COVID-19 and annuity policyholder behavior: Looking back, looking ahead

To download the full report, click here.

Executive Summary
We review 2020 annuity policyholder behavior, comparing actual experience to our March 2020 forecasts. The effects of COVID-19 – both expected and unexpected – suggest important lessons for future modeling and assumption-setting.Read more


Discussion slides: 2021 fixed indexed annuity industry studies

If you were not able to join our call on March 18, here are the discussion slides.  The theme is "bounded rationality" -- evidence of FIA policyholder decision-making that is sometimes logical and efficient, and other times not so much.  Which I can relate to -- this would have been a video except I forgot to click "record".


Ruark Releases 2021 Fixed Indexed Annuity Study Results

Provides first look at the effects of COVID-19 on policyholder behavior

Ruark Consulting, LLC today released the results of its 2021 industry studies of fixed indexed annuity (FIA) policyholder behavior, which include surrenders, income utilization and partial withdrawals. Ruark’s FIA studies cover products both with and without a guaranteed lifetime income benefit (GLIB).

“This study gave us our first look at the effects of COVID-19 on FIA policyholder behavior,” said Timothy Paris, Ruark’s CEO. “Given record low interest rates, and disruptions to sales channels, there was no way to know whether past patterns would continue. We’re intrigued by how some relationships changed -- and others didn’t.”

The study data comprised nearly 4 million policyholders from 16 participating companies spanning the 13-year period from 2007-2020, with $264 billion in account value as of the end of the period. GLIB exposure constituted 43% of exposure overall, and 47% of exposure in the last 12 study months. GLIB exposure beyond the end of the surrender charge period increased 83% over 2020 study exposure.

Highlights include:

  • Extreme market activity, and COVID-related disruption to policyholders’ usual communication patterns with advisors and agents, had mixed effects on 2020 surrender activity. Record low interest rates led to more positive market value adjustment, and contracts in the surrender charge period with a positive MVA surrendered at higher rates. For contracts beyond the shock duration, surrender rates declined, consistent with an industry-wide decline in gross annuity sales in 2020; a proportion of gross sales is attributable to exchanges of one annuity product for another.

  • Contracts with a guaranteed lifetime income benefit have much better persistency than those without, and among contracts that have begun taking income withdrawals, surrender rates are even lower. Persistency appears insensitive to nominal moneyness (the relationship of account value to the benefit base), but when an actuarial moneyness basis which discounts guaranteed income for interest and mortality rates is applied, we see that persistency is greater when the economic value is higher, as should be expected.

  • The relationship between surrender charges and surrender rates can be quantified. The study examines the relationship of persistency to the effective surrender charge, that is, the difference between account value and cash surrender value (including bonus recapture).
  • Surrenders are sensitive to external market forces as well as the absolute level of credited interest rates. Contracts earning less than 2% exhibit sharply higher surrenders than those earning more. As competitive market interest rates increase, so do surrenders, though there is some indication that a higher credited rate tempers the increase. Equity returns are negatively correlated with surrenders, but only for contracts without an income benefit.

  • Where cash surrender values are subject to market value adjustment, surrender rates for policies with a positive market value adjustment exceed those for policies with a negative adjustment. In the aggregate, policyholders act as though a positive MVA is a bonus, rather than a mechanism to make both parties whole, while surrender rates for contracts with negative MVA are similar to those for contracts with no MVA feature. Among contracts with a positive MVA, surrender rates are inversely related to equity market performance; we surmise that policyholders who are disappointed in credited returns on their FIA take advantage of the temporary offset provided by a positive MVA, and surrender at higher rates.
  • Lifetime income commencement rates are low, 7% overall in the first year following the end of the waiting period and then falling to approximately 3%in years 3 and later. There is evidence of a spike in utilization after year 10, particularly where the benefit is structured as an optional rider rather an embedded product feature. Age, tax status, and contract size all influence commencement rates.
  • We see little observable effect on GLIB utilization from COVID-19 disruptions to sales channels and capital markets, given initial 2020 indications.
  • Lifetime income utilization increases sharply when policies are in the money, that is, the benefit base exceeds the account value. After normalizing for age, tax status, and contract duration, contracts that are 25% in the money or more exercise at a 12% rate. In contrast, when contracts with lifetime withdrawal benefits are out of the money, at the money, or modestly in the money, policyholders exercise at a base rate of about 2%. Income commencement rates are most sensitive to moneyness following the end of the rollup period.

  • FIA contracts typically offer the opportunity to take 5-10% of account value annually in penalty-free withdrawals, often following a 1-year waiting period. This is the case for contracts with and without a GLIB, though free partial withdrawal frequencies and amounts are somewhat lower on contracts with a lifetime income guarantee. Free partial withdrawal activity is influenced by age and required minimum distributions, as well as contract size and the presence of a waiting period.

  • Withdrawal sizes spike in the year following the end of the surrender charge period, when all partial withdrawals become penalty-free; average withdrawal sizes for contracts without GLIB jump by 10% of account value in the year immediately following the end of the surrender charge period.

Detailed study results, including company-level analytics, benchmarking, and customized behavioral assumption models calibrated to the study data, are available for purchase by participating companies.


Market turmoil: What does it mean for annuity policyholder behavior?

To download the full report, click here.

Executive Summary

We offer insights on expected annuity policyholder responses to recent financial market turmoil, gleaned from our studies of annuity policyholder behavior since 2007.

Variable annuity writers should expect:

  • Greater persistency overall, but elevated surrenders for at-the-money GLWB
  • Greater income utilization, especially for GLWB after the deferral incentive period and “hybrid” GMIB
  • Greater GMIB annuitization elections, especially on traditional “pro-rata” benefit forms

Fixed indexed annuity writers should expect:

  • Greater persistency for GLIB, and lower persistency without GLIB
  • Greater income utilization for GLIB

COVID-19 impact on mortality:

  • Will likely depend on the level of containment among the general population at retirement ages, with potential differences between those with and without living benefit guarantees

Ruark is uniquely positioned to help as risk management takes center stage:

  • We have the data from past times of crisis –monthly policyholder behavior and mortality data going back to 2007 covering about 70% of the market with over $1 trillion of current account values
  • We have developed predictive analytics techniques that use company- and industry-level data to help our clients improve their annuity pricing, valuation, and risk management models. Our approach is rigorous, transparent, and tailored to each company, allowing for quick implementation and quantification of improvement in financial risk profile from what they can do if limited to their own data.

To download the full report, click here.


Ruark Releases 2020 Fixed Indexed Annuity Studies

Increasing data exposure in key areas

Ruark Consulting, LLC today released the results of its 2020 industry studies of fixed indexed annuity (FIA) policyholder behavior, which include surrenders, income utilization and partial withdrawals. Ruark’s FIA studies cover products both with and without a guaranteed lifetime income benefit (GLIB).

“With new data contributors, and rapid growth in the FIA market, data exposures in key areas continue to increase,” said Timothy Paris, Ruark’s CEO. “More data enables us to do more detailed analysis, identify new patterns, and – critically – help our clients achieve meaningful risk reduction in their models.”

Among the notable increases in exposure:

  • Total exposure years grew to 23 million, a 21% increase over the 2019 study
  • Double the exposure years for GLIB contracts past the end of the surrender charge period
  • A 39% increase in lifetime income withdrawals, to $5.4 billion

The study data comprised over 4 million policyholders from 17 participating companies spanning the 12-year period from 2007-2019, with $296 billion in account value as of the end of the period. GLIB exposure constituted 44% of exposure overall, and 49% of exposure in the last 12 study months.

Highlights include:

  • Lifetime income commencement rates are low, 6% overall in the first year following the end of the waiting period and then falling to the 2-3% range in years 3 and later. There is evidence of a spike in utilization after year 10, particularly where the benefit is structured as an optional rider rather an embedded product feature. Age, tax status, and contract size all influence commencement rates.
  • Lifetime income utilization increases sharply when policies are in the money, that is, the benefit base exceeds the account value. After normalizing for age, tax status, and contract duration, contracts that are 25% in the money or more exercise at a 10% rate. In contrast, when contracts with lifetime withdrawal benefits are out of the money, at the money, or modestly in the money, policyholders exercise at a base rate of about 2%.
  • FIA contracts typically offer the opportunity to take 5-10% of account value annually in penalty-free withdrawals, often following a 1-year waiting period. This is the case for contracts with and without a GLIB, though free partial withdrawal frequencies and amounts are somewhat lower on contracts with a lifetime income guarantee.
  • Free partial withdrawal activity is influenced by age and required minimum distributions, as well as contract size and the presence of a waiting period. Notably, withdrawal sizes spike in the year following the end of the surrender charge period, when all partial withdrawals become penalty-free; average withdrawal sizes for contracts without GLIB double to 20% of account value in the year immediately following the end of the surrender charge period.
  • Surrender rates continued to climb in 2019, particularly among contracts past the surrender charge period. The increase is broadly consistent with the rise in FIA sales that has been reported across the industry. While net sales have grown, a certain proportion of the increase in gross sales is likely attributable to exchanges of one FIA product for another.
  • Contracts with a guaranteed lifetime income benefit have much better persistency than those without, and among contracts that have begun taking income withdrawals, surrender rates are even lower. Persistency appears insensitive to nominal moneyness (the relationship of account value to the benefit base), but when an actuarial moneyness basis which discounts guaranteed income for interest and mortality rates is applied, we see that persistency is greater when the economic value is higher, as should be expected.
  • The relationship between surrender charges and surrender rates can be quantified. The study examines the relationship of persistency to the effective surrender charge, that is, the difference between account value and cash surrender value.
  • Surrenders are sensitive to external market forces as well as the absolute level of credited interest rates. Contracts earning less than 2% exhibit sharply higher surrenders than those earning more. As competitive market interest rates increase, so do surrenders, though there is some indication that a higher credited rate tempers the increase. In contrast, equity returns are negatively correlated with surrenders. Where cash surrender values are subject to market value adjustment, surrender rates for policies with a positive market value adjustment exceed those for policies with a negative adjustment. In the aggregate, policyholders act as though a positive MVA is a bonus, rather than a mechanism to make both parties whole, while surrender rates for contracts with negative MVA are similar to those for contracts with no MVA feature.

Detailed study results, including company-level analytics and customized behavioral assumption models calibrated to the study data, are available for purchase by participating companies.


Ruark releases 2019 Fixed Indexed Annuity study

Surrender rates climbing steadily

Ruark Consulting, LLC today released the results of its 2019 studies of fixed indexed annuity (FIA) policyholder behavior. The studies, which examine the factors driving surrender behavior and income utilization, were based on experience from 3.5 million policyholders spanning the period January, 2007 through September, 2018. A total of 15 FIA writers participated, comprising $240 billion in account value as of September, 2018.

“By aggregating across the industry, our studies offer even our
largest clients a way to achieve greater precision than they could by relying
only on their own data,” said Timothy Paris, Ruark’s CEO. “And as industry
experience develops, the underlying trends are becoming even clearer.”

Ruark’s FIA studies cover products both with and without a guaranteed lifetime income benefit (GLIB). GLIB exposure outside the surrender charge period increased 34% in this edition over 2018.

Study highlights include:

  • After a
    slow decline from mid-2010 through 2016, surrender rates have climbed in
    2017-18.
    Shock duration surrender rates in the most recent quarter were
    30%, a level last seen in 2009. Rates following the end of the surrender charge
    period have risen as well. The increase in surrenders correlates with market
    interest rate increases. In contrast to variable annuities, which exhibited a
    dip in 2015-16 corresponding to uncertainty surrounding the DOL’s “fiduciary
    rule”, the effect on FIA surrenders appears to have been more muted.
  • Contracts
    with a guaranteed living income benefit (GLIB) have much better persistency

    than those without. Surrender rates during the surrender charge period for
    contracts with GLIBs are less than half those of contracts without the
    guarantee. Among contracts that have begun taking income withdrawals,
    persistency is better still; shock duration rates are approximately 13%, as
    compared to 26% for contracts without GLIB.
  • Credited rates have a discernable effect on surrenders.
    We observe that contracts earning less
    than 2% exhibit sharply higher surrenders than those earning more
    . There is
    also differentiation among contracts with higher returns, although it is less
    pronounced after normalizing for living presence and utilization. As market interest rates increase, so do
    surrenders, and there is some indication that a higher credited rate tempers
    the increase.
    In contrast, equity returns are negatively correlated with
    surrenders. Taken together, these results suggest that policyholders consider their FIA contract’s performance in the context
    of fixed income investments
    rather than equity market investments.
  • The persistency of contracts with a GLIB rider
    appears insensitive to nominal moneyness, that is, the relationship of account
    value to the benefit base. However, when
    calculation of the guarantee’s relative value is performed by using an
    actuarial moneyness basis which discounts guaranteed income for interest and
    mortality rates, the picture changes.
    Using an actuarial measure, we see
    that (a) GLIB benefits are not generally as valuable to the policyholder as
    they might first appear; and (b) persistency is greater when the actuarial
    benefits are more valuable, as should be expected.
  • Annual
    GLIB benefit commencement rates are low, 7% overall in the first contract
    duration and then falling to the 2-3% range in years 3 and later.
    In contrast
    to variable annuities, which exhibit a spike following the expiration of
    benefit bonuses, FIA utilization remains consistent in later years.
    Benefit commencement rates appear largely insensitive to RMDs. Age, tax status, and contract size all
    influence commencement rates.
    When a living benefit contract does begin
    taking withdrawals, it is likely to continue in subsequent years; average
    continuation rates are 95%.
  • GLIB
    utilization increases when policies are in the money, that is, the benefit base
    exceeds the account value.
    After normalizing for age, tax, and contract
    duration, contracts that are 25% in the money or more exercise at a 10% rate.
    In contrast, when contracts with lifetime withdrawal benefits are out of the
    money, at the money, or modestly in the money, policyholders exercise at a
    base rate of about 2%
    .
  • FIA contracts typically offer the opportunity to
    take 10% of account value annually in penalty-free withdrawals, often following
    a 1-year waiting period. This is the case for contracts with and without a
    guaranteed living income benefit (GLIB) rider. Base contract withdrawals have
    been largely stable over the past decade. Behavior differs across four groups: Those
    taking the full penalty-free amount; those taking less; those taking excess;
    and those for which no penalty applies.
  • Free partial withdrawal activity on the base
    contract is influenced by age and required minimum distributions, as well as
    contract size and the presence of a waiting period for free partial withdrawals.
    Notably, withdrawal sizes spike in the year following the end of the surrender
    charge period, when all partial withdrawals become penalty-free. Average
    withdrawal sizes for contracts without GLIB jump 9 percentage points following
    the end of the surrender charge period.

Detailed study results, including company-level analytics, are available for purchase by participating companies. For further information, please contact Timothy Paris, CEO.


Ruark Consulting Releases 2018 Fixed Indexed Annuity Mortality Study

Mortality rates vary by living benefit presence & utilization

Ruark Consulting, LLC today released the results of its 2018 study of fixed indexed annuity (FIA) industry mortality. The study was based on experience from 3 million policyholders spanning the period January, 2007 through September, 2017. Fourteeen variable annuity writers participated in the study, comprising $215 billion in account value as of September, 2017.

“We have almost 50% more data than our last FIA mortality study, allowing for high credibility even when splitting results by multiple factors of influence,” said Timothy Paris, Ruark’s CEO. “We’ve also added much more detailed analysis of mortality results by living benefit presence and income behavior, contract size, tax status, interactions, and changes through time. These studies provide new and important insights into FIA mortality, particularly with the growth of living benefit experience beyond the surrender charge period.”

The company’s previous FIA mortality study was released in 2016.

Paris highlighted study enhancements in response to recent regulatory proposals. “It’s not often that life and annuity actuaries need to address new mortality and projection bases for reserves and capital,” he noted, “but now is indeed the time for that. So we’ve included analyses of industry mortality results relative to the 2012 IAM Basic Table with projection scale G2, our proprietary Ruark variable annuity mortality table, and other tabular bases to make the study results as meaningful and actionable as possible for our client companies and their actuaries.”

Study highlights include:

  • After normalizing for age, sex, and duration, Ruark observes a distinct hierarchy in mortality across living benefit presence and utilization. Highest mortality is found on contracts without guaranteed lifetime income benefits (GLIB); those with a GLIB rider that have not begun taking income have mortality at slightly below average; and GLIB contracts that are in the income phase have the lowest mortality, at 88% of average. This hierarchy is consistent with a pattern of selection on the basis of longevity benefits. Ruark also observes a difference in mortality on the basis of tax status.

  • In this study for the first time, Ruark benchmarks results against the 2012 Individual Annuity Mortality (IAM) Basic table with projection scale G2. Ruark also benchmarks results against other standard mortality tables and their proprietary 2015 Ruark Variable Annuity Mortality (RVAM) table. Standard industry mortality tables systematically overstate or understate various age-sex cohorts, even when they closely approximate aggregate mortality. In contrast, the 2015 Ruark VAM table better reflects FIA mortality both in aggregate and by age-sex cells.

  • Ruark's estimate of aggregate FIA mortality has remained stable since 2016. In contrast, VA mortality has fallen approximately 3% since 2015, driven by mortality improvement and changes in the business mix. In the case of FIA, these downward trends are offset by the effects of improved company-by-company data processing in this study, particularly with regard to spousal continuation following the death of the original policyholder.

  • FIA mortality exhibits a select-and-ultimate pattern even in the absence of individual underwriting. Mortality in the first year is 75% of average in the first contract year, jumps 20 percentage points in the second contract year, and then grows by approximately 1.6 percentage points each year thereafter. This phenomenon is consistent with the intuition that FIA buyers might be expected to be somewhat healthier in order to enter into a financial transaction that offers limited death benefits, and various forms of longevity benefits.

  • There is evidence of mortality improvement among FIA policyholders, and the extent of improvement appears to vary depending on whether or not the contract includes a GLIB rider. Contracts with a GLIB rider exhibit improvement consistent with projection scale G2; those without a rider exhibit greater annual improvement.

 

Detailed study results, including company-level analytics and customized behavioral assumption models calibrated to the study data, are available for purchase by participating companies.

For further information on results, to purchase the study, or if you have any other inquiries, click here or email Timothy Paris (timothyparis@ruark.co).


Living benefit riders boost persistency

RUARK CONSULTING RELEASES FIXED INDEXED ANNUITY STUDY RESULTS

Living benefit riders boost persistency


SIMSBURY, CT, March 5, 2018 – Ruark Consulting, LLC today released the results of its 2018 studies of fixed indexed annuity (FIA) policyholder behavior. The studies, which examine the factors driving surrender behavior and income utilization, were based on experience from 3.3 million policyholders spanning the period January, 2007 through September, 2017. A record 16 fixed indexed annuity writers participated, comprising $215 billion in account value as of September, 2017.

“Getting actuarial assumptions right can mean the difference between profitability and anti-selection, or between overhedging and underhedging,” said Timothy Paris, Ruark’s CEO. “Ruark’s studies use industry data to provide greater insight, and more predictable and stable results, than companies can achieve when they limit themselves to their own experience.”

Ruark’s FIA studies cover products both with and without a guaranteed living income benefit (GLIB). GLIB exposure outside the surrender charge period increased 82% in this edition over 2017.

Study highlights include:

  • Overall industry surrender rates have exhibited a secular downward trend since 2007. Surrenders at the shock duration (the year following the end of the contractually defined surrender charge period) have fallen from over 50% in 2007 to 15-25% in recent quarters, and surrender rates during the surrender charge period have fallen from high single digits to below 3%. We note an industrywide dip in surrenders in 2016 and rebound in 2017; it is likely that uncertainty surrounding the DOL’s proposed Fiduciary Rule and political factors encouraged a “wait-and-see” attitude among many policyholders and advisors.
  • The presence of a living benefit rider has a notable effect on surrender rates; contracts with a guaranteed living income benefit (GLIB) have much better persistency than those without. Surrender rates during the surrender charge period for contracts with GLIBs are less than half those of contracts without the guarantee. Among contracts that have begun taking income withdrawals, persistency is better still; shock duration rates are approximately 15%, as compared to 26% for contracts without GLIB.
  • Credited rates have a discernable effect on surrenders. As in past studies, we note that contracts earning less than 2% exhibit sharply higher surrenders than those earning more. Additional experience in this study reveals differentiation among contracts with higher returns, as well.
  • The in-the-money effect, by which owners have higher persistency when the account value is below the guarantee base, is subtle in the case of FIAs. We find that using an actuarial moneyness basis, which discounts guaranteed income for interest and mortality rates, has much greater predictive power than a nominal measure.
  • GLIB benefit commencement rates are low: 7% overall in the first contract duration and then falling to the 2% range in years 3-10. Notably, although experience is limited, exercise rates spike in year 11, suggesting that benefit bonuses may be effective at delaying exercise. When a living benefit contract does begin taking withdrawals, it is likely to continue in subsequent years; average continuation rates are near 100%. However, utilization of the benefit is far from fully efficient. A significant proportion withdraw income in excess of the contractual guarantee, which degrades value of the guarantee in future years.
  • Commencement rates vary considerably by age and by contract size. They are also influenced by the in-the-money effect. Exercise rates increase sharply when contracts move deep in the money, as policyholders recognize the economic value of the income guarantee.
  • FIA contracts typically offer the opportunity to take 10% of account value annually in penalty-free withdrawals, often following a 1-year waiting period. This is the case for contracts with and without a guaranteed living income benefit (GLIB) rider. Base contract withdrawals have been largely stable over the past decade. Behavior differs subtlely across four groups: Those taking the full penalty-free amount; those taking less; those taking excess; and those for which no penalty applies.
  • Free partial withdrawal activity on the base contract is influenced by age and required minimum distributions, as well as contract size. Notably, withdrawal sizes spike in the year following the end of the surrender charge period, when all partial withdrawals become penalty-free. Average withdrawal sizes jump 8 percentage points following the end of the surrender charge period.

Detailed study results, including company-level analytics, are available for purchase by participating companies. For further information, please contact Timothy Paris, CEO.
Contact Tim


EBIG notes: Structured VAs

At the Society of Actuaries's recent conference on Equity-Based Insurance Guarantees, one of the more interesting sessions (for me) related to structured variable annuities. These are a relatively new product, and fill a market gap between traditional variable annuities (VAs) and fixed indexed annuities (FIAs). They offer the consumer more downside protection than VAs, while offering more upside opportunity than FIAs.

The session was presented by Ari Linder of Munich Re and Simpa Baiye of PwC. As both explained, a structured VA is constructed off of a reference market index. However, client funds are not invested in the index. Rather, the annuity writer creates index exposure through derivatives -- selling an out-of-the-money put option, and using the proceeds to purchase a call spread. The put creates downside protection; the call spread, upside opportunity. Client funds are invested in the annuity writer's general account. Investment income on the funds, along with product fees, is used to cover administrative expenses and profit margins.

I've simplified, of course. There is quite a lot more to the product, including variations in the product offering, operational details, typical sales channels, accounting treatment, and so on. However, what most interested me as a former risk manager is the product's risk profile for the annuity writer.

Similar to an FIA without living benefits, the structured VA writer bears very little market risk at the outset. The payoff to the client is mirrored by the payoff on the derivatives used to construct the product. Basis risk is minimal, because market indices are selected on the basis of derivatives market liquidity. Volatility and interest rate risk are mitigated because the writer can adjust the product parameters (cap, buffer, floor) at each reset -- and higher volatility can reasonably be expected to increase proceeds from the sale of the put as well as the cost of the call spread. That's not to say market risk disappears. As Baiye noted, there may be opportunities for an annuity writer to exploit offsetting payoffs on traditional VA products to offset risk internally and reduce hedging costs; this would require more active market risk management. And as with FIAs, there is a need for the annuity writer to aggregate annuity contracts into cohorts that are large enough to buy derivatives against. Writers will need to bear or hedge some market risk at the margins.

That said, the larger risk in structured VAs is one we know well at Ruark: Policyholder behavior risk. The product contains various disincentives to policyholders surrendering their policies, but there is always some surrender activity on financial products. Circumstances change -- both personal circumstances and market circumstances. So it makes sense for the annuity writer to buy derivatives on less than 100% of the exposure. But how much less? That depends on the annuity writer's assumptions about persistency.

Will policyholder behavior on structured VAs resemble that of FIAs? Or that of VAs? With or without living benefits? A case can be made either way, especially with the confluence of distribution channels for VAs, FIAs, and even structured retail products. Surely today's annuity writers are seeing experience, but how might that experience change in the future? As product sales grow -- they are currently about $8bn per year -- we can expect the question to grow in importance.

Image credits: Simpa Baiye, PwC


A busy September is coming up. Hope to see you in our travels...

Eric Halpern and Tim Paris will be moderating a few sessions at the SOA's first-ever Predictive Analytics Symposium, and we are delighted to be one of the corporate sponsors for this exciting event.

Tim Paris will be attending the BILTIR Life and Annuity Conference. Keynote speaker is a long-time favorite of our's and many...

Both events are still open for registration.

Date
September 14 - 15, 2017

Location
Swissotel Chicago
Chicago, IL

Date
September 19, 2017

Location
Southampton
Bermuda