View more on these topics

Suspended death bond fund fights back in valuation row


The chairman of suspended EEA Life Settlements fund has replied to criticism by the fund’s auditor over the valuation of the portfolio.

In the fund’s recently published annual report for the 12 months ended 31 December 2011, Ernst & Young says it considers the fund to be worth around $100m (£65.6m) less than the $871m valuation given by its directors for the year.

Responding in a letter to shareholders, EEA Life Settlements chairman Mark Colton notes that 2011 was the only year in which the fund and its auditor has disagreed over the portfolio’s valuation and explains that an independent valuation exercise has been commissioned.

The fund suspended trading in 2011 after the FSA branded life settlement funds as “toxic products”, which led an increase in redemption request and the withdrawal of subscriptions.

“At the end of the 2011 financial year the underlying policies remained highly illiquid. The effect of this was that their valuation for the purposes of International Financial Reporting Standards was considerably more difficult than in previous years,” Colton says.

“As as result, the board and its auditors arrived at different assessments of the IFRS value of the policies. This contrasted with several previous years where there was no disagreement.”

Colton adds that since 31 December 2011, the fund’s underlying policies have been subject to continuing activity with premiums being paid and maturities, which are paid out when policyholders die, being collected. However, maturities have occurred at a slower rate than anticipated.

“We have always taken valuations very seriously, so the board must consider the evidence and assess the implications for pricing and for valuation purposes,” the chairman says. “The board has commissioned a mortality review of the entire portfolio. It will use this and updated estimates of longevity from industry specialists to guide the decision-making.”

Colton also points out that the publication of 2011’s results brings the restructuring process of the fund further forward. “The implementation of the restructure as soon as possible is now the primary goal of the board,” he adds.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Well, let me say this. Commissioning an independent valuation should more or less kill the fund stone dead. Reconstruction is dead in eth water because no-one can rely on the valuation anymore. If Mr Colton is trying to defend the fund and its valuation, then he is a 24 carat idiot in doing so and clearly doesn’t undertsand the mathematics of either his own valuation or what E&Y have generously allowed.

    E&Y have allowed them to quote an upper “best case” valaution that is a mere $100m short, and this is based on blending their own valuation with EEAs own over-valuation. A full blown market style valuation will be lower than either of those and no-one can possibly endorse the EEA model because it is inherently flawed in terms of providing a fair value. Because the amortisation of “profit” is over the term to LE (+12 arbitrarily chosen months), it means it assumes all deaths will occur before or at this LE+12 period. Hardly a symetrical distribution. Secondly, it ignores the possibility that any policy will terminate without value whereas many will and thirdly the ridiculous policy of extending the expected life of a policy by just 12 months once they survive LE+6 also fails to reflect any sort of tail risk.

    Basically, all you can say in their defence is that the directors are doing what they say in some of their literature so investors should be able to work out the flaws for themselves, but as for producing any sort of fair value – it’s utter rubbish. Given that so many IFAs have been duped into believing this valaution method is suitable and conservative, its hard to argue that investors should have worked out that they were being legged over. Small wonder the FSA took the action they did.

  2. Any idea why the Meteor Cell NAV is off 25% as the majority of the others look much closer?

Leave a comment