1 — Why solvency ratios matter (short primer)

When people say an insurer is “solvent,” they mean it has enough economic capital to meet its obligations (claims, policyholder benefits) under a wide range of scenarios. Regulators, ratings agencies, investors, and large commercial buyers all watch solvency and capital adequacy because an insurer that runs short of capital can face regulatory action, restricted business activity, run-offs, or in extreme cases, receivership.

Two complementary perspectives are used widely:

• Regulatory / statutory view: In the U.S., the NAIC’s Risk-Based Capital (RBC) framework measures an insurer’s required capital relative to its actual adjusted surplus. The RBC ratio (Total Adjusted Capital ÷ Authorized Control Level RBC) is expressed as a percent; regulators generally consider ratios ≥300% healthy, 200–300% subject to trend testing, and below 200% potentially concerning.

• Market / credit rating view: Rating agencies (A.M. Best, S&P, Fitch, Moody’s) calculate capital adequacy via proprietary models (A.M. Best’s BCAR, S&P’s capital adequacy assessment, Fitch’s metrics). These feed the widely cited Financial Strength Ratings (FSRs) — e.g., A++, AA, AA−, A+, etc. Higher ratings indicate stronger balance sheets and lower default/claims-payment risk. Investors often rely on these ratings to compare companies across lines and jurisdictions.

2 — The main solvency yardsticks: what to read and where

If you want to check a carrier’s solvency quickly, look at:

1. NAIC statutory filings / RBC disclosures — regulator’s view of statutory surplus and capital adequacy; useful for state-regulated solvency signals.
2. A.M. Best — BCAR and FSR — A.M. Best’s Financial Strength Rating and Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio are central for insurance industry watchers. Public press releases often accompany rating actions.
3. S&P, Fitch, Moody’s insurer financial-strength/IFS ratings — different models but broadly comparable; S&P and Fitch focus on insurer fundamentals, balance sheet strength, and operating performance.
4. Company statutory statements / solvency & financial condition reports — large insurers publish their own Solvency & Financial Condition Reports (SFCRs) or rating-summary booklets with entity-level ratings.

Quick reading tip: Ratings agencies publish press releases whenever they affirm/upgrade/downgrade. For the most current picture, read both the latest rating action press release and the insurer’s own statutory surplus / RBC numbers.

3 — Which U.S. insurers currently show the strongest solvency positions? (high-level list + why)

Below I list insurers (group view and major legal entities) that consistently sit at the top of solvency and rating league tables in 2024–2025. For each I give the evidence (ratings, agency commentary or company statements) and a short explanation.

Important: solvency is dynamic. Ratings and RBC move with underwriting cycles, catastrophe losses, interest-rate shifts, and capital actions (dividends/share repurchases). Use the cited sources below as a starting point and check the rating agency web pages or the insurer’s latest statutory filings for the most current numbers.

3.1 Berkshire Hathaway (National Indemnity and the Berkshire insurance complex)

Why it stands out: Berkshire Hathaway’s insurance subsidiaries — led by National Indemnity and affiliated underwriting companies — are often cited among the most strongly capitalized carriers globally. They typically carry A++ from A.M. Best and AA+/AA-class ratings from S&P/Fitch for core entities. Berkshire’s enormous surplus and the ability to deploy investment cash make the group unusually resilient to big losses.

Evidence & notes: A.M. Best and other agencies periodically affirm A++ ratings on key Berkshire underwriting companies (National Indemnity) and note extremely strong balance-sheet metrics. Berkshire also publicly highlights the A++ affirmation. The combination of huge statutory surplus and conservative underwriting philosophy supports consistently strong capital ratios.

3.2 Chubb Limited

Why it stands out: Chubb’s core operating insurance companies are rated at the top of the scale by multiple agencies — e.g., A++ (A.M. Best) and AA (S&P/Fitch) for many legal entities — reflecting broad diversification across P&C lines, large surplus, and conservative reserving. Chubb’s public materials explicitly cite these ratings as proof of claims-paying ability.

Evidence & notes: Chubb’s investor relations and rating-summary documents (2024–2025) list A++ (AM Best) and AA (S&P/Fitch) for many group companies. S&P and Fitch commentary has emphasized Chubb’s very strong capitalization and conservative capital targets. Use Chubb’s legal-entity rating summary for entity-level detail.

3.3 New York Life (mutual life insurer)

Why it stands out: New York Life is frequently noted as among the highest-rated U.S. life insurers, often carrying A++ (A.M. Best) and aaa/top ratings from other agencies. Mutual ownership (policyholder owned) and conservative reserving/investment strategies have helped it maintain top capital metrics.

Evidence & notes: In 2025 New York Life stated it “enters 2025 with industry-leading financial strength ratings” from the major agencies; A.M. Best’s rating history shows repeated A++ affirmations. For long-duration liabilities (life & annuities), insurers with the highest agency ratings tend to have strong statutory surplus, diversified investment mixes, and conservative assumptions.

3.4 Prudential Financial (selected entities)

Why it stands out: Prudential’s core U.S. life entities generally receive A+ (A.M. Best) and AA- (S&P / Fitch) level ratings and have been reported to show improved capital adequacy metrics (e.g., improved BCAR) in 2024–2025 commentary. That points to robust solvency metrics relative to peers in the life & retirement space.

Evidence & notes: A.M. Best press releases in 2025 affirmed Prudential’s strong balance sheet and improved BCAR; Prudential’s investor pages list ratings across key legal entities. As with any group, entity-level ratings vary — check the particular legal insurer (the Prudential Insurance Company of America vs. PRUCO entities).

3.5 AIG (American International Group) — improving and closely watched

Why it stands out: AIG has been the target of focused analysis because of its scale and historical volatility. In late 2025 some rating agencies upgraded or put positive outlooks on AIG’s major operating subsidiaries after stronger underwriting and capital actions; this reflects improving solvency metrics across key entities.

Evidence & notes: S&P and others have revised ratings/outlooks as AIG reduced leverage and improved operating performance. That said AIG is a large, complex group — capital adequacy can vary materially by product and legal entity. Always check the agency release for the specific AIG subsidiary you care about.

3.6 Other consistently well-capitalized U.S. names

• Massachusetts Mutual (MassMutual) — large mutual life; historically high AM Best/Fitch ratings.
• State Farm — historically top rated (A++/AA range), though rating actions can move with underwriting cycles; monitor agency press.
• Nationwide, TIAA, Northwestern Mutual, and smaller specialty carriers — several mutuals and specialty writers maintain top ratings and strong RBC / statutory surplus ratios. (Check agency pages per entity.)

Evidence & notes: Many mutual life insurers (New York Life, MassMutual, Northwestern Mutual) emphasize capital conservatism and top ratings. Property-casualty market leaders (Chubb, Berkshire, some reinsurers) benefit from explicit reinsurance access and diversified premium bases. Agency pages, company rating summaries, and NAIC filings are the primary sources.

4 — Concrete examples: how agencies and regulators described capital in recent 2024–2025 commentary

• NAIC / RBC context: The NAIC continues to enforce RBC thresholds and has introduced new RBC disclosure requirements for property insurers; regulators treat RBC ≥300% as generally acceptable and below 200% as a signal for heightened oversight. That framework anchors the U.S. solvency supervisory regime.

• A.M. Best & BCAR: A.M. Best’s BCAR model and Financial Strength Ratings were used in 2024–2025 to affirm top ratings for several life and P&C carriers; Best’s commentary often cites risk-adjusted capital metrics as the basis for FSRs. For example, AM Best affirmed A++ for New York Life and several Berkshire/BHHC entities in 2024–2025 releases.

• S&P / Fitch commentary on Chubb & others: S&P/Fitch’s affirmation of AA/AA+ insurer financial strength for carriers such as Chubb and (selectively) Berkshire units reflects capital being above their reference confidence levels, with comfortable buffers to the firms’ internal capital targets.

5 — How to interpret this as a consumer or buyer of insurance

If you’re buying insurance (personal lines, commercial, annuity, life), solvency and ratings matter because:

• Claims paying ability: Higher-rated insurers have a stronger track record and greater capital buffers to pay claims after catastrophic losses.
• Counterparty safety for large buyers: Corporates and pension plans often require counterparties with minimum ratings (e.g., A or higher).
• Long-duration products (annuity & life): For annuities and guaranteed products, insurer capital strength is particularly important because liabilities can stretch for decades. For annuity buyers, top-rated life insurers (New York Life, MassMutual, etc.) are often recommended because of conservative capital management.

Practical steps when choosing a carrier:

1. Check the A.M. Best and S&P Financial Strength Ratings of the specific legal entity that will underwrite your policy (not just the parent brand).
2. For life/annuity buys, prefer carriers with repeated A++ / top ratings and stable/positive outlooks.
3. For large commercial placements, ask for entity-level rating letters and reinsurer support documentation (if the policy uses reinsurance).
4. Where available, check the insurer’s NAIC RBC ratio in their statutory filing for that year to see regulator-level capital adequacy.

6 — What drives strong solvency ratios (and what can weaken them)

Capital strengths come from:

• Large statutory surplus and free capital (e.g., Berkshire’s huge retained earnings / surplus).
• Diversified underwriting across geographies and product lines (reduces exposure concentration).
• Conservative reserving and prudent actuarial assumptions.
• Strong investment portfolios with high quality fixed income and prudent duration matching for life insurers.

Capital pressure can appear from:

• Catastrophe losses (P&C) or elevated claims (personal auto surge).
• Interest-rate volatility (affects life insurers’ ability to meet guaranteed rates).
• Reserve strengthening (recognition of previously under-estimated liabilities).
• Large capital returns (dividends/repurchases) that reduce statutory surplus absent offsetting earnings. (Rating agencies monitor capital actions closely — e.g., AIG and Berkshire filings often mention capital returns.)

7 — Short profiles (practical snippets you can quote or link)

Berkshire Hathaway — National Indemnity & group

• Typical ratings: A.M. Best A++ (selected underwriting units); S&P/Fitch AA/AA+ on certain operations.
• Why: Very large statutory surplus, capacity to absorb multi-year losses, and a conservative, capital-sized approach to underwriting.

Chubb Limited

• Typical ratings: A.M. Best A++; S&P/Fitch AA.
• Why: Diversified P&C franchise, strong reserving culture, and consistent profitability that supports high capital buffers.

New York Life

• Typical ratings: A.M. Best A++; top-tier marks from other agencies (aaa at times for issuer credit).
• Why: Mutual structure, deep surplus, and conservative ALM (asset-liability management) for long-duration life/annuity exposures.

Prudential Financial (selected legal insurers)

• Typical ratings: A.M. Best A+; S&P/Fitch AA- on select entities.
• Why: Strong liabilities management and improving BCAR metrics (A.M. Best commentary has noted improvement).

AIG (select operating subsidiaries)

• Typical ratings: Historically in the A/AA area for major operating units; rating actions in late 2025 reflect improving credit metrics and positive outlooks in some cases.
• Why: Size and underwriting strength; watch for evolving commentary as AIG completes capital/operational plans.

8 — How to check the exact numbers yourself (step-by-step)

1. Open the NAIC or a state’s DOI website and look for the insurer’s statutory annual statement — the RBC ratio is reported in the annual statement exhibits. (NAIC explains RBC thresholds.)
2. Search A.M. Best / S&P / Fitch for the insurer name — read the most recent “Affirms/Upgrades/Downgrades” press release and the rating rationale. These discuss balance-sheet/capital drivers.
3. Check the insurer’s IR site for “Ratings by legal entity” or the Solvency & Financial Condition Report (if public). Large groups publish entity-level rating tables.
4. For life/annuity purchases, also read the carrier’s annual statement schedule on asset duration and the interest rate hedging program — those affect the firm’s ability to meet guarantees.

9 — Trends to watch in 2025–2026 that could change the solvency map

• Climate & catastrophe exposure: Insurers with large catastrophe footprints may see increased capital strain in severe event years; NAIC and rating agencies are increasing focus on climate risk.
• Interest rate & reinvestment risk: Life insurers with large guaranteed products are sensitive to long-term rates; recent regulatory guidance (NAIC) and agency commentary have highlighted the importance of stress testing.
• Reinsurance market dynamics: Access and pricing in the reinsurance market affect required capital; stronger reinsurance programs can reduce net capital needs.
• Regulatory changes / disclosure shifts: NAIC updates to RBC disclosure (especially for property insurers) will improve transparency and could change market perceptions as new data emerges.

10 — Caveats and common pitfalls on USA insurance solvency ratios

• Ratings ≠ perfect prediction: A strong rating suggests low probability of default / non-payment, but not zero. Ratings are forward-looking opinions, not guarantees.
• Group vs. legal entity: A strong parent rating does not automatically mean every affiliated legal insurer shares the same capital position. Always verify the legal entity underwriting your policy.
• Timing lags: Statutory RBC numbers are published annually (with quarterly updates in some filings); rating agency actions can lag or lead depending on events. Use the most recent press release plus the latest statutory filing.

11 — Recommendations (for consumers, brokers, and investors)

• Consumers (life/annuity): Favor carriers with repeated top-tier ratings (A++ / A / AA families) and check that the specific legal entity that will hold your contract has the rating. Consider mutual carriers if you prefer policyholder-owned capital conservatism (e.g., New York Life, MassMutual).
• Commercial buyers / brokers: Request entity-level rating letters and recent solvency statements; for large property placements insist on reinsurer confirmations for catastrophe layers.
• Investors: Monitor rating agency commentary, RBC disclosures, reserve development, and the insurer’s capital actions (share repurchases, dividends). A sudden change in underwriting performance or an aggressive capital return policy can erode buffers quickly.

12 — Final thoughts (short summary)

• Solvency is best assessed using multiple lenses: NAIC RBC (regulatory), A.M. Best BCAR and FSRs (industry standard), and S&P/Fitch/Moody’s insurer financial strength opinions (market view).

• Berkshire Hathaway (National Indemnity), Chubb, and top mutual life insurers (New York Life, MassMutual, etc.) are among the U.S. carriers that consistently display the strongest solvency metrics as of 2024–2025. Prudential and AIG have also shown strong metrics or improving trends in recent agency commentary but should be read at the entity level.

• Always check entity-level ratings and the latest statutory filings before making high-value insurance decisions.