Get Started for Free Contexxia identifies hard-to-find pieces of information in SEC filings. No more highlighters, no more redlining, no more poring over huge documents. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC (1137774) 10-K published on Feb 15, 2019 at 4:21 pm
Reporting Period: Dec 30, 2018
Our strategy centers on our mix of high-quality protection, retirement and investment management businesses which creates growth potential due to earnings diversification and the opportunity to provide customers with integrated cross-business solutions, as well as capital benefits from a balanced risk profile. We are well positioned to meet the needs of customers and tap into significant market opportunities through our U.S. Financial Wellness businesses (represented by our U.S. Workplace Solutions and U.S. Individual Solutions Divisions), PGIM (our investment management business) and our International Insurance business. We see an opportunity to address the evolving needs of individual customers, workplace clients, and society at large through our increasingly important financial wellness solutions. We possess the key components to execute on this strategy, including a workplace platform covering twenty million individuals; solutions that cover protection, retirement, savings, income, and investment needs; and a customer-centric approach with different ways to engage with our clients through multiple channels such as meeting with one of our financial advisors, calling or video-conferencing with an advisor, or interacting with us in a purely digital manner. Our goal is to meet our customers’ needs when, where and how they want. By leveraging technology and our scale, we aim to significantly expand the addressable market, build deeper and longer-lasting relationships with customers and clients, and make a meaningful difference in the financial wellness of their lives.
In July 2013, we along with eight other global insurers, were designated by the FSB as a global systemically important insurer (“G-SII”) through a quantitative methodology developed and implemented by the IAIS. Similar assessments were performed and subsequent G-SII designation lists were issued annually through November 2016. We remained designated as a G-SII throughout this period. In November 2017, the FSB announced that the list of G-SIIs identified in 2016 would stand until November 2018, at which point it would assess the progress made by the IAIS’ on the development of an Activities-Based Approach (“ABA”) to assessing and managing potential systemic risk in the insurance sector. Over the course of 2018, the IAIS’ work to develop an ABA evolved into the development of a Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector (“Holistic Framework”). Key elements of the Holistic Framework include enhancements to IAIS policy measures pertaining to macroprudential surveillance, enterprise risk management, liquidity management, crisis management and recovery planning as well as the continuation of annual data collection and monitoring by the IAIS. The IAIS will finalize the Holistic Framework in 2019 for implementation in 2020. In November 2018, the FSB announced that it would not engage in an identification of G-SIIs based on progress made on the development of the Holistic Framework and that it will assess an IAIS recommendation to suspend G-SII identification from 2020 in November 2019. The FSB further announced that it will review the need to either discontinue or re-establish the annual identification of G-SIIs in November 2022.
Affiliate and third-party distributors of our products present added regulatory, competitive and other risks to our enterprise. Our products are sold primarily through our captive/affiliated distribution models and third-party distributing firms. Our captive/affiliated distribution models are made up of large numbers of decentralized sales personnel who are compensated based on commissions. The third-party distributing firms generally are not dedicated to us exclusively and may frequently recommend and/or market products of our competitors. Accordingly, we must compete intensely for their services. Our sales could be adversely affected if we are unable to attract, retain or motivate third-party distributing firms or if we do not adequately provide support, training, compensation, and education to this sales network regarding our products, or if our products are not competitive and not appropriately aligned with consumer needs. While third-party distributing firms have an independent regulatory accountability, some regulators have been clear with expectations that product manufacturers retain significant sales risk accountability.
The U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“Tax Act of 2017”) includes two new tax provisions that could impact the Company’s effective tax rate and cash tax payments in future periods. The Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (“BEAT”) taxes modified taxable income at a rate of 5% in 2018, increasing to 10% in 2019 and 12.5% in 2026 and is due if the calculated BEAT amount that is determined without the benefit of foreign and certain tax credits is greater than the regular corporate tax in any given year. In general, modified taxable income is calculated by adding back to a taxpayer’s regular taxable income the amount of certain “base erosion tax benefits” with respect to payments to foreign affiliates, as well as the “base erosion percentage” of any net operating loss deductions. It is possible that benefit and claim payments made by our U.S. insurance business to our foreign affiliates on reinsurance assumed by the U.S. affiliates could be considered base erosion payments and, in the future, cause the U.S. consolidated PFI group to be subject to the BEAT. The Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (“GILTI”) provision applies a minimum U.S. tax to earnings of consolidated foreign subsidiaries in excess of a 10% deemed return on tangible assets of foreign subsidiaries by imposing the U.S. tax rate to 50% of earnings of such foreign affiliates and provides for a partial foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. The amount of tax in any period on GILTI can depend on annual differences between U.S. taxable income recognition rules and taxable income recognition rules in the country of operations and the overall taxable income of U.S. operations, as well as U.S. expense allocation rules which limit the amount of foreign tax credits that can be applied to reduce the U.S. tax on the GILTI provision. Under certain circumstances the taxable income of U.S. operations may cause more than 50% of earnings of foreign affiliates to be subject to the GILTI provision. In years that the U.S. consolidated PFI group incurs a net operating loss or has a loss from domestic businesses, the GILTI provision would operate to cause a loss of U.S. tax benefits for some or all of those losses, effectively increasing the tax on foreign earnings. The Company accounts for the effects of the BEAT and GILTI provisions as a period cost if and when incurred.
In April 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In January 2016, the court issued a decision involving Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss: (i) with respect to the PSA trusts, granting the motion and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and (ii) with respect to the Indenture trusts, granting leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. In February 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in federal court. In March 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in California State Superior court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In May 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to stay the state court action. In July 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed previously in federal court. In October 2016, the court dismissed the state court complaint. In December 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in New York State Court, captioned BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., asserting claims related to the PSA trusts. In March 2017, the federal court issued an order concerning defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the Indenture trusts: (i) sustaining plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims; plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939; and plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest; and (ii) dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the sustained contract claims. In May 2017, Wells Fargo filed a third-party complaint for contribution against PGIM, Inc., alleging that, in the event the Prudential plaintiff Funds prevail on their claims for damages against Wells Fargo, PGIM must contribute to the award due to PGIM’s alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Funds in managing the Funds’ RMBS investments. In June 2017, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in New York State Court. In October 2017, PGIM filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint filed by Wells Fargo seeking contribution. In January 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the federal court action. In November 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in New York state court against Wells Fargo, as trustee, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of duty of due care, and violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939.