, we cannot determine precisely the amounts which we will ultimately pay to settle our liabilities. Such amounts may vary from the estimated amounts, particularly when those payments may not occur until well into the future. We evaluate our liabilities periodically based on accounting requirements, which change from time to time, the assumptions used to establish the liabilities, as well as our actual experience. If the liabilities originally established for future benefit payments prove inadequate, we must increase them. Such increases could affect earnings negatively and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “Business — Policyholder Liabilities” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Policyholder Liabilities.”
Catastrophes May Adversely Impact Liabilities for Policyholder Claims and Reinsurance Availability
Our insurance operations are exposed to the risk of catastrophic events. The extent of losses from a catastrophe is a function of both the total amount of insured exposure in the area affected by the event and the severity of the event. Most catastrophes are restricted to small geographic areas; however, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and man-made catastrophes may produce significant damage or loss of life or property damage in larger areas, especially those that are heavily populated. Claims resulting from catastrophic events could cause substantial volatility in our financial results for any fiscal quarter or year and could materially reduce our profitability or harm our financial condition. In addition, catastrophic events could harm the financial condition of issuers of obligations we hold in our investment portfolio, resulting in impairments to these obligations, and the financial condition of our reinsurers, thereby increasing the probability of default on reinsurance recoveries. Large-scale catastrophes may also reduce the overall level of economic activity in affected countries which could hurt our business and the value of our investments or our ability to write new business. It is possible that increases in the value, caused by the effects of inflation or other factors, and geographic concentration of insured lives or property, could increase the severity of claims we receive from future catastrophic events.

51

Table of Contents

Our life insurance operations are exposed to the risk of catastrophic mortality, such as a pandemic or other event that causes a large number of deaths. Significant influenza pandemics have occurred three times in the last century; however, the likelihood, timing, and severity of a future pandemic cannot be predicted. A significant pandemic could have a major impact on the global economy or the economies of particular countries or regions, including travel, trade, tourism, the health system, food supply, consumption, overall economic output and, eventually, on the financial markets. In addition, a pandemic that affected our employees or the employees of our distributors or of other companies with which we do business could disrupt our business operations. The effectiveness of external parties, including governmental and non-governmental organizations, in combating the spread and severity of such a pandemic could have a material impact on the losses experienced by us. In our group insurance operations, a localized event that affects the workplace of one or more of our group insurance customers could cause a significant loss due to mortality or morbidity claims. These events could cause a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any period and, depending on their severity, could also materially and adversely affect our financial condition.
Our property & casualty businesses have experienced, and will likely in the future experience, catastrophe losses that may have a material adverse impact on their business, results of operations and financial condition. Although we make every effort to limit our exposure to catastrophic risks through volatility management and reinsurance programs, these efforts do not eliminate all risk. Catastrophes can be caused by various events, including hurricanes, windstorms, earthquakes, hail, tornadoes, explosions, severe winter weather (including snow, freezing water, ice storms and blizzards), fires and man-made events such as terrorist attacks. Historically, substantially all of our property & casualty catastrophe-related claims have related to homeowners coverages. However, catastrophes may also affect other property & casualty coverages. Due to their nature, we cannot predict the incidence, timing and severity of catastrophes. In addition, changing climate conditions, primarily rising global temperatures, may increase the frequency and severity of natural catastrophes such as hurricanes.
Areas of major hurricane exposure include coastal sections of the northeastern U.S. (including lower New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts), the south Atlantic states (including Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) and the Gulf Coast (including Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas). We also have some earthquake exposure, primarily along the New Madrid fault line in the central U.S. and in the Pacific Northwest.
Consistent with industry practice and accounting standards, we establish liabilities for claims arising from a catastrophe only after assessing the probable losses arising from the event. We cannot be certain that the liabilities we have established will be adequate to cover actual claim liabilities. From time to time, states have passed legislation that has the effect of limiting the ability of insurers to manage risk, such as legislation restricting an insurer’s ability to withdraw from catastrophe-prone areas. While we attempt to limit our exposure to acceptable levels, subject to restrictions imposed by insurance regulatory authorities, a catastrophic event or multiple catastrophic events could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Most of the jurisdictions in which our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are admitted to transact business require life and property & casualty insurers doing business within the jurisdiction to participate in guaranty associations. These associations are organized to pay contractual benefits owed pursuant to insurance policies issued by impaired, insolvent or failed insurers, who may become impaired, insolvent or fail, for example, following the occurrence of one or more catastrophic events. These associations levy assessments, up to prescribed limits, on all member insurers in a particular state on the basis of the proportionate share of the premiums written by member insurers in the lines of business in which the impaired, insolvent or failed insurer is engaged. In addition, certain states have government owned or controlled organizations providing life and property & casualty insurance to their citizens. The activities of such organizations could also place additional stress on the adequacy of guaranty fund assessments. Many of these organizations also have the power to levy assessments similar to those of the guaranty associations described above. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Guaranty Associations and Similar Arrangements” and “Business — International Regulation.”
While in the past five years, the aggregate assessments levied against MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries have not been material, it is possible that a large catastrophic event could render such guaranty funds inadequate and we may be called upon to contribute additional amounts, which may have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations in a particular period. We have established liabilities for guaranty fund assessments that we consider adequate, but additional liabilities may be necessary. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Our ability to manage this risk and the profitability of our property & casualty and life insurance businesses depends in part on our ability to obtain catastrophe reinsurance, which may not be available at commercially acceptable rates in the future. See “— Risks Related to Our Business — Reinsurance May Not Be Available, Affordable or Adequate to Protect Us Against Losses.”
 

52

Table of Contents

Our Statutory Life Insurance Reserve Financings May Be Subject to Cost Increases and New Financings May Be Subject to Limited Market Capacity
To support statutory reserves for several products, including, but not limited to, our level premium term life and universal life with secondary guarantees and MLIC’s closed block, we currently utilize capital markets solutions for financing a portion of our statutory reserve requirements. While we have financing facilities in place for certain previously written business, certain of these facilities are subject to cost increases upon the occurrence of specified ratings downgrades of MetLife or are subject to periodic repricing. Any resulting cost increases could negatively impact our financial results.
Future capacity for these statutory reserve funding structures in the marketplace is not guaranteed. Currently, the use of captive reinsurers is being studied by the Department of Financial Services and the NAIC. See “— Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth.” If the Department of Financial Services or other state insurance regulators determine to restrict the use of captive reinsurers for purposes of funding reserve requirements or capacity in the capital markets otherwise becomes unavailable for a prolonged period of time, thereby hindering our ability to obtain funding for these new structures, our ability to write additional business in a cost effective manner may be impacted.
Competitive Factors May Adversely Affect Our Market Share and Profitability
We believe competition amongst insurance companies is based on a number of factors, including service, product features, scale, price, financial strength, claims-paying ratings, credit ratings, e-business capabilities and name recognition. We compete globally with a large number of other insurance companies, as well as non-insurance financial services companies, such as banks, broker-dealers and asset managers, for individual consumers, employers and other group customers and agents and other distributors of insurance and investment products. Some of these companies offer a broader array of products, have more competitive pricing or, with respect to other insurance companies, have higher claims paying ability ratings. Some may also have greater financial resources with which to compete. In some circumstances, national banks that sell annuity products of life insurers may also have pre-existing customer bases for financial services products. Additionally, many of our group insurance products are underwritten annually. There is a risk that group purchasers may be able to obtain more favorable terms from competitors than they could renewing coverage with us. These competitive pressures may adversely affect the persistency of these and other products, as well as our ability to sell our products in the future. Furthermore, the investment management and securities brokerage businesses have relatively few barriers to entry and continually attract new entrants. See “Business — Competition.”
The insurance industry distributes many of its individual products through other financial institutions such as banks and broker-dealers. An increase in bank and broker-dealer consolidation activity may negatively impact the industry’s sales, and such consolidation could increase competition for access to distributors, result in greater distribution expenses and impair our ability to market insurance products to our current customer base or to expand our customer base. Consolidation of distributors and/or other industry changes may also increase the likelihood that distributors will try to renegotiate the terms of any existing selling agreements to terms less favorable to us.
In addition, since numerous aspects of our business are subject to regulation, legislative and other changes affecting the regulatory environment for our business may have, over time, the effect of supporting or burdening some aspects of the financial services industry more than others. This can affect our competitive position within the life insurance industry and within the broader financial services industry. See “Business — U.S. Regulation,” “Business — International Regulation,” “— Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth,” and “— Regulatory and Legal Risks — Changes in U.S. Federal and State Securities Laws and Regulations, and State Insurance Regulations Regarding Suitability of Annuity Product Sales, May Affect Our Operations and Our Profitability.”

53

Table of Contents

If Our Business Does Not Perform Well, We May Be Required to Recognize an Impairment of Our Goodwill or Other Long-Lived Assets or to Establish a Valuation Allowance Against the Deferred Income Tax Asset, Which Could Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations or Financial Condition
Goodwill is the excess of cost over the estimated fair value of net assets acquired. Goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if events or circumstances, such as adverse changes in the business climate, indicate that the fair value of the reporting unit may be less than the carrying value of that reporting unit. We perform our annual goodwill impairment testing during the third quarter of each year based upon data as of the close of the second quarter. Goodwill associated with a business acquisition is not tested for impairment during the year the business is acquired unless there is a significant identified impairment event. Impairment testing is performed using the fair value approach, which requires the use of estimates and judgment, at the “reporting unit” level. A reporting unit is the operating segment or a business one level below the operating segment under certain circumstances.
The estimated fair value of the reporting unit is impacted by the performance of the business, which may be adversely impacted by prolonged market declines. If it is determined that the goodwill has been impaired, we must write down the goodwill by the amount of the impairment, with a corresponding charge to net income. Such writedowns could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates — Goodwill” and Note 11 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Long-lived assets, including assets such as real estate, also require impairment testing. This testing is done to determine whether changes in circumstances indicate that we will be unable to recover the carrying amount of the asset group. Such writedowns could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.
Deferred income tax represents the tax effect of the differences between the book and tax basis of assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets are assessed periodically by management to determine if they are realizable. Factors in management’s determination include the performance of the business including the ability to generate future taxable income. If, based on available information, it is more likely than not that the deferred income tax asset will not be realized then a valuation allowance must be established with a corresponding charge to net income. Such charges could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. In addition, changes in the corporate tax rates could affect the value of our deferred tax assets and may require a write-off of some of those assets. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates — Income Taxes.”
If Our Business Does Not Perform Well or if Actual Experience Versus Estimates Used in Valuing and Amortizing DAC, Deferred Sales Inducements (“DSI”) and VOBA Vary Significantly, We May Be Required to Accelerate the Amortization and/or Impair the DAC, DSI and VOBA Which Could Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations or Financial Condition
We incur significant costs in connection with acquiring new and renewal insurance business. Costs that are related directly to the successful acquisition of new and renewal insurance business are deferred and referred to as DAC. Bonus amounts credited to certain policyholders, either immediately upon receiving a deposit or as excess interest credits for a period of time, are deferred and referred to as DSI. The recovery of DAC and DSI is dependent upon the future profitability of the related business. The amount of future profit or margin is dependent principally on investment returns in excess of the amounts credited to policyholders, mortality, morbidity, persistency, interest crediting rates, dividends paid to policyholders, expenses to administer the business, creditworthiness of reinsurance counterparties and certain economic variables, such as inflation. Of these factors, we anticipate that investment returns are most likely to impact the rate of amortization of such costs. The aforementioned factors enter into management’s estimates of gross profits or margins, which generally are used to amortize such costs.
If actual gross profits or margins are less than originally expected, then the amortization of such costs would be accelerated in the period the actual experience is known and would result in a charge to income. Significant or sustained equity market declines could result in an acceleration of amortization of DAC and DSI related to variable annuity and variable universal life contracts, resulting in a charge to income. Such adjustments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Industry Trends — Impact of Sustained Low Interest Rate Environment” for a discussion of how significantly lower spreads may cause us to accelerate amortization, thereby reducing net income in the affected reporting period.

54

Table of Contents

VOBA represents the excess of book value over the estimated fair value of acquired insurance, annuity, and investment-type contracts in-force at the acquisition date. The estimated fair value of the acquired liabilities is based on actuarially determined projections, by each block of business, of future policy and contract charges, premiums, mortality and morbidity, separate account performance, surrenders, operating expenses, investment returns, nonperformance risk adjustment and other factors. In the event actual experience on the purchased business varies from these projections, we will be required to revise our estimates, which results in changes to the amounts expensed in the reporting period in which the revisions are made and also could result in a charge to income. In addition, VOBA is amortized similarly to DAC and DSI. Accordingly, an acceleration of the amortization of VOBA would occur if actual gross profits or margins are less than originally expected. In such a case, the amortization of such costs would be accelerated in the period in which the actual experience is known and would result in a charge to net income. Furthermore, significant or sustained equity market declines could result in an acceleration of amortization of the VOBA related to variable annuity and variable universal life contracts, resulting in a charge to income. Such adjustments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates — Deferred Policy Acquisition Costs and Value of Business Acquired” and Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further consideration of DAC and VOBA.
Guarantees Within Certain of Our Products May Decrease Our Earnings, Increase the Volatility of Our Results, Result in Higher Risk Management Costs and Expose Us to Increased Counterparty Risk
Certain of our variable annuity products include guaranteed benefits, including guaranteed minimum death benefits, guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits, guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits, and guaranteed minimum income benefits. These guarantees are designed to protect policyholders against significant downturns in equity markets and interest rates. Any such periods of significant and sustained downturns in equity markets, increased equity volatility, or reduced interest rates could result in an increase in the valuation of our liabilities associated with those products. An increase in these liabilities would result in a decrease in our net income.
We use hedging and risk management strategies to mitigate the liability exposure and the volatility of net income associated with these liabilities. These strategies involve the use of reinsurance and derivatives, which may not be completely effective. For example, in the event that reinsurers, derivative counterparties or central clearinghouses are unable or unwilling to pay, we remain liable for the guaranteed benefits. See “— Risks Related to Our Business — If the Counterparties to Our Reinsurance or Indemnification Arrangements or to the Derivatives We Use to Hedge Our Business Risks Default or Fail to Perform, We May Be Exposed to Risks We Had Sought to Mitigate, Which Could Materially Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”
In addition, hedging instruments may not effectively offset the costs of guarantees or may otherwise be insufficient in relation to our obligations. Furthermore, we are subject to the risk that changes in policyholder behavior or mortality, combined with adverse market events, produce economic losses not addressed by the risk management techniques employed. These, individually or collectively, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, including net income, financial condition or liquidity. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition — Policyholder Liabilities — Variable Annuity Guarantees” and Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further consideration of the risks associated with guaranteed benefits.
Acquisition-Related Risks
We Could Face Difficulties, Unforeseen Liabilities, Asset Impairments or Rating Actions Arising from Business Acquisitions or Integrating and Managing Growth of Such Businesses, Dispositions of Businesses, or Legal Entity Reorganizations
We have engaged in dispositions and acquisitions of businesses in the past, and expect to continue to do so in the future. Such activity exposes us to a number of risks. For example, there could be unforeseen liabilities or asset impairments, including goodwill impairments, that arise in connection with the businesses that we may sell or the businesses that we may acquire in the future.
In addition, there may be liabilities or asset impairments that we fail, or are unable, to discover in the course of performing acquisition-related due diligence investigations. Furthermore, even for obligations and liabilities that we do discover during the due diligence process, neither the valuation adjustment nor the contractual protections we negotiate may be sufficient to fully protect us from losses. Although we generally have rights to indemnification for certain losses, our rights are limited by survival periods for bringing claims and limitations on the nature and amount of losses we may recover, and we cannot be certain that indemnification will be, among other things, collectible or sufficient in amount, scope or duration to fully offset any loss we may suffer. For example, we are indemnified under the stock purchase agreement dated as of March 7, 2010, as amended, by and among MetLife, Inc., AIG and AM Holdings, a subsidiary of AIG, for various tax matters, including U.S. federal income taxes attributable to periods during which the ALICO business was included in AIG’s consolidated federal income tax return. It is possible, however, that any such indemnification may not be fully collectible.

55

Table of Contents

Likewise, when we dispose of subsidiaries or operations, we may remain liable to the acquiror or to third parties for certain losses or costs arising from the divested business. We may also incur a loss on the disposition.
The use of our own funds as consideration in any acquisition would consume capital resources, which could affect our capital plan and render those funds unavailable for other corporate purposes. We also may not be able to raise sufficient funds to consummate an acquisition if, for example, we are unable to sell our securities or close related bridge credit facilities. Moreover, as a result of uncertainty and risks associated with potential acquisitions and dispositions of businesses, rating agencies may take certain actions with respect to the ratings assigned to MetLife, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries.
Our ability to achieve certain benefits we anticipate from any acquisitions of businesses will depend in large part upon our ability to successfully integrate such businesses in an efficient and effective manner. We may not be able to integrate such businesses smoothly or successfully, and the process may take longer than expected. The integration of operations and differences in operational culture may require the dedication of significant management resources, which may distract management’s attention from day-to-day business. If we are unable to successfully integrate the operations of such acquired businesses, we may be unable to realize the benefits we expect to achieve as a result of such acquisitions and our business and results of operations may be less than expected.
The success with which we are able to integrate acquired operations will depend on our ability to manage a variety of issues, including the following:
Loss of key personnel or higher than expected employee attrition rates could adversely affect the performance of the acquired business and our ability to integrate it successfully.
Customers of the acquired business may reduce, delay or defer decisions concerning their use of its products and services as a result of the acquisition or uncertainty related to the consummation of the acquisition, including, for example, potential unfamiliarity with the MetLife brand in regions where we did not have a market presence prior to the acquisition.
If the acquired business relies upon independent distributors to distribute its products, these distributors may not continue to generate the same volume of business for us after the acquisition. Independent distributors may reexamine the scope of their relationship with the acquired business or us as a result of the acquisition and decide to curtail or eliminate distribution of our products.
Integrating acquired operations with our existing operations may require us to coordinate geographically separated organizations, address possible differences in corporate culture and management philosophies, merge financial processes and risk and compliance procedures, combine separate information technology platforms and integrate operations that were previously closely tied to the former parent of the acquired business or other service providers.
In cases where we or an acquired business operates in certain markets through joint ventures, the acquisition may affect the continued success and prospects of the joint venture. Our ability to exercise management control or influence over these joint venture operations and our investment in them will depend on the continued cooperation between the joint venture participants and on the terms of the joint venture agreements, which allocate control among the joint venture participants. We may face financial or other exposure in the event that any of these joint venture partners fail to meet their obligations under the joint venture, encounter financial difficulty or elect to alter, modify or terminate the relationship.
We may incur significant costs in connection with any acquisition and the related integration. The costs and liabilities actually incurred in connection with an acquisition and subsequent integration process may exceed those anticipated.
The prospects of our business also may be materially and adversely affected if we are not able to manage the growth of any acquired business successfully. For example, the life insurance markets in many of the international markets in which we have grown through recent acquisitions have experienced significant growth in recent years. Management of growth in these markets to date has required significant management and operational resources and is likely to continue to do so. Future growth of our combined business will require, among other things, the continued development of adequate underwriting and claim handling capabilities and skills, sufficient capital base, increased marketing and sales activities, and the hiring and training of new personnel.
There can be no assurance that we will be successful in managing future growth of any acquired business. In particular, there may be difficulties in hiring and training sufficient numbers of customer service personnel and agents to keep pace with any future growth in the number of customers in our developing or developed markets. In addition, we may experience difficulties in upgrading, developing and expanding information technology systems quickly enough to accommodate any future growth. If we are unable to manage future growth, our prospects may be materially and adversely affected.

56

Table of Contents

We may also participate in joint ventures with other companies or government enterprises in various international markets, including joint ventures where we may have a lesser degree of control over the business operations, which may expose us to additional operational, financial, legal or compliance risks. We may be dependent on a joint venture counterparty for capital, product distribution, local market knowledge, or other resources. A joint venture may require an investment of considerable management, financial and operational resources to establish sufficient infrastructure such as underwriting, actuarial, risk management, compliance or other processes. If we are unable to effectively cooperate with joint venture counterparties, or any joint venture counterparty fails to meets its obligations under the joint venture arrangement, encounters financial difficulty, or elects to alter, modify or terminate the relationship, we may be unable to achieve our objectives and our results of operations may be negatively impacted.
In addition, we may reorganize or consolidate the legal entities through which we conduct business. For example, in the second quarter of 2013, MetLife, Inc. announced the Mergers. The Mergers are expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2014, subject to regulatory approvals. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition — Executive Summary.” The implementation of legal entity reorganizations is a complex undertaking and involves a number of risks similar to those that are present in the case of an acquisition. Many aspects of these transactions are subject to regulatory approvals from a number of different jurisdictions. We may not obtain needed regulatory approvals in the timeframe anticipated or at all, which could reduce or prevent us from realizing the anticipated benefits of these transactions. These transactions or the related regulatory approvals may entail modifications of certain aspects of our operations, the composition of certain of our investment portfolios, and/or the cost of our derivatives hedging activities, which could result in additional costs or reduce net investment income. We may also incur additional expenses in connection with planning and effectuating these mergers and related transactions. We may encounter delays or unforeseen problems in making changes to our information technology systems that are needed to reflect the mergers. Loss of key personnel could adversely affect our ability to carry out these transactions. In addition, these transactions may absorb significant attention from our management, which could reduce management’s focus on other aspects of our business. Any of these risks, if realized, could result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
The Settlement of Our Outstanding Common Equity Units Will Have a Dilutive Impact on MetLife, Inc.’s Stockholders
As part of the consideration paid for the ALICO Acquisition, MetLife, Inc. issued $3.0 billion aggregate stated amount of common equity units, which initially consist of (x) purchase contracts obligating the holder to purchase a variable number of shares of MetLife, Inc.’s common stock on each of three specified future settlement dates (the first settlement date was in October 2012, the second settlement date was in September 2013 and the third is expected to occur in October 2014, subject to deferral under certain circumstances) for a fixed amount per purchase contract (an aggregate of $1.0 billion on each settlement date) and (y) an interest in each of three series of debt securities of MetLife, Inc. On the first and second settlement dates, MetLife issued an aggregate of 50,911,911 shares. After settlement of the remaining purchase contracts, MetLife, Inc. will receive proceeds of $1 billion and issue between 22.8 million and 28.5 million shares of its common stock, subject to certain adjustments including as a result of the payment, if any, of dividends in excess of $0.185 per share during the second and/or third quarters of 2014, in addition to the proceeds received and shares issued on the first and second settlement dates in October 2012 and September 2013. As a result, more shares of common stock will be outstanding and each existing stockholder will own a smaller percentage of our common stock then outstanding. See Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

57

Table of Contents

Capital-Related Risks
We Have Been, and May Continue to be, Prevented from Repurchasing Our Stock and Paying Dividends at the Level We Wish as a Result of Regulatory Restrictions and Restrictions Under the Terms of Certain of Our Securities
The declaration and payment of dividends is subject to the discretion of our Board of Directors, and will depend on our financial condition, results of operations, cash requirements, future prospects, regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends by MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries and other factors deemed relevant by the Board. There is no requirement or assurance that we will declare and pay any dividends. In addition, payment of dividends on our common stock and our ability to repurchase our common stock have been subject to restrictions arising from our regulation as a bank holding company and may again be subject to restrictions arising from Federal Reserve regulation if we are designated a non-bank SIFI. In addition, our ability to pay dividends on our common stock and repurchase our common stock is subject to restrictions arising from the terms of our preferred stock, junior subordinated debentures and trust securities, so called “dividend stopper” provisions, in situations where we may be experiencing financial stress. For purposes of this discussion, “junior subordinated debentures” are deemed to include MetLife, Inc.’s Fixed-to-Floating Exchangeable Surplus Trust Securities, which are exchangeable for junior subordinated debentures, and which contain terms with the same substantive effects in this discussion as the terms of MetLife, Inc.’s junior subordinated debentures. In addition, our ability to pay dividends on our preferred stock and interest on our junior subordinated debentures are also restricted by the terms of those securities. 
Regulatory Restrictions
The Federal Reserve has proposed enhanced prudential standards, including heightened capital requirements and stress testing requirements, for non-bank SIFIs. It is possible that these requirements, or any others adopted, could restrict our ability to pay dividends and repurchase our common stock if we were designated a non-bank SIFI. In addition, MetLife, Inc. may not be able to pay dividends if it does not receive sufficient funds from its operating subsidiaries, which are themselves subject to separate regulatory restrictions on their ability to pay dividends. See “— As A Holding Company, MetLife, Inc. Depends on the Ability of Its Subsidiaries to Transfer Funds to It to Meet Its Obligations and Pay Dividends.”
“Dividend Stopper” Provisions in Our Preferred Stock and Junior Subordinated Debentures
Certain terms of our preferred stock and our junior subordinated debentures may prevent us from purchasing our common stock or paying dividends on our common stock in certain circumstances. Moreover, MetLife, Inc. is a party to certain replacement capital covenants which limit its ability to eliminate these restrictions through the repayment, redemption or purchase of preferred stock or junior subordinated debentures by requiring MetLife, subject to certain limitations, to receive cash proceeds during a specified period from the sale of specified replacement securities prior to any repayment, redemption or purchase. See Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of such covenants in effect with respect to junior subordinated debentures and Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of such restrictions with respect to the preferred stock.
Under our preferred stock and junior subordinated debentures, if we have not paid the full dividends on our preferred stock for a dividend period, we may not repurchase or pay dividends on our common stock for that period. If we have not paid in full the accrued interest through the most recent interest payment date on our junior subordinated debentures, we may not repurchase or pay dividends on our common stock or other capital stock (including the preferred stock), subject to certain exceptions.

58

Table of Contents

Trigger Events for the Restrictions on the Payment of Dividends on Our Preferred Stock and Restrictions on the Payment of Interest on Our Junior Subordinated Debentures
In addition, the preferred stock and the junior subordinated debentures contain provisions that would automatically suspend the payment of preferred stock dividends and junior subordinated debenture interest payments if MetLife, Inc. fails to meet certain tests (“Trigger Events”) at specified times, although in such cases MetLife would be permitted to make the payments if it were able to utilize the “Alternative Payment Mechanism” described below. As a result of the suspension of these payments, the “dividend stopper” provisions would come into effect. A “Trigger Event” would occur if the RBC ratio of MetLife’s largest U.S. insurance subsidiaries in the aggregate (as defined in the applicable instrument) were to be less than 175% of the company action level based on the subsidiaries’ prior year annual financial statements filed (generally around March 1) with state insurance commissioners. A “Trigger Event” would also occur if, at the end of a quarter, consolidated GAAP net income for the four-quarter period ending two quarters before such quarter-end is zero or less and adjusted shareholders’ equity (as defined in the applicable instrument), as of such quarter-end and the end of the quarter two quarters before such quarter-end, declined by 10% or more from its level 10 quarters before such quarter-end. The Trigger Event would continue until there is no longer a Trigger Event at the specified time, and adjusted shareholders’ equity is no longer 10% or more below its level at the beginning of each measurement period described above that is associated with a “Trigger Event.”
In order to use the “Alternative Payment Mechanism” referred to above to declare and pay preferred stock dividends or interest on junior subordinated debentures, MetLife must sell common stock during the 90 days preceding the dividend declaration date or sell common stock or certain kinds of warrants to purchase common stock during the 180 days prior to the interest payment date, make dividend or interest payments not in excess of the net proceeds of these sales, and satisfy other specified conditions.
Dividends on Our Preferred Stock Are Subject to Declaration by Our Board of Directors
In addition to the provisions described above that prevent us from declaring and paying dividends on our preferred stock, dividends on our preferred stock are subject to declaration each quarter by our Board of Directors. If our Board of Directors does not declare dividends on the preferred stock for any quarterly dividend period, the “dividend stopper” provisions in our preferred stock would prevent us from repurchasing or paying dividends on our common stock for that period.
Optional Deferral of Interest on the Junior Subordinated Debentures
The junior subordinated debentures provide that MetLife may, at its option and provided that certain conditions are met, defer payment of interest without giving rise to an event of default for periods of up to 10 years (although after five years MetLife, Inc. would be obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to sell equity securities to raise proceeds to pay the interest), with no limitation on the number of deferral periods that MetLife, Inc. may begin so long as all accrued and unpaid interest is paid with respect to prior deferral periods. If MetLife, Inc. were to elect to defer payments of interest, the “dividend stopper” provisions in the junior subordinated debentures would thus prevent MetLife, Inc. from repurchasing or paying dividends on its common stock or other capital stock (including the preferred stock) during the period of deferral, subject to exceptions.
See Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about these restrictions.
As a Holding Company, MetLife, Inc. Depends on the Ability of Its Subsidiaries to Transfer Funds to It to Meet Its Obligations and Pay Dividends
MetLife, Inc. is a holding company for its insurance and financial subsidiaries and does not have any significant operations of its own. Dividends from its subsidiaries and permitted payments to it under its tax sharing arrangements with its subsidiaries are its principal sources of cash to meet its obligations and to pay preferred and common stock dividends. If the cash MetLife, Inc. receives from its subsidiaries is insufficient for it to fund its debt service and other holding company obligations, MetLife, Inc. may be required to raise cash through the incurrence of debt, the issuance of additional equity or the sale of assets.
The payment of dividends and other distributions to MetLife, Inc. by its U.S. insurance subsidiaries is regulated by insurance laws and regulations. In general, dividends in excess of prescribed limits require insurance regulatory approval. In addition, insurance regulators may prohibit the payment of dividends or other payments by its insurance subsidiaries to MetLife, Inc. if they determine that the payment could be adverse to our policyholders or contractholders. The payment of dividends and other distributions by insurance companies is also influenced by business conditions and rating agency considerations. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Insurance Regulation” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — MetLife, Inc. — Liquidity and Capital Sources — Dividends from Subsidiaries.” See also “— Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth.”

59

Table of Contents

Any payment of interest, dividends, distributions, loans or advances by our foreign subsidiaries and branches to MetLife, Inc. could be subject to taxation or other restrictions on dividends or repatriation of earnings under applicable law, monetary transfer restrictions and foreign currency exchange regulations in the jurisdiction in which such foreign subsidiaries operate. See “Business — International Regulation” and “— Risks Related to Our Business — Our International Operations Face Political, Legal, Operational and Other Risks, Including Exposure to Local and Regional Economic Conditions, That Could Negatively Affect Those Operations or Our Profitability.”
Operational Risks
Our Risk Management Policies and Procedures May Leave Us Exposed to Unidentified or Unanticipated Risk, Which Could Negatively Affect Our Business
We have devoted significant resources to develop and periodically update our risk management policies and procedures to reflect ongoing review of our risks and expect to continue to do so in the future. Nonetheless, our policies and procedures may not be comprehensive and may not identify every risk to which we are exposed. Many of our methods for managing risk and exposures are based upon the use of observed historical market behavior or statistics based on historical models. As a result, these methods may not fully predict future exposures, which can be significantly greater than our historical measures indicate. Other risk management methods depend upon the evaluation of information regarding markets, clients, catastrophe occurrence or other matters that is publicly available or otherwise accessible to us. This information may not always be accurate, complete, up-to-date or properly evaluated. In addition, more extensive and perhaps different risk management policies and procedures might have to be implemented under pending regulations. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI” and “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”
The Continued Threat of Terrorism and Ongoing Military Actions May Adversely Affect the Value of Our Investment Portfolio and the Level of Claim Losses We Incur
The continued threat of terrorism, both within the U.S. and abroad, ongoing military and other actions and heightened security measures in response to these types of threats may cause significant volatility in global financial markets and result in loss of life, property damage, additional disruptions to commerce and reduced economic activity. The value of assets in our investment portfolio may be adversely affected by declines in the credit and equity markets and reduced economic activity caused by the continued threat of terrorism. Companies in which we maintain investments may suffer losses as a result of financial, commercial or economic disruptions and such disruptions might affect the ability of those companies to pay interest or principal on their securities or mortgage loans. Terrorist actions also could disrupt our operations centers in the U.S. or abroad and result in higher than anticipated claims under our insurance policies. See “— Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks — If Difficult Conditions in the Global Capital Markets and the Economy Generally Persist, They May Materially Adversely Affect Our Business and Results of Operations.”

60

Table of Contents

The Failure in Cyber- or Other Information Security Systems, as well as the Occurrence of Events Unanticipated in Our Disaster Recovery Systems and Management Continuity Planning Could Result in a Loss or Disclosure of Confidential Information, Damage to Our Reputation and Impairment of Our Ability to Conduct Business Effectively
Our business is highly dependent upon the effective operation of our computer systems. We rely on these systems throughout our business for a variety of functions, including processing claims and applications, providing information to customers and distributors, performing actuarial analyses and maintaining financial records. We also retain confidential and proprietary information on our computer systems and we rely on sophisticated technologies to maintain the security of that information. Our computer systems have been, and will likely continue to be, subject to computer viruses or other malicious codes, unauthorized access, cyberattacks or other computer-related penetrations. While, to date, MetLife has not experienced a material breach of cybersecurity, administrative and technical controls and other preventive actions we take to reduce the risk of cyber-incidents and protect our information technology may be insufficient to prevent physical and electronic break-ins, cyber-attacks or other security breaches to our computer systems.
In the event of a disaster such as a natural catastrophe, epidemic, industrial accident, blackout, computer virus, terrorist attack, cyberattack or war, unanticipated problems with our disaster recovery systems could have a material adverse impact on our ability to conduct business and on our results of operations and financial position, particularly if those problems affect our computer-based data processing, transmission, storage and retrieval systems and destroy valuable data. In addition, in the event that a significant number of our managers were unavailable following a disaster, our ability to effectively conduct business could be severely compromised. These interruptions also may interfere with our suppliers’ ability to provide goods and services and our employees’ ability to perform their job responsibilities.
The failure of our computer systems and/or our disaster recovery plans for any reason could cause significant interruptions in our operations and result in a failure to maintain the security, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data, including personal information relating to our customers. Such a failure could harm our reputation, subject us to regulatory sanctions and legal claims, lead to a loss of customers and revenues and otherwise adversely affect our business and financial results. While we maintain cyber liability insurance that provides both third-party liability and first party liability coverages, our insurance may not be sufficient to protect us against all losses. MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries maintain a primary cybersecurity and privacy liability insurance policy with a limit of $15 million, and have additional coverage for cybersecurity and privacy liability available under blended professional liability excess coverage policies with a total limit of $185 million.
Our Associates May Take Excessive Risks Which Could Negatively Affect Our Financial Condition and Business
As an insurance enterprise, we are in the business of accepting certain risks. The associates who conduct our business, including executive officers and other members of management, sales managers, investment professionals, product managers, sales agents, and other associates, do so in part by making decisions and choices that involve exposing us to risk. These include decisions such as setting underwriting guidelines and standards, product design and pricing, determining what assets to purchase for investment and when to sell them, which business opportunities to pursue, and other decisions. We endeavor, in the design and implementation of our compensation programs and practices, to avoid giving our associates incentives to take excessive risks; however, associates may take such risks regardless of the structure of our compensation programs and practices. Similarly, although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor associates’ business decisions and prevent us from taking excessive risks, and to prevent employee misconduct, these controls and procedures may not be effective. If our associates take excessive risks, the impact of those risks could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and business operations.
General Risks
MetLife, Inc.’s Board of Directors May Influence the Outcome of Stockholder Votes on Many Matters Due to the Voting Provisions of the MetLife Policyholder Trust
Under the Plan, we established the MetLife Policyholder Trust to hold the shares of MetLife, Inc. common stock allocated to eligible policyholders not receiving cash or policy credits under the plan. As of February 19, 2014, the Trust held 189,785,282 shares, or 16.9%, of the outstanding shares of MetLife, Inc. common stock. Because of voting provisions of the Trust and the number of shares held by it, the Trust may affect the outcome of matters brought to a stockholder vote. Except on votes regarding certain fundamental corporate actions described below, the trustee will vote all of the shares of common stock held in the Trust in accordance with the recommendations given by MetLife, Inc.’s Board of Directors to its stockholders or, if the Board gives no such recommendations, as directed by the Board. As a result of the voting provisions of the Trust, the Board of Directors may be able to influence the outcome of votes on matters submitted to a vote of stockholders, excluding certain fundamental corporate actions, so long as the Trust holds a substantial number of shares of common stock.

61

Table of Contents

If the vote relates to fundamental corporate actions specified in the Trust, the trustee will solicit instructions from the Trust beneficiaries and vote all shares held in the Trust in proportion to the instructions it receives. These actions include:
an election or removal of directors in which a stockholder has properly nominated one or more candidates in opposition to a nominee or nominees of MetLife, Inc.’s Board of Directors or a vote on a stockholder’s proposal to oppose a Board nominee for director, remove a director for cause or fill a vacancy caused by the removal of a director by stockholders, subject to certain conditions;
a merger or consolidation, a sale, lease or exchange of all or substantially all of the assets, or a recapitalization or dissolution, of MetLife, Inc., in each case requiring a vote of stockholders under applicable Delaware law;
any transaction that would result in an exchange or conversion of shares of common stock held by the Trust for cash, securities or other property; and
any proposal requiring MetLife, Inc.’s Board of Directors to amend or redeem the rights under MetLife, Inc.’s stockholder rights plan, other than a proposal with respect to which we have received advice of nationally-recognized legal counsel to the effect that the proposal is not a proper subject for stockholder action under Delaware law. MetLife, Inc. does not currently have a stockholder rights plan.
If a vote concerns any of these fundamental corporate actions, the trustee will vote all of the shares of common stock held by the Trust in proportion to the instructions it received, which will give disproportionate weight to the instructions actually given by Trust beneficiaries.
The MetLife Policyholder Trust Agreement provides that we may terminate the Trust once the percentage of outstanding shares held in the Trust falls to 25%. The winding up of the Trust must commence 90 days after we provide the trustee with notice that the percentage of outstanding shares held in the Trust is 10% or less. In connection with any termination of the Trust, all of the shares of common stock then held in the Trust will need to be distributed to the respective Trust beneficiaries, unless we offer to purchase all or a portion of such Trust shares. In connection with such a distribution, we may incur costs related to an increase in the number of shareholders, which may include increased mailing and proxy solicitation expenses.
Changes in Accounting Standards Issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or Other Standard-Setting Bodies May Adversely Affect Our Financial Statements
Our financial statements are subject to the application of GAAP, which is periodically revised and/or expanded. Accordingly, from time to time we are required to adopt new or revised accounting standards issued by recognized authoritative bodies, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”). The impact of accounting pronouncements that have been issued but not yet implemented is disclosed in our reports filed with the SEC. See Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. An assessment of proposed standards, including standards on insurance contracts and accounting for financial instruments, is not provided as such proposals are subject to change through the exposure process and official positions of the FASB are determined only after extensive due process and deliberations. Therefore, the effects on our financial statements cannot be meaningfully assessed. The required adoption of future accounting standards could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, including on our net income.
Changes in Our Assumptions Regarding the Discount Rate, Expected Rate of Return and Expected Increase in Compensation Used for Our Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans May Result in Increased Expenses and Reduce Our Profitability
We determine our pension and other postretirement benefit plan costs based on our best estimates of future plan experience. These assumptions are reviewed regularly and include discount rates, expected rates of return on plan assets, expected increases in compensation levels and expected medical inflation. Changes in these assumptions may result in increased expenses and reduce our profitability. See Note 18 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for details on how changes in these assumptions would affect plan costs.
We May Not be Able to Protect Our Intellectual Property and May be Subject to Infringement Claims
We rely on a combination of contractual rights with third parties and copyright, trademark, patent and trade secret laws to establish and protect our intellectual property. Although we endeavor to protect our rights, third parties may infringe or misappropriate our intellectual property. We may have to litigate to enforce and protect our copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets and know-how or to determine their scope, validity or enforceability. This would represent a diversion of resources that may be significant and our efforts may not prove successful. The inability to secure or protect our intellectual property assets could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to compete with other insurers and financial institutions.

62

Table of Contents

In addition, we may be subject to claims by third parties for (i) patent, trademark or copyright infringement, (ii) breach of patent, trademark or copyright license usage rights, or (iii) misappropriation of trade secrets. Any such claims or resulting litigation could result in significant expense and liability for damages. If we were found to have infringed or misappropriated a third-party patent or other intellectual property right, we could in some circumstances be enjoined from providing certain products or services to our customers or from utilizing and benefiting from certain patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets or licenses. Alternatively, we could be required to enter into costly licensing arrangements with third parties or implement a costly alternative. Any of these scenarios could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
We May Be Unable to Attract and Retain Sales Representatives for Our Products
We must attract and retain productive sales representatives to sell our insurance, annuities and investment products. Insurers compete for sales representatives with demonstrated ability. In addition, there is competition for representatives with other types of financial services firms, such as independent broker-dealers.
We compete with other financial services companies for sales representatives primarily on the basis of product features, support services, compensation and financial position. We continue to undertake several initiatives to enhance the efficiency and production of our existing sales force. These initiatives may not succeed in attracting and retaining new agents. Sales of individual insurance, annuities and investment products and our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected if we are unsuccessful in attracting and retaining highly qualified and productive agents. See “Business — Competition.”
State Laws, Federal Laws, Our Certificate of Incorporation and Our By-Laws May Delay, Deter or Prevent Takeovers and Business Combinations that Stockholders Might Consider in Their Best Interests
State laws, federal laws and our certificate of incorporation and by-laws may delay, deter or prevent a takeover attempt that stockholders might consider in their best interests. For instance, such restrictions may prevent stockholders from receiving the benefit from any premium over the market price of MetLife, Inc.’s common stock offered by a bidder in a takeover context. Even in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of these provisions may adversely affect the prevailing market price of MetLife, Inc.’s common stock if they are viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.
Any person seeking to acquire a controlling interest in us would face various regulatory obstacles, including:
applicable state insurance laws and regulations may delay or impede a business combination involving us by prohibiting an entity from acquiring control (generally presumed to exist at direct or indirect ownership of 10% or more of voting stock) of an insurance company domiciled in the United States without the prior approval of the domestic insurance regulator. Many foreign jurisdictions in which we operate have similar regulatory approval requirements.
Dodd-Frank provisions that could restrict or impede consolidations, mergers and acquisitions by systemically significant firms, which could apply to us if we are designated as a non-bank SIFI. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI — Enhanced Prudential Standards for Non-Bank SIFIs.”
Provisions of the Investment Company Act that require approval by the contract owners of our variable contracts in order to effectuate a change of control of any affiliated investment adviser to a mutual fund underlying our variable contracts.
FINRA approval requirements for a change of control of any FINRA registered broker-dealer that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
Provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law may affect the ability of an “interested stockholder” (the owner of 15% or more of the outstanding voting stock of a corporation) to engage in certain business combinations for a period of three years following the time that the stockholder becomes an “interested stockholder.”
In addition, MetLife, Inc.’s certificate of incorporation and by-laws also contain provisions that may delay, deter or prevent a takeover attempt that stockholders might consider in their best interests or may otherwise adversely affect prevailing market prices for MetLife, Inc.’s common stock. These provisions include: a prohibition on the calling of special meetings by stockholders; advance notice procedures for the nomination of candidates to the Board of Directors and stockholder proposals to be considered at stockholder meetings; and supermajority voting requirements for the amendment of certain provisions of the certificate of incorporation and by-laws.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
MetLife has no unresolved comments from the SEC staff regarding its periodic or current reports under the Exchange Act.

63

Table of Contents

Item 2. Properties
We lease 410,000 rentable square feet on 12 floors in an office building in Manhattan, New York, which is occupied by all of the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other. The term of that lease commenced during 2008 and continues for 21 years. In August 2009, we subleased 32,000 rentable square feet of that space to a subtenant, which has met our standards of review with respect to creditworthiness. We moved certain operations from our Long Island City, New York facility, to the Manhattan space in late 2008, but continue to maintain an on-going presence in Long Island City. Our lease in Long Island City covers 686,000 rentable square feet, which is occupied by Corporate & Other, under a long-term lease arrangement. With our occupancy and the subtenants we have secured, we are fully subscribed at the Long Island City location.
We lease 398,000 rentable square feet on 16 floors in Charlotte, North Carolina which is occupied by the Retail segment, as well as Corporate & Other. The term of that lease commenced April 1, 2013 and continues for 13.5 years. We have entered into a lease agreement to occupy 427,000 rentable square feet in two buildings in Raleigh, North Carolina, which will be occupied by Global Technology & Operations, which supports all of the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other. The anticipated lease commencement date is March 1, 2015, which is the anticipated construction completion date for the buildings. The lease will continue for 15 years.
Our 200 Park Avenue property, which houses the Company’s boardroom, is occupied by the Americas and Corporate & Other. We have retained rights to existing signage and are leasing space for associates in the property for 20 years with optional renewal periods through 2205.
We continue to own 15 other buildings in the U.S. that we use in the operation of our business. These buildings contain 3.7 million rentable square feet and are located in the following states: Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Our computer center in Rensselaer, New York is not owned in fee but rather is occupied pursuant to a long-term ground lease. We lease space in 350 other locations throughout the U.S., and these leased facilities consist of 6.5 million rentable square feet. Approximately 82% of these leases are occupied as sales offices for the Company’s U.S. business operations. The balance of space is utilized for corporate functions supporting business activities. We also own 65 properties outside the U.S., including 5 significant properties, as well as smaller facilities and condominium units. We lease 1,130 sites in various locations outside the U.S. We believe that these properties are suitable and adequate for our current and anticipated business operations.
We arrange for property & casualty coverage on our properties, taking into consideration our risk exposures and the cost and availability of commercial coverages, including deductible loss levels. In connection with the renewal of those coverages, we have arranged $700 million of property insurance, including coverage for terrorism, on our real estate portfolio through May 1, 2014, its renewal date.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.

64

Table of Contents

Part II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Issuer Common Equity
MetLife, Inc.’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share, began trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “MET” on April 5, 2000.
The following table presents high and low closing prices for the common stock on the NYSE for the periods indicated:
 
2013
 
1st Quarter
 
2nd Quarter
 
3rd Quarter
 
4th Quarter
Common Stock Price
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
High
$
40.20

 
$
46.10

 
$
51.47

 
$
54.02

Low
$
34.64

 
$
35.53

 
$
45.85

 
$
46.38

 
2012
 
1st Quarter
 
2nd Quarter
 
3rd Quarter
 
4th Quarter
Common Stock Price
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
High
$
39.46

 
$
38.00

 
$
36.25

 
$
37.11

Low
$
32.04

 
$
27.82

 
$
28.64

 
$
30.91

At February 19, 2014, there were 86,359 stockholders of record of common stock.
The table below presents common stock dividend declaration, record and payment dates, as well as per share and aggregate dividend amounts, for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dividend
Declaration Date
 
Record Date
 
Payment Date
 
Per Share
 
Aggregate
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
(In millions)
October 22, 2013 (1)
 
November 8, 2013
 
December 13, 2013
 
$
0.275

 
$
311

June 25, 2013 (1)
 
August 9, 2013
 
September 13, 2013
 
$
0.275

 
$
303

April 23, 2013 (1)
 
May 9, 2013
 
June 13, 2013
 
$
0.275

 
$
302

January 4, 2013 (1)
 
February 6, 2013
 
March 13, 2013
 
$
0.185

 
$
203










$
1,119

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 23, 2012 (2)
 
November 9, 2012
 
December 14, 2012
 
$
0.740

 
$
811

______________

(1)
Quarterly dividend.
(2)
Annual dividend.

65

Table of Contents

The declaration and payment of dividends is subject to the discretion of our Board of Directors, and will depend on MetLife, Inc.’s financial condition, results of operations, cash requirements, future prospects, regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends by MetLife, Inc.’s insurance subsidiaries and other factors deemed relevant by the Board. The payment of dividends and other distributions by MetLife, Inc. to its security holders may be subject to approval of the Federal Reserve if, in the future, MetLife, Inc. is designated as a non-bank SIFI. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Potential Regulation as a Non-Bank SIFI.” See also Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding MetLife, Inc.’s de-registration as a bank holding company. The payment of dividends is also subject to restrictions under the terms of our preferred stock and junior subordinated debentures in the event we are experiencing financial stress. See “Risk Factors — Capital-Related Risks — We Have Been, and May Continue to be, Prevented from Repurchasing Our Stock and Paying Dividends at the Level We Wish as a Result of Regulatory Restrictions and Restrictions Under the Terms of Certain of Our Securities” and Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. See also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Liquidity and Capital Uses — Dividends” and Note 23 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information regarding preferred and common stock dividends.
See Item 12 for information about our equity compensation plans.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Purchases of common stock made by or on behalf of MetLife, Inc. or its affiliates during the quarter ended December 31, 2013 are set forth below:
Period
 
(a) Total Number of Shares Purchased (1)
 
(b) Average Price Paid per Share
 
(c) Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs
 
(d) Maximum Number(or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs (2)
October 1 - October 31, 2013
 
4,900

 
$
49.40

 

 
$
1,260,735,127

November 1 - November 30, 2013
 

 
$

 

 
$
1,260,735,127

December 1 - December 31, 2013
 
30

 
$
51.27

 

 
$
1,260,735,127

______________
(1)
During the periods October 1 through October 31, 2013 and December 1 through December 31, 2013, separate account and other affiliates of MetLife, Inc. purchased 4,900 shares and 30 shares, respectively, of common stock on the open market in nondiscretionary transactions to rebalance index funds. Except as disclosed above, there were no shares of common stock which were repurchased by the Company.
(2)
At December 31, 2013, MetLife, Inc. had $1.3 billion remaining under its common stock repurchase program authorizations. In April 2008, MetLife, Inc.’s Board of Directors authorized an additional $1.0 billion common stock repurchase program, which will begin after the completion of the January 2008 $1.0 billion common stock repurchase program, of which $261 million remained outstanding at December 31, 2013. Under these authorizations, MetLife, Inc. may purchase its common stock from the MetLife Policyholder Trust, in the open market (including pursuant to the terms of a pre-set trading plan meeting the requirements of Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and in privately negotiated transactions. Any future common stock repurchases will be dependent upon several factors, including our capital position, liquidity, financial strength and credit ratings, general market conditions, the market price of MetLife, Inc.’s common stock compared to management’s assessment of the stock’s underlying value and applicable regulatory approvals, as well as other legal and accounting factors. See “Risk Factors — Capital-Related Risks — We Have Been, and May Continue to be, Prevented from Repurchasing Our Stock and Paying Dividends at the Level We Wish as a Result of Regulatory Restrictions and Restrictions Under the Terms of Certain of Our Securities” and Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

66

Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The following selected financial data has been derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements. The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, and the balance sheet data at December 31, 2013 and 2012 have been derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein. The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the balance sheet data at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 have been derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements not included herein. The selected financial data set forth below should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere herein.

67

Table of Contents

 
Years Ended December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
2010
 
2009
 
(In millions, except per share data)
Statement of Operations Data (1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Revenues
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Premiums
$
37,674

 
$
37,975

 
$
36,361

 
$
27,071

 
$
26,157

Universal life and investment-type product policy fees
9,451

 
8,556

 
7,806

 
6,028

 
5,197

Net investment income
22,232

 
21,984

 
19,585

 
17,493

 
14,726

Other revenues
1,920

 
1,906

 
2,532

 
2,328

 
2,329

Net investment gains (losses)
161

 
(352
)
 
(867
)
 
(408
)
 
(2,901
)
Net derivative gains (losses)
(3,239
)
 
(1,919
)
 
4,824

 
(265
)
 
(4,866
)
Total revenues
68,199

 
68,150

 
70,241

 
52,247

 
40,642

Expenses
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policyholder benefits and claims
38,107

 
37,987

 
35,471

 
29,187

 
28,005

Interest credited to policyholder account balances
8,179

 
7,729

 
5,603

 
4,919

 
4,845

Policyholder dividends
1,259

 
1,369

 
1,446

 
1,485

 
1,649

Goodwill impairment

 
1,868

 

 

 

Other expenses
16,602

 
17,755

 
18,537

 
12,927

 
10,761

Total expenses
64,147

 
66,708

 
61,057

 
48,518

 
45,260

Income (loss) from continuing operations before provision for income tax
4,052

 
1,442

 
9,184

 
3,729

 
(4,618
)
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)
661

 
128

 
2,793

 
1,110

 
(2,107
)
Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax
3,391

 
1,314

 
6,391

 
2,619

 
(2,511
)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income tax
2

 
48

 
24

 
44

 
64

Net income (loss)
3,393

 
1,362

 
6,415

 
2,663

 
(2,447
)
Less: Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests
25

 
38

 
(8
)
 
(4
)
 
(36
)
Net income (loss) attributable to MetLife, Inc.
3,368

 
1,324

 
6,423

 
2,667

 
(2,411
)
Less: Preferred stock dividends
122

 
122

 
122

 
122

 
122

 Preferred stock redemption premium

 

 
146

 

 

Net income (loss) available to MetLife, Inc.’s common shareholders
$
3,246

 
$
1,202

 
$
6,155

 
$
2,545

 
$
(2,533
)
EPS Data (1), (2)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations available to MetLife, Inc.’s common shareholders per common share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
$
2.94

 
$
1.08

 
$
5.79

 
$
2.83

 
$
(3.17
)
Diluted
$
2.91

 
$
1.08

 
$
5.74

 
$
2.81

 
$
(3.17
)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations per common share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
$

 
$
0.04

 
$
0.02

 
$
0.05

 
$
0.08

Diluted
$

 
$
0.04

 
$
0.02

 
$
0.05

 
$
0.08

Net income (loss) available to MetLife, Inc.’s common shareholders per common share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
$
2.94

 
$
1.12

 
$
5.81

 
$
2.88

 
$
(3.09
)
Diluted
$
2.91

 
$
1.12

 
$
5.76

 
$
2.86

 
$
(3.09
)
Cash dividends declared per common share
$
1.01

 
$
0.74

 
$
0.74

 
$
0.74

 
$
0.74


68

Table of Contents

 
December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
2010
 
2009
 
(In millions)
Balance Sheet Data (1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Separate account assets (3)
$
317,201

 
$
235,393

 
$
203,023

 
$
183,138

 
$
148,854

Total assets (3)
$
885,296

 
$
836,781

 
$
796,226

 
$
728,249

 
$
537,531

Policyholder liabilities and other policy-related balances (3), (4)
$
418,487

 
$
438,191

 
$
421,267

 
$
399,135

 
$
281,495

Short-term debt
$
175

 
$
100

 
$
686

 
$
306

 
$
912

Long-term debt (3)
$
18,653

 
$
19,062

 
$
23,692

 
$
27,586

 
$
13,220

Collateral financing arrangements
$
4,196

 
$
4,196

 
$
4,647

 
$
5,297

 
$
5,297

Junior subordinated debt securities
$
3,193

 
$
3,192

 
$
3,192

 
$
3,191

 
$
3,191

Separate account liabilities (3)
$
317,201

 
$
235,393

 
$
203,023

 
$
183,138

 
$
148,854

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
$
5,104

 
$
11,397

 
$
6,083

 
$
1,145

 
$
(3,049
)
Total MetLife, Inc.’s stockholders’ equity
$
61,553

 
$
64,453

 
$
57,519

 
$
46,853

 
$
31,336

Noncontrolling interests
$
543

 
$
384

 
$
370

 
$
365

 
$
371

 
Years Ended December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
2010
 
2009
Other Data (1), (5)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Return on MetLife, Inc.’s common equity
5.4
%
 
2.0
%
 
12.2
%
 
6.9
%
 
(9.9
)%
Return on MetLife, Inc.’s common equity, excluding accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
6.2
%
 
2.4
%
 
13.2
%
 
7.0
%
 
(7.3
)%
_____________
(1)
On November 1, 2010, MetLife, Inc. acquired ALICO. Results of such acquisition are reflected in the selected financial data since the acquisition date. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
(2)
For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2010 all shares related to the assumed issuance of shares in settlement of the applicable purchase contracts have been excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per common share, as these assumed shares are anti-dilutive. For the year ended December 31, 2009, shares related to the assumed exercise or issuance of stock-based awards have been excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per common share, as these assumed shares would be anti-dilutive.
(3)
Amounts relating to variable interest entities are as follows at:
 
December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
(In millions)
General account assets
$
7,525

 
$
6,692

 
$
7,273

Separate account assets
$
1,033

 
$

 
$

Policyholder liabilities and other policy-related balances
$
695

 
$

 
$

Long-term debt
$
1,868

 
$
2,527

 
$
3,068

Separate account liabilities
$
1,033

 
$

 
$

 
(4)
Policyholder liabilities and other policy-related balances include future policy benefits, policyholder account balances, other policy-related balances, policyholder dividends payable and the policyholder dividend obligation.
(5)
Return on MetLife, Inc.’s common equity is defined as net income (loss) available to MetLife, Inc.’s common shareholders divided by MetLife, Inc.’s average common stockholders’ equity.


69

Table of Contents

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Index to Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
 
Page

70

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements and Other Financial Information
For purposes of this discussion, “MetLife,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MetLife, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1999, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Following this summary is a discussion addressing the consolidated results of operations and financial condition of the Company for the periods indicated. This discussion should be read in conjunction with “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements,” “Risk Factors,” “Selected Financial Data,” “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” and the Company’s consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein.
This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations may contain or incorporate by reference information that includes or is based upon forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe” and other words and terms of similar meaning, or are tied to future periods, in connection with a discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, prospective services or products, future performance or results of current and anticipated services or products, sales efforts, expenses, the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings, trends in operations and financial results. Any or all forward-looking statements may turn out to be wrong. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. See “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”
This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations includes references to our performance measures, operating earnings and operating earnings available to common shareholders, that are not based on accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Operating earnings is the measure of segment profit or loss we use to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Consistent with GAAP guidance for segment reporting, operating earnings is our measure of segment performance. Operating earnings is also a measure by which senior management’s and many other employees’ performance is evaluated for the purposes of determining their compensation under applicable compensation plans. See “— Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for definitions of such measures.
Executive Summary
MetLife is a leading global provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, property & casualty insurance, and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance and retirement & savings products and services to corporations and other institutions.
MetLife is organized into six segments, reflecting three broad geographic regions: Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits; Corporate Benefit Funding; and Latin America (collectively, the “Americas”); Asia; and Europe, the Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”). In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other, which includes MetLife Home Loans LLC (“MLHL”), the surviving, non-bank entity of the merger of MetLife Bank, National Association (“MetLife Bank”) with and into MLHL. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding MetLife Bank’s exit from substantially all of its businesses (the “MetLife Bank Divestiture”) and other business activities. See “Business” for further information on the Company’s segments and Corporate & Other.
On October 1, 2013, MetLife, Inc. completed its previously announced acquisition of Administradora de Fondos de Pensiones Provida S.A. (“ProVida”), the largest private pension fund administrator in Chile based on assets under management and number of pension fund contributors. The acquisition of ProVida supports the Company's growth strategy in emerging markets and further strengthens the Company's overall position in Chile. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the acquisition of ProVida.


71

Table of Contents

In the second quarter of 2013, MetLife, Inc. announced its plans to merge three U.S.-based life insurance companies and an offshore reinsurance subsidiary to create one larger U.S.-based and U.S.-regulated life insurance company (the “Mergers”). The companies to be merged are MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut (“MICC”), MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company (“MLI-USA”) and MetLife Investors Insurance Company (“MLIIC”), each a U.S. insurance company that issues variable annuity products in addition to other products, and Exeter Reassurance Company, Ltd. (“Exeter”), a reinsurance company that mainly reinsures guarantees associated with variable annuity products. MICC, which is expected to be renamed and domiciled in Delaware, will be the surviving entity. Exeter, formerly a Cayman Islands company, was re-domesticated to Delaware in October 2013, resulting in a redistribution of assets held in trust and the cancellation of outstanding letters of credit which were no longer required. See “— Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Liquidity and Capital Sources — Credit and Committed Facilities.” Effective January 1, 2014, following receipt of New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department of Financial Services”) approval, MICC withdrew its license to issue insurance policies and annuity contracts in New York. Also effective January 1, 2014, MICC reinsured with an affiliate all existing New York insurance policies and annuity contracts that include a separate account feature; on December 31, 2013, MICC deposited investments with an estimated fair market value of $6.3 billion into a custodial account, which became restricted on January 1, 2014, to secure MICC’s remaining New York policyholder liabilities not covered by such reinsurance. The Mergers are expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2014, subject to regulatory approvals.
The Mergers (i) may mitigate to some degree the impact of any restrictions on the use of captive reinsurers that could be adopted by the Department of Financial Services or other state insurance regulators by reducing our exposure to and use of captive reinsurers; (ii) will alleviate the need to use holding company cash to fund derivative collateral requirements; (iii) will increase transparency relative to our capital allocation and variable annuity risk management; and (iv) may impact the aggregate amount of dividends permitted to be paid without insurance regulatory approval. See “Business — U.S. Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Insurance Regulatory Examinations,” “— Liquidity and Capital Resources — MetLife, Inc. — Liquidity and Capital Sources — Dividends from Subsidiaries” and Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the impact of these Mergers and see “— Liquidity and Capital Resources — The Company — Capital — Affiliated Captive Reinsurance Transactions” for information on our use of captive reinsurers. See also “Risk Factors — Acquisition-Related Risks— We Could Face Difficulties, Unforeseen Liabilities, Asset Impairments or Rating Actions Arising from Business Acquisitions or Integrating and Managing Growth of Such Businesses, Dispositions of Businesses, or Legal Entity Reorganizations” for information regarding the potential impact on our operations if the Mergers or related regulatory approvals are prevented or delayed.
Management continues to evaluate the Company’s segment performance and allocated resources and may adjust related measurements in the future to better reflect segment profitability. For example, starting in the first quarter of 2013, the Latin America segment includes U.S. sponsored direct business, comprised of group and individual products sold through sponsoring organizations and affinity groups. Products included are life, dental, group short- and long-term disability, accidental death & dismemberment (“AD&D”) coverages, property & casualty and other accident and health coverages, as well as non-insurance products such as identity protection. See Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the Company’s segments and Corporate & Other.

72

Table of Contents

On November 1, 2010, MetLife, Inc. completed the acquisition of American Life Insurance Company (“American Life”) from AM Holdings LLC (formerly known as ALICO Holdings LLC), a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”), and Delaware American Life Insurance Company (“DelAm”) from AIG (American Life, together with DelAm, collectively, “ALICO”) (the “ALICO Acquisition”). The assets, liabilities and operating results relating to the ALICO Acquisition are included in the Latin America, Asia and EMEA segments. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Certain international subsidiaries have a fiscal year-end of November 30. Accordingly, the Company’s consolidated financial statements reflect the assets and liabilities of such subsidiaries as of November 30, 2013 and 2012 and the operating results of such subsidiaries for the years ended November 30, 2013, 2012 and 2011.
We continue to experience an increase in sales in several of our businesses; however, global economic conditions continue to negatively impact the demand for certain of our products. Also, as a result of our continued focus on pricing discipline and risk management in this challenging economic environment, we adjusted certain product features of our variable annuity products which resulted in a decrease in sales of such products. An increase in average value of our separate accounts from both favorable equity market performance and positive net flows produced higher asset-based fee revenue. The sustained low interest rate environment reduced investment yields, but also reduced crediting rates. In addition, changes in long-term interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates resulted in an increase in derivative losses. Finally, the prior period included a goodwill impairment charge.
 
Years Ended December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
(In millions)
Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax
$
3,391

 
$
1,314

 
$
6,391

Less: Net investment gains (losses)
161

 
(352
)
 
(867
)
Less: Net derivative gains (losses)
(3,239
)
 
(1,919
)
 
4,824

Less: Goodwill impairment

 
(1,868
)
 

Less: Other adjustments to continuing operations (1)
(1,638
)
 
(2,550
)
 
(1,451
)
Less: Provision for income tax (expense) benefit
1,698

 
2,195

 
(914
)
Operating earnings
6,409

 
5,808

 
4,799

Less: Preferred stock dividends
122

 
122

 
122

Operating earnings available to common shareholders
$
6,287

 
$
5,686

 
$
4,677

______________
(1)
See definitions of operating revenues and operating expenses under “— Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for the components of such adjustments.
Year Ended December 31, 2013 Compared with the Year Ended December 31, 2012
During the year ended December 31, 2013, income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, increased $2.1 billion over 2012. The change was predominantly due to a non-cash charge in 2012 of $1.9 billion ($1.6 billion, net of income tax) for goodwill impairment associated with our U.S. Retail annuities business. In addition, operating earnings available to common shareholders increased by $601 million and net investment gains (losses) increased by $513 million ($333 million, net of income tax) primarily due to an increase in net gains on sales of fixed maturity securities in 2013 coupled with a decrease in impairments of fixed maturity securities. These increases were partially offset by an unfavorable change in net derivatives gains (losses) of $1.3 billion ($858 million, net of income tax) driven by changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. Also included in income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, were the results of the discontinued operations and other businesses that have been or will be sold or exited by MetLife, Inc. (“Divested Businesses”), which improved $459 million ($294 million, net of income tax) over 2012.

73

Table of Contents

The increase in operating earnings available to common shareholders was primarily driven by higher asset-based fee revenues due to growth in our average separate account assets and an increase in net investment income due to growth in our investment portfolio. The sustained low interest rate environment negatively impacted investment yields; however, it also resulted in lower crediting rates. These favorable results were partially offset by an increase in expenses. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we increased our litigation reserve related to asbestos by $101 million. During 2013, we also increased our other litigation reserves by $46 million. The fourth quarter 2013 acquisition of ProVida in Chile increased operating earnings available to common shareholders by $48 million, net of income tax. In addition, results for 2012 included a $52 million, net of income tax, charge representing a multi-state examination payment related to unclaimed property and our use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File to identify potential life insurance claims, as well as the acceleration of benefit payments to policyholders under the settlements of such claims.
Year Ended December 31, 2012 Compared with the Year Ended December 31, 2011
During the year ended December 31, 2012, income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, decreased $5.1 billion from the year ended December 31, 2011. The change was predominantly due to a $6.7 billion ($4.4 billion, net of income tax), unfavorable change in net derivative gains (losses) primarily driven by changes in interest rates, the weakening of the U.S. dollar and Japanese yen, equity market movements, decreased volatility and the impact of a nonperformance risk adjustment. In addition, 2012 includes a $1.9 billion ($1.6 billion, net of income tax) non-cash charge for goodwill impairment associated with our U.S. Retail annuities business. Also, 2012 includes a $1.2 billion ($752 million, net of income tax) charge associated with the global review of assumptions related to deferred policy acquisition costs (“DAC”), reserves and certain intangibles, of which $526 million ($342 million, net of income tax) was reflected in net derivative gains (losses). Also included in income (loss) from continuing operations, net of income tax, were the unfavorable results of the Divested Businesses, which decreased $724 million ($476 million, net of income tax) from 2011. These declines were partially offset by a $1.0 billion, net of income tax, increase in operating earnings available to common shareholders.
The increase in operating earnings available to common shareholders was primarily driven by improved investment results and higher asset-based fee revenue as strong sales levels drove portfolio growth. In addition, the low interest rate environment resulted in lower average interest credited rates. Despite the impact of Superstorm Sandy, catastrophe losses were lower in 2012 as compared to the significant weather-related claims in 2011. In addition, 2011 included a $117 million, net of income tax, charge in connection with the Company’s use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File. Also, 2011 included $40 million, net of income tax, of expenses incurred related to a liquidation plan filed by the Department of Financial Services for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (“ELNY”). Results for 2012 include a $52 million, net of income tax, charge representing a multi-state examination payment related to unclaimed property and MetLife’s use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File to identify potential life insurance claims, as well as the expected acceleration of benefit payments to policyholders under the settlements. Also, 2012 includes a $50 million, net of income tax, impairment charge on an intangible asset related to a previously acquired dental business.
Consolidated Company Outlook
As part of an enterprise-wide strategic initiative, by 2016, we expect to increase our operating return on common equity, excluding accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”), to the 12% to 14% range, driven by higher operating earnings. This target assumes that regulatory capital rules appropriately reflect the life insurance business model and that we have clarity on the rules in a reasonable time frame, allowing for meaningful share repurchases prior to 2016. If we are unable to engage in such repurchases, we expect the range of our operating return on common equity, excluding AOCI, to be 11% to 13%. Also, as part of this initiative, we will leverage our scale to improve the value we provide to customers and shareholders in order to achieve $1 billion in efficiencies, $600 million of which is expected to be related to net pre-tax expense savings, and $400 million of which we expect to be primarily reinvested in our technology, platforms and functionality to improve our current operations and develop new capabilities. We also continue to shift our product mix toward protection products and away from more capital-intensive products, in order to generate more predictable operating earnings and cash flows, and improve our risk profile and free cash flow.

74

Table of Contents

We expect to achieve the 2016 target range on our operating return on common equity by primarily focusing on the following:
Growth in premiums, fees and other revenues driven by:
-
Accelerated growth in Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits;
-
Increased fee revenue reflecting the benefit of higher equity markets on our separate account balances; and
-
Increases in our businesses outside of the U.S., notably accident & health, from continuing organic growth throughout our various geographic regions and leveraging of our multichannel distribution network.
Expanding our presence in emerging markets, including potential merger and acquisition activity. We expect that by 2016, 20% or more of our operating earnings will come from emerging markets, with the acquisition of ProVida contributing to this increase.
Focus on disciplined underwriting. We see no significant changes to the underlying trends that drive underwriting results; however, unanticipated catastrophes, similar to Superstorm Sandy, could result in a high volume of claims.
Focus on expense management in the light of the low interest rate environment, and continued focus on expense control throughout the Company.
Continued disciplined approach to investing and asset/liability management (“ALM”), through our enterprise risk and ALM governance process.
Impact of Superstorm Sandy
On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy made landfall in the northeastern United States causing extensive property damage. MetLife’s property & casualty business’ gross losses from Superstorm Sandy were approximately $150 million, before income tax. As of December 31, 2012, we recognized total net losses related to the catastrophe of $90 million, net of income tax and reinsurance recoverables and including reinstatement premiums, which impacted the Retail and Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits segments. The Retail and Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits segments recorded net losses related to the catastrophe of $49 million and $41 million, each net of income tax reinsurance recoverables and reinstatement premiums, respectively.
We did not incur any losses related to Superstorm Sandy in 2013, however, we may incur additional storm-related losses in future periods as claims are received from insureds and claims to reinsurers are processed. Reinsurance recoveries are dependent on the continued creditworthiness of the reinsurers, which may be affected by their other reinsured losses in connection with Superstorm Sandy and otherwise.
Industry Trends
We continue to be impacted by the unstable global financial and economic environment that has been affecting the industry.

75

Table of Contents

Financial and Economic Environment
Our business and results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the global capital markets and the economy generally. Stressed conditions, volatility and disruptions in global capital markets, particular markets, or financial asset classes can have an adverse effect on us, in part because we have a large investment portfolio and our insurance liabilities are sensitive to changing market factors. Global market factors, including interest rates, credit spreads, equity prices, real estate markets, foreign currency exchange rates, consumer spending, business investment, government spending, the volatility and strength of the capital markets, deflation and inflation, all affect the business and economic environment and, ultimately, the amount and profitability of our business. Disruptions in one market or asset class can also spread to other markets or asset classes. Upheavals in the financial markets can also affect our business through their effects on general levels of economic activity, employment and customer behavior. While our diversified business mix and geographically diverse business operations partially mitigate these risks, correlation across regions, countries and global market factors may reduce the benefits of diversification. Financial markets have also been affected by concerns over U.S. fiscal and monetary policy, although recent signs of Congressional compromise, reflected in the passage of a two-year budget agreement in December 2013 and the approval on February 12, 2014 of a bill to raise the debt ceiling until March 2015, appear to have alleviated some of these concerns. However, unless long-term steps are taken to raise the debt ceiling and reduce the federal deficit, rating agencies have warned of the possibility of future downgrades of U.S. Treasury securities. These issues could, on their own, or combined with the possible slowing of the global economy generally, send the U.S. into a new recession, have severe repercussions to the U.S. and global credit and financial markets, further exacerbate concerns over sovereign debt of other countries and disrupt economic activity in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Concerns about the economic conditions, capital markets and the solvency of certain European Union (“EU”) member states, including Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (“Europe’s perimeter region”) and Cyprus, and of financial institutions that have significant direct or indirect exposure to debt issued by these countries, have been a cause of elevated levels of market volatility. However, after several tumultuous years, economic conditions in Europe’s perimeter region seem to be stabilizing or improving, as evidenced by the stabilization of downward credit ratings momentum, particularly in Spain, Portugal and Ireland. This, combined with greater European Central Bank (“ECB”) support and improving macroeconomic conditions at the country level, has reduced the risk of default on the sovereign debt of Europe’s perimeter region and Cyprus and the risk of possible withdrawal of one or more countries from the Euro zone. See “— Investments — Current Environment” for information regarding credit ratings downgrades, support programs for Europe’s perimeter region and Cyprus and our exposure to obligations of European governments and private obligors.

The financial markets have also been affected by concerns that other EU member states could experience similar financial troubles, that some countries could default on their obligations, have to restructure their outstanding debt, or be unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of any aid provided to them, or that financial institutions with significant holdings of sovereign or private debt issued by borrowers in Europe’s perimeter region or Cyprus could experience financial stress, any of which could have significant adverse effects on the European and global economies and on financial markets, generally. In September 2012, the ECB announced a new bond buying program, Outright Monetary Transactions (“OMT”), intended to stabilize the European financial crisis. This program involves the potential purchase by the ECB of unlimited quantities of sovereign bonds with maturities of one to three years. These large scale purchases of sovereign bonds are intended to provide a buyer of last resort in the event of market stress, raising the price of the bonds, and lowering their interest rates, making it less expensive for certain countries to borrow money. In the absence of the OMT, concerns over sovereign debt sustainability could arise, and private demand for sovereign debt could decrease, putting further upward pressure on sovereign yields. Countries must agree to strict levels of economic reform and oversight as a condition to participate in this program. The OMT has not been activated to date, but the possibility of its use by the ECB has succeeded in reducing investor concerns over the possible withdrawal of one or more countries from the Euro zone and has helped to lower sovereign yields in Europe’s perimeter region and Cyprus. The Euro zone has emerged from its recession, but economic growth is expected to remain relatively muted, with concerns over low inflation becoming more pronounced as countries in Europe’s perimeter region and Cyprus in particular continue to pursue policies to reduce their macroeconomic imbalances. See “Risk Factors — Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks — We Are Exposed to Significant Financial and Capital Markets Risks Which May Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations, Financial Condition and Liquidity, and May Cause Our Net Investment Income to Vary from Period to Period,” and “Risk Factors — Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks — If Difficult Conditions in the Global Capital Markets and the Economy Generally Persist, They May Materially Adversely Affect Our Business and Results of Operations.”

76

Table of Contents

We face substantial exposure to the Japanese economy given our operations there. Despite a broad recovery in GDP growth and rising inflation over the last year, structural weaknesses and debt sustainability have yet to be addressed effectively. This leaves the economy vulnerable to further disruption. The global financial crisis and March 2011 earthquake and related events further pressured Japan’s budget outcomes and public debt levels. Going forward, Japan’s structural and demographic challenges may continue to limit its potential growth unless reforms that boost productivity are put into place. Japan’s high public sector debt levels are mitigated by low refinancing risks and its nominal yields on government debt have remained at a lower level than that of any other advanced country. However, frequent changes in government have prevented policy makers from implementing fiscal reform measures to put public finances on a sustainable path. In January 2013, the government and the Bank of Japan pledged to strengthen policy coordination to end deflation and to achieve sustainable economic growth. This was followed by the announcement of a supplementary budget stimulus program totaling 2% of GDP and the adoption of a 2% inflation target by the Bank of Japan. In early April 2013, the Bank of Japan announced a new round of monetary easing measures including increased government bond purchases at longer maturities. In October 2013, the government agreed to raise the consumption tax from 5% to 8% effective April 1, 2014. While this was a positive step, the fiscal impact is likely to be neutral given the accompanying stimulus spending package. Although the yen has weakened, deflationary pressures have eased and the stock market has rallied on the back of these announcements, it is too soon to tell whether these actions will have a sustained impact on Japan’s economy. Japan’s public debt trajectory could continue to rise until a strategy to consolidate public finances and growth-enhancing reforms are implemented.
Impact of a Sustained Low Interest Rate Environment
As a global insurance company, we are affected by the monetary policy of central banks around the world, as well as the monetary policy of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) in the United States. The Federal Reserve Board has taken a number of actions in recent years to spur economic activity by keeping interest rates low and may take further actions to influence interest rates in the future, which may have an impact on the pricing levels of risk-bearing investments, and may adversely impact the level of product sales.
On December 18, 2013, the Federal Reserve Board’s Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) decided to modestly reduce the pace of its purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities from $40 billion per month to $35 billion per month and the pace of its purchases of longer-term U.S. Treasury securities from $45 billion per month to $40 billion per month. On January 29, 2014, noting cumulative progress toward maximum employment and the improved outlook for the labor market, the FOMC determined to make a further measured reduction in the pace of its purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities from $35 billion per month to $30 billion per month and the pace of its purchases of longer-term U.S. Treasury securities from $40 billion per month to $35 billion per month, beginning in February 2014. These quantitative easing measures are intended to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates at low levels. The FOMC will closely monitor economic and financial developments in determining when to further moderate these quantitative easing measures, including with respect to the rates of unemployment, inflation and long-term inflation. The FOMC has stated that it will likely reduce the pace of its bond purchases in further measured steps at future meetings if subsequent economic data remains broadly aligned with its current expectations for a strengthening in the U.S. economy. Any additional action by the Federal Reserve Board to reduce its quantitative easing program could potentially increase U.S. interest rates from recent historically low levels, with uncertain impacts on U.S. risk markets, and may affect interest rates and risk markets in other developed and emerging economies. Even after the quantitative easing program ends and the economy strengthens, the FOMC reaffirmed that it anticipates keeping the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to .25%, again subject to certain unemployment, inflation and long-term inflation thresholds. While Janet Yellen, appointed on January 6, 2014 as the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has pledged continuity in the Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy, it is possible that the course of such policy could change under a new Chairman.
Despite recent actions by central banks in Turkey, Brazil and India to raise interest rates in an effort to contain inflation and attract foreign investors, central banks in other parts of the world, including the ECB, the Bank of England, the Bank of Australia and the Central Bank of China, have followed the actions of the Federal Reserve Board to lower interest rates. The collective effort globally to lower interest rates was in response to concerns about Europe’s sovereign debt crisis and slowing global economic growth. We cannot predict with certainty the effect of these programs and policies on interest rates or the impact on the pricing levels of risk-bearing investments at this time. See “— Investments — Current Environment.”
In periods of declining interest rates, we may have to invest insurance cash flows and reinvest the cash flows we received as interest or return of principal on our investments in lower yielding instruments. Moreover, borrowers may prepay or redeem the fixed income securities, commercial, agricultural or residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities in our investment portfolio with greater frequency in order to borrow at lower market rates. Therefore, some of our products expose us to the risk that a reduction in interest rates will reduce the difference between the amounts that we are required to credit on contracts in our general account and the rate of return we are able to earn on investments intended to support obligations under these contracts. This difference between interest earned and interest credited, or margin, is a key metric for the management of, and reporting for, many of our businesses.

77

Table of Contents

Our expectations regarding future margins are an important component impacting the amortization of certain intangible assets such as DAC and value of business acquired (“VOBA”). Significantly lower margins may cause us to accelerate the amortization, thereby reducing net income in the affected reporting period. Additionally, lower margins may also impact the recoverability of intangible assets such as goodwill, require the establishment of additional liabilities or trigger loss recognition events on certain policyholder liabilities. We review this long-term margin assumption, along with other assumptions, as part of our annual assumption review. Although the analysis shown below considers low interest rates in 2014 and 2015, it does not assume any change to our long-term assumption for margins. As a result, the impact of a hypothetical interest rate stress scenario described below does not capture the impact of any of the aforementioned items.
Mitigating Actions
The Company continues to be proactive in its investment and interest crediting rate strategies, as well as its product design and product mix. To mitigate the risk of unfavorable consequences from the low interest rate environment in the U.S., the Company applies disciplined ALM strategies, including the use of derivatives, primarily interest rate swaps, floors and swaptions. A significant portion of these derivatives were entered into prior to the onset of the current low U.S. interest rate environment. In some cases, the Company has entered into offsetting positions as part of its overall ALM strategy and to reduce volatility in net income. Lowering interest crediting rates on some products, or adjusting the dividend scale on traditional products, can help offset decreases in investment margins on some products. Our ability to lower interest crediting rates could be limited by competition, requirements to obtain regulatory approval, or contractual guarantees of minimum rates and may not match the timing or magnitude of changes in asset yields. As a result, our margins could decrease or potentially become negative. We are able to limit or close certain products to new sales in order to manage exposures. Business actions, such as shifting the sales focus to less interest rate sensitive products, can also mitigate this risk. In addition, the Company is well diversified across product, distribution, and geography. Certain of our non-U.S. businesses, reported within our Latin America and EMEA segments, which accounted for approximately 14% of our operating earnings in 2013, are not significantly interest rate or market sensitive; in particular, they do not have any direct sensitivity to U.S. interest rates. The Company’s primary exposure within these segments is insurance risk. We expect our non-U.S. businesses to grow faster than our U.S. businesses and, over time, to become a larger percentage of our total business. As a result of the foregoing, the Company expects to be able to substantially mitigate the negative impact of a sustained low interest rate environment in the U.S. on the Company’s profitability. Based on a near to intermediate term analysis of a sustained lower interest rate environment in the U.S., the Company anticipates operating earnings will continue to increase, although at a slower growth rate.
Interest Rate Stress Scenario
The following summarizes the impact of a hypothetical interest rate stress scenario on our operating earnings and the mark-to-market of our derivative positions that do not qualify as accounting hedges assuming a continued low interest rate environment in the U.S.
The hypothetical interest rate stress scenario is based on a constant set of U.S. interest rates and credit spreads in the U.S., as compared to our business plan interest rates and credit spreads, which are based on consensus interest rate view and credit spreads as of August 2013. For example, our business plan assumes a 10-year treasury rate of 2.88% at December 31, 2013 to rise during 2014 to 3.36% by December 31, 2014 and rise to 3.93% by December 31, 2015. The hypothetical interest rate stress scenario assumes the 10-year treasury rate to be 2.50% at December 31, 2013 and remain constant at that level until December 31, 2015. We make similar assumptions for interest rates at other maturities, and hold this interest rate curve constant through December 31, 2015. In addition, in the interest rate stress scenario, we assume credit spreads remain constant from December 2013 through the end of 2015, as compared to our business plan which assumes rising credit spreads through 2014 and thereafter remaining constant through the end of 2015. Further, we also include the impact of low interest rates on our pension and postretirement plan expenses. We allocate this impact across our segments and it is included in the segment discussion below. The discount rate used to value these plans is tied to high quality corporate bond yields. Accordingly, an extended low interest rate environment will result in increased pension and other postretirement benefit liabilities and expenses. Higher total return on the fixed income portfolio of pension and other postretirement benefit plan assets will partially offset this increase in pension and other postretirement plan liabilities.
Based on the above assumptions, we estimate the impact of the hypothetical U.S. interest rate stress scenario on our consolidated operating earnings to be a decrease of approximately $75 million and $205 million in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

78

Table of Contents

As previously mentioned, operating earnings is the measure of segment profit and loss that we use to evaluate segment performance and allocated resources. Further, we believe the presentation of operating earnings and operating earnings available to common shareholders as we measure it for management purposes enhances the understanding of our performance by highlighting the results of operations and the underlying profitability drivers of our business. The most directly comparable GAAP measure is not accessible on a forward-looking basis because we believe it is not possible to provide other than a range of net investment gains and losses and net derivative gains and losses, which can fluctuate significantly within or outside the range from period to period and may have a significant impact on GAAP net income. See “— Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for definitions of such measures.
In addition to its impact on operating earnings, we estimated the effect of the hypothetical U.S. interest rate stress scenario on the mark-to-market of our derivative positions that do not qualify as accounting hedges. We applied the hypothetical U.S. interest rate stress scenario to these derivatives and compared the impact to that from interest rates in our business plan. We hold a significant position in long duration receive-fixed interest rate swaps to hedge reinvestment risk. These swaps are most sensitive to the 30-year and 10-year swap rates and we recognize gains as rates drop and recognize losses as rates rise. This estimated impact on the derivative mark-to-market does not include that of our VA program derivatives as the impact of low interest rates in the freestanding derivatives would be largely offset by the mark-to-market in net derivative gains (losses) for the related embedded derivative. See “— Results of Operations — Consolidated Results” for discussions on our net derivative gains and losses.
Based on these additional assumptions, we estimate the impact of the hypothetical U.S. interest rate stress scenario on the mark-to-market of our derivative positions that do not qualify as accounting hedges to be a decrease in net income of $50 million and $120 million in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
Segments and Corporate & Other
The following discussion summarizes the impact of the above hypothetical U.S. interest rate stress scenario on the operating earnings of our segments, as well as Corporate & Other. See also “— Policyholder Liabilities — Policyholder Account Balances” for information regarding the account values subject to minimum guaranteed crediting rates.
Retail
Life & Other – Our interest rate sensitive products include traditional life, universal life, and retained asset accounts. Because the majority of our traditional life insurance business is participating, we can largely offset lower investment returns on assets backing our traditional life products through adjustments to the applicable dividend scale. In our universal life products, we manage interest rate risk through a combination of product design features and ALM strategies, including the use of hedges such as interest rate swaps and floors. While we have the ability to lower crediting rates on certain in-force universal life policies to mitigate margin compression, such actions would be partially offset by increases in our liabilities related to policies with secondary guarantees. Our retained asset accounts have minimum interest crediting rate guarantees which range from 1.5% to 3.0%, all of which are currently at their respective minimum interest crediting rates. While we expect to experience margin compression as we re-invest at lower rates, the interest rate derivatives held in this portfolio will partially mitigate this risk.
Annuities – The impact on operating earnings from margin compression is concentrated in our deferred annuities where there are minimum interest rate guarantees. Under low U.S. interest rate scenarios, we assume that a larger percentage of customers will maintain their funds with us to take advantage of the attractive minimum guaranteed crediting rates and we expect to experience margin compression as we reinvest cash flows at lower interest rates. Partially offsetting this margin compression, we assume we will lower crediting rates on contractual reset dates for the portion of business that is not currently at minimum crediting rates. Additionally, we have various derivative positions, primarily interest rate floors, to partially mitigate this risk.
Reinvestment risk is defined for this purpose as the amount of reinvestment in 2014 and 2015 that would impact operating earnings due to reinvesting cash flows in the hypothetical U.S. interest rate stress scenario. For the deferred annuities business, $3.1 billion and $2.7 billion in 2014 and 2015, respectively, of the asset base will be subject to reinvestment risk on an average asset base of $35.6 billion and $36.1 billion in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
We estimate an unfavorable operating earnings impact on our Retail segment from the hypothetical U.S. interest rate stress scenario discussed above of $30 million and $60 million in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

79

Table of Contents

Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits
Group – In general, most of our group life insurance products in this segment are renewable term insurance and, therefore, have significant repricing flexibility. Interest rate risk arises mainly from minimum interest rate guarantees on retained asset accounts. These accounts have minimum interest crediting rate guarantees which range from 0.5% to 3.0%. All of these account balances are currently at their respective minimum interest crediting rates and we would expect to experience margin compression as we reinvest at lower interest rates. We have used interest rate floors to partially mitigate the risks of a sustained U.S. low interest rate environment. We also have exposure to interest rate risk in this business arising from our group disability policy claim reserves. For these products, lower reinvestment rates cannot be offset by a reduction in liability crediting rates for established claim reserves. Group disability policies are generally renewable term policies. Rates may be adjusted on in-force policies at renewal based on the retrospective experience rating and current interest rate assumptions. We review the discount rate assumptions and other assumptions associated with our long-term disability claim reserves no less frequently than annually. Our most recent review at the end of 2013 resulted in no change to the applicable discount rates.
Voluntary & Worksite – We have exposure to interest rate risk in this business arising mainly from our long-term care (“LTC”) policy reserves. For these products, lower reinvestment rates cannot be offset by a reduction in liability crediting rates for established claim reserves. LTC policies are generally renewable, and rates may be adjusted on a class basis with regulatory approval to reflect emerging experience. Our LTC block is closed to new business. The Company makes use of derivative instruments to more closely match asset and liability duration a