EIG
#The Board of Directors approved it yesterday.
There is a waiting period before a share repurchase can become operational.
We're currently in the closed window.
Sure.
So this is <UNK> again.
We took a $17 million impairment charge for other-than-temporary impairments as required under GAAP.
Those impairments were really driven by considerations around the severity of the declines in market values of specific holdings.
The holdings are largely equity holdings in the energy sector, particularly within our master limited partnership, MLP strategy component.
And that is largely it.
I think the only additional comments I'd make, which is to reiterate my prepared remarks, is we're seeing tremendous volatility in the marketplace, in the capital markets, as I'm sure everybody's experiencing.
No, none.
At this ---+
It's always possible.
But at this juncture, none of our holdings.
Our holdings, our MLP strategy is actually focused, just to give you a little bit more color on it, is focused on transportation and storage names.
So they're very much midstream companies and they are largely gas as opposed to crude oil oriented names.
And so the whole sector, I think ---+ well, the entire market has shown a strong correlation to crude over the past six months and I guess I don't need to comment further on that matter.
So we have energy exposure beyond our equity strategy.
We obviously had it as part of our corporate one portfolio.
Energy we maintain a benchmark weighting for energy at 8% and that's largely where we are within our fixed income portfolio.
Basic materials is 3% and that's where we are.
So the energy exposure within the dividend ---+ sorry, within the equity portfolio that includes both the MLP and the high-dividend equity strategy is about 27% of the market value of the equity securities which were about $200 million at the end of the year.
I'll answer that one, <UNK>.
Let me reference you to the press release issued by A.
M.
Best.
They indicated two areas of concern.
One was continuing adverse development in more recent years.
As I indicated in my comments earlier, in fact, in 2015 we had no actuarial adverse developments in any of the years from 2008 to 2014.
The second reason A.
Best cited is the concern for our forward outlook having to do with our business concentration in California.
As we indicated multiple times in the call today, in fact, our exposure to California has decreased meaningfully over the last 18 months.
So I can only reference you to the two items that they identified in their press release as to why they need to keep us on a negative outlook.
Obviously, we would disagree with both of those points.
A.
M.
Best has indicated to us that they reset the outlook annually.
So conceivably they could do a review in later 2016, which would be our normal rating cycle or they could continue it indefinitely.
All I can point to is the two areas that they've identified that were of concern to them and, in fact, we believe that actually that's incorrect.
I think it's important to note that although we would certainly like to have an A-minus stable outlook, the negative outlook has had no impact on our business whatsoever.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone, for joining us on the call today.
We appreciate your interest and your participation.
We look forward to speaking with you again as we report our first- quarter 2016 results.
Thank you and have a great day.
