QuickLinks-- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K


ý

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20052006

OR

o

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number 1-11840


THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware
(State of Incorporation)
                             36-3871531
(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

2775 Sanders Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062
(Address of principal executive offices)    (Zip Code)

        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (847) 402-5000

        Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class on which registered

 Name of each exchange
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share New York Stock Exchange

Chicago Stock Exchange

        Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None


        Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes ý                        No o

        Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes o                        No ý

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes ý                        No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of "accelerated filer and large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer
ý
 Accelerated filer
o
 Non-accelerated filer
o

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes o                        No ý

        The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, computed by reference to the closing price as of the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter, June 30, 2005,2006, was approximately $39.19$34.23 billion.

        As of January 31, 2006,2007, the registrant had 644,982,626618,738,246 shares of common stock outstanding.

Documents Incorporated By Reference

        Portions of the following documents are incorporated herein by reference as follows:

        Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant's definitive proxy statement for its annual stockholders meeting to be held on May 16, 200615, 2007 (the "Proxy Statement") to be filed not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K.




Table of Contents

 
 Page
PART I  
Item 1. Business 1
 Goal 1
 Allstate Protection Segment 2
 Allstate Financial Segment 54
 Other Business Segments 87
 Reserve for Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense 8
 Regulation 1312
 Internet Website 1715
 Other Information about Allstate 1716
 Executive Officers 1817
Item 1A. Risk Factors 1918
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 1927
Item 2. Properties 1927
Item 3. Legal Proceedings 1927
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders 1927
PART II  
Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related StockholderStockholders Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 2028
Item 6. Selected Financial Data 2230
Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 2331
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 120129
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 120129
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 201216
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 201216
Item 9B.9B Other Information 201216
PART III  
Item 10. Directors, and Executive Officers of the Registrantand Corporate Governance 204219
Item 11. Executive Compensation 204219
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 204219
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 205220
Item 14. Principal AccountantAccounting Fees and Services 205220
PART IV  
Item 15. Exhibits, and Financial Statement Schedules 206221
Signatures 210225
Financial Statement Schedules S-1


Part I


Item 1. Business

        The Allstate Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on November 5, 1992 to serve as the holding company for Allstate Insurance Company. Its business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates (collectively, including The Allstate Corporation, "Allstate"). Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and investment products business. It conducts its business primarily in the United States.

        The Allstate Corporation is the largest publicly held personal lines insurer in the United States. Widely known through the "You're In Good Hands With Allstate®" slogan, Allstate provides insurance products to more than 17 million households through a distribution network that utilizes a total of approximately 14,10014,800 exclusive agencies and exclusive financial specialists in the United States and Canada. Allstate is the second-largest personal property and casualty insurer in the United States on the basis of 20042005 statutory premiums earned. In addition, according to A.M. Best, it is the nation's 13th largest issuer of life insurance business on the basis of 20042005 ordinary life insurance in force and 1716th largest on the basis of 20042005 statutory admitted assets.

        Allstate has four business segments:

• Allstate Protection • Discontinued Lines and Coverages
• Allstate Financial • Corporate and Other

        In this annual report on Form 10-K, we occasionally refer to statutory financial information that has been prepared in accordance with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners ("NAIC") Accounting Practices and Procedure Manual ("Manual"). All domestic U.S. insurance companies are required to prepare statutory-basis financial statements in accordance with the Manual. As a result, industry data is available that enables comparisons between insurance companies, including competitors that are not subject to the requirement to publish financial statements on the basis of accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. ("GAAP"). We frequently use industry publications containing statutory financial information to assess our competitive position.

        Allstate's goal is to become better, bigger and broader in personal property and casualty insurance and in life insurance, retirement and investment products.

        To achieve this goal, Allstate will help customers feel better protected today and better prepared for tomorrow by delivering on the Good Hands® Promise. The Good Hands Promise is made up of five planks that reflect what Allstate stands for:

        In pursuit of our goal to become better, bigger and broader, we intend to maintain discipline in pricing, underwriting, capital, and expense and risk management in order to create long-term shareholder value. We may also engage in selective business start-ups, acquisitions and alliances.



ALLSTATE PROTECTION SEGMENT

Products and Distribution

        Our Allstate Protection segment accounted for 93% of Allstate's 20052006 consolidated insurance premiums and contract charges. In this segment, we sell principally private passenger auto and homeowners insurance, primarily through agencies. These products are marketed under the Allstate, EncompassSMEncompass® and Deerbrook® brand names.

        Allstate brand auto and homeowners insurance products are sold primarily through Allstate exclusive agencies and, to a lesser extent, through independent agencies in areas not served by exclusive agencies. Encompass brand auto and homeowners insurance products as well as Deerbrook brand auto insurance products are sold through independent agencies.

        In many states, where we have implemented The Good Hands® Network, consumers can also purchase certain Allstate brand personal insurance products and obtain service through our Customer Information Centers and, in manya majority of those states, over the Internet.

        Our broad-based network of approximately 12,50012,900 Allstate exclusive agencies in approximately 11,00011,900 locations in the U.S. produced approximately 82%85% of the Allstate Protection segment's written premiums in 2005.2006. The rest was generated primarily by approximately 13,00011,200 independent agencies. We are among the sixfive largest providers of personal property and casualty insurance products through independent agencies in the United States, based on statutory written premium information publishedprovided by A.M. Best for 2004 and our analysis of publicly available GAAP financial statements of our principal competitors in the independent agency channel.2005.

        We also sell a variety of other personal property and casualty insurance products, including landlords, personal umbrella, renters, condominium, residential fire, manufactured housing, boat owners, loan protection and selected commercial property and casualty products and we participate in the "involuntary" or "shared" private passenger auto insurance business in order to maintain our licenses to do business in many states. Through Allstate Motor Club, Inc. we also provide emergency road service. Allstate exclusive agencies and exclusive financial specialists also sell non-proprietary mutual funds, variable annuities, health products and long-term care insurance in addition to Allstate Financial products.

Competition

        The markets for personal private passenger auto and homeowners insurance are highly competitive. The following charts provide the market shares of our principal competitors in the U.S. by direct written premium for the year ended December 31, 20042005 (the most recent date such competitive information is available) according to A. M. Best.

Private Passenger Auto Insurance

Private Passenger Auto Insurance

 Homeowners Insurance

 Private Passenger Auto Insurance

 Homeowners Insurance

 
Insurer

 Market Share
 Insurer

 Market Share
  Market Share
 Insurer

 Market Share
 
State Farm 18.6%State Farm 22.7% 18.0%State Farm 22.4%
Allstate* 11.0%Allstate* 12.1% 11.1%Allstate* 12.3%
Progressive 7.2%Farmers 7.3% 7.4%Farmers 7.1%
Geico 5.5%Nationwide 4.7%
Govt Employees Group 6.2%Nationwide 4.7%
Farmers 4.9%Travelers 4.3% 4.8%Travelers 4.2%
Nationwide 4.6%USAA 3.9% 4.7%USAA 4.0%

*
Allstate's market shares, above, are the sum of the market sharesinclude premiums reported by A.M. Best for Allstate Insurance Group andas well as a small amount of premium for the personal lines insurance businessselect companies of CNA Insurance Companies, which Allstate acquired in 1999.

        In the personal property and casualty insurance market, we compete principally on the basis of the recognition of our brands, the scope of our distribution system, price, the breadth of our product offerings, product features, customer service, claim handling, and use of technology. In addition, our



proprietary database of underwriting and pricing experience enables Allstate to use "Tiered Pricing," to divide the market into segments,Pricing" to more accurately price risks and to cross sell products within our customer base. "Tiered Pricing" is the term that we use to describe our sophisticated process for segmenting a market.

        Tiered Pricing and related underwriting and marketing programs use a number of risk evaluation factors. For auto insurance these factors can include but are not limited to:to vehicle make, model and year; driver age and marital status; territory; years licensed; loss history; years insured with prior carrier, prior liability limits, prior lapse in coverage,coverage; and insurance scoring based on credit report information. For property insurance these factors can include but are not limited to:to amount of insurance purchased; geographic location of the property; loss history; age and construction characteristics of the property; and insurance scoring based on credit report information.

        Our primary focus in using Tiered Pricing has been on acquiring and retaining new business. The program is designed to enhance Allstate's competitive position with respect to "high lifetime value" market segments while maintaining or improving profitability. "Lifetime value" is the discounted value of a customer's future cash flow stream. To estimate a customer's lifetime value score, we analyze characteristics about the customer (for example, age, marital status and driving record) and characteristics about the product the customer has purchased (for example, coverages, limits, and descriptors of the asset insured) on the basis of historic data patterns and trends. Because future loss and retention patterns of customers vary significantly, the distribution of lifetime values for a large group of customers will vary from very negative to very positive. "High lifetime value" generally refers to customers who potentially present more favorable prospects for profitability over the course of their relationships with us.

        Allstate® Your Choice Auto insurance allows qualified customers to choose from a variety of optional auto insurance packages at various prices that we believe will further differentiate Allstate from its competitors, and allow for increased growth and increaseincreased retention. Allstate® Your Choice Homeowners allows qualified customers to choose from options such as claims free bonus and personalized coverage. Allstate BlueSM is our new non-standard auto insurance product which offers features such as loyalty bonuses and roadside assistance coverage.

Geographic Markets

        The principal geographic markets for our auto, homeowners and other personal property and casualty products are in the United States. Through various subsidiaries, we are authorized to sell various types of personal property and casualty insurance products in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. We also sell personal property and casualty insurance products in Canada through a distribution system similar to that used in the United States.

        The following table reflects, in percentages, the principal geographic distribution of premiums earned for the Allstate Protection segment for the year ended December 31, 2005.2006. No other jurisdiction accounted for more than five percent of the premiums earned for the segment.

California 10.610.9%
New York 10.410.1%
Texas 10.39.7%
Florida 9.29.4%
Pennsylvania 5.05.2%

        We are taking actions to support earning an acceptable return on the risks assumed in our property business and to reduce the variability in our earnings, while providing quality protection to our customers. As part of those actions we expect to continue to adjust underwriting practices with respect to our property business in markets with significant catastrophe risk exposure.



Additional Information

        Information regarding the last three years' revenues and income from operations attributable to the Allstate Protection segment is contained in Note 18 of the Consolidated Financial Statements. Note 18 also includes information regarding the last three years' identifiable assets attributable to our property-liability operations, which includes our Allstate Protection segment and our Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment. Note 18 is incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.

        Information regarding the amount of premium earned for Allstate Protection segment products for the last three years is set forth in Part II, Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, page 37,51, in the table regarding premiums earned by brand. That table is incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.


ALLSTATE FINANCIAL SEGMENT

Products and Distribution

        Our Allstate Financial segment provides life insurance, retirement and investment products and supplemental accident and health insurance products to individual and institutional customers. Our principal individual products are deferred and immediate fixed annuities, variable annuities, interest-sensitive, traditional and traditionalvariable life insurance, and supplemental accident and health insurance. We also distribute variable annuities through our bank distribution partners, however this product is fully reinsured. Our principal institutional product is funding agreements backing medium term notes.notes issued to institutional and individual investors. Banking products and services are also offered to customers through the Allstate Bank. The table on page 65 lists our major distribution channels for this segment, with the associated products and targeted customers.

        As the table indicates, we sell Allstate Financial products to individuals through multiple intermediary distribution channels, including Allstate exclusive agencies, independent agents, banks, broker-dealers, and specialized structured settlement brokers. We have distribution relationships with over half60 percent of the 75 largest banks, most of the national broker-dealers, a number of regional brokerage firms and many independent broker-dealers. We sell products through independent agents affiliated with approximately 175150 master brokerage agencies. Independent workplace enrolling agents and Allstate exclusive agencies also sell our supplemental accident and health insurance products primarily to employees of small and medium size firms. We sell funding agreements to unaffiliated trusts used to back medium term notes issued to institutional and individual investors.


Allstate Financial Distribution Channels, Products and Target Customers

Distribution Channel

 Primary Products
 Target Customers
Allstate exclusive agencies
(Allstate Exclusive Agents and Allstate Exclusive Financial Specialists)
 Term life insurance
Interest sensitive life insurance
Variable life insurance
Deferred fixed annuities (including indexed and market value adjusted "MVAA""MVA")
Immediate fixed annuities
Variable annuities
Cancer insurance
Bank products
(Certificates of deposit, money market accounts, savings accounts, checking accounts, first mortgage loans, and home equity loans and Allstate Agency loans)
Workplace life and supplemental accident and health insurance (Interest sensitive and term life insurance; disability income insurance; cancer, accident, critical illness and heart/stroke insurance; hospital indemnity; limited benefit medical insurance; and dental insurance)
 Moderate and middle-income consumers with retirement and family financial protection needs

Independent agents
(Through master brokerage agencies)

 

Term life insurance
Interest sensitive life insurance
Variable life insurance
Deferred fixed annuities (including indexed and MVAA)MVA)
Immediate fixed annuities
Variable annuities

 

Affluent and middle-income consumers with retirement and family financial protection needs

Independent agents
(As workplace enrolling agents)

 

Workplace life and supplemental accident and health insurance (Interest sensitive and term life insurance; disability income insurance; cancer, accident, critical illness and heart/stroke insurance; hospital indemnity; limited benefit medical insurance; and dental insurance)

 

Moderate and middle-income consumers with family financial protection needs employed by small and medium size firms

Banks

 

Deferred fixed annuities (including indexed and MVAA)
Variable annuitiesMVA)
Single premium fixed life insurance
Variable annuities (fully reinsured)

 

Middle-income consumers with retirement needs

Broker-dealers

 

Deferred fixed annuities (including indexed and MVAA)
Variable annuitiesMVA)
Single premium variable life insurance

 

Affluent and middle-income consumers with retirement needs

Structured settlement annuity brokers

 

Structured settlement annuities

 

Typically used to fund or annuitize large claims or litigation settlements

Broker-dealers
(Funding agreements)

 

Funding agreements backing medium term notes

 

Institutional and individual investors











Competition

        We compete principally on the basis of the scope of our distribution systems, the breadth of our product offerings, the recognition of our brands, our financial strength and ratings, our product features and prices, and the level of customer service that we provide. In addition, with respect to variable annuity and variable life insurance products in particular, we compete on the basis of the variety of fund managers and choices of funds for our separate accounts and the management and performance of those funds within our separate accounts. With regard to funding agreements, we compete principally on the basis of our financial strength and ratings.

        The market for life insurance, retirement and investment products continues to be highly fragmented and competitive. As of December 31, 2005,2006, there were approximately 740690 groups of life insurance companies in the United States, most of which offered one or more similar products. Based on information contained in statements filed with state insurance departments,According to A.M. Best, as of December 31, 2004,2005, the Allstate Financial segment rankedis the nation's 13th basedlargest issuer of life insurance and related business on the basis of 2005 ordinary life insurance in force and 1716th basedlargest on the basis of 2005 statutory admitted assets. In addition, because many of these products include a savings or investment component, our competition includes domestic and foreign securities firms, investment advisors, mutual funds, banks and other financial institutions. Competitive pressure is growingcontinues to grow due to several factors, including cross marketing alliances between unaffiliated businesses, as well as consolidation activity in the financial services industry.

        Our website for financial professionals, accessallstate.com, won DALBAR's Communications Seal beginning in 2004. The site attained DALBAR's highest designation of "Excellent" as ofsince the second third and fourth quarter of 2005 and is ranked second based on its overall quarterly rankings for Life Insurance/Annuity websites for Financial Professionals. DALBAR, Inc., an independent financial services research organization, recognized accessallstate.com for providing a means by which financial professionals can easily and conveniently develop and manage their business online.

Geographic Markets

        We sell life insurance, retirement and investment, and supplemental accident and health insurance products throughout the United States. Through subsidiaries, we are authorized to sell various types of these products in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam. We sell funding agreements in the United States and in the Cayman Islands.

        The following table reflects, in percentages, the principal geographic distribution of statutory premiums and annuity considerations for the Allstate Financial segment for the year ended December 31, 2005,2006, based on information contained in statements filed with state insurance departments. Approximately 99.0%98.0% of the statutory premiums and annuity considerations generated in Delaware represent deposits received in connection with funding agreements sold to trusts domiciled in Delaware. No other jurisdiction accounted for more than five percent of the statutory premiums and annuity considerations.

Delaware 26.417.0%
California 8.49.0%
New York 6.87.0%
Florida 5.86.0%
Texas6.0%

Additional Information

        Information regarding the last three years' revenues and income from operations attributable to the Allstate Financial segment is contained in Note 18 of the Consolidated Financial Statements. Note 18 also includes information regarding the last three years' identifiable assets attributable to the Allstate Financial segment. Note 18 is incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.



        Information regarding premiums and contract charges for Allstate Financial segment products for the last three years is set forth in Part II, Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, page 69,88, in the table that summarizes premiums and contract charges by product. That table is incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.

OTHER BUSINESS SEGMENTS

        Our Corporate and Other segment is comprised of holding company activities and certain non-insurance operations. Note 18 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contains information regarding the revenues, income from operations, and identifiable assets attributable to our Corporate and Other segment over the last three years.

        Our Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment includes results from insurance coverage that we no longer write and results for certain commercial and other business in run-off. Our exposure to asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims arises in this segment. Note 18 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contains information for the last three years regarding revenues, income from operations, and identifiable assets attributable to our property-liability operations, which includes both our Allstate Protection segment and our Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment. Note 18 is incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.


RESERVE FOR PROPERTY-LIABILITY CLAIMS AND CLAIMS EXPENSE

        The following information regarding reserves applies to all of our property-liability operations, encompassing both the Allstate Protection segment and the Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment.


Reconciliation of Claims Reserves

        The following tables are summary reconciliations of the beginning and ending property-liability insurance claims and claims expense reserves, displayed individually for each of the last three years. The first table presents reserves on a gross (before reinsurance) basis. The end of year gross reserve balances are reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position. The second table presents reserves on a net (after reinsurance) basis. The total net property-liability insurance claims and claims expense amounts are reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

 
 Year Ended December 31,
GROSS
($ in millions)

 2005
 2004
 2003
Gross reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense, beginning of year $19,338 $17,714 $16,690
Incurred claims and claims expense         
 Provision attributable to the current year  25,319  18,994  17,183
 Change in provision attributable to prior years  (127) 448  704
  
 
 
  Total claims and claims expense  25,192  19,442  17,887
Claim payments         
 Claims and claims expense attributable to current year  14,966  11,494  10,240
 Claims and claims expense attributable to prior years  7,447  6,324  6,623
  
 
 
  Total payments  22,413  17,818  16,863
  
 
 
Gross reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense, end of year as shown on 10-K loss reserve development table $22,117 $19,338 $17,714
  
 
 
 
 Year Ended December 31,
NET
($ in millions)

 2005
 2004
 2003
Net reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense, beginning of year $16,761 $15,980 $15,018
Incurred claims and claims expense         
 Provision attributable to the current year  21,643  18,073  17,031
 Change in provision attributable to prior years  (468) (230) 401
  
 
 
  Total claims and claims expense  21,175  17,843  17,432
Claim payments         
 Claims and claims expense attributable to current year  12,340  10,989  10,195
 Claims and claims expense attributable to prior years  6,665  6,073  6,275
  
 
 
  Total payments  19,005  17,062  16,470
  
 
 
Net reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense, end of year as shown on 10-K loss reserve development table(1) $18,931 $16,761 $15,980
  
 
 
 
 Year Ended December 31,
GROSS
($ in millions)

 2006
 2005
 2004
Gross reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense, beginning of year $22,117 $19,338 $17,714
Incurred claims and claims expense         
 Provision attributable to the current year  17,296  25,319  18,994
 Change in provision attributable to prior years  (816) (127) 448
  
 
 
  Total claims and claims expense  16,480  25,192  19,442
Claim payments         
 Claims and claims expense attributable to current year  10,398  14,966  11,494
 Claims and claims expense attributable to prior years  9,333  7,447  6,324
  
 
 
  Total payments  19,731  22,413  17,818
  
 
 
Gross reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense, end of year as shown on 10-K loss reserve development table $18,866 $22,117 $19,338
  
 
 
 
 Year Ended December 31,
 
NET
($ in millions)

 2006
 2005
 2004
 
Net reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense, beginning of year $18,931 $16,761 $15,980 
Incurred claims and claims expense          
 Provision attributable to the current year  16,988  21,643  18,073 
 Change in provision attributable to prior years  (971) (468) (230)
  
 
 
 
  Total claims and claims expense  16,017  21,175  17,843 
Claim payments          
 Claims and claims expense attributable to current year  10,386  12,340  10,989 
 Claims and claims expense attributable to prior years  7,952  6,665  6,073 
  
 
 
 
  Total payments  18,338  19,005  17,062 
  
 
 
 
Net reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense, end of year as shown on 10-K loss reserve development table(1) $16,610 $18,931 $16,761 
  
 
 
 

(1)
Reserves for claims and claims expense are net of reinsurance of $2.26 billion, $3.19 billion $2.58 billion, and $1.73$2.58 billion at December 31, 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, respectively.

        The year-end 20052006 gross reserves of $22.12$18.87 billion for property-liability insurance claims and claims expense, as determined under GAAP, were $4.32$3.36 billion more than the net reserve balance of $17.79$15.51 billion recorded on the basis of statutory accounting practices for reports provided to state regulatory authorities. The principal differences are reinsurance recoverables from third parties totaling $3.19$2.26 billion that reduce reserves for statutory reporting and are recorded as assets for GAAP reporting, and a liability for the reserves of the Canadian subsidiaries for $854$839 million. Remaining differences are due to variations in requirements between GAAP and statutory reporting.

        As the tables above illustrate, Allstate's net reserve for property-liability insurance claims and claims expense at the end of 20042005 decreased in 20052006 by $468$971 million, compared to reestimates of the gross reserves of a decrease of $127$816 million. Net reserve reestimates in 2006, 2005 and 2004 and 2003 were lowermore favorable than the gross reserve reestimates due to reinsurance cessions.

Loss Reserve Reestimates

        The following Loss Reserve Reestimates table illustrates the change over time of the net reserves established for property-liability insurance claims and claims expense at the end of the last eleven calendar years. The first section shows the reserves as originally reported at the end of the stated year. The second section, reading down, shows the cumulative amounts paid as of the end of successive years with respect to that reserve liability. The third section, reading down, shows retroactive reestimates of the original recorded reserve as of the end of each successive year which is the result of Allstate's expanded awareness of additional facts and circumstances that pertain to the unsettled claims. The last section compares the latest reestimated reserve to the reserve originally established, and indicates whether the original reserve was adequate to cover the estimated costs of unsettled claims. The table also presents the gross reestimated liability as of the end of the latest reestimation period, with separate disclosure of the related reestimated reinsurance recoverable. The Loss Reserve Reestimates table is cumulative and, therefore, ending balances should not be added since the amount at the end of each calendar year includes activity for both the current and prior years. Unfavorable reserve reestimates are shown in this table in parenthesis.



Loss Reserve Reestimates



 December 31,

 December 31,
($ millions)

($ millions)

 1995
 1996
 1997
 1998
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 2003
 2004
 2005
($ millions)

 1996
 1997
 1998
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 2003
 2004
 2005
 2006
Gross Reserves for Unpaid Claims and Claims ExpenseGross Reserves for Unpaid Claims and Claims Expense $17,326 $17,382 $17,403 $16,881 $17,814 $16,859 $16,500 $16,690 $17,714 $19,338 $22,117Gross Reserves for Unpaid Claims and Claims Expense $17,382 $17,403 $16,881 $17,814 $16,859 $16,500 $16,690 $17,714 $19,338 $22,117 $18,866
Deduct:Deduct:                                 Deduct:                                 
Reinsurance Recoverable  1,490  1,784  1,630  1,458  1,653  1,634  1,667  1,672  1,734  2,577  3,186Reinsurance Recoverable  1,784  1,630  1,458  1,653  1,634  1,667  1,672  1,734  2,577  3,186  2,256
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reserve For Unpaid Claims and Claims Expense $15,836 $15,598 $15,773 $15,423 $16,161 $15,225 $14,833 $15,018 $15,980 $16,761 $18,931
Reserve For UnpaidReserve For Unpaid                                 
Claims and Claims Expense $15,598 $15,773 $15,423 $16,161 $15,225 $14,833 $15,018 $15,980 $16,761 $18,931 $16,610
Paid (cumulative) as of:Paid (cumulative) as of:                                 Paid (cumulative) as of:                                 
One year later  5,787  5,013  5,488  5,615  5,973  6,748  6,874  6,275  6,073  6,665   One year later  5,013  5,488  5,615  5,973  6,748  6,874  6,275  6,073  6,665  7,952   
Two years later  8,232  7,952  8,361  8,638  9,055  10,066  9,931  9,241  9,098      Two years later  7,952  8,361  8,638  9,055  10,066  9,931  9,241  9,098  9,587      
Three years later  10,083  9,773  10,336  10,588  11,118  11,889  11,730  11,165         Three years later  9,773  10,336  10,588  11,118  11,889  11,730  11,165  10,936         
Four years later  11,170  11,040  11,587  11,950  12,197  12,967  12,949            Four years later  11,040  11,587  11,950  12,197  12,967  12,949  12,304            
Five years later  12,034  11,847  12,512  12,608  12,842  13,768               Five years later  11,847  12,512  12,608  12,842  13,768  13,648               
Six years later  12,590  12,528  12,967  13,038  13,434                  Six years later  12,528  12,967  13,038  13,434  14,255                  
Seven years later  13,134  12,881  13,294  13,532                     Seven years later  12,881  13,294  13,532  13,800                     
Eight years later  13,429  13,146  13,735                        Eight years later  13,146  13,735  13,835                        
Nine years later  13,660  13,553                           Nine years later  13,553  14,000                           
Ten years later  14,048                              Ten years later  13,795                              
Reserve Reestimated as of:Reserve Reestimated as of:                                 Reserve Reestimated as of:                                 
End of year  15,836  15,598  15,773  15,423  16,161  15,225  14,833  15,018  15,980  16,761  18,931End of year  15,598  15,773  15,423  16,161  15,225  14,833  15,018  15,980  16,761  18,931  16,610
One year later  15,500  14,921  15,073  14,836  15,439  15,567  15,518  15,419  15,750  16,293   One year later  14,921  15,073  14,836  15,439  15,567  15,518  15,419  15,750  16,293  17,960   
Two years later  14,917  14,450  14,548  14,371  15,330  15,900  16,175  15,757  15,677      Two years later  14,450  14,548  14,371  15,330  15,900  16,175  15,757  15,677  16,033      
Three years later  14,700  14,156  14,183  14,296  15,583  16,625  16,696  15,949         Three years later  14,156  14,183  14,296  15,583  16,625  16,696  15,949  15,721         
Four years later  14,613  13,894  14,168  14,530  16,317  17,249  16,937            Four years later  13,894  14,168  14,530  16,317  17,249  16,937  16,051            
Five years later  14,455  13,888  14,406  15,260  17,033  17,501               Five years later  13,888  14,406  15,260  17,033  17,501  17,041               
Six years later  14,452  14,140  15,109  16,024  17,302                  Six years later  14,140  15,109  16,024  17,302  17,633                  
Seven years later  14,703  14,824  15,899  16,292                     Seven years later  14,824  15,899  16,292  17,436                     
Eight years later  15,370  15,625  16,184                        Eight years later  15,625  16,184  16,431                        
Nine years later  16,160  15,911                           Nine years later  15,911  16,326                           
Ten years later  16,451                              Ten years later  16,061                              
Initial reserve in excess of (less than) reestimated reserve:Initial reserve in excess of (less than) reestimated reserve:                                 Initial reserve in excess of (less than) reestimated reserve:                                 
Amount of reestimate $(615)$(313)$(411)$(869)$(1,141)$(2,276)$(2,104)$(931)$303 $468   Amount of reestimate $(463)$(553)$(1,008)$(1,275)$(2,408)$(2,208)$(1,033)$259 $728 $971   
Percent  -3.9% -2.0% -2.6% -5.6% -7.1% -14.9% -14.2% -6.2% 1.9% 2.8%  Percent  -3.0% -3.5% -6.5% -7.9% -15.8% -14.9% -6.9% 1.6% 4.3% 5.1%  
Gross Reestimated Liability-LatestGross Reestimated Liability-Latest $19,253 $19,020 $19,104 $19,105 $20,229 $20,423 $19,836 $18,832 $18,383 $19,211   Gross Reestimated Liability-Latest $19,228 $19,304 $19,300 $20,418 $20,609 $19,993 $18,990 $18,483 $19,028 $21,301   
Reestimated Recoverable-LatestReestimated Recoverable-Latest  2,802  3,109  2,920  2,813  2,927  2,922  2,899  2,883  2,706  2,918   Reestimated Recoverable-Latest  3,167  2,978  2,869  2,982  2,976  2,952  2,939  2,762  2,995  3,341   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
Net Reestimated Liability-LatestNet Reestimated Liability-Latest $16,451 $15,911 $16,184 $16,292 $17,302 $17,501 $16,937 $15,949 $15,677 $16,293   Net Reestimated Liability-Latest $16,061 $16,326 $16,431 $17,436 $17,633 $17,041 $16,051 $15,721 $16,033 $17,960   
Gross Cumulative Reestimate (Increase) DecreaseGross Cumulative Reestimate (Increase) Decrease $(1,927)$(1,638)$(1,701)$(2,224)$(2,415)$(3,564)$(3,336)$(2,142)$(669)$127   Gross Cumulative Reestimate (Increase) Decrease $(1,846)$(1,901)$(2,419)$(2,604)$(3,750)$(3,493)$(2,300)$(769)$310 $816   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

Amount of Reestimates for Each Segment

 
 December 31,
 
($ millions)

 1995
 1996
 1997
 1998
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 2003
 2004
 
Net Discontinued Lines and Coverages Reestimate $(2,054)$(1,719)$(1,751)$(1,679)$(1,642)$(1,633)$(1,607)$(1,376)$(802)$(167)
Net Allstate Protection Reestimate  1,439  1,406  1,340  810  501  (643) (497) 445  1,105  635 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amount of Reestimate (Net) $(615)$(313)$(411)$(869)$(1,141)$(2,276)$(2,104)$(931)$303 $468 

 
 December 31,
 
($ millions)

 1996
 1997
 1998
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 2003
 2004
 2005
 
Net Discontinued Lines and Coverages Reestimate $(1,851)$(1,883)$(1,811)$(1,774)$(1,765)$(1,739)$(1,508)$(934)$(299)$(132)
Net Allstate Protection Reestimate  1,388  1,330  803  499  (643) (469) 475  1,193  1,027  1,103 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amount of Reestimate (Net) $(463)$(553)$(1,008)$(1,275)$(2,408)$(2,208)$(1,033)$259 $728 $971 

        As shown in the above table, the subsequent cumulative increase in the net reserves established from December 31, 19951996 to December 31, 2002 reflects additions to reserves in the Discontinued Lines



and Coverages Segment, primarily for asbestos and environmental liabilities, which offset the effects of favorable severity trends experienced by Allstate Protection, as discussed more fully below. The decreases in net reserves established as of December 31, 2003 andto December 31, 20042005 reflects favorable reestimates as more fully discussed below.

        The following table is derived from the Loss Reserve Reestimates table and summarizes the effect of reserve reestimates, net of reinsurance, on calendar year operations for the ten-year period ended December 31, 2005.2006. The total of each column details the amount of reserve reestimates made in the indicated calendar year and shows the accident years to which the reestimates are applicable. The amounts in the total accident year column on the far right represent the cumulative reserve reestimates for the indicated accident year(s). Favorable reserve reestimates are shown in this table in parenthesis.


Effect of Net Reserve Reestimates on
Calendar Year Operations

(in millions)

 1996
 1997
 1998
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 2003
 2004
 2005
 TOTAL
 
BY ACCIDENT YEAR                                  
1995 & PRIOR $(336)$(583)$(217)$(87)$(158)$(3)$251 $667 $790 $291 $615 
1996     (94) (254) (207) (104) (3) 1  17  11  (5) (638)
1997        (229) (231) (103) (9) (14) 19  (11) (1) (579)
1998           (62) (100) (60) (4) 27  (26) (17) (242)
1999              (257) (34) 19  4  (48) 1  (315)
2000                 451  80  (9) (92) (17) 413 
2001                    352  (68) (103) (11) 170 
2002                       (256) (183) (49) (488)
2003                          (568) (265) (833)
2004                             (395) (395)
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOTAL $(336)$(677)$(700)$(587)$(722)$342 $685 $401 $(230)$(468)$(2,292)
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        Favorable calendar year reserve reestimates in 1996 through 2000 were the result of favorable severity trends in each of the five years for Allstate Protection, which more than offset adverse reestimates in the Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment, primarily for asbestos and environmental liabilities, virtually all of which relates to 1984 and prior years. The favorable severity trend during this period was primarily the result of favorable injury severity trends, as compared to our anticipated trends. Favorable injury severity trends were largely due to more moderate medical cost inflation and the mitigating effects of our loss management programs.

        The impacts of more moderate medical cost inflation have emerged over time as actual claim settlements validate its magnitude. Beginning in the early 1990s, lower medical cost inflation rates, as evidenced by the consumer price index ("CPI") published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for medical costs, have contributed to lower actual claim settlements than prior estimates. From 1991 through 1995, the medical CPI averaged 6.3%, and from 1996 through 2000, the average declined to 3.4%. The medical CPI is considered a viable indicator of the direction of claim costs because it is a measure of the change in various costs for medical services and supplies, including doctors' fees, emergency care, therapy and rehabilitation, and pharmaceuticals, all of which are covered claims for insureds. In 2005, the medical CPI was 4.2%, and most recent economic forecasts anticipate future increases in medical inflation. If this occurs, future reserve reestimates could be adversely impacted if actual results exceed reserve estimates.

        Our loss management programs over time have had a mitigating effect in a variety of aspects on injury severity trends. We have been improving the claim adjudication processes by implementing programs to accomplish better investigation of claims, consistent handling of soft tissue injury claims, more accurate valuation of damages, and more effective negotiation and defense practices. These



improvements have also involved hiring additional staff, providing increased training, creating specialized units of expert employees to handle specific types of claims, and focusing attention and resources on handling specific types of claims such as soft tissue injury claims, claims with attorney involvement, and claims in litigation. These programs were intended to create an improved culture, focused on expert, efficient, and effective claim process management. Since 1993, growth of Allstate's injury claim costs has compared favorably to published insurance industry competitor results. We believe this experience is substantially due to the claim adjudication process improvements, and is an additional factor contributing to reductions in reserve estimates. While changes to the claim settlement process have mitigated increases in severity trends on closed claims, these changes can impact historical patterns of losses, introducing a greater degree of statistical variability in actuarial reserve estimates for the remaining outstanding claims.

(in millions)

 1997
 1998
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 2003
 2004
 2005
 2006
 TOTAL
 
BY ACCIDENT YEAR                                  
1996 & PRIOR  (677) (471) (294) (262) (6) 252  684  801  286  150  463 
1997     (229) (231) (103) (9) (14) 19  (11) (1) (8) (587)
1998        (62) (100) (60) (4) 27  (26) (17) (3) (245)
1999           (257) (34) 19  4  (48) 1  (5) (320)
2000              451  80  (9) (92) (17) (2) 411 
2001                 352  (68) (103) (11) (28) 142 
2002                    (256) (183) (49) (2) (490)
2003                       (568) (265) (58) (891)
2004                          (395) (304) (699)
2005                             (711) (711)
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOTAL $(677)$(700)$(587)$(722)$342 $685 $401 $(230)$(468)$(971)$(2,927)
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        In 2006, 2005 and 2004, we decreased our reserve estimates for prior years. Favorable reserve estimates were primarily due to Allstate Protection auto injury severity and late reported loss development that was less than what was anticipated in previous reserve estimates and in 2006, also by catastrophe losses that were less than anticipated in previous estimates. Decreased reserve reestimates for Allstate Protection more than offset increased estimates of losses primarily related to asbestos liabilities in the Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment.

        In 2003 and 2002, we increased our reserve estimates for prior years. Unfavorable reserve reestimates in 2003 were due to increases primarily related to asbestos and other discontinued lines, partially offset by favorable Allstate Protection auto injury severity and late reported loss development that was better than previous estimates, offset by unfavorable increases primarily related to asbestos and other discontinued lines.estimates. Unfavorable reserve reestimates in 2002 were due to claim severity and late reported losses for Allstate Protection that were greater than what was anticipated in previous reserve estimates and to increased estimates of losses primarily related to asbestos and environmental liabilities in the Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment.

        In 2001, we increased our reserve estimates for prior years due to greater volume of late reported weather related losses than expected from the end of the year 2000 which were reported in the year 2001, additional incurred losses on the 1994 Northridge earthquake, adverse results of class action and other litigation, upward reestimates of property losses and upward reestimates of losses in the Encompass and Canadian businesses.

        Favorable calendar year reserve reestimates in 1997 through 2000 were the result of favorable severity trends in each of the four years for Allstate Protection, which more than offset adverse reestimates in the Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment, primarily for asbestos and environmental liabilities, virtually all of which relates to 1984 and prior years. The favorable severity trend during this



period was primarily the result of favorable injury severity trends, as compared to our anticipated trends. Favorable injury severity trends were largely due to more moderate medical cost inflation and the mitigating effects of our loss management programs.

For additional information regarding reserves, see "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves."

REGULATION

        Allstate is subject to extensive regulation, primarily at the state level. The method, extent and substance of such regulation varies by state but generally has its source in statutes that establish standards and requirements for conducting the business of insurance and that delegate regulatory authority to a state regulatory agency. In general, such regulation is intended for the protection of those who purchase or use insurance products issued by our subsidiaries, not the holders of securities issued by The Allstate Corporation. These rules have a substantial effect on our business and relate to a wide variety of matters including insurance company licensing and examination, agent and adjuster licensing, price setting, trade practices, policy forms, accounting methods, the nature and amount of investments, claims practices, participation in shared markets and guaranty funds, reserve adequacy, insurer solvency, transactions with affiliates, the payment of dividends, and underwriting standards. Some of these matters are discussed in more detail below. For a discussion of statutory financial information, see Note 15 of the Consolidated Financial Statements. For a discussion of regulatory contingencies, see Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements. Notes 13 and 15 are incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.

        In recent years the state insurance regulatory framework has come under increased federal scrutiny. Legislation that would provide for federal chartering of insurance companies has been proposed. In addition, state legislators and insurance regulators continue to examine the appropriate nature and scope



of state insurance regulation. We cannot predict whether any specific state or federal measures will be adopted to change the nature or scope of the regulation of the insurance business or what effect any such measures would have on Allstate.

        Agent and Broker Compensation.      In 2005, several states considered new legislation or regulations regarding the compensation of agents and brokers by insurance companies. The proposals ranged in nature from new disclosure requirements to new duties on insurance agents and brokers in dealing with customers. As of the end of the year, newNew disclosure requirements have been imposed in certain circumstances upon some agents and brokers in several states, including Texas.

        Limitations on Dividends By Insurance Subsidiaries.      As a holding company with no significant business operations of its own, The Allstate Corporation relies on dividends from Allstate Insurance Company as one of the principal sources of cash to pay dividends and to meet its obligations, including the payment of principal and interest on debt. Allstate Insurance Company is regulated as an insurance company in Illinois and its ability to pay dividends is restricted by Illinois law. For additional information regarding those restrictions, see Part II, Item 5 of this report. The laws of the other jurisdictions that generally govern our insurance subsidiaries contain similar limitations on the payment of dividends and in some jurisdictions the laws may be more restrictive.

        Holding Company Regulation.      The Allstate Corporation and Allstate Insurance Company are insurance holding companies subject to regulation throughout the jurisdictions in which their insurance subsidiaries do business. In the U.S., these subsidiaries are organized under the insurance codes of Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas. Generally, the insurance codes in these states provide that the acquisition or change of "control" of a domestic insurer or of any person that controls a domestic insurer cannot be consummated without the prior approval of the relevant insurance regulator. In general, a presumption of "control" arises from the ownership, control, possession with the power to vote, or possession of proxies with respect to, ten



percent or more of the voting securities of a domestic insurer or of a person that controls a domestic insurer. In addition, certain state insurance laws require pre-acquisition notification to state agencies of a change in control with respect to a non-domestic insurance company licensed to do business in that state. While such pre-acquisition notification statutes do not authorize the state agency to disapprove the change of control, such statutes do authorize certain remedies, including the issuance of a cease and desist order with respect to the non-domestic insurer if certain conditions exist, such as undue market concentration. Thus, any transaction involving the acquisition of ten percent or more of The Allstate Corporation's common stock would generally require prior approval by the state insurance departments in Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas. The prior approval of the Florida insurance department would be necessary for the acquisition of five percent or more. Moreover, notification would be required in those other states that have adopted pre-acquisition notification provisions and where the insurance subsidiaries are admitted to transact business. Such approval requirements may deter, delay or prevent certain transactions affecting the ownership of The Allstate Corporation's common stock.

        Price Regulation.      Nearly all states have insurance laws requiring personal property and casualty insurers to file price schedules, policy or coverage forms, and other information with the state's regulatory authority. In many cases, such price schedules, policy forms or both must be approved prior to use. While they vary from state to state, the objectives of the pricing laws are generally the same: a price cannot be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.

        The speed with which an insurer can change prices in response to competition or in response to increasing costs depends, in part, on whether the pricing laws are (i) prior approval, (ii) file-and-use, or (iii)��use-and-file laws. In states having prior approval laws, the regulator must approve a price before the insurer may use it. In states having file-and-use laws, the insurer does not have to wait for the regulator's approval to use a price, but the price must be filed with the regulatory authority prior to being used. A



use-and-file law requires an insurer to file prices within a certain period of time after the insurer begins using them. Approximately one half of the states, including California and New York, have prior approval laws. Under all three types of pricing laws, the regulator has the authority to disapprove a price subsequent to its filing.

        An insurer's ability to adjust its prices in response to competition or to increasing costs is often dependent on an insurer's ability to demonstrate to the regulator that its pricing or proposed pricing meets the requirements of the pricing laws. In those states that significantly restrict an insurer's discretion in selecting the business that it wants to underwrite, an insurer can manage its risk of loss by charging a price that reflects the cost and expense of providing the insurance. In those states that significantly restrict an insurer's ability to charge a price that reflects the cost and expense of providing the insurance, the insurer can manage its risk of loss by being more selective in the type of business it underwrites. When a state significantly restricts both underwriting and pricing, it becomes more difficult for an insurer to maintain its profitability.

        Changes in Allstate's claim settlement process may require Allstate to actuarially adjust loss information used in its pricing process. Some state insurance regulatory authorities may not approve price increases that give full effect to these adjustments.

        From time to time, the private passenger auto insurance industry comes under pressure from state regulators, legislators and special interest groups to reduce, freeze or set prices at levels that do not correspond with our analysis of underlying costs and expenses. Homeowners insurance comes under similar pressure, particularly as regulators in states subject to high levels of catastrophe losses struggle to identify an acceptable methodology to price for catastrophe exposure. We expect this kind of pressure to persist. In addition, our use of insurance scoring based on credit report information for underwriting and pricing regularly comes under attack by regulators, legislators and special interest groups in various states. The result could be legislation or regulation that adversely affects the profitability of the Allstate Protection segment. We cannot predict the impact on our business of possible future legislative and regulatory measures regarding pricing.


        Involuntary Markets.      As a condition of maintaining our licenses to write personal property and casualty insurance in various states, we are required to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations that provide various types of insurance coverage to individuals or entities that otherwise are unable to purchase such coverage from private insurers. Underwriting results related to these arrangements, which tend to be adverse, have been immaterial to our results of operations.

        Guaranty Funds.      Under state insurance guaranty fund laws, insurers doing business in a state can be assessed, up to prescribed limits, in order to cover certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies.

        National Flood Insurance Program.      We voluntarily participate as a Write Your Own ("WYO") carrier in the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP"). The NFIP is administered and regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"). We operate as a fiscal agent of the federal government in the selling and administering of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy ("SFIP"). This involves the collection of premiums belonging to the federal government and the paying of covered claims by directly drawing on funds of the United States Treasury. We receive expense allowances from NFIP for underwriting administration, claims management, commission and adjuster fees.

        Investment Regulation.      Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulations that require investment portfolio diversification and that limit the amount of investment in certain categories. Failure to comply with these rules leads to the treatment of non-conforming investments as non-admitted assets for purposes of measuring statutory surplus. Further, in some instances, these rules require divestiture of



non-conforming investments. As of December 31, 20052006 the investment portfolios of our insurance subsidiaries complied with such laws and regulations in all material respects.

        Exiting Geographic Markets; Canceling and Non-Renewing Policies.      Most states regulate an insurer's ability to exit a market. For example, states limit, to varying degrees, an insurer's ability to cancel and non-renew policies. Some states prohibit an insurer from withdrawing one or more types of insurance business from the state, except pursuant to a plan that is approved by the state insurance department. Regulations that limit cancellation and non-renewal and that subject withdrawal plans to prior approval requirements may restrict an insurer's ability to exit unprofitable markets.

        Variable Life Insurance, Variable Annuities and Registered Fixed Annuities.      The sale and administration of variable life insurance, variable annuities and registered fixed annuities with market value adjustment features are subject to extensive regulatory oversight at the federal and state level, including regulation and supervision by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Association of Securities Dealers.

        Broker-Dealers, Investment Advisors and Investment Companies.      The Allstate entities that operate as broker-dealers, registered investment advisors and investment companies are subject to regulation and supervision by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Association of Securities Dealers and/or, in some cases, state securities administrators.

Regulation and Legislation Affecting Consolidation in the Financial Services IndustryIndustry..      The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 permits mergers that combine commercial banks, insurers and securities firms within one holding company group. In addition, it allows grandfathered unitary thrift holding companies, including our parent company, to engage in activities that are not financial in nature. The ability of banks to affiliate with insurers may materially adversely affect our business by substantially increasing the number, size and financial strength of potential competitors.

        Banking.      The Allstate Corporation is a diversified savings and loan holding company for Allstate Bank, a federal stock savings bank and a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"). The principal supervisory authority for the diversified savings and loan holding company activities and the



bank is the Office of Thrift Supervision. The bank is also subject to the authority of the FDIC and other federal financial regulators implementing various laws applicable to banking.

        Privacy Regulation.      Federal law and the laws of some states require financial institutions to protect the security and confidentiality of customer information and to notify customers about their policies and practices relating to collection and disclosure of customer information and their policies relating to protecting the security and confidentiality of that information. Federal law and the laws of some states also regulate disclosures of customer information. Congress, state legislatures and regulatory authorities are expected to consider additional regulation relating to privacy and other aspects of customer information.

        Asbestos.      President Bush has indicated support for efforts to pass meaningful federal reform to address asbestos claims and litigation. Congress has considered such legislation in the past, but unified support among various defendant and insurer groups considered essential to any possible reform has been lacking. In February 2006, there was a renewed effort to bring such measures before the Senate. There has been no real interest by Congress in pushing this legislation forward since that time. We cannot predict the impact on our business of possible future legislative measures regarding asbestos.

        Environmental.      Environmental pollution clean-up of polluted waste sites is the subject of both federal and state regulation. The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("Superfund") and comparable state statutes ("mini-Superfund") govern the clean-up and restoration of waste sites by "Potentially Responsible Parties" (PRPs). Superfund and the mini-Superfunds (Environmental Clean-up Laws or ECLs) establish a mechanism to assign liability to PRPs or to fund the clean-up of waste sites if PRPs fail to do so. The extent of liability to be allocated to a PRP is dependent



on a variety of factors. By some estimates, there are thousands of potential waste sites subject to clean-up, but the exact number is unknown. The extent of clean-up necessary and the process of assigning liability remain in dispute. The insurance industry is involved in extensive litigation regarding coverage issues arising out of the clean-up of waste sites by insured PRPs and the insured parties' alleged liability to third parties responsible for the clean-up. The insurance industry, including Allstate, has disputed and is disputing many such claims. Key coverage issues include whether Superfund response, investigation and clean-up costs are considered damages under the policies; trigger of coverage; the applicability of several types of pollution exclusions; proper notice of claims; whether administrative liability triggers the duty to defend; appropriate allocation of liability among triggered insurers; and whether the liability in question falls within the definition of an "occurrence." Identical coverage issues exist for clean-up and waste sites not covered under Superfund. To date, courts have been inconsistent in their rulings on these issues. Allstate's exposure to liability with regard to its insureds that have been, or may be, named as PRPs is uncertain. While comprehensive Superfund reform proposals have been introduced in Congress, only modest reform measures have been enacted.

INTERNET WEBSITE

        Our Internet website address is allstate.com. The Allstate Corporation's annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to such reports that we file or furnish pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available through our Internet website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, our corporate governance guidelines, our code of ethics, and the charters of our Audit Committee, Compensation and Succession Committee, and Nominating and Governance Committee are available on our website and in print to any stockholder who requests copies by contacting Investor Relations, The Allstate Corporation, 2775 Sanders Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062-7127,60062-6127, 1-800-416-8803.



OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT ALLSTATE

        As of December 31, 2005,2006, Allstate had approximately 38,30036,800 full-time employees and 1,2001,100 part-time employees.

        Information regarding revenues generated outside of the United States is incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference to Note 18 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

        Allstate's four business segments use shared services, including human resources, investment, finance, information technology and legal services, provided by Allstate Insurance Company and other affiliates.

        Although the insurance business generally is not seasonal, claims and claims expense for the Allstate Protection segment tend to be higher for periods of severe or inclement weather.

        We use the names "Allstate," "Encompass," "Deerbrook," "Lincoln Benefit Life" and variations of these names extensively in our business, along with related logos and slogans, such as "Good Hands." Our rights in the United States to these names, logos and slogans continue so long as we continue to use them in commerce. Most of these service marks are the subject of renewable U.S. and/or foreign service mark registrations. We believe that these service marks are important to our business and we intend to maintain our rights to them by continued use.

        "Allstate" is one of the most recognized brand names in the U. S. According to independent market research conducted in 2004, "You're inIn Good Hands withWith Allstate" iswas recognized by 87% of consumers, making it the most recognized company tagline in the U.S.



Executive Officers

        The following table sets forth the names of our executive officers, their ages as of February 1, 2006,2007, their positions, and the dates of their first election as officers. "AIC" refers to Allstate Insurance Company.

Name

 Age
 Position/Offices
 Date First
Elected
Officer

 Age
 Position/Offices
 Date First
Elected Officer

Edward M. Liddy 60 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Allstate Corporation and AIC; also a director of The Allstate Corporation 1994 61 Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Allstate Corporation 1994
Thomas J. Wilson 49 President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of The Allstate Corporation; also Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of AIC 1995
Catherine S. Brune 52 Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer of AIC 1999 53 Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer of AIC 1999
Frederick F. Cripe 49 Senior Vice President of AIC 1990
Joan M. Crockett 55 Senior Vice President of AIC (Human Resources) 1994 56 Senior Vice President of AIC (Human Resources) 1994
Danny L. Hale 61 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Allstate Corporation; Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AIC 2003 62 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Allstate Corporation; Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AIC 2003
James E. Hohmann 51 President and Chief Executive Officer of Allstate Financial—Senior Vice President of AIC 2007
Michael J. McCabe 60 Vice President and General Counsel of The Allstate Corporation; Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of AIC (Chief Legal Officer) 1980 61 Vice President and General Counsel of The Allstate Corporation; Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of AIC (Chief Legal Officer) 1980
Ronald D. McNeil 53 Senior Vice President of AIC (Allstate Protection Product Distribution) 1994 54 Senior Vice President of AIC (Allstate Protection Product Distribution) 1994
Samuel H. Pilch 59 Controller of The Allstate Corporation; Group Vice President and Controller of AIC 1995 60 Controller of The Allstate Corporation; Group Vice President and Controller of AIC 1995
Michael J. Roche 54 Senior Vice President of AIC (Allstate Protection Technology and Administration) 2005 55 Senior Vice President of AIC (Claims) 2005
George E. Ruebenson 57 Senior Vice President of AIC (Claims) 1990 58 President Allstate Protection—Senior Vice President of AIC 1990
Eric A. Simonson 60 Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of AIC (President, Allstate Investments, LLC) 2002 61 Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of AIC (President, Allstate Investments, LLC) 2002
Casey J. Sylla 62 Senior Vice President of AIC (President, Allstate Financial) 1995 63 Senior Vice President of AIC (Chairman of the Board and President of Allstate Life Insurance Company) 1995
Joseph V. Tripodi 50 Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of AIC 2003 51 Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of AIC 2003
Joan H. Walker 58 Senior Vice President of AIC (Corporate Relations) 2005 59 Senior Vice President of AIC (Corporate Relations) 2005
Thomas J. Wilson 48 President and Chief Operating Officer of The Allstate Corporation and AIC 1995

        Each of the officers named above may be removed from office at any time, with or without cause, by the board of directors of the relevant company.

        With the exception of Messrs. Hale, Hohmann, Roche, Simonson, Tripodi and Mme.Ms. Walker, these officers have held the listed positions for at least the last five years or have served Allstate in various executive or administrative capacities for at least five years.

        Prior to joining Allstate in January 2003, Mr. Hale served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Promus Hotel Corporation in 1999 and as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of USF&G Corporation from 1993 to 1998.



        Prior to joining Allstate in February2007, Mr. Hohmann was President and Chief Operating Officer of Conseco, Inc. in 2006 and Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer from 2004 to 2006. Mr. Hohmann also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of XL Life and Annuity from 2001 to 2004.

        Prior to joining Allstate in 2002, Mr. Roche was Group President of Small Business Finance for Heller Financial from 1990-2002.



        Prior to joining Allstate in 2002, Mr. Simonson performed consulting services for large institutional investors from 2000 to 2002 and was Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Strategist for John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company from 1996 to 2000.

        Prior to joining Allstate in October 2003, Mr. Tripodi was chief marketing officerChief Marketing Officer of The Bank of New York from 2002 to 2003 and chief marketing officerChief Marketing Officer of Seagram Spirits & Wine Group from 1999 to 2002.

        Prior to joining Allstate in 2005, Ms. Walker served as Executive Vice President of Marketing and Communications at Qwest Communications International, Inc. from 2002 to 2005 and as Senior Vice President of Global Public Affairs at Pharmacia Corporation from 1999 to 2001.


Item 1A. Risk Factors

        Information required for Item 1A is incorporated by referenceThis document contains "forward-looking statements" that anticipate results based on our estimates, assumptions and plans that are subject to uncertainty. These statements are made subject to the discussionsafe-harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events or developments.

        These forward-looking statements do not relate strictly to historical or current facts and may be identified by their use of words like "plans," "seeks," "expects," "will," "should," "anticipates," "estimates," "intends," "believes," "likely," "targets" and other words with similar meanings. These statements may address, among other things, our strategy for growth, catastrophe exposure management, product development, regulatory approvals, market position, expenses, financial results, litigation and reserves. We believe that these statements are based on reasonable estimates, assumptions and plans. However, if the estimates, assumptions or plans underlying the forward-looking statements prove inaccurate or if other risks or uncertainties arise, actual results could differ materially from those communicated in these forward-looking statements.

        In addition to the normal risks of business, we are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, including those listed below, which apply to us as an insurer and a provider of other financial services. These risks constitute our cautionary statements under the heading "Forward-Looking StatementsPrivate Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and readers should carefully review such cautionary statements as they identify certain important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements and historical trends. These cautionary statements are not exclusive and are in addition to other factors discussed elsewhere in this document, in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or in materials incorporated therein by reference. Our business operations could also be affected by additional factors that are not presently known to us or that we currently consider to be immaterial to our operations.


Risks Relating to the Property-Liability business

As a property and casualty insurer, we may face significant losses from catastrophes and severe weather events

        Because of the exposure of our property and casualty business to catastrophic events, our operating results and financial condition may vary significantly from one period to the next. Catastrophes can be caused by various natural and man-made disasters, including earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, tropical storms and certain types of terrorism. We may continue to incur catastrophe losses in our auto and property business in excess of those experienced in prior years, in excess of those that management projects would be incurred based on hurricane and earthquake losses which have a one percent probability of occurring on an annual aggregate countrywide basis, and in excess of those that modelers estimate would be incurred based on other levels of probability, in excess of the average expected level used in pricing, and in excess of our current reinsurance coverage limits. While we believe that our natural event catastrophe management initiatives will reduce the potential magnitude of possible future natural event losses, we continue to be exposed to catastrophes that could have a material adverse effect on operating results and financial position. For example, our historical catastrophe experience includes losses relating to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 totaling $3.4 billion, the Northridge earthquake of 1994 totaling $2.1 billion and Hurricane Andrew in 1992 totaling $2.3 billion. We are also exposed to assessments from the California Earthquake Authority, and various state-created catastrophe insurance facilities, and to losses that could surpass the capitalization of these facilities. Our liquidity could be constrained by a catastrophe, or multiple catastrophes, which result in extraordinary losses or a downgrade of our debt or financial strength ratings.

        In addition, we are also subject to claims arising from weather events such as winter storms, rain, hail and high winds. The incidence and severity of weather conditions are largely unpredictable. There is generally an increase in the frequency and severity of auto and property claims when severe weather conditions occur.

The nature and level of catastrophes in any period cannot be predicted and could be material to catastrophe losses

        Although, along with others in the industry, we use models developed by third party vendors in assessing our personal lines property exposure to catastrophe losses that assume various conditions and probability scenarios, such models do not necessarily accurately predict future losses or accurately measure losses currently incurred. Catastrophe models, which have been evolving since the early 1990s, use historical information about hurricanes and earthquakes and also utilize detailed information about our in-force business. While we use this information in connection with our pricing and risk management activities, there are limitations with respect to their usefulness in predicting losses in any reporting period. These limitations are evident in significant variations in estimates between models and modelers, material increases and decreases in model results due to changes and refinements of the underlying data elements, assumptions which lead to questionable predictive capability, and actual event conditions that have not been well understood previously and not incorporated into the models. In addition, the models are not necessarily reflective of actual demand surge, loss adjustment expenses and the occurrence of mold losses, which are subject to wide variation by event or location.

Impacts of catastrophes and our catastrophe management strategy may adversely affect premium growth

        We believe that the actions we are taking to support earning an acceptable return on the risks assumed in our property business and to reduce the variability in our earnings, while providing quality protection to our customers, will be successful over the long term, however it is possible that they will have a negative impact on near-term growth and earnings. Homeowners premium growth rates and



retention could be more adversely impacted than we expect by adjustments to our business structure, size and underwriting practices in markets with significant catastrophe risk exposure. In addition, due to the diminished potential for cross-selling opportunities, new business growth in our auto lines could be lower than expected. Efforts to recover the costs of our catastrophe reinsurance program through rate increases may not be entirely successful due to resistance by regulators or non-renewal decisions by policyholders resulting in a lower amount of insurance in force.

Unanticipated increases in the severity or frequency of claims may adversely affect our profitability

        Changes in the severity or frequency of claims may affect the profitability of our Allstate Protection segment. Changes in bodily injury claim severity are driven primarily by inflation in the medical sector of the economy. Changes in auto physical damage claim severity are driven primarily by inflation in auto repair costs, auto parts prices and used car prices. Changes in homeowner's claim severity are driven by inflation in the construction industry, in building materials and in home furnishings and by other economic and environmental factors, including increased demand for services and supplies in areas affected by hurricanes. However, changes in the level of the severity of claims are not limited to the effects of inflation and demand surge in these various sectors of the economy. Increases in claim severity can arise from unexpected events that are inherently difficult to predict. Examples of such events include a decision in 2001 by the Georgia Supreme Court that diminished value coverage was included in auto policies under Georgia law and the emergence of mold-related homeowners losses in the state of Texas during 2002. Although from time to time we pursue various loss management initiatives in the Allstate Protection segment in order to mitigate future increases in claim severity, there can be no assurances that these initiatives will successfully identify or reduce the effect of future increases in claim severity.

        Our Allstate Protection segment has experienced a decline in claim frequency. Other participants in the industry have also experienced a similar decline. We believe that this decrease may be attributable to a combination of several factors, including increases in the level of policy deductibles chosen by policyholders, improvements in car and road safety, aging of the population, increased driver education and restrictions for new drivers, decreases in policyholder submission of claims for minor losses, and our implementation of improved underwriting criteria. The favorable level of claim frequency we have experienced may not be sustainable over the longer term. A significant increase in claim frequency could have an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

Actual claims incurred may exceed current reserves established for claims

        Recorded claim reserves in the Property-Liability business are based on our best estimates of losses, both reported and incurred but not reported ("IBNR"), after considering known facts and interpretations of circumstances. Internal factors are considered including our experience with similar cases, actual claims paid, historical trends involving claim payment patterns, pending levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs, product mix, and contractual terms. External factors are also considered which include but are not limited to law changes, court decisions, changes to regulatory requirements and economic conditions. Because reserves are estimates of the unpaid portion of losses that have occurred, including IBNR losses, the establishment of appropriate reserves, including reserves for catastrophes, is an inherently uncertain and complex process. The ultimate cost of losses may vary materially from recorded reserves and such variance may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

Predicting claim expense relating to asbestos and other environmental and discontinued lines is inherently uncertain

        The process of estimating asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines liabilities is complicated by complex legal issues concerning, among other things, the interpretation of various insurance policy provisions and whether those losses are, or were ever intended to be, covered; and



whether losses could be recoverable through retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other contractual agreements. Asbestos-related bankruptcies and other asbestos litigations are complex, lengthy proceedings that involve substantial uncertainty for insurers. While we believe that improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in estimating asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of probable loss. Consequently, ultimate net losses from these discontinued lines could materially exceed established loss reserves and expected recoveries and have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, operating results and financial position.

Regulation limiting rate increases and requiring us to underwrite business and participate in loss sharing arrangements may decrease our profitability

        From time to time, political events and positions affect the insurance market, including efforts to suppress rates to a level that may not allow us to reach targeted levels of profitability. For example, when Allstate Protection's loss ratio compares favorably to that of the industry, state regulatory authorities may impose rate rollbacks, require us to pay premium refunds to policyholders, or resist or delay our efforts to raise rates even if the property and casualty industry generally is not experiencing regulatory resistance to rate increases. Such resistance affects our ability in all product lines to obtain approval for rate changes that may be required to achieve targeted levels of profitability and returns on equity. Our ability to afford reinsurance required to reduce our catastrophe risk in designated areas may be dependent upon the ability to adjust rates for its cost.

        In addition to regulating rates, certain states have enacted laws that require a property-liability insurer conducting business in that state to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations or require the insurer to offer coverage to all consumers, often restricting an insurer's ability to charge the price it might otherwise charge. In these markets, we may be compelled to underwrite significant amounts of business at lower than desired rates, possibly leading to an unacceptable return on equity, or as the facilities recognize a financial deficit, they may, in turn have the ability to assess participating insurers, adversely affecting our results of operations. Laws and regulations of many states also limit an insurer's ability to withdraw from one or more lines of insurance in the state, except pursuant to a plan that is approved by the state insurance department. Additionally, certain states require insurers to participate in guaranty funds for impaired or insolvent insurance companies. These funds periodically assess losses against all insurance companies doing business in the state. Our operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected by any of these factors.

The potential benefits of implementing our sophisticated risk segmentation process ("Tiered Pricing") may not be fully realized

        We believe that Tiered Pricing and underwriting (including Strategic Risk Factors"Management which, in some situations, considers information that is obtained from credit reports among other factors) has allowed us to be more competitive and operate more profitably. However, because many of our competitors have adopted underwriting criteria and tiered pricing models similar to those we use and because other competitors may follow suit, we may lose our competitive advantage. Further, the use of insurance scoring from information that is obtained from credit reports as a factor in underwriting and pricing has at times been challenged by regulators, legislators, litigants and special interest groups in various states. Competitive pressures could also force us to modify our Tiered Pricing model. Furthermore, because we have been using Tiered Pricing only for the last several years, we can not be assured that Tiered Pricing models will accurately reflect the level of losses that we will ultimately incur from the mix of new business generated. Moreover, to the extent that competitive pressures limit our ability to attract new customers, our expectation that the amount of business written using Tiered Pricing will increase may not be realized.



Allstate Protection may be adversely affected by the cyclical nature of the property and casualty business

        The property and casualty market is cyclical and has experienced periods characterized by relatively high levels of price competition, less restrictive underwriting standards and relatively low premium rates, followed by periods of relatively lower levels of competition, more selective underwriting standards and relatively high premium rates. A downturn in the profitability cycle of the property and casualty business could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Relating to the Allstate Financial Segment

Changes in underwriting and actual experience could materially affect profitability

        Our product pricing includes long-term assumptions regarding investment returns, mortality, morbidity, persistency and operating costs and expenses of the business. Management establishes target returns for each product based upon these factors and the average amount of capital that the company must hold to support in-force contracts, satisfy rating agencies and meet regulatory requirements. We monitor and manage our pricing and overall sales mix to achieve target returns on a portfolio basis. Profitability from new business emerges over a period of years depending on the nature and life of the product and is subject to variability as actual results may differ from pricing assumptions.

        Our profitability in this segment depends on the adequacy of investment margins, the management of market and credit risks associated with investments, the sufficiency of premiums and contract charges to cover mortality and morbidity benefits, the persistency of policies to ensure recovery of acquisition expenses, and the management of operating costs and expenses within anticipated pricing allowances. Legislation and regulation of the insurance marketplace and products could also affect our profitability.

Changes in reserve estimates may reduce profitability

        Reserve for life-contingent contract benefits is computed on the basis of long-term actuarial assumptions of future investment yields, mortality, morbidity, policy terminations and expenses. We periodically review the adequacy of these reserves on an aggregate basis and if future experience differs significantly from assumptions, adjustments to reserves may be required which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

Changes in market interest rates may lead to a significant decrease in the sales and profitability of spread-based products

        Our ability to manage the Allstate Financial investment margin for spread-based products, such as fixed annuities and institutional products, is dependent upon maintaining profitable spreads between investment yields and interest crediting rates. When market interest rates decrease or remain at relatively low levels, proceeds from investments that have matured, prepaid or been sold may be reinvested at lower yields, reducing investment margin. Lowering interest crediting rates in such an environment can offset decreases in investment yield on some products. However, these changes could be limited by market conditions, regulatory or contractual minimum rate guarantees on many contracts and may not match the timing or magnitude of changes in asset yields. Decreases in the rates offered on products in the financial segment could make those products less attractive, leading to lower sales and/or changes in the level of surrenders and withdrawals for these products. Non-parallel shifts in interest rates, such as increases in short-term rates without accompanying increases in medium-and long-term rates, can influence customer demand for fixed annuities, which could impact the level and profitability of new customer deposits. Increases in market interest rates can also have negative effects on Allstate Financial, for example by increasing the attractiveness of other investments to our customers, which can lead to higher surrenders at a time when the segment's fixed income investment asset values are lower as a result of the increase in interest rates. For certain products, principally fixed annuity and interest-sensitive



life products, the earned rate on assets could lag behind rising market yields. We may react to market conditions by increasing crediting rates, which could narrow spreads. Unanticipated surrenders could result in deferred policy acquisition costs ("DAC") unlocking or affect the recoverability of DAC and thereby increase expenses and reduce profitability.

Changes in estimates of profitability on interest-sensitive life, fixed annuities and other investment products may have an adverse effect on results through increased amortization of DAC

        DAC related to interest-sensitive life, fixed annuities and other investment contracts is amortized in proportion to actual historical gross profits and estimated future gross profits ("EGP") over the estimated lives of the contracts. Assumptions underlying EGP, including those relating to margins from mortality, investment margin, contract administration, surrender and other contract charges, are updated from time to time in order to reflect actual and expected experience and its potential effect on the valuation of DAC. Updates to these assumptions could result in DAC unlocking, which in turn could adversely affect our net income and financial condition.

A loss of key product distribution relationships could materially affect sales

        Certain products in the Allstate Financial segment are distributed under agreements with other members of the financial services industry that are not affiliated with us. Termination of one or more of these agreements due to, for example, a change in control of one of these distributors, could have a detrimental effect on the sales of Allstate Financial.

Changes in tax laws may decrease sales and profitability of products

        Under current federal and state income tax law, certain products we offer, primarily life insurance and annuities, receive favorable tax treatment. This favorable treatment may give certain of our products a competitive advantage over noninsurance products. Congress from time to time considers legislation that would reduce or eliminate the favorable policyholder tax treatment currently applicable to life insurance and annuities. Congress also considers proposals to reduce the taxation of certain products or investments that may compete with life insurance and annuities. Legislation that increases the taxation on insurance products or reduces the taxation on competing products could lessen the advantage or create a disadvantage for certain of our products making them less competitive. Such proposals, if adopted, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or ability to sell such products and could result in the surrender of some existing contracts and policies. In addition, changes in the federal estate tax laws could negatively affect the demand for the types of life insurance used in estate planning.

Risks Relating to the Insurance Industry

Our future results are dependent in part on our ability to successfully operate in an insurance industry that is highly competitive

        The insurance industry is highly competitive. Our competitors include other insurers and, because many of our products include a savings or investment component, securities firms, investment advisers, mutual funds, banks and other financial institutions. Many of our competitors have well-established national reputations and market similar products. Because of the competitive nature of the insurance industry, including competition for producers such as exclusive and independent agents, there can be no assurance that we will continue to effectively compete with our industry rivals, or that competitive pressures will not have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition. The ability of banks to affiliate with insurers may have a material adverse effect on all of our product lines by substantially increasing the number, size and financial strength of potential competitors. Furthermore, certain competitors operate using a mutual insurance company structure and therefore, may have dissimilar profitability and return targets.


We are subject to market risk and declines in credit quality

        We are subject to market risk, the risk that we will incur losses due to adverse changes in equity, interest, commodity or foreign currency exchange rates and prices. Our primary market risk exposures are to changes in interest rates and equity prices and, to a lesser degree, changes in foreign currency exchange rates and commodity prices. In addition, we are subject to potential declines in credit quality, either related to issues specific to certain industries or to a weakening in the economy in general. For additional information on market risk, see the "Market Risk" section of Management's Discussion and AnalysisAnalysis.

        A decline in market interest rates could have an adverse effect on our investment income as we invest cash in new investments that may yield less than the portfolio's average rate. In a declining interest rate environment, borrowers may prepay or redeem securities more quickly than expected as they seek to refinance at lower rates. A decline could also lead us to purchase longer-term assets in order to obtain adequate investment yields resulting in a duration gap when compared to the duration of Financial Conditionliabilities. An increase in market interest rates could have an adverse effect on the value of our investment portfolio by decreasing the fair values of the fixed income securities that comprise a substantial majority of our investment portfolio. Increases in interest rates also may lead to an increase in policy loans, surrenders and Resultswithdrawals that generally would be funded at a time when fair values of Operations.fixed income securities are lower. A declining equity market could also cause the investments in our pension plans to decrease or decreasing interest rates could cause the projected benefit obligation of our pension plans or the accumulated benefit obligation of our other post retirement benefit plans to increase, either or both resulting in a decrease in the funded status of the plans and a reduction of shareholders equity, increases in pension expense and increases in required contributions to the pension plans. A decline in the quality of our investment portfolio as a result of adverse economic conditions or otherwise could cause additional realized losses on securities, including realized losses relating to derivative strategies.

Concentration of our investment portfolios in any particular segment of the economy may have adverse effects

        The concentration of our investment portfolios in any particular industry, group of related industries or geographic sector could have an adverse effect on our investment portfolios and consequently on our results of operations and financial position. While we seek to mitigate this risk by having a broadly diversified portfolio, events or developments that have a negative impact on any particular industry, group of related industries or geographic region may have a greater adverse effect on the investment portfolios to the extent that the portfolios are concentrated rather than diversified.

We may suffer losses from litigation

        As is typical for a large company, we are involved in a substantial amount of litigation, including class action litigation challenging a range of company practices and coverage provided by our insurance products. In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these matters, the ultimate liability may be in excess of amounts currently reserved and may be material to our operating results or cash flows for a particular quarter or annual period. For a description of our current legal proceedings, see Note 13 of the consolidated financial statements.

        In some circumstances, we may be able to collect on third-party insurance that we carry to recover all or part of the amounts that we may be required to pay in judgments, settlements and litigation expenses. However, we may not be able to resolve issues concerning the availability, if any, or the ability to collect such insurance concurrently with the underlying litigation. Consequently, the timing of the resolution of a particular piece of litigation and the determination of our insurance recovery with respect



to that litigation may not coincide and, therefore, may be reflected in our financial statements in different fiscal quarters.

We are subject to extensive regulation and potential further restrictive regulation may increase our operating costs and limit our growth

        As insurance companies, broker-dealers, investment advisers and/or investment companies, many of our subsidiaries are subject to extensive laws and regulations. These laws and regulations are complex and subject to change. Moreover, they are administered and enforced by a number of different governmental authorities, including state insurance regulators, state securities administrators, the SEC, the National Association of Securities Dealers, the U.S. Department of Justice, and state attorneys general, each of which exercises a degree of interpretive latitude. Consequently, we are subject to the risk that compliance with any particular regulator's or enforcement authority's interpretation of a legal issue may not result in compliance with another regulator's or enforcement authority's interpretation of the same issue, particularly when compliance is judged in hindsight. In addition, there is risk that any particular regulator's or enforcement authority's interpretation of a legal issue may change over time to our detriment, or that changes in the overall legal environment may, even absent any particular regulator's or enforcement authority's interpretation of a legal issue changing, cause us to change our views regarding the actions we need to take from a legal risk management perspective, thus necessitating changes to our practices that may, in some cases, limit our ability to grow and improve the profitability of our business. Furthermore, in some cases, these laws and regulations are designed to protect or benefit the interests of a specific constituency rather than a range of constituencies. For example, state insurance laws and regulations are generally intended to protect or benefit purchasers or users of insurance products, not holders of securities issued by The Allstate Corporation. In many respects, these laws and regulations limit our ability to grow and improve the profitability of our business.

        In recent years, the state insurance regulatory framework has come under public scrutiny and members of Congress have discussed proposals to provide for optional federal chartering of insurance companies. We can make no assurances regarding the potential impact of state or federal measures that may change the nature or scope of insurance regulation.

Reinsurance may be unavailable at current levels and prices, which may limit our ability to write new business

        Market conditions beyond our control determine the availability and cost of the reinsurance we purchase. No assurances can be made that reinsurance will remain continuously available to us to the same extent and on the same terms and rates as are currently available. Our ability to afford reinsurance required to reduce our catastrophe risk in designated areas may be dependent upon the ability to adjust rates for its cost. If we were unable to maintain our current level of reinsurance or purchase new reinsurance protection in amounts that we consider sufficient and at prices that we consider acceptable, we would have to either accept an increase in our exposure risk, reduce our insurance writings, or develop or seek other alternatives.

Reinsurance subjects us to the credit risk of our reinsurers and may not be adequate to protect us against losses arising from ceded insurance

        The collectibility of reinsurance recoverables is subject to uncertainty arising from a number of factors, including whether insured losses meet the qualifying conditions of the reinsurance contract and whether reinsurers, or their affiliates, have the financial capacity and willingness to make payments under the terms of a reinsurance treaty or contract. Our inability to collect a material recovery from a reinsurer could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.



The continued threat of terrorism and ongoing military actions may adversely affect the level of claim losses we incur and the value of our investment portfolio

        The continued threat of terrorism, both within the United States and abroad, and ongoing military and other actions and heightened security measures in response to these types of threats, may cause significant volatility and losses from declines in the equity markets and from interest rate changes in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and result in loss of life, property damage, additional disruptions to commerce and reduced economic activity. Some of the assets in our investment portfolio may be adversely affected by declines in the equity markets and reduced economic activity caused by the continued threat of terrorism. We seek to mitigate the potential impact of terrorism on our commercial mortgage portfolio by limiting geographical concentrations in key metropolitan areas and by requiring terrorism insurance to the extent that it is commercially available. Additionally, in the event that terrorist acts occur, both Allstate Protection and Allstate Financial could be adversely affected, depending on the nature of the event.

Any decrease in our financial strength ratings may have an adverse effect on our competitive position

        Financial strength ratings are important factors in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies and generally have an effect on an insurance company's business. On an ongoing basis, rating agencies review the financial performance and condition of insurers and could downgrade or change the outlook on an insurer's ratings due to, for example, a change in an insurer's statutory capital; a change in a rating agency's determination of the amount of risk-adjusted capital required to maintain a particular rating; an increase in the perceived risk of an insurer's investment portfolio; a reduced confidence in management or a host of other considerations that may or may not be under the insurer's control. The insurance financial strength ratings of both Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Life Insurance Company are A+, AA and Aa2 from A.M. Best, Standard & Poor's and Moody's, respectively. Several other affiliates have been assigned their own financial strength ratings by one or more rating agencies. Because all of these ratings are subject to continuous review, the retention of these ratings cannot be assured. A multiple level downgrade in any of these ratings could have a material adverse effect on our sales, our competitiveness, the marketability of our product offerings, and our liquidity, operating results and financial condition.

Changes in accounting standards issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") or other standard-setting bodies may adversely affect our financial statements

        Our financial statements are subject to the application of generally accepted accounting principles, which is periodically revised and/or expanded. Accordingly, we are required to adopt new or revised accounting standards from time to time issued by recognized authoritative bodies, including the FASB. It is possible that future changes we are required to adopt could change the current accounting treatment that we apply to our consolidated financial statements and that such changes could have a material adverse effect on our results and financial condition. For a description of potential changes in accounting standards that could affect us currently, see Note 2 of the consolidated financial statements.

The ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends may affect our liquidity and ability to meet our obligations

        The Allstate Corporation is a holding company with no significant operations. The principal asset is the stock of its subsidiaries. State insurance regulatory authorities limit the payment of dividends by insurance subsidiaries, as described in Note 15 of the consolidated financial statements. In addition, competitive pressures generally require the subsidiaries to maintain insurance financial strength ratings. These restrictions and other regulatory requirements affect the ability of the subsidiaries to make dividend payments. Limits on the ability of the subsidiaries to pay dividends could adversely affect our liquidity,



including our ability to pay dividends to shareholders, service our debt and complete share repurchase programs in the timeframe expected.

The occurrence of events unanticipated in our disaster recovery systems and management continuity planning could impair our ability to conduct business effectively

        In the event of a disaster such as a natural catastrophe, an industrial accident, a terrorist attack or war, events unanticipated in our disaster recovery systems could have an adverse impact on our ability to conduct business and on our results of operations and financial condition, particularly if those events affect our computer-based data processing, transmission, storage and retrieval systems. In the event that a significant number of our managers could be unavailable in the event of a disaster, our ability to effectively conduct our business could be severely compromised.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

        None.


Item 2. Properties

        Our home office complex is located in Northbrook, Illinois. As of December 31, 2005,2006, the complex consistedconsists of several buildings totaling approximately 2.3 million square feet of office space on a 250-acre site. We lease approximately 320,000 square feet of this office space as lessee.

        We also operate from 1,2531,274 administrative, data processing, claims handling and other support facilities in North America. Approximately 4.54.4 million square feet are owned and 7.37.0 million are leased. In addition, we lease one propertythree properties as lessee in Northern Ireland comprising 70,500approximately 152,900 square feet. Generally, only major facilities are owned. In almost all cases, lease terms are for five years or less.

        The locations out of which the Allstate exclusive agencies operate in the U.S. are normally leased by the agencies as lessees.


Item 3. Legal Proceedings

        Information required for Item 3 is incorporated by reference to the discussion under the heading "Regulation" and under the heading "Legal proceedings" in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.


Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

        None.



Part II


Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

        As of January 31, 2006,2007, there were 146,468130,552 record holders of The Allstate Corporation's common stock. The principal market for the common stock is the New York Stock Exchange but it is also listed on the Chicago Stock Exchange. Set forth below are the high and low New York Stock Exchange Composite listing prices of, and cash dividends declared for, the common stock during 20052006 and 2004.2005.


 High
 Low
 Close
 Dividends
Declared

 High
 Low
 Close
 Dividends
Declared

2006        
First quarter 56.09 50.22 52.11 .35
Second quarter 57.69 50.30 54.73 .35
Third quarter 62.94 54.16 62.73 .35
Fourth quarter 66.14 60.66 65.11 .35
2005        
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
First quarter 55.41 49.66 54.06 .32 55.41 49.66 54.06 .32
Second quarter 60.87 52.35 59.75 .32 60.87 52.35 59.75 .32
Third quarter 63.22 49.90 55.29 .32 63.22 49.90 55.29 .32
Fourth quarter 57.91 51.61 54.07 .32 57.91 51.61 54.07 .32

2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
First quarter 47.19 42.55 45.46 .28
Second quarter 48.16 42.91 46.55 .28
Third quarter 49.22 45.50 47.99 .28
Fourth quarter 51.99 45.50 51.72 .28

        The payment of dividends by Allstate Insurance Company to The Allstate Corporation is limited by Illinois insurance law to formula amounts based on statutory net income and statutory surplus, as well as the timing and amount of dividends paid in the preceding twelve months. In the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2005,2006, Allstate Insurance Company paid dividends of $3.86$1.01 billion. Based on the greater of 20052006 statutory net income or 10% of statutory surplus, the maximum amount of dividends that Allstate Insurance Company will be able to pay without prior Illinois Department of Insurance approval at a given point in time in 20062007 is $1.75$4.92 billion, less dividends paid during the preceding twelve months measured at that point in time. Notification and approval of intercompany lending activities is also required by the Illinois Department of Insurance for those transactions that exceed formula amounts based on statutory admitted assets and statutory surplus.


Period

 Total Number
of Shares
(or Units)
Purchased(1)

 Average Price
Paid per Share
(or Unit)

 Total Number
of Shares
(or Units)
Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs(2)

 Maximum Number
(or Approximate Dollar
Value) of Shares
(or Units) that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs

October 1, 2005 - October 31, 2005 1,890,000 $53.6066 1,890,000 $1.7 billion
November 1, 2005 - November 30, 2005 1,090,953 $56.1161 1,090,000 $1.6 billion
December 1, 2005 - December 31, 2005 1,345,000 $54.9727 1,345,000 $1.5 billion
Total 4,325,953 $54.6642 4,325,000  
Period

 Total Number of Shares
(or Units) Purchased(1)

 Average Price Paid per Share (or Unit)
 Total Number
of Shares
(or Units) Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs(2)

 Maximum Number
(or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares
(or Units) that May
Yet Be Purchased
Under the Plans or
Programs

October 1, 2006 - October 31, 2006 3,173,865 $62.5165 3,173,400 $96 million
November 1, 2006 - November 30, 2006 2,692,110 $62.9676 2,651,700 $2.9 billion
December 1, 2006 - December 31, 2006 2,207,937 $64.7862 2,098,185 $2.8 billion
Total 8,073,912 $63.2876 7,923,285  

(1)
Shares repurchased other than through a publicly announced program.

        October:    None.

        November:    In accordance with the terms of its equity compensation plans, Allstate acquired 953the following shares in connection with stock option exercises by employees and/or directors. The stock was received in payment of the exercise price of the options and in satisfaction of withholding taxes due upon the exercise of stock options and the vesting of restricted stock held by employees and/or directors.

vesting.


October:    465
November:    40,410
December:    None.

109,752

(2)
Publicly announced repurchase programs.

        On November 9, 2004, Allstate announced the approval of a new repurchase program for $4.00 billion, which is expected to be completed in 2006. Repurchases under the programour programs are, from time to time, executed under the terms of a pre-set trading plan meeting the requirements of Rule 10b5-1(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.




On November 9, 2004, Allstate announced the approval of a new repurchase program for $4.00 billion. This program was completed as of December 31, 2006.


On October 18, 2006, Allstate announced the approval of a new share repurchase program for $3.00 billion, which is expected to be completed by March, 31 2008.


Item 6. Selected Financial Data

5-YEAR SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

(in millions except per share data and ratios)

 2005
 2004
 2003
 2002
 2001
 
(in millions, except per share data and ratios)

(in millions, except per share data and ratios)

 2006
 2005
 2004
 2003
 2002
 
Consolidated Operating ResultsConsolidated Operating Results            Consolidated Operating Results           
Insurance premiums and contract chargesInsurance premiums and contract charges $29,088 $28,061 $26,981 $25,654 $24,427 Insurance premiums and contract charges $29,333 $29,088 $28,061 $26,981 $25,654 
Net investment incomeNet investment income  5,746 5,284 4,972 4,849 4,790 Net investment income 6,177 5,746 5,284 4,972 4,849 
Realized capital gains and lossesRealized capital gains and losses  549 591 196 (924) (352)Realized capital gains and losses 286 549 591 196 (924)
Total revenuesTotal revenues  35,383 33,936 32,149 29,579 28,865 Total revenues 35,796 35,383 33,936 32,149 29,579 
Income from continuing operationsIncome from continuing operations  1,765 3,356 2,720 1,465 1,167 Income from continuing operations 4,993 1,765 3,356 2,720 1,465 
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-taxCumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax   (175) (15) (331) (9)Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax   (175) (15) (331)
Net incomeNet income  1,765 3,181 2,705 1,134 1,158 Net income 4,993 1,765 3,181 2,705 1,134 
Net income per share:Net income per share:            Net income per share:           
Diluted:            Diluted:           
 Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax  2.64 4.79 3.85 2.06 1.61  Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax 7.84 2.64 4.79 3.85 2.06 
 Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax   (0.25) (0.02) (0.46) (0.01) Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax   (0.25) (0.02) (0.46)
 Net income  2.64 4.54 3.83 1.60 1.60  Net income 7.84 2.64 4.54 3.83 1.60 
Basic:            Basic:           
 Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax  2.67 4.82 3.87 2.07 1.62  Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax 7.89 2.67 4.82 3.87 2.07 
 Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax   (0.25) (0.02) (0.47) (0.01) Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax   (0.25) (0.02) (0.47)
 Net income  2.67 4.57 3.85 1.60 1.61  Net income 7.89 2.67 4.57 3.85 1.60 
Dividends declared per share  1.28 1.12 0.92 0.84 0.76 
Cash dividends declared per shareCash dividends declared per share 1.40 1.28 1.12 0.92 0.84 
Redemption of Shareholder rightsRedemption of Shareholder rights    0.01��   Redemption of Shareholder rights    0.01  
Consolidated Financial PositionConsolidated Financial Position            Consolidated Financial Position           
InvestmentsInvestments $118,297 $115,530 $103,081 $90,650 $79,876 Investments $119,757 $118,297 $115,530 $103,081 $90,650 
Total assetsTotal assets  156,072 149,725 134,142 117,426 109,175 Total assets 157,554 156,072 149,725 134,142 117,426 
Reserves for claims and claims expense, and life-contingent contract benefits and contractholder fundsReserves for claims and claims expense, and life-contingent contract benefits and contractholder funds  94,639 86,801 75,805 67,697 59,194 Reserves for claims and claims expense, and life-contingent contract benefits and contractholder funds 93,683 94,639 86,801 75,805 67,697 
Short-term debtShort-term debt  413 43 3 279 227 Short-term debt 12 413 43 3 279 
Long-term debtLong-term debt  4,887 5,291 5,073 3,961 3,694 Long-term debt 4,650 4,887 5,291 5,073 3,961 
Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trusts(1)Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trusts(1)     200 200 Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trusts(1)     200 
Shareholders' equityShareholders' equity  20,186 21,823 20,565 17,438 17,196 Shareholders' equity 21,846 20,186 21,823 20,565 17,438 
Shareholders' equity per diluted shareShareholders' equity per diluted share  31.01 31.72 29.04 24.75 24.08 Shareholders' equity per diluted share 34.84 31.01 31.72 29.04 24.75 
Property-Liability OperationsProperty-Liability Operations            Property-Liability Operations           
Premiums earnedPremiums earned $27,039 $25,989 $24,677 $23,361 $22,197 Premiums earned $27,369 $27,039 $25,989 $24,677 $23,361 
Net investment incomeNet investment income  1,791 1,773 1,677 1,656 1,745 Net investment income 1,854 1,791 1,773 1,677 1,656 
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-taxIncome before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax  1,431 3,045 2,522 1,321 929 Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax 4,614 1,431 3,045 2,522 1,321 
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-taxCumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax    (1) (48) (3)Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax    (1) (48)
Net incomeNet income  1,431 3,045 2,521 1,273 926 Net income 4,614 1,431 3,045 2,521 1,273 
Operating ratios(2)Operating ratios(2)            Operating ratios(2)           
Claims and claims expense ("loss") ratio  78.3 68.7 70.6 75.6 79.0 Claims and claims expense ("loss") ratio 58.5 78.3 68.7 70.6 75.6 
Expense ratio  24.1 24.3 24.0 23.3 23.9 Expense ratio 25.1 24.1 24.3 24.0 23.3 
Combined ratio  102.4 93.0 94.6 98.9 102.9 Combined ratio 83.6 102.4 93.0 94.6 98.9 
Allstate Financial OperationsAllstate Financial Operations            Allstate Financial Operations           
Premiums and contract chargesPremiums and contract charges $2,049 $2,072 $2,304 $2,293 $2,230 Premiums and contract charges $1,964 $2,049 $2,072 $2,304 $2,293 
Net investment incomeNet investment income  3,830 3,410 3,233 3,121 2,962 Net investment income 4,173 3,830 3,410 3,233 3,121 
Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax  416 421 322 261 369 
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-taxIncome before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax 464 416 421 322 261 
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-taxCumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax   (175) (17) (283) (6)Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax   (175) (17) (283)
Net income (loss)Net income (loss)  416 246 305 (22) 363 Net income (loss) 464 416 246 305 (22)
Investments including Separate Accounts  90,468 86,907 76,320 66,389 59,653 
InvestmentsInvestments 75,951 75,233 72,530 62,895 55,264 

(1)
Effective July 1, 2003, the mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trusts which the Company previously consolidated, are no longer consolidated. Previously, the trust preferred securities were reported in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trusts and the dividends reported in the Consolidated Statements of Operations as dividends on preferred securities of subsidiary trusts. The impact of deconsolidation was to increase long-term debt and decrease mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trusts by $200 million. Prior periods have not been restated to reflect this change.

(2)
We use operating ratios to measure the profitability of our Property-Liability results. We believe that they enhance an investor's understanding of our profitability. They are calculated as follows: Claims and claims expense ("loss") ratio—ratio is the ratio of claims and claims expense to premiums earned. Loss ratios include the impact of catastrophe losses;losses. Expense ratio—ratio is the ratio of amortization of DAC, operating costs and expenses and restructuring and related charges to premiums earned;earned. Combined ratio—ratio is the ratio of claims and claims expense, amortization of DAC, operating costs and expenses and restructuring and related charges to premiums earned. The combined ratio is the sum of the loss ratio and the expense ratio. The difference between 100% and the combined ratio represents underwriting income (loss) income as a percentage of premiums earned.


Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

 
 Page
Overview 2432
20052006 Highlights 2432
Consolidated Net Income 2533
Application of Critical Accounting PoliciesEstimates 2533
Property-Liability 20052006 Highlights 3044
Property-Liability Operations 3045
Allstate Protection Segment 3347
Discontinued Lines and Coverages Segment 5065
Property-Liability Investment Results 5066
Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves 5167
Allstate Financial 20052006 Highlights 6784
Allstate Financial Segment 6786
Investments 8299
Market Risk 94112
Pension Plans 99116
Capital Resources and Liquidity 100118
Enterprise Risk Management 108127
Regulation and Legal Proceedings 109127
Pending Accounting Standards 109
Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors109127

OVERVIEW

        The following discussion highlights significant factors influencing the consolidated financial position and results of operations of The Allstate Corporation (referred to in this document as "we", "our", "us", the "Company" or "Allstate"). It should be read in conjunction with the 5-year summary of selected financial data, consolidated financial statements and related notes found under Part II, Item 6 and Item 8 contained herein. Further analysis of our insurance segments is provided in Property-Liability Operations (which includes the Allstate Protection and Discontinued Lines and Coverages segments) and in Allstate Financial Segment sections of Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A"). The segments are consistent with the way in which we use financial information to evaluate business performance and to determine the allocation of resources.

        The most important factors we monitor to evaluate the financial condition and performance of our company include:

20052006 HIGHLIGHTS


CONSOLIDATED NET INCOME


 For the years ended December 31,
  For the years ended December 31,
 
(in millions)

 2005
 2004
 2003
  2006
 2005
 2004
 
Revenues                
Property-liability insurance premiums $27,039 $25,989 $24,677  $27,369 $27,039 $25,989 
Life and annuity premiums and contract charges 2,049 2,072 2,304  1,964  2,049  2,072 
Net investment income 5,746 5,284 4,972  6,177  5,746  5,284 
Realized capital gains and losses 549 591 196  286  549  591 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Total revenues 35,383 33,936 32,149  35,796  35,383  33,936 

Costs and expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Property-liability insurance claims and claims expense (21,175) (17,843) (17,432) (16,017) (21,175) (17,843)
Life and annuity contract benefits (1,615) (1,618) (1,851) (1,570) (1,615) (1,618)
Interest credited to contractholder funds (2,403) (2,001) (1,846) (2,609) (2,403) (2,001)
Amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs (4,721) (4,465) (4,058) (4,757) (4,721) (4,465)
Operating costs and expenses (2,997) (3,040) (3,001) (3,033) (2,997) (3,040)
Restructuring and related charges (41) (51) (74) (182) (41) (51)
Interest expense (330) (308) (275) (357) (330) (308)
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Total costs and expenses (33,282) (29,326) (28,537) (28,525) (33,282) (29,326)

Loss on disposition of operations

 

(13

)

 

(24

)

 

(41

)

 

(93

)

 

(13

)

 

(24

)
Income tax expense (323) (1,230) (846) (2,185) (323) (1,230)
Dividends on preferred securities of subsidiary trust(s)   (5)
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax 1,765 3,356 2,720 
 

4,993

 

 

1,765

 

 

3,356

 
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax  (175) (15)     (175)
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Net income $1,765 $3,181 $2,705  $4,993 $1,765 $3,181 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

Property-Liability

 

$

1,431

 

$

3,045

 

$

2,521

 

 

$

4,614

 

$

1,431

 

$

3,045

 
Allstate Financial 416 246 305  464  416  246 
Corporate and Other (82) (110) (121) (85) (82) (110)
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Net income $1,765 $3,181 $2,705  $4,993 $1,765 $3,181 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

APPLICATION OF CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIESESTIMATES

        We have identified five accounting policies that require us to make assumptions and estimates that are significant to the consolidated financial statements. It is reasonably likely that changes in these assumptions and estimates could occur from period to period and result in a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. A brief summary of each of these critical accounting policiesestimates follows. For a more detailed discussion of the effect of these policiesestimates on our consolidated financial statements, and the judgments and estimatesassumptions related to these policies,estimates, see the referenced sections of the MD&A. For a complete summary of our significant accounting policies see Note 2 of the consolidated financial statements.

        Investment Valuation    The fair value of publicly traded fixed income and equity securities is based on independent market quotations, whereas the fair value of non-publicly traded securities is based on



either widely accepted pricing valuation models, which use internally developed ratings and independent third party data as inputs, or independent third party pricing sources. Factors used in our internally



developed models, such as liquidity risk associated with privately-placed securities, are difficult to independently observe and quantify. Because of this, judgment is required in developing certain of these estimates and, as a result, the estimated fair value of non-publicly traded securities may differ from amounts that would be realized upon an immediate sale of the securities.

        For investments classified as available for sale, the difference between fair value and amortized cost for fixed income securities or cost for equity securities, net of deferred income taxes and certain other items (as disclosed in Note 5), is reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position and is not reflected in the operating results of any period until reclassified to net income upon the consummation of a transaction with an unrelated third party or when declines in fair values are deemed other than temporary.other-than-temporary. The assessment of other than temporaryother-than-temporary impairment of a security's fair value is performed on a portfolio review as well as a case-by-case basis considering a wide range of factors. For our portfolio review evaluations, we ascertain whether there are any approved programs involving the disposition of investments such as changes in duration, revision to strategic asset allocations and liquidity actions; and any dispositions plannedanticipated by the portfolio managers. In these instances, we recognize impairment on securities being considered for these approved plannedanticipated actions if the security is in an unrealized loss position. There are a number of assumptions and estimates inherent in evaluating impairments and determining if they are other than temporary,other-than-temporary, including 1) our ability and intent to retainhold the investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for an anticipated recovery in value; 2) the expected recoverability of principal and interest; 3) the duration and extent to which the fair value has been less than cost for equity securities or amortized cost for fixed income securities or cost for equity securities; 4) the financial condition, near-term and long-term prospects of the issuer, including relevant industry conditions and trends, and implications of rating agency actions and offering prices; and 5) the specific reasons that a security is in a significant unrealized loss position, including market conditions which could affect liquidity. Additionally, once assumptions and estimates are made, any number of changes in facts and circumstances could cause us to later determine that an impairment is other than temporary,other-than-temporary, including 1) general economic conditions that are worse than previously assumed or that have a greater adverse effect on a particular issuer than originally estimated; 2) changes in the facts and circumstances related to a particular issuer's ability to meet all of its contractual obligations; and 3) changes in facts and circumstances or new information obtained which causes a change in our ability or intent to hold a security to maturity or until it recovers in value. Changes in assumptions, facts and circumstances could result in additional charges to earnings in future periods to the extent that losses are realized. The charge to earnings, while potentially significant to net income, would not have a significant effect on shareholders' equity since the majority of our portfolio is carried at fair value and as a result, any related net unrealized loss net of deferred acquisition costs, deferred sales inducement costs and related deferred tax, would already be reflected as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in shareholders' equity.

        For a more detailed discussion of the risks relating to changes in investment values and levels of investment impairment, and the potential causes of such changes, see Note 5 of the consolidated financial statements and the Investments, Market Risk, Enterprise Risk Management and Forward-looking Statements and Risk Factors sections of the MD&A.this document.

        Derivative Instrument Hedge Effectiveness    We primarily use derivative financial instruments to reduce our exposure to market risk and in conjunction with asset/liability management, particularly in the Allstate Financial segment. The fair value of exchange traded derivative contracts is based on independent market quotations, whereas the fair value of non-exchange traded derivative contracts is



based on either widely accepted pricing valuation models which use independent third party data as inputs or independent third party pricing sources.



        When derivatives meet specific criteria, they may be designated as accounting hedges and accounted for as fair value, cash flow, foreign currency fair value, or foreign currency cash flow hedges. When designating a derivative as an accounting hedge, we formally document the hedging relationship, risk management objective and strategy. The documentation identifies the hedging instrument, the hedged item, the nature of the risk being hedged and the assumptions used to assess how effective the hedging instrument is in offsetting the exposure to changes in the hedged item's fair value attributable to the hedged risk. In the case of a cash flow hedge, this documentation includes the exposure to changes in the hedged transaction's variability in cash flows attributable to the hedged risk. We do not exclude any component of the change in fair value of the hedging instrument from the effectiveness assessment. At each reporting date, we confirm that the hedging instrument continues to be highly effective in offsetting the hedged risk. For further discussion of these policies and quantification of the impact of these estimates and assumptions, see Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements and the Investments, Market Risk, Enterprise Risk Management and Forward-looking Statements and Risk Factors sections of the MD&A.this document.

        Deferred Policy Acquisition Cost ("DAC") Amortization    We incur significant costs in connection with acquiring business. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), costs that vary with and are primarily related to acquiring business are deferred and recorded as an asset on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position.

        DAC related to property-liability contracts is amortized to income as premiums are earned, typically over periods of six to twelve months. The amortization methodology for DAC for Allstate Financial policies and contracts includes significant assumptions and estimates.

        DAC related to traditional life insurance is amortized over the premium paying period of the related policies in proportion to the estimated revenues on such business. Significant assumptions relating to estimated premiums, investment income and realized capital gains and losses, as well as to all other aspects of DAC are determined based upon conditions as of the date of policy issuance and are generally not revised during the life of the policy. Any deviations from projected business in force resulting from actual policy terminations differing from expected levels and any estimated premium deficiencies change the rate of amortization in the period such events occur. Generally, the amortization periodperiods for these contracts approximate the estimated lives of the policies.

        DAC related to interest-sensitive life, fixed and variable annuities and other investment contracts is amortized in proportion to the incidence of the total present value of gross profits which includes both actual historical gross profits ("AGP") and estimated future gross profits ("EGP") expected to be earned over the estimated lives of the contracts. TheActual amortization periods range from 15-30 years; however, incorporating estimates of customer surrender rates, partial withdrawals and deaths generally resultresults in the majority of the DAC being amortized over the surrender charge period. AGP and EGP consist of the following components: benefit margins primarily from mortality, including guaranteed minimum death, income, withdrawal and accumulation benefits;mortality; investment margin including realized capital gains and losses; and contract administration, surrender and other contract charges, less maintenance expenses.

        DAC amortization for variable annuity and life contracts is estimated using stochastic modeling and is significantly impacted by the anticipated return on the underlying funds. Our long-term assumption of separate accounts fund performance, net of fees, was approximately 7% in 2005 and 8% in 2004 and 2003. Whenever actual separate accounts fund performance, based on the two most recent years, varies from the expectation, we project performance levels over the next five years such that the mean return



over a seven-year period equals the long-term expectation. This process is referred to as "reversion to the mean" and is commonly used by the life insurance industry. Although the use of a reversion to the mean assumption is common within the industry, the parameters used in the methodology are subject to judgment and vary between companies. For example, when applying this assumption we do not allow the future mean rates of return including fees projected over the five-year period to exceed 12.75% or fall below 0%. We periodically evaluate the results of utilizing this process to confirm that it is reasonably possible that variable annuityreview and life fund performance will revert to the expected long-term mean within this time horizon. Revisionsmake revisions to EGPs resultresulting in changes in the cumulative amounts expensed as a component of amortization of DAC in the period in which the revision is made. This is commonly known as "DAC unlocking".

        For quantification of the impact of these estimates and assumptions on Allstate Financial, see the Allstate Financial Segment and Forward-looking Statements and Risk Factors sections of the MD&Athis document and Note 2 and 10 of the consolidated financial statements.

        Reserve for Property-Liability Insurance Claims and Claims Expense Estimation    TheReserves are established to provide for the estimated costs of paying claims and claims expenses under insurance



policies we issued. Property-Liability underwriting results are significantly influenced by estimates of the reserve for property-liability insurance claims and claims expense.expense reserves. These reserves are an estimate of amounts necessary to settle all outstanding claims, including claims that have been incurred but not reported ("IBNR"), as of the financial statement date.

        Characteristics of Reserves    Reserves are established independently of business segment management for each business segment and line of business based on estimates of the ultimate cost to settle claims, less losses that have been paid. The significant lines of business for Allstate Protection are Auto, Homeowners, and Other Lines. For Discontinued Lines and Coverages, they are Asbestos, Environmental, and Other Discontinued Lines. Allstate Protection's claims are typically reported promptly with relatively little reporting date.lag between the date of occurrence and the date of loss report. Auto and Homeowners liability losses generally take an average of about two years to settle, while Auto Physical Damage, Homeowners property and Other Personal Lines have an average settlement time of less than one year. Discontinued Lines and Coverages involve long-tail losses, such as those related to asbestos and environmental claims, which often involve substantial reporting lags and extended times to settle.

        Reserves are the difference between the estimated ultimate cost of losses incurred and the amount of paid losses as of the reporting date. Reserves are estimated for both reported and unreported claims, and include estimates of all expenses associated with processing and settling all incurred claims. We update our reserve estimates quarterly and as new information becomes available or as events unfold that may affect the resolution of unsettled claims. Changes in prior year reserve estimates (reserve reestimates), which may be material, are determined by comparing updated estimates of ultimate losses to prior estimates, and the differences are recorded as property-liability insurance claims and claims expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Operations in the period such changes are determined. Estimating the ultimate cost of claims and claims expenses is an inherently uncertain and complex process involving a high degree of judgment and is subject to evaluation of numerous variables.

        The Actuarial Methods used to Develop Reserve Estimates    Reserves estimates are derived by using several different actuarial estimation methods that are variations on one primary actuarial technique. This actuarial technique is known as a "chain ladder" estimation process in which historical loss patterns are applied to actual paid losses and reported losses (paid losses plus individual case reserves established by claim adjusters) for an accident year or a report year to create an estimate of how losses are likely to develop over time. An accident year refers to classifying claims based on the year in which the claims occurred. A report year refers to classifying claims based on the year in which the claims are reported. Both classifications are used to prepare estimates of required reserves for payments to be made in the future. The key assumptions affecting our reserve estimates comprise data elements including claim counts, paid losses, case reserves, and development factors calculated with this data.

        In the chain ladder estimation technique, a ratio (development factor) is calculated which compares current period results to results in the prior period for each accident year. A three-year or two-year average development factor, based on historical results, is usually multiplied by the current period experience to estimate the development of losses of each accident year into the next time period. The development factors for the future time periods for each accident year are compounded over the remaining future periods to calculate an estimate of ultimate losses for each accident year. The implicit assumption of this technique is that an average of historical development factors is predictive of future loss development, as the significant size of our experience data base achieves a high degree of statistical credibility in actuarial projections of this type. The effects of inflation are implicitly considered in the reserving process, the implicit assumption being that a multi-year average development factor includes an adequate provision. Occasionally, unusual aberrations in loss patterns are caused by external and internal factors such as changes in claim reporting, settlement patterns, unusually large losses, process changes,



legal or regulatory changes, and other influences. In these instances, analyses of alternate development factor selections are performed to evaluate the effect of these factors, and actuarial judgment is applied to make appropriate development factor assumptions needed to develop a best estimate of ultimate losses.

        How Reserve Estimates are Established and Updated    Reserve estimates are developed at a very detailed level, and the results of these numerous micro-level best estimates are aggregated to form a consolidated reserve estimate. For example, over one thousand actuarial estimates of the types described above are prepared each quarter to estimate losses for each line of insurance, major components of losses (such as coverages and perils), major states or groups of states and for reported losses and IBNR. The actuarial methods described above are used to analyze the settlement patterns of claims by determining the development factors for specific data elements that are necessary components of a reserve estimation process. Development factors are calculated quarterly for data elements such as, claim counts reported and settled, paid losses, and paid losses combined with case reserves. The calculation of development factors from changes in these data elements also impacts claim severity (average cost per claim) trends, which is a common industry reference used to explain changes in reserve estimates. The historical development patterns for these data elements are used as the assumptions to calculate reserve estimates.

        Often, several different estimates are prepared for each detailed component, incorporating alternative analyses of changing claim settlement patterns and other influences on losses, from which we select our best estimate for each component, occasionally incorporating additional analyses and actuarial judgment, as described above. These micro-level estimates are not based on a single set of assumptions. Actuarial judgments that may be applied to these components of certain micro-level estimates generally do not have a material impact on the consolidated level of reserves. Moreover, this detailed micro-level process does not permit or result in a compilation of a company-wide roll up to generate a range of needed loss reserves that would be meaningful. Based on our review of these estimates, our best estimate of required reserves for each state/line/coverage component is recorded for each accident year, and the required reserves for each component are summed to create the reserve balances carried on our Consolidated Statements of Financial Position.

        Reserves are reestimated quarterly, by combining historical results with current actual results to calculate new development factors. This process incorporates the historic and latest actual trends, and other underlying changes in the data elements used to calculate reserve estimates. New development factors are likely to differ from previous development factors used in prior reserve estimates because actual results (claims reported or settled, losses paid, or changes to case reserves) occur differently than the implied assumptions contained in the previous development factor calculations. If claims reported, paid losses, or case reserves changes are greater or lower than the levels estimated by previous development factors, reserve reestimates increase or decrease. When actual development of these data elements is different than the historical development pattern used in a prior period reserve estimate, a new reserve is determined. The difference between indicated reserves based on new reserve estimates and recorded reserves (the previous estimate) is the amount of reserve reestimate and an increase or decrease in property-liability insurance claims and claims expense will be recorded in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Total Property-liability reserve reestimates, after-tax, as a percent of net income, from 2004, 2005 and 2006 were 4.7%, 17.2% and 12.6%, respectively. For Property-Liability, the 3-year average of reserve reestimate as a percentage of total reserves was 3.1% favorable reestimate, for Allstate Protection the 3-year average of reserve estimates was a favorable 5.7% and for Discontinued Lines and Coverages the 3-year average of reserve reestimates was an unfavorable 15.9%, each of these results being consistent within a reasonable actuarial tolerance for our respective businesses. Allstate Protection



reserve reestimates were primarily the result of claim severity development that was better than expected and late reported loss development that was better than expected due to lower frequency trends, and for Discontinued Lines and Coverages, reestimates were primarily a result of increased reported claim activity (claims frequency). A more detailed discussion of reserve reestimates is presented in the Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A.

        The following table shows claims and claims expense reserves by operating segment and line of business as of December 31:

(in millions)

 2006
 2005
 2004
Allstate Protection         
 Auto $9,995 $10,460 $10,228
 Homeowners  2,226  3,675  1,917
 Other Lines  2,235  2,619  2,289
  
 
 
Total Allstate Protection $14,456 $16,754 $14,434
Discontinued Lines and Coverages         
 Asbestos  1,375  1,373  1,464
 Environmental  194  205  232
 Other Discontinued Lines  585  599  631
  
 
 
Total Discontinued Lines and Coverages $2,154 $2,177 $2,327
  
 
 
Total Property-Liability $16,610 $18,931 $16,761
  
 
 

Allstate Protection Reserve Estimates

        Factors Affecting Reserve Estimates    Reserve estimates are developed based on the processes and historical development trends as previously described. These estimates are considered in conjunction with known facts and interpretations of circumstances and factors including our experience with similar cases, actual claims paid, historical trends involving claimdiffering payment patterns and pending levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs, product mix and contractual terms, changes in law changes, courtand regulation, judicial decisions, changes to regulatory requirements and economic conditions. When we experience changes of the type previously mentioned, we may need to apply actuarial judgment in the determination and selection of development factors considered more reflective of the new trends, such as combining shorter or longer periods of historical results with current actual results to produce development factors based on two-year, three-year, or longer development periods to reestimate our reserves. For example, if a legal change is expected to have a significant impact on the development of claim severity for a coverage which is part of a particular line of insurance in a specific state, actuarial judgment is applied to determine appropriate development factors that will most accurately reflect the expected impact in that specific estimate. Another example would be when a change in economic conditions is expected to affect the cost of repairs to damaged autos or property for a particular line, coverage, or state, actuarial judgment is applied to determine appropriate development factors to use in the reserve estimate that will most accurately reflect the expected impacts on severity development.

        As claims are reported, for certain liability claims of sufficient size and complexity, the field adjusting staff establishes case reserve estimates of ultimate cost, based on their assessment of facts and circumstances related to each individual claim. For other claims which occur in large volumes and settle in a relatively short time frame, it is not practical or efficient to set case reserves for each claim, and a statistical case reserve is set for these claims based on estimating techniques previously described. In the normal course of business, we may also supplement our claims processes by utilizing third party



adjusters, appraisers, engineers, inspectors, other professionals and information sources to assess and settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims. The effects

        Historically, the case reserves set by the field adjusting staff have not proven to be an entirely accurate estimate of the ultimate cost of claims. To provide for this, a development reserve is estimated using previously described processes, and allocated to pending claims as a supplement to case reserves. Typically, the case and supplemental development reserves comprise about 90% of total reserves.

        Another major component of reserves is IBNR. Typically, IBNR comprises about 10% of total reserves.

        Generally, the initial reserves for a new accident year are established based on severity assumptions for different business segments, lines, and coverages based on historical relationships to relevant inflation indicators, and reserves for prior accident years are implicitly consideredstatistically determined using processes previously described. Changes in auto current year claim severity are generally influenced by inflation in the reserving process.medical and auto repair sectors of the economy. We mitigate these effects through various loss management programs. Injury claims are affected largely by medical cost inflation while physical damage claims are affected largely by auto repair cost inflation and used car prices. For auto physical damage coverages, we monitor our rate of increase in average cost per claim against a weighted average of the Maintenance and Repair price index and the Parts & Equipment price index. We believe our claim settlement initiatives, such as improvements to the claim review and settlement process, the use of special investigative units to detect fraud and handle suspect claims, litigation management and defense strategies, as well as various other loss management initiatives underway, contribute to the mitigation of injury and physical damage severity trends.

        Changes in homeowners current year claim severity are generally influenced by inflation in the cost of building materials, the cost of construction and property repair services, the cost of replacing home furnishings and other contents, the types of claims that qualify for coverage, deductibles and other economic and environmental factors. We employ various loss management programs to mitigate the effect of these factors.

        As loss experience for the current year develops for each type of loss, it is monitored relative to initial assumptions until it is judged to have sufficient statistical credibility. From that point in time and forward, reserves are re-estimated using statistical actuarial processes to reflect the impact actual loss trends have on development factors incorporated into the actuarial estimation processes. Statistical credibility is usually achieved by the end of the first calendar year, however, when trends for the current accident year exceed initial assumptions sooner, they are usually given credibility, and reserves are increased accordingly.

        The very detailed processes for developing reserve estimates and the lack of a need and existence of a common set of assumptions or development factors, limits aggregate reserve level testing for variability of data elements. However, by applying standard actuarial methods to consolidated historic accident year loss data for major loss types, comprising auto injury losses, auto physical damage losses and homeowner losses, we develop variability analyses consistent with the way we develop reserves by measuring the potential variability of development factors, as described in the section titled, "Potential Reserve Estimate Variability" below.

    ��   Causes of Reserve Estimate Uncertainty    Since reserves are estimates of the unpaid portions of lossesclaims and claims expenses that have occurred, including IBNR losses, the establishment of appropriate reserves, including reserves for catastrophes, is an inherently uncertainrequires regular reevaluation and complex process. Therefinement of estimates to determine our ultimate loss estimate.


        At each reporting date, the highest degree of uncertainty is associated with reservesin estimates of losses arises from claims remaining to be settled for losses incurredthe current accident year and the most recent preceding accident year. The greatest degree of uncertainty exists in the current accident year as itbecause the current accident year contains the greatest proportion of losses that have not been reported or settled but must be estimated as of the current reporting date. That proportion diminishesMost of these losses relate to damaged property such as automobiles and homes, and to medical care for injuries from accidents. During the first year after the end of an accident year, a large portion of the total losses for that accident year are settled. When accident year losses paid through the end of the first year following the accident year are incorporated into updated actuarial estimates, the trends inherent in subsequent years.the settlement of claims emerge more clearly. Consequently, this is the point in time at which we tend to make our largest reestimates of losses for an accident year. After the second year, the losses that we pay for an accident year typically relate to claims that are more difficult to settle, such as those involving serious injuries or litigation. Private passenger auto insurance provides a good illustration of the uncertainty of future loss estimates: our typical annual percentage payout of reserves for an accident year is approximately 45% in the first year after the end of the accident year, 20% in the second year, 15% in the third year, 10% in the fourth year, and the remaining 10% thereafter.

        Reserves for Catastrophe Losses    Property-Liability claims and claims expense reserves also include reserves for catastrophe losses. Catastrophe losses are an inherent risk of the property-liability insurance industry that have contributed, and will continue to contribute, to potentially material year-to-year fluctuations in our results of operations and financial position. We define a "catastrophe" as an event that produces pretax losses before reinsurance in excess of $1 million and involves multiple first party policyholders, or an event that produces a number of claims in excess of a preset, per-event threshold of average claims in a specific area, occurring within a certain amount of time following the event. Catastrophes are caused by various natural events including earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, tornadoes, hailstorms, hurricanes, tropical storms, high winds and winter storms. We are also exposed to man-made catastrophic events, such as certain acts of terrorism or industrial accidents. The nature and level of catastrophes in any period cannot be predicted.

        The estimation of claims and claims expense reserves for catastrophes also comprises estimates of losses from reported claims and IBNR, primarily for damage to property. In general, our estimates for catastrophe reserves are based on claim adjuster inspections and the application of historical loss development factors as described previously. However, depending on the nature of the catastrophe, as noted above, the estimation process can be further complicated. For example, for hurricanes, complications could include the inability of insureds to be able to promptly report losses, limitations placed on claims adjusting staff affecting their ability to inspect losses, determining whether losses are covered by our homeowners policy (generally for damage caused by wind or wind driven rain), or specifically excluded coverage caused by flood, estimating additional living expenses, and assessing the impact of demand surge, exposure to mold damage, and the effects of numerous other considerations, including the timing of a catastrophe in relation to other events, such as at or near the end of a financial reporting period, which can affect the availability of information needed to estimate reserves for that reporting period. In these situations, we may need to adapt our practices to accommodate these circumstances in order to determine a best estimate of our loss from a catastrophe. As an example, to complete an estimate for certain areas affected by Hurricane Katrina and not yet inspected by our claims adjusting staff, or where we believed our historical loss development factors were not predictive, we relied on analysis of actual claim notices received compared to total policies in force, as well as visual, governmental and third party information, including aerial photos, area observations, and data on wind speed and flood depth to the extent available.



        Potential Reserve Estimate Variability    The aggregation of numerous micro-level estimates for each business segment, line of insurance, major components of losses (such as coverages and perils), and major states or groups of states for reported losses and IBNR forms the reserve liability recorded in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position. Because of this detailed approach to developing our reserve estimates, there is not a single set of assumptions that determine our reserve estimates at the consolidated level. Moreover, management does not compile a range of reserve estimates, because management does not believe the processes that we follow will produce a statistically credible or reliable actuarial reserve range that would be meaningful. Reserve estimates, by their very nature, are very complex to determine and subject to significant judgment, and do not represent an exact determination for each outstanding claim. Accordingly, as actual claims, and/or paid losses, and/or case reserve results emerge, our estimate of the ultimate cost to settle will be different than previously estimated.

        To develop a statistical indication of potential reserve variability within reasonably likely possible outcomes, an actuarial (stochastic modeling) technique is applied to the countrywide consolidated data elements for paid losses and paid losses combined with case reserves separately for injury losses, auto physical damage losses, and homeowners losses excluding catastrophe losses. Based on the combined historical variability of the development factors calculated for these data elements an estimate of the standard error or standard deviation around these reserve estimates is calculated within each accident year for the last eleven years for each type of loss. The variability of these reserve estimates within one standard deviation of the mean (a measure of frequency of dispersion often viewed to be an acceptable level of accuracy) is believed by management to represent a reasonable and statistically probable measure of potential variability. Based on our products and coverages, historical experience, the statistical credibility of our extensive data, and stochastic modeling of actuarial chain ladder methodologies used to develop reserve estimates, we estimate that the potential variability of our Allstate Protection reserves, after-tax, within a reasonable probability of other possible outcomes, may be approximately plus or minus 4%, or plus or minus $400 million in net income. A lower level of variability exists for auto injury losses, which comprise approximately 70% of reserves, due to their relatively stable development patterns over a longer duration of time required to settle claims. Other types of losses, such as auto physical damage, homeowners losses and other losses, which comprise about 30% of reserves, tend to have greater variability, but are settled in a much shorter period of time. Although this evaluation reflects most reasonably likely outcomes, it is possible the final outcome may fall below or above these amounts. Historical variability of reserve estimates is reported in the Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A.

        Adequacy of Reserve Estimates    We believe our net lossclaims and claims expense reserves are appropriately established based on available methodology, facts, technology, laws and regulations. We calculate and record a single best reserve estimate, in conformance with generally accepted actuarial standards, for each line of insurance, its components (coverages and perils), and state, for reported losses and for IBNR losses and as a result we believe that no other estimate is better than our recorded amount. Due to the uncertainties involved, the ultimate cost of losses may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on our best estimates. Accordingly,

Discontinued Lines and Coverages Reserve Estimates

        Characteristics of Discontinued Lines Exposure    We continue to receive asbestos and environmental claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who were exposed to asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs.


        Our exposure to asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims arises principally from assumed reinsurance coverage written during the 1960s through the mid-1980s, including reinsurance on primary insurance written on large United States companies, and from direct excess insurance written from 1972 through 1985, including substantial excess general liability coverages on Fortune 500 companies. Additional exposure stems from direct primary commercial insurance written during the 1960s through the mid-1980s. Other discontinued lines exposures primarily relate to general liability and product liability mass tort claims, such as those for medical devices and other products.

        In 1986, the general liability policy form used by us and others in the property-liability industry was amended to introduce an "absolute pollution exclusion," which excluded coverage for environmental damage claims, and to add an asbestos exclusion. Most general liability policies issued prior to 1987 contain annual aggregate limits for product liability coverage. General liability policies issued in 1987 and thereafter contain annual aggregate limits for product liability coverage and annual aggregate limits for all coverages. Our experience to date is that these policy form changes have limited the extent of our exposure to environmental and asbestos claim risks.

        Our exposure to liability for asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines losses manifests differently depending on whether it arises from assumed reinsurance coverage, direct excess insurance, or direct primary commercial insurance. The direct insurance coverage we believeprovided that itcovered asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines was substantially "excess" in nature.

        Direct excess insurance and reinsurance involve coverage written by us for specific layers of protection above retentions and other insurance plans. The nature of excess coverage and reinsurance provided to other insurers limits our exposure to loss to specific layers of protection in excess of policyholder retention on primary insurance plans. Our exposure is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such changesfurther limited by the significant reinsurance that we had purchased on our direct excess business.

        Our assumed reinsurance business involved writing generally small participations in other insurers' reinsurance programs. The reinsured losses incurred.

        We regularly update our reserve estimates as new information becomes available and as events unfold that may affect the resolution of unsettled claims. Changes in prior year reserve estimates, which we participate may be material,a proportion of all eligible losses or eligible losses in excess of defined retentions. The majority of our assumed reinsurance exposure, approximately 85%, is for excess of loss coverage, while the remaining 15% is for pro-rata coverage.

        Our direct primary commercial insurance business did not include coverage to large asbestos manufacturers. This business comprises a cross section of policyholders engaged in many diverse business sectors located throughout the country.

        How Reserve Estimates are reportedEstablished and Updated    We conduct an annual review in property-liability insurancethe third quarter of each year to evaluate and establish asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines reserves. Reserves are recorded in the reporting period in which they are determined. Using established industry and actuarial best practices and assuming no change in the regulatory or economic environment, this detailed and comprehensive "ground up" methodology determines asbestos reserves based on assessments of the characteristics of exposure (e.g. claim activity, potential liability, jurisdiction, products versus non-products exposure) presented by individual policyholders, and determines environmental reserves based on assessments of the characteristics of exposure (e.g. environmental damages, respective shares of liability of potentially responsible parties, appropriateness and cost of remediation) to pollution and related clean-up costs. The number and cost of these claims is affected by intense advertising by trial lawyers seeking asbestos plaintiffs, and entities with asbestos exposure seeking bankruptcy protection as a result of asbestos liabilities, initially causing a delay in the reporting of claims, often followed by an acceleration and an increase in claims and claims expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Operations in the period such changes are determined.as settlements occur.



        The aggregationAfter evaluating our insureds' probable liabilities for asbestos and/or environmental claims, we evaluate our insureds' coverage programs for such claims. We consider our insureds' total available insurance coverage, including the coverage we issued. We also consider relevant judicial interpretations of policy language and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any.

        Evaluation of both the insureds' estimated liabilities and our exposure to the insureds depends heavily on an analysis of the relevant legal issues and litigation environment. This analysis is conducted by our specialized claims adjusting staff and legal counsel. Based on these estimates formsevaluations, case reserves are established by claims adjusting staff and actuarial analysis is employed to develop an IBNR reserve, which includes estimated potential reserve development and claims that have occurred but have not been reported. As of December 31, 2006, IBNR was 66.5% of combined asbestos and environmental reserves.

        For both asbestos and environmental reserves, we also evaluate our historical direct net loss and expense paid and incurred experience to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the reserve liability recordedaggregate paid and incurred activity.

        Other Discontinued Lines and Coverages    Reserves for Other Discontinued Lines provide for remaining loss and loss expense liabilities related to business no longer written by us, other than asbestos and environmental, and are presented in the Consolidated Statementsfollowing table.

(in millions)

 2006
 2005
 2004
Other mass torts $185 $203 $205
Workers' compensation  140  151  152
Commercial and other  260  245  274
  
 
 
Other discontinued lines $585 $599 $631
  
 
 

        Other mass torts describes direct excess and reinsurance general liability coverage provided for cumulative injury losses other than asbestos and environmental. Workers' compensation and commercial and other include run-off from discontinued direct primary, direct excess and reinsurance commercial insurance operations of Financial Position. Basedvarious coverage exposures other than asbestos and environmental. Reserves are based on our products and coverages, historical experience and stochastic modelingconsiderations similar to those previously described, as they relate to the characteristics of actuarial chain ladder methodologies used to develop reserve estimates, we estimate that the potential variability of our Allstate Protection reserves, excluding the unprecedented hurricane losses experienced in 2005 which we expect will be paid during 2006, within a reasonable probability of other possible outcomes, may be approximately plus or minus 4%, or plus or minus $400 million in net income. Although this evaluation reflects the most likely outcomes, it is possible the final outcome may fall below or above these amounts.specific individual coverage exposures.

        Potential Reserve Estimate Variability    Establishing Discontinued Lines and Coverages net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those presented by other types of claims. Among the complications are lack of historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding theories of liability, availability and collectibility of recoveries from reinsurance,reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums and other contractual agreements; and estimatingestimates of the extent and timing of any contractual liability,liability; the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up costs represent insured



property damage. Our reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures could be affected by tort reform, class action litigation, and other potential legislation and judicial decisions. Environmental exposures could also be affected by a change in the existing federal Superfund law and similar state statutes. There can be no assurance that any reform legislation will be enacted or that any such legislation will provide for a fair, effective and cost-efficient system for settlement of asbestos or environmental claims. We believe these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. Historical variability of reserve estimates is demonstrated in the Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A.

        Adequacy of Reserve Estimates    Management believes its net loss reserves for environmental, asbestos and other discontinued lines exposures are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws, regulations, and regulations.assessments of other pertinent factors and characteristics of exposure (e.g. claim activity, potential liability, jurisdiction, products versus non-products exposure) presented by individual policyholders, assuming no change in the legal, legislative or economic environment. Due to the uncertainties and factors described above, management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be required.

        Further Discussion of Reserve Estimates    For further discussion of these policiesestimates and quantification of the impact of reserve estimates, reserve reestimates and assumptions, see Notes 7 and 13 ofto the consolidated financial statements and the Catastrophe Losses, Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves and Forward-looking Statements and Risk Factors sections of the MD&A.this document.

        Reserve for Life-Contingent Contract Benefits Estimation    Long-term actuarial assumptions of future investment yields, mortality, morbidity, policy terminations and expenses are used when establishing the reserve for life-contingent contract benefits. These assumptions, which for life contingent annuities and traditional life insurance are applied using the net level premium method, include provisions for adverse deviation and generally vary by such characteristics as type of annuity benefit or coverage, year of issue and policy duration. Future investment yield assumptions are determined at the time the policy is issued based upon prevailing investment yields as well as estimated reinvestment yields. Mortality, morbidity and policy termination assumptions are based on our experience and industry experience prevailing at the time the policies are issued. Expense assumptions include the estimated effects of inflation and expenses to be incurred beyond the premium-paying period.

        For further discussion of these policies, see Note 8 of the consolidated financial statements and the Forward-looking Statements and Risk Factors section of the MD&A.this document.



PROPERTY-LIABILITY 20052006 HIGHLIGHTS


PROPERTY-LIABILITY OPERATIONS

        Overview    Our Property-Liability operations consist of two business segments: Allstate Protection and Discontinued Lines and Coverages. Allstate Protection is comprised ofstructured around two brands, the Allstate brand and Encompass brand. Allstate Protection is principally engaged in the sale of personal property and casualty insurance, primarily private passenger auto and homeowners insurance, to individuals in the United States and Canada. Discontinued Lines and Coverages includes results from insurance coverage that we no longer write and results for certain commercial and other businesses in run-off. These segments are consistent with the groupings of financial information that management uses to evaluate performance and to determine the allocation of resources.

        Underwriting (loss) income a measure that(loss), is not based ona GAAP measure and is reconciled to net income on page 32,47. It is calculated as premiums earned, less claims and claims expense ("losses"), amortization of DAC, operating costs and expenses and restructuring and related charges, as determined using GAAP. We use this measure in our evaluation of results of operations to analyze the profitability of the Property-Liability insurance operations separately from investment results. It is also an integral component of incentive compensation. It is useful for investors to evaluate the components of income separately and in the aggregate when reviewing performance. Underwriting income (loss) income should not be considered as a substitute for net income and does not reflect the overall profitability of the business. Net income is the GAAP measure most directly comparable GAAP measure.to underwriting income (loss).

        The table below includes GAAP operating ratios we use to measure our profitability. We believe that they enhance an investor's understanding of our profitability. They are calculated as follows:



        We have also calculated the following impacts of specific items on the GAAP operating ratios because of the volatility of these items between fiscal periods.


        Summarized financial data, a reconciliation of underwriting income (loss) income to net income and GAAP operating ratios for our Property-Liability operations for the years ended December 31, are presented in the following table.

(in millions, except ratios)

 2005
 2004
 2003
 
Premiums written $27,391 $26,531 $25,187 
  
 
 
 
Revenues          
Premiums earned $27,039 $25,989 $24,677 
Net investment income  1,791  1,773  1,677 
Realized capital gains and losses  516  592  288 
  
 
 
 
Total revenues  29,346  28,354  26,642 

Costs and expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Claims and claims expense  (21,175) (17,843) (17,432)
Amortization of DAC  (4,092) (3,874) (3,520)
Operating costs and expenses  (2,369) (2,396) (2,326)
Restructuring and related charges  (39) (46) (67)
  
 
 
 
Total costs and expenses  (27,675) (24,159) (23,345)

Gain on disposition of operations

 

 


 

 


 

 

5

 
Income tax expense  (240) (1,150) (780)
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax      (1)
  
 
 
 
Net income $1,431 $3,045 $2,521 
  
 
 
 

Underwriting (loss) income

 

$

(636

)

$

1,830

 

$

1,332

 
Net investment income  1,791  1,773  1,677 
Income tax expense on operations  (63) (955) (682)
Realized capital gains and losses, after-tax  339  397  192 
Gain on disposition of operations, after-tax      3 
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax      (1)
  
 
 
 
Net income $1,431 $3,045 $2,521 
  
 
 
 
Catastrophe losses $5,674 $2,468 $1,489 
  
 
 
 

GAAP operating ratios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Claims and claims expense ("loss") ratio  78.3  68.7  70.6 
Expense ratio  24.1  24.3  24.0 
  
 
 
 
Combined ratio  102.4  93.0  94.6 
  
 
 
 
Effect of catastrophe losses on combined ratio  21.0  9.5  6.0 
  
 
 
 
Effect of pretax reserve reestimates on combined ratio  (1.7) (0.9) 1.6 
  
 
 
 
Effect of restructuring and related charges on combined ratio  0.1  0.2  0.3 
  
 
 
 
Effect of Discontinued Lines and Coverages on combined ratio  0.7  2.5  2.3 
  
 
 
 

(in millions, except ratios)

 2006
 2005
 2004
 
Premiums written $27,526 $27,391 $26,531 
  
 
 
 
Revenues          
Premiums earned $27,369 $27,039 $25,989 
Net investment income  1,854  1,791  1,773 
Realized capital gains and losses  348  516  592 
  
 
 
 
Total revenues  29,571  29,346  28,354 

Costs and expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Claims and claims expense  (16,017) (21,175) (17,843)
Amortization of DAC  (4,131) (4,092) (3,874)
Operating costs and expenses  (2,567) (2,369) (2,396)
Restructuring and related charges  (157) (39) (46)
  
 
 
 
Total costs and expenses  (22,872) (27,675) (24,159)

Loss on disposition of operations

 

 

(1

)

 


 

 


 
Income tax expense  (2,084) (240) (1,150)
  
 
 
 
Net income $4,614 $1,431 $3,045 
  
 
 
 

Underwriting income (loss)

 

 

4,497

 

$

(636

)

$

1,830

 
Net investment income  1,854  1,791  1,773 
Income tax expense on operations  (1,963) (63) (955)
Realized capital gains and losses, after-tax  227  339  397 
Loss on disposition of operations, after-tax  (1)    
  
 
 
 
Net income $4,614 $1,431 $3,045 
  
 
 
 
Catastrophe losses $810 $5,674 $2,468 
  
 
 
 

GAAP operating ratios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Claims and claims expense ratio  58.5  78.3  68.7 
Expense ratio  25.1  24.1  24.3 
  
 
 
 
Combined ratio  83.6  102.4  93.0 
  
 
 
 
Effect of catastrophe losses on combined ratio  3.0  21.0  9.5 
  
 
 
 
Effect of pretax reserve reestimates on combined ratio  (3.5) (1.7) (0.9)
  
 
 
 
Effect of restructuring and related charges on combined ratio  0.6  0.1  0.2 
  
 
 
 
Effect of Discontinued Lines and Coverages on combined ratio  0.5  0.7  2.5 
  
 
 
 

ALLSTATE PROTECTION SEGMENT

Overview and Strategy    The Allstate Protection segment sells primarily private passenger auto and homeowner insurance to individuals through Allstate Exclusive Agencies, Customer Information Centers and over the Internet under the Allstate brand and through independent agencies under the EncompassSMEncompass® and Deerbrook® brands. The Encompass brand includes standard auto and homeowners products while the Deerbrook brand is used for non-standard auto products.


        The key elements of the Allstate Protection strategy are:

        We are seeking, through the utilization of our distribution channels, our sophisticated risk segmentation process ("Tiered Pricing") and consumer marketing, to attract and retain high lifetime value customers who will potentially provide favorable prospects for profitability over the course of their relationship with us.

        We maintain a broad marketing approach throughout the U.S. We have aligned agency and management compensation and the overall strategies of the Allstate brand to best serve our customers by basing certain incentives on Allstate brand profitability, unit growth, retention, and sales of Allstate Financialfinancial products. We differentiate the Allstate brand from competitors through newby offering a choice of products, including our innovative products such as Allstate® Your Choice Auto. We continue to enhance technology to integrateAuto ("YCA") with options such as safe driving deductibles and a safe driving bonus, Allstate® Your Choice Homeowners ("YCH") with options such as claims free bonus and personalized coverage and Allstate BlueSM our distribution channels, improve customer service, facilitate the introduction of new productsnon-standard auto product with features such as loyalty bonuses and services and reduce infrastructure costs related to supporting agencies and handling claims. These actions and others are designed to optimize the effectiveness of our distribution and service channels by increasing the productivity of the Allstate brand's exclusive agencies and The Good Hands® Network.roadside assistance, as well as other discount options available depending on a consumer's needs.

        Tiered Pricing and underwriting are designed to enhance both our competitive position and profit potential, and produce a broader range of premiums that is more refined than the range generated by the standard/non-standard model. Tiered Pricing includes our Strategic Risk Management ("SRM") program, which uses a number of risk evaluation factors including, to the extent legally permissible, insurance scoring based on information that is obtained from credit reports. We continue to expand the number of tiers with successive rating program releases.

        Substantially all of new and approximately 86% of renewal business written for Allstate brand auto uses Tiered Pricing. For Allstate brand homeowners, approximately 87% of new and 53% of renewal business written uses Tiered Pricing. For Allstate brand auto and homeowners business written under Tiered Pricing, our results indicate a shift toward more customers who we consider high lifetime value that generally are retained longer and have more favorable loss results.

As we continue to use Tiered Pricing, there is a diminishing capacity to draw meaningful comparisons to historical presentations, including the distinctions between standard and non-standard which have become less relevant in certain states. For this reason, we believe it is useful for investors to analyze auto results that aggregate our standard and non-standard business. Generally, standard auto customers are expected to have lower risks of loss than non-standard auto customers.

        Substantially allWe are pursuing improvements in the overall customer experience through actions targeted to increase customer satisfaction and retention. These programs are designed around establishing customer service expectations and customer relationship building. Our claims strategy focuses on delivering fast, fair and consistent claim service while achieving loss cost management and customer satisfaction.

        We continue to enhance technology to integrate our distribution channels, improve customer service, facilitate the introduction of new products and approximately 61% of renewal business written for Allstate brand auto uses Tiered Pricing, an increase from 58% in 2004 when computed on a comparable basis. For Allstate brand homeowners, approximately 82% of newservices and 43% of renewal business written uses Tiered Pricing. For Allstate brand autoreduce infrastructure costs related to supporting agencies and homeowners business written under Tiered Pricing, our results indicate anhandling claims. These actions and others are designed to optimize the



increase in retentioneffectiveness of our distribution and a shift toward more customers who we consider high lifetime valueservice channels by increasing the productivity of the Allstate brand's exclusive agencies and who generate more favorable loss results.our direct channels: the Internet and call centers.

        Our strategy for the Encompass brand focuses on those markets that give usincludes enhancing pricing and product sophistication through our Tiered Pricing approach Encompass Edge®, increasing distribution effectiveness and improving agency technology interfaces to support profitable growth. We are positioning the best opportunitybrand to grow profitably, in partexpand product breadth and improve agency penetration by using Tiered Pricing. The integration of Encompass policies onto Allstate systems has resulted in a different counting process for PIF. As a result, percent changes in PIF, average premiumleveraging technology and the renewal ratio are subject to some distortion.service capabilities

        We are continuing our efforts to seek approval for rate changes for all Allstate Protection products in all jurisdictions where we believe such changes are needed and can be obtained based on rate indicators, such as our projected claim frequency and severity experience and expense levels including cost of reinsurance coverage purchased and catastrophe losses, andcontinue to pursue other actions affecting our profitability such as improving our underwriting and claims processes.

        An important element of our strategy is to manage our property catastrophe exposure to enableprovide our shareholders to earn an acceptable return on the risks assumed in our property business and to reduce the variability inof our earnings, while providing quality protection to our customers. Although in many areas of the country we are currently achieving returns within acceptable risk tolerances, we continue to seek solutions to improve returns in areas that have known exposure to hurricanes, earthquakes, fires following earthquakes and other catastrophes. We will significantly reduceManagement's measurements for our catastropheproperty business include exposure over time while working to mitigate the impactlimits based on hurricane and earthquake losses which have a one percent probability of our actionsoccurring on customers.an annual aggregate countrywide basis. We are also working for changes in the regulatory environment, including fewer restrictions on underwriting, recognizing the need for and improving appropriate risk based pricing and promoting the creation of government sponsored, privately funded solutions. Our property business includes personal homeowners, commercial property and other property lines. While the actions that we take will be primarily focused on reducing the catastrophe exposure in our property business, we also consider their impact on our ability to market our auto lines.

        Pricing of property products is typically intended to establish returns that we deem acceptable over a long-term period. Losses, including losses from catastrophic events and weather-related losses (such as wind, hail, lightning and freeze losses not meeting our criteria to be declared a catastrophe) are accrued on an occurrence basis within the policy period. Therefore, in any reporting period, loss experience from catastrophic events and weather-related losses may contribute to negative or positive underwriting performance relative to the expectations we incorporated into the products' pricing. Accordingly, property products are more capital intensive than other personal lines products.

        Actions we are taking and evaluating to attain an acceptable catastrophe exposure level in our personal and commercial property businesses include: additional purchases of reinsurance; increased participation in various state facilities such as wind pools; changes in rates, deductibles and coverage; limitations on new business writings; changes to underwriting requirements; non-renewal; discontinuing coverage for certain types of residences; withdrawal from certain markets; and/or pursuing alternative markets for placement of business or segments of risk exposure in certain areas. While actions taken will be primarily focused on reducing the catastrophe exposure in our personal and commercial property businesses, we also consider their impact on our ability to market our auto lines when evaluating the feasibility of their implementation.

        In order to assess and monitor our actions, we are considering and adopting new performance measurements for managing our property business. These measurements currently include exposure limits based on hurricane and earthquake losses which have a one percent probability of occurring on an annual aggregate countrywide basis, acceptable targeted rates of return by line and by state and potential exposure to capital impairment.

        As part of our catastrophe management efforts, we are involved with a newly created coalition called ProtectingAmerica.org. The coalition is dedicated to raising awareness, educating the public and



policymakers, and offering solutions that will better prepare and protect consumers, taxpayers and the American economy from major catastrophes in a sensible, cost-effective fashion. A comprehensive solution is being advanced that includes the development of government sponsored, privately funded catastrophe funds at the state and national levels; improved prevention and mitigation measures, including the adoption of more effective land use policies and stronger building codes; enhanced public education about catastrophe risk; better catastrophe relief, recovery and rebuilding processes; and a rigorous process of continuous improvement for catastrophe preparedness and response programs and processes.

        Premiums written, an operating measure, is the amount of premiums charged for policies issued during a fiscal period. Premiums earned is a GAAP measure. Premiums are considered earned and are included in the financial results on a pro-rata basis over the policy period. The portion of premiums written applicable to the unexpired terms of the policies is recorded as unearned premiums on our Consolidated Statements of Financial Position. Since the Allstate brand policy periods are typically 6 months for auto and 12 months for homeowners, Encompass auto and homeowners policy periods are typically 12 months and Deerbrook auto policy periods are typically 6 months, rate changes taken during 2005 and 2004 will generally be recognized in premiums earned over a period of 6 to 24 months. During this period, premiums written at a higher rate will cause an increase in the balance of unearned premiums on our Consolidated Statements of Financial Position.


        The following table shows the unearned premium balance at December 31 and the timeframe in which we expect to recognize these premiums as earned.

 
  
  
 % earned after
 
(in millions)

 2005
 2004
 90 days
 180 days
 270 days
 360 days
 
Allstate brand:               
Standard auto $3,851 $3,703 74.3%98.8%99.7%100.0%
Non-standard auto  401  455 73.3%98.1%99.6%100.0%
  
 
         
 Auto  4,252  4,158 74.2%98.7%99.7%100.0%
Homeowners  3,252  3,029 43.3%75.5%94.2%100.0%
Other personal lines  1,302  1,309 44.5%75.9%94.2%100.0%
  
 
         
Total Allstate brand  8,806  8,496 59.5%87.6%97.1%100.0%

Encompass brand:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Standard auto  594  606 44.0%75.7%94.2%100.0%
Non-standard auto (Deerbrook)  28  36 75.2%100.0%100.0%100.0%
  
 
         
 Auto  622  642 45.4%76.8%94.4%100.0%
Homeowners  317  289 43.7%75.7%94.2%100.0%
Other personal lines  84  78 44.1%75.9%94.3%100.0%
  
 
         
Total Encompass brand  1,023  1,009 44.8%76.4%94.4%100.0%
  
 
         
Total Allstate Protection unearned premiums $9,829 $9,505 57.9%86.4%96.8%100.0%
  
 
         

 
  
  
 % earned after
 
(in millions)

 2006
 2005
 90 days
 180 days
 270 days
 360 days
 
Allstate brand:               
Standard auto $3,971 $3,851 74.3%98.7%99.7%100.0%
Non-standard auto  349  401 71.5%96.7%99.3%100.0%
  
 
         
 Auto  4,320  4,252 74.0%98.6%99.7%100.0%
Homeowners  3,332  3,252 43.6%75.8%94.3%100.0%
Other personal lines(1)  1,441  1,302 40.1%69.4%86.7%93.0%
  
 
         
Total Allstate brand  9,093  8,806 57.5%85.6%95.7%98.9%

Encompass brand:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Standard auto  573  594 44.3%76.1%94.4%100.0%
Non-standard auto (Deerbrook)  23  28 75.2%100.0%100.0%100.0%
  
 
         
 Auto  596  622 45.5%77.0%94.6%100.0%
Homeowners  316  317 44.2%76.2%94.5%100.0%
Other personal lines  73  84 44.3%76.2%94.4%100.0%
  
 
         
Total Encompass brand  985  1,023 45.0%76.7%94.5%100.0%
  
 
         
Total Allstate Protection unearned premiums $10,078 $9,829 56.3%84.7%95.5%99.0%
  
 
         

(1)
December 31, 2006 includes $201 million of unearned premiums related to the loan protection business previously managed by Allstate Financial. Policies have terms of up to 7 years.

        A reconciliation of premiums written to premiums earned for the years ended December 31 is presented in the following table.

(in millions)

 2005
 2004
 2003
  2006
 2005
 2004
 
Premiums written:              
Allstate Protection $27,393 $26,527 $25,175  $27,525 $27,393 $26,527 
Discontinued Lines and Coverages (2) 4 12  1 (2) 4 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Property-Liability premiums written 27,391 26,531 25,187  27,526 27,391 26,531 
Increase in unearned premiums (349) (608) (581) (354) (349) (608)
Other(1) (3) 66 71  197 (3) 66 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Property-Liability premiums earned $27,039 $25,989 $24,677  $27,369 $27,039 $25,989 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

Premiums earned:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Allstate Protection $27,038 $25,983 $24,664  $27,366 $27,038 $25,983 
Discontinued Lines and Coverages 1 6 13  3 1 6 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Property-Liability $27,039 $25,989 $24,677  $27,369 $27,039 $25,989 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

(1)
Includes the transfer at January 1, 2006 of $152 million to Property-Liability unearned premiums related to the loan protection business previously managed by Allstate Financial. Prior periods have not been reclassified.

        Premiums written by brand are shown in the following table.

 
 2005
 2004
 2003
(in millions)

 New(1)
 Renewal
 Total
 New(1)
 Renewal
 Total
 New(1)
 Renewal
 Total
Allstate brand:                           
Standard auto $1,310 $13,863 $15,173 $1,314 $13,177 $14,491 $1,099 $12,533 $13,632
Non-standard auto  252  1,335  1,587  276  1,501  1,777  275  1,700  1,975
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Auto  1,562  15,198  16,760  1,590  14,678  16,268  1,374  14,233  15,607
Homeowners  765  5,275  6,040  823  4,816  5,639  687  4,466  5,153
Other personal lines  491  2,032  2,523  562  1,989  2,551  551  1,842  2,393
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Allstate brand  2,818  22,505  25,323  2,975  21,483  24,458  2,612  20,541  23,153

Encompass brand:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Standard auto  278  896  1,174  230  982  1,212  149  1,053  1,202
Non-standard auto (Deerbrook)  33  83  116  52  101  153  83  87  170
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Auto  311  979  1,290  282  1,083  1,365  232  1,140  1,372
Homeowners  82  529  611  71  481  552  44  466  510
Other personal lines  45  124  169  40  112  152  41  99  140
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Encompass brand  438  1,632  2,070  393  1,676  2,069  317  1,705  2,022
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Allstate Protection premiums written $3,256 $24,137 $27,393 $3,368 $23,159 $26,527 $2,929 $22,246 $25,175
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand
 Total Allstate Protection
(in millions)

 2006
 2005
 2004
 2006
 2005
 2004
 2006
 2005
 2004
Standard auto $15,704 $15,173 $14,491 $1,138 $1,174 $1,212 $16,842 $16,347 $15,703
Non-standard auto  1,386  1,587  1,777  94  116  153  1,480  1,703  1,930
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Auto  17,090  16,760  16,268  1,232  1,290  1,365  18,322  18,050  17,633
Homeowners  5,926  6,040  5,639  589  611  552  6,515  6,651  6,191
Other personal lines(1)  2,548  2,523  2,551  140  169  152  2,688  2,692  2,703
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total $25,564 $25,323 $24,458 $1,961 $2,070 $2,069 $27,525 $27,393 $26,527
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(1)
New business premiumsOther personal lines include customers who are new to a particular subsidiary, even if such customers were previously insured by another subsidiary.involuntary auto, commercial lines, condominium, renters and other personal lines.

        Premiums earned by brand are shown in the following table.



 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand
 Total Allstate Protection

 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand
 Total Allstate Protection
(in millions)

(in millions)

 2005
 2004
 2003
 2005
 2004
 2003
 2005
 2004
 2003
(in millions)

 2006
 2005
 2004
 2006
 2005
 2004
 2006
 2005
 2004
Standard autoStandard auto $15,034 $14,290 $13,406 $1,186 $1,208 $1,195 $16,220 $15,498 $14,601Standard auto $15,591 $15,034 $14,290 $1,160 $1,186 $1,208 $16,751 $16,220 $15,498
Non-standard autoNon-standard auto  1,642  1,823  2,075  125  161  163  1,767  1,984  2,238Non-standard auto  1,436  1,642  1,823  98  125  161  1,534  1,767  1,984
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Auto  16,676  16,113  15,481  1,311  1,369  1,358  17,987  17,482  16,839Auto  17,027  16,676  16,113  1,258  1,311  1,369  18,285  17,987  17,482
HomeownersHomeowners  5,792  5,349  4,892  583  529  494  6,375  5,878  5,386Homeowners  5,793  5,792  5,349  590  583  529  6,383  6,375  5,878
Other  2,514  2,482  2,316  162  141  123  2,676  2,623  2,439
Other personal linesOther personal lines  2,546  2,514  2,482  152  162  141  2,698  2,676  2,623
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TotalTotal $24,982 $23,944 $22,689 $2,056 $2,039 $1,975 $27,038 $25,983 $24,664Total $25,366 $24,982 $23,944 $2,000 $2,056 $2,039 $27,366 $27,038 $25,983
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        Standard auto premiums written increased 4.1%        Premium operating measures and statistics that are used to $16.35 billion in 2005 from $15.70 billion in 2004, following a 5.9% increase in 2004 from $14.83 billion in 2003.

 
 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand(2)
 
Standard Auto

 
 2005
 2004
 2003
 2005
 2004
 2003
 
New business premiums ($ millions) $1,310 $1,314 $1,099 $278 $230 $149 
New business premiums (% change)  (0.3) 19.6  16.8  20.9  54.4  21.1 
Renewal business premiums ($ millions) $13,863 $13,177 $12,533 $896 $982 $1,053 
Renewal ratio(1)  90.5  90.8  89.7  75.8  77.1  83.7 
PIF (% change)(1)  2.9  5.5  1.5  (2.2) (5.8) (6.4)
Average premium (% change)(1)  1.5  1.2  6.7  10.0  17.5  11.9 

(1)
analyze the business are calculated and described below. Measures and statistics presented for Allstate brand statistic excludes business written byexclude Allstate Canada and Allstate Motor Club.

(2)
specialty auto. Encompass brand statistics are subject to some distortion due to the integration of systems.systems and exclude specialty auto.


Standard auto premiums written increased 3.0% to $16.84 billion in 2006 from $16.35 billion in 2005, following a 4.1% increase in 2005 from $15.70 billion in 2004.


        Allstate brand standard auto premiums written increased 3.5% to $15.70 billion in 2006 from $15.17 billion in 2005, following a 4.7% increase in 2005 from $14.49 billion in 2004. Our Allstate brand standard auto growth strategy includes actions such as the continued rollout of YCA policy options which represented $1.15 billion of premiums written in 2006, increased marketing, the continued refinement of Tiered Pricing, underwriting actions and agency growth, while recognizing that the impact of catastrophe management actions on cross-sell opportunities and competitive pressures in certain markets may lessen their success. These growth strategies are particularly emphasized as applicable in states most impacted by our catastrophe management actions such as Florida, New York and Texas.

        Allstate brand standard auto new issued applications are shown in the table below.

(in thousands)

 2006
 2005
 2004
Allstate brand standard auto      
Hurricane exposure states(1) 1,037 999 1,089
California 319 316 322
All other states 627 612 658
  
 
 
Total new issued applications 1,983 1,927 2,069
  
 
 

(1)
Hurricane exposure states are Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia and Washington, D.C.

        Allstate brand standard auto new business premiums writtenissued applications in the hurricane exposure states increased 3.8% in 2006 when compared to 2005. Included in this increase was a 25.5% increase in the state of Florida due to agency growth, price and product modifications, and improved marketing effectiveness. New issued applications in the hurricane exposure states continue to be impacted by catastrophe management actions on cross-sell opportunities and competitive pressures in certain markets.

        Allstate brand standard auto new issued applications decreased 6.9% in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to a decrease in new business applications of 6.9% primarily relateddue to competitive pressures in certain states and the effects of our catastrophe risk management actions. Renewal business

 
 Allstate brand
Standard Auto

 2006
 2005
 2004
Renewal ratio (%)  90.0  90.5  90.8
PIF (thousands)  18,084  17,613  17,122
Average premium—gross written (six months) $420 $417 $411

        Allstate brand standard auto premiums written increased in 2006 when compared to 2005 due to increases in PIF and average premium. The 2.7% increase in Allstate brand standard auto PIF as of December 31, 2006 as compared to December 31, 2005 was primarily the result of growth in policies available for renewal and new issued applications, resulting in increases in 35 of our 49 states and in the District of Columbia. Allstate brand standard auto average premium increased 0.7% in 2006 compared to 2005 primarily due to higher average new premiums reflecting a shift by policyholders to newer and more expensive autos, partly offset by net rate decreases. The Allstate brand standard auto renewal ratio declined 0.5 points in 2006 compared to 2005 due to competitive pressures in certain states.

        Allstate brand standard auto premiums written increased in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to increases in renewalPIF and average premiums.

premium. The increase in Allstate brand standard auto PIF as of December 31, 2005 as compared to December 31, 2004 iswas primarily the result of growth in policies



available for renewal and new business.issued applications. The increase in the Allstate brand standard auto average premium in 2005 compared to 2004 is primarily due to higher average new and renewal premiumswas primarily due to a shift by policyholders to newer and more expensive autos and, to a lesser extent, rate actions. The level of rate changes declined in 2005 due to frequency declines and severity increases below our pricing assumptions as discussed in the Underwriting Results section. Additionally, the state of New York implemented a rate reduction in July 2005 that reduced the countrywide rate impact by 0.4%.

        Allstate brand standard auto new business premiums written increased in 2004 when compared to 2003. The increase in Allstate brand standard auto PIF in 2004 compared to 2003 is primarily the result of increases in new business due to the implementation of a broader marketing approach in most of the U.S. and an increased renewal ratio, which management believes was related to reduced rate activity and improved customer loyalty. New business comparisons in 2004 also reflected the July 2003 implementation of our new rating plan in the California market. The increase in the Allstate brand standard auto average premium in 2004 compared to 2003 is primarily due to higher average renewal premiums. The rate of increase in average premium declined in 2004 due to the decrease in rate activity. The reduced level of rate changes are due to declines in frequency and severity increases below our pricing assumptions as discussed in the Underwriting Results section. For Allstate brand standard auto,



the countrywide rate change was 1.3% and the state specific rate change was 3.3% during 2004. For Encompass brand standard auto, the countrywide rate change was 2.8% and the state specific rate change was 4.4% during 2004.

        Encompass brand standard auto new business premiums written increaseddecreased 3.1% to $1.14 billion in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to increases in average premium. Renewal business written premium declined in 2005 as the decline in PIF more than offset increases in average premium. The increases in average premium are primarily due to rate activity, the effect of which is declining due to a decrease in rate change activity. PIF declined2006 from $1.17 billion in 2005 due to insufficient new businessdeclines in PIF. PIF declined 1.8% to offset declines1.12 million as of December 31, 2006 as compared to December 31, 2005 due to decreasesa decline in the renewal ratio. Encompass brand standard autopolicies available to renew and from the negative impact of our catastrophe management actions in certain markets more than offsetting new business premiums written increased in 2004 when compared to 2003 and renewal business premiums written decreased in 2004 when compared to 2003 primarily due to increases in new PIF and rate activity.business. We expect the rate of decline in Encompass brand standard auto PIF to continue to moderate as we pursue growth opportunities in this channel. The 12-month average premium decreased 0.1% to $983 in 2006 from $984 in 2005. The renewal ratio was 76.4% in 2006 compared to 75.0% in 2005.

        Encompass brand standard auto premiums written decreased in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to declines in PIF, partially offset by increases in average premium. PIF declined in 2005 due to insufficient new business to offset the decline in the renewal ratio. The increases in average premium were primarily due to rate activity.

        Rate increases that are indicated based on loss trend analysis to achieve a targeted return will continue to be pursued in all locations. The following table shows the net rate changes that were approved for standard auto during 2006 and 2005. These rate changes do not reflect initial rates filed for insurance subsidiaries initially writing new insurance subsidiaries.business in a state.


 # of States
 Countrywide(%)(1)
 State Specific(%)(2)
 # of States
 Countrywide(%)(1)
 State Specific(%)(2)
Allstate brand(3) 23 0.4 1.0

 2006
 2005
 2006(3)
 2005(4)
 2006(3)
 2005(4)
Allstate brand 26 23 (0.2)0.4 (0.5)1.0
Encompass brand 22 0.7 1.6 16 22 (0.4)0.7 (1.6)1.6

(1)
Represents the impact in the states where rate changes were approved during 20052006 as a percentage of total countrywide prior year-end premiums written.

(2)
Represents the impact in the states where rate changes were approved during 20052006 as a percentage of total prior year-end premiums written in those states.

(3)
Excluding the impact of rate reductions in North Carolina and Texas for Allstate brand, the countrywide rate change is 0.2% and the state specific rate change is 0.9%.

(4)
Excluding the impact of a rate reduction in the state of New York effective July 2005,for Allstate brand, the countrywide rate change is 0.8% and the state specific rate change is 2.5%.

Non-standard auto premiums written decreased 11.8%13.1% to $1.48 billion in 2006 from $1.70 billion in 2005, following an 11.8% decrease in 2005 from $1.93 billion in 2004, following a 10.0% decrease in 2004 from $2.15 billion in 2003.2004.

 
  
  
  
 Encompass brand (Deerbrook)
 
 
 Allstate brand
 
Non-Standard Auto

 
 2005
 2004
 2003
 2005
 2004
 2003
 
New business premiums ($ millions) $252 $276 $275 $33 $52 $83 
New business premiums (% change)  (8.7) 0.4  (28.4) (36.5) (37.3) 9.2 
Renewal business premiums ($ millions) $1,335 $1,501 $1,700 $83 $101 $87 
Renewal ratio(1)  77.6  78.2  74.1  65.1  61.6  56.7 
PIF (% change)(1)  (12.4) (11.4) (16.6) (18.5) (12.1) 26.8 
Average premium (% change)(1)  (0.3) 1.7  3.8  (6.7) (5.8) (0.5)

(1)
Allstate brand statistic excludes business written by Allstate Canada.

        Allstate brand non-standard auto premiums written decreased 12.7% to $1.39 billion in 2006 from $1.59 billion in 2005, following a 10.7% decrease in 2005 from $1.78 billion in 2004. Our Allstate brand non-standard growth strategy includes our new businessAllstate Blue product which is targeted toward consumers who prefer a recognized brand of insurance and generally have a long-term relationship with their insurer. It was introduced in the state of Virginia during 2006.

 
 Allstate brand
Non-Standard Auto

 2006
 2005
 2004
Renewal ratio (%)  75.9  77.6  78.2
PIF (thousands)  943  1,110  1,267
Average premium—gross written (six months) $617 $629 $631

        Allstate brand non-standard auto premiums declined duringwritten decreased in 2006 when compared to 2005 due to declines in PIF and average premium. Allstate brand non-standard auto new issued applications decreased 11.4% in 2006 when compared to 2005 due to lower new business production as agencies continued to focus on our standard auto business. Declines in Allstate brand renewal business premiums during 2005 and 2004 were primarily due to lower renewal PIF and average premium. Renewal PIF decreased because15.0% as of December 31, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005 due to new business production in prior periods was insufficient to make up for anoffset the inherently low renewal ratio in this business. The decline of 1.9% in average premium in 2006 compared to 2005 is due to a shift in the geographic mix of business and net rate decreases.

        Allstate brand non-standard auto premiums written declined during 2005 when compared to 2004 due to lower new business production, PIF and average premium. The decline in average premium during 2005 when compared to 2004 iswas due to a shift in the geographic mix of business and a decrease in rates. In 2004, the increase in average premium declined due to the decrease innet rate activity.decreases.



        Encompass brand (Deerbrook) non-standard auto premiums written decreased 19.0% to $94 million in 2006 from $116 million in 2005, primarily due to declines in PIF and average premium. PIF declined 14.4% to 85 thousand as of December 31, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005. Average premium declined 4.6% to $535 in 2006 from $561 in 2005. The renewal ratio was 67.3% in 2006 compared to 65.3% in 2005.

        Encompass brand non-standard auto premiums written decreased in 2005 andwhen compared to 2004 primarily because of declines in new business.

        Rate increases that are indicated based on loss trend analysis to achieve a targeted return will continue to be pursued in all locations. The following table shows the net rate changes that were approved for non-standard auto during 2006 and 2005. These rate changes do not reflect initial rates filed for insurance subsidiaries initially writing new insurance subsidiaries.business in a state.


 # of States
 Countrywide(%)(1)
 State Specific(%)(2)
 

 # of States
 Countrywide(%)(1)
 State Specific(%)(2)
  2006
 2005
 2006(3)
 2005
 2006(3)
 2005
 
Allstate brand 6 (0.3)(1.4) 3 6 (1.6)(0.3)(3.5)(1.4)
Encompass brand 1 (0.1)(0.2) 3 1  (0.1)(0.2)(0.2)

(1)
Represents the impact in the states where rate changes were approved during 20052006 as a percentage of total countrywide prior year-end premiums written.

(2)
Represents the impact in the states where rate changes were approved during 20052006 as a percentage of total prior year-end premiums written in those states.

(3)
Excluding the impact of the rate reduction in Texas for Allstate brand, the countrywide rate change is (0.6)% and the state specific rate change is (1.7)%.

Auto premiums written (standard and non-standard) increased 2.4%1.5% to $18.32 billion in 2006 from $18.05 billion in 2005, following a 2.4% increase in 2005 from $17.63 billion in 2004, following a 3.9% increase in 2004 from $16.98 billion in 2003. Auto includes standard auto and non-standard auto business.2004.

 
 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand(2)
 
Auto

 
 2005
 2004
 2003
 2005
 2004
 2003
 
New business premiums ($ millions) $1,562 $1,590 $1,374 $311 $282 $232 
New business premiums (% change)  (1.8) 15.7  3.7  10.3  21.6  16.6 
Renewal business premiums ($ millions) $15,198 $14,678 $14,233 $979 $1,083 $1,140 
Renewal ratio(1)  89.6  89.7  88.0  74.2  74.6  79.9 
PIF (% change)(1)  1.8  4.1  (0.2) (3.7) (6.4) (4.0)
Average premium (% change)(1)  0.7  0.5  5.2  9.1  14.1  9.8 

(1)
Allstate brand statistic excludes business written by Allstate Canada and Allstate Motor Club.

(2)
Encompass brand statistics are subject to some distortion due to the integration of systems.

        Allstate brand auto new business premiums written decreasedincreased 2.0% to $17.09 billion in 2006 from $16.76 billion in 2005, following a 3.0% increase in 2005 from $16.27 billion in 2004.

 
 Allstate brand
Auto

 2006
 2005
 2004
Renewal ratio (%)  89.1  89.6  89.7
PIF (thousands)  19,027  18,723  18,390
Average premium—gross written $431 $431 $428

        Allstate brand auto premiums written increased in 2006 when compared to 2005 due to increases in PIF. The 1.6% increase in Allstate brand auto PIF as of December 31, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005 was the result of growth in policies available for renewal and new issued applications. Allstate brand auto new issued applications increased 0.9% to 2.26 million in 2006 when compared to 2005 due to agency growth and national and local marketing, partially offset by the impact of catastrophe management actions on cross-sell opportunities and competitive pressures in certain markets. The Allstate brand auto average premium was comparable in 2006 to 2005 as Allstate brand standard auto average premium increase was offset by Allstate brand non-standard auto average premium decrease in 2006 compared to 2005. The Allstate brand auto renewal ratio declined 0.5 points in 2006 compared to 2005 due to competitive pressures in certain states.

        Allstate brand auto premiums written increased in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to increases in PIF and average premiums, partially offset by a decrease in new businessissued applications of 7.9% primarily related to competitive pressures in certain states and the effects of our catastrophe risk management actions. Renewal business premiums increased in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to increases in renewal average premiums.

        The increase in Allstate brand auto PIF as of December 31, 2005 as compared to December 31, 2004 iswas the result of new business. The increase in the Allstate brand auto average premium in 2005 compared to 2004 is primarily due to higher average new and renewal premiumswas primarily due to a shift by policyholders to newer and more expensive autos and, to a lesser extent, rate actions. The level of rate changes declined

        Encompass brand auto premiums written decreased 4.5% to $1.23 billion in 2006 compared to $1.29 billion in 2005 due to frequency declines and severity increases below our pricing assumptionsin PIF. PIF declined 2.8% as discussed in the Underwriting Results section. Additionally, the state of New York implemented a rate reduction in July 2005 that reduced the countrywide rate impact by 0.4%.

        The increase in Allstate brand auto PIF in 2004 whenDecember 31, 2006 compared to 2003 is primarily the result of increases in new businessDecember 31, 2005 due to a decline in policies available for renewal and from the implementation of a broader marketing approach in most of the U.S. and an increased renewal ratio, which management believes was related to reduced rate activity and improved customer loyalty. New business comparisons in 2004 also reflected the July 2003 implementationnegative impact of our catastrophe management actions in certain markets more than offsetting new rating planbusiness. Average premium (12-month for standard auto and six-month for non-standard) increased 0.4% to $926 in the California market. The increase2006 from $922 in the Allstate brand auto average premium in 2004 compared to 2003 is2005 primarily due to higher average renewal premiums. The rate of increase in average premium declined in 2004 duea shift by policyholders to the decrease in rate activity. The reduced level of rate changes are due to declines in frequencynewer and severity increases below our pricing



assumptions as discussedmore expensive autos, partially offset by a change in the Underwriting Results section. For Allstate brand auto, the countrywide rate changemix of business to polices with a lower average premium. The renewal ratio was 1.3% and the state specific rate change was 3.4% during 2004. For Encompass brand auto, the countrywide rate change was 2.7% and the state specific rate change was 4.3% during 2004.75.2% in 2006 compared to 73.5% in 2005.

        Encompass brand auto new business premiums written increaseddecreased in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to increases in average premium. Renewal business written premium declined in 2005 as the declinedeclines in PIF, more thanpartially offset increasesby increase in average premium. The increases in average premium are primarily due to rate activity, the effect of which is declining due to a decrease in rate change activity. PIF declined in 2005 due to insufficient new business to offset declines due to decreases in the renewal ratio. Encompass brand auto new business premiums written increased


        Rate increases that are indicated based on loss trend analysis to achieve a targeted return will continue to be pursued in 2004 when compared to 2003 and renewal business premiums written decreased in 2004 when compared to 2003 primarily due to increases in new PIF and rate activity.

all locations. The following table shows the net rate changes that were approved for auto (standardduring 2006 and non-standard) during 2005. These rate changes do not reflect initial rates filed for insurance subsidiaries initially writing new insurance subsidiaries.business in a state.


 # of States
 Countrywide(%)(1)
 State Specific(%)(2)
 # of States
 Countrywide(%)(1)
 State Specific(%)(2)
Allstate brand(3) 23 0.3 0.9

 2006
 2005
 2006(3)
 2005(4)
 2006(3)
 2005(4)
Allstate brand 26 23 (0.3)0.3 (0.9)0.9
Encompass brand 22 0.6 1.5 18 22 (0.3)0.6 (1.6)1.5

(1)
Represents the impact in the states where rate changes were approved during 20052006 as a percentage of total countrywide prior year-end premiums written.

(2)
Represents the impact in the states where rate changes were approved during 20052006 as a percentage of total prior year-end premiums written in those states.

(3)
Excluding the impact of rate reductions in North Carolina and Texas for Allstate brand, the countrywide rate change is 0.1% and the state specific rate change is 0.6%.

(4)
Excluding the impact of a rate reduction in the state of New York effective July 2005,for Allstate brand, the countrywide rate change is 0.7% and the state specific rate change is 2.3%.

Homeowners premiums written increaseddecreased 2.0% to $6.52 billion in 2006 from $6.65 billion in 2005, following a 7.4% to $6.65 billionincrease in 2005 from $6.19 billion in 2004, following a 9.3% increase in 2004 from $5.66 billion in 2003. In 2005, growth in Allstate Protection homeowners premiums written from the prior year periods was impacted by our catastrophe risk management actions.2004. Excluding the cost of catastrophe reinsurance, and business ceded to Universal Insurance Company of North America ("Universal"), premiums written grew 9.6%3.0% in 2006 and 8.5% in 2005 compared to 2004. For a more detailed discussion on Universal, see Note 9 of the consolidated financial statements.prior year. For a more detailed discussion on reinsurance, see the Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A.&A and Note 9 of the consolidated financial statements.

 
 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand(2)
 
Homeowners

 
 2005
 2004
 2003
 2005
 2004
 2003
 
New business premiums ($ millions) $765 $823 $687 $82 $71 $44 
New business premiums (% change)  (7.0) 19.8  39.4  15.5  61.4  41.9 
Renewal business premiums ($ millions) $5,275 $4,816 $4,466 $529 $481 $466 
Renewal ratio(1)  88.2  88.4  87.5  87.2  88.5  87.9 
PIF (% change)(1)  3.4  6.4  3.4  3.6  2.1  (4.5)
Average premium (% change)(1)  5.3  3.7  6.5  8.4  12.7  11.8 

        Allstate brand homeowners premiums written declined 1.9% to $5.93 billion in 2006 from $6.04 billion in 2005, following a 7.1% increase in 2005 from $5.64 billion in 2004. Catastrophe management actions have had an impact on our new business writings for homeowners insurance during 2006 and 2005, as demonstrated by the decline in Allstate brand homeowners new issued applications in the following table. We expect this trend to continue in 2007 while we address our catastrophe exposure.

(in thousands)

 2006
 2005
 2004
Allstate brand homeowners      
Hurricane exposure states(1) 472 574 639
California 56 111 156
All other states 459 497 495
  
 
 
Total new issued applications 987 1,182 1,290
  
 
 

(1)
Allstate brand statistic excludes business written in Canada.

(2)
Encompass brand statisticsHurricane exposure states are subject to some distortion due to the integration of systems.Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia and Washington, D.C.

        Allstate brand homeowners new businessissued applications decreased in almost all hurricane exposure states in 2006 when compared to 2005 as a result of our catastrophe management actions. The decrease in California new issued applications in 2006 is due to changes in underwriting requirements related to



catastrophe management actions. The decrease in all other states in 2006 includes the impact of earthquake coverage-related actions.

 
 Allstate brand
Homeowners

 2006
 2005
 2004
Renewal ratio (%)  87.3  88.2  88.4
PIF (thousands)  7,836  7,828  7,572
Average premium—gross written (12 months) $832 $799 $757

        Allstate brand homeowners premiums written declined in 2006 when compared to 2005 due to increases in ceded reinsurance premiums, partially offset by increases in PIF and average premium. The 0.1% increase in Allstate brand homeowners PIF as of December 31, 2006 as compared to December 31, 2005 is the result of growth in policies available for renewal.

        PIF and renewal ratio have been negatively impacted by our catastrophe management actions. This trend will continue into 2007 due to actions such as our decision to discontinue offering coverage by Allstate Floridian Insurance Company and its subsidiaries ("Allstate Floridian") on approximately 120,000 property policies, as part of a renewal rights and reinsurance arrangement with Royal Palm Insurance Company ("Royal Palm") commencing in the fourth quarter of 2006 ("Royal Palm 1"), and an additional 106,000 property policies under a renewal rights agreement in anticipation of entering into a reinsurance agreement with Royal Palm ("Royal Palm 2"), and as noted below the impact of a similar arrangement with Universal Insurance Company of North America ("Universal") entered into in 2005. Allstate Floridian plans to no longer offer coverage on the policies involved in Royal Palm 1 and Royal Palm 2, at which time Royal Palm may offer coverage to these policyholders. The policies involved in Royal Palm 1 expired at the rate of 4% in the fourth quarter of 2006. The policies involved in Royal Palm 1 and Royal Palm 2 are expected to expire at a rate of 3% in the first quarter of 2007, 26% in the second quarter of 2007, 27% in the third quarter of 2007, 22% in the fourth quarter of 2007 and 18% in the first quarter of 2008. As of February 1, 2007, Royal Palm 1 had approximately 94,000 policies that had not expired.

        On January 30, 2007, Emergency Rule 69OER7-1 was enacted by the Florida Financial Services Commission, the provisions of which temporarily limit policy non-renewals and filings for rate increases. Subsequently on February 19, 2007, an Order that the Office of Insurance Regulation was required to make by new property legislation provided further clarity on the temporary limitations on policy renewals imposed by Emergency Rule 69OER7-1. The February 19 order requires property insurers to file new and lower rates, which reflect the lower cost of acquiring additional reimbursement protection from the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund ("FHCF") as compared to purchasing reinsurance coverage, prior to commencing new non-renewal notices. We intend to comply with these requirements and do not anticipate any signficant delays or impacts on the renewal rights agreements and anticipated reinsurance agreement with Royal Palm.

        The Allstate brand homeowners average premium increased 4.1% in 2006 when compared to 2005 primarily due to higher average renewal premiums related to increases in insured value and rate changes approved including our net cost of reinsurance. The Allstate brand homeowners renewal ratio declined 0.9 points in 2006 compared to 2005 primarily due to our catastrophe management actions.

        Allstate brand homeowners premiums written increased in 2005 compared to 2004, primarily due to our catastrophe risk management actions.increases in PIF and average premium. The increase in Allstate brand homeowners



PIF as of December 31, 2005 compared to December 31, 2004 is the result of new business. PIF is also being impactedbusiness partly offset by the non-renewalimpact of our agreement with Universal. Under our agreement with Universal we discontinued offering coverage by Allstate Floridian on approximately 95,000 property policies commencing in the third quarter



of 2005. Allstate Floridian Insurance Company and its subsidiaries ("Allstate Floridian")no longer offers coverage when these policies toexpire. The policies involved in the Universal or approximately 1% of Allstate brand homeowners PIF. These policies non-renewedagreement expired at a rate of 13% in the third quarter of 2005, and 24%21% in the fourth quarter of 2005, and are expected to non-renew at a rate of 23%20% in the first quarter of 2006, 28%25% in the second quarter of 2006, and 12%13% in the third quarter of 2006, 2% in the fourth quarter of 2006. The Allstate brand homeowners PIF increase as of December 31, 2004 comparedOf the remaining 6%, 1% expired in January 2007 and 5% are subject to December 31, 2003 was the result of the increasesnon-renewal regulations in new business due to a broader marketing approach in most of the U.S. and an increased renewal ratio, which management believes was related to reduced rate activity and increased customer loyalty.Florida discussed above.

        The increases in Allstate brand homeowners average premium during 2005 and 2004 were primarily due to higher average renewal premiums, primarily related to increases in insured value along with rate actions taken in the current and prior years.

        Encompass brand homeowners new businesspremiums written decreased 3.6% to $589 million in 2006 as compared to $611 million in 2005 due to increases in ceded reinsurance and declines in PIF, partially offset by increases in average premium. PIF declined 3.3% to 527 thousand as of December 31, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005 due to lower retention. The 12 month average premium increased 4.6% to $1,136 in 2006 from $1,086 in 2005, due to rate actions taken during the current and prior year and increases in insured value. The renewal ratio was 84.0% in 2006 compared to 88.1% in 2005. The decline in the renewal ratio was primarily due to catastrophe management actions.

        Encompass brand homeowners premiums written increased in 2005 and 2004 due to increases in PIF and average premium. Increases in Encompass brand homeowners average premium were due to rate actions taken during the current and prior year and increases in insured value.

        We continue to pursue rate changes for homeowners in all locations when indicated. The following table shows the net rate changes that were approved for homeowners during 2005. These2006 and 2005, including rate changes do not reflect initial rates filed for new insurance subsidiaries.approved based on our net cost of reinsurance. For a discussion relating to reinsurance costs, see the Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A.


 # of States
 Countrywide(%)(1)
 State Specific(%)(2)
 # of States
 Countrywide(%)(1)
 State Specific(%)(2)
Allstate brand(3) 13 1.0 5.0

 2006
 2005
 2006(3)
 2005
 2006(3)
 2005
Allstate brand 26(4)13 2.4 1.0 2.6 5.0
Encompass brand 19 1.5 3.6 22(4)19 2.3 1.5 4.9 3.6

(1)
Represents the impact in the states where rate changes were approved during 20052006 as a percentage of total countrywide prior year-end premiums written.

(2)
Represents the impact in the states where rate changes were approved during 20052006 as a percentage of total prior year-end premiums written in those states.

(3)
IncludingExcluding the impact of a rate increasereductions in Texas for the state of Florida approved in January 2006, effective in October 2005,Allstate brand, the countrywide rate change for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 is 2.2%,3.1% and the state specific rate change for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 is 8.4%5.7%. The impact of these rate increases may offset some portion of our increased reinsurance costs.

(4)
Includes Washington D.C.

Underwriting results are shown in the following table.

(in millions)

 2005
 2004
 2003
  2006
 2005
 2004
 
Premiums written $27,393 $26,527 $25,175  $27,525 $27,393 $26,527 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Premiums earned $27,038 $25,983 $24,664  $27,366 $27,038 $25,983 
Claims and claims expense (21,008) (17,208) (16,858) (15,885) (21,008) (17,208)
Amortization of DAC (4,092) (3,874) (3,520) (4,131) (4,092) (3,874)
Other costs and expenses (2,360) (2,387) (2,316) (2,557) (2,360) (2,387)
Restructuring and related charges (39) (46) (67) (157) (39) (46)
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Underwriting (loss) income $(461)$2,468 $1,903 
Underwriting income (loss) $4,636 $(461)$2,468 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Catastrophe losses $5,674 $2,468 $1,489  $810 $5,674 $2,468 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Underwriting (loss) income by brand       

Underwriting income (loss) by brand

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Allstate brand $(437)$2,340 $1,941  $4,451 $(437)$2,340 
Encompass brand (24) 128 (38) 185 (24) 128 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Underwriting (loss) income $(461)$2,468 $1,903 
Underwriting income (loss) $4,636 $(461)$2,468 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

        Allstate Protection generated underwriting income of $4.64 billion during 2006 compared to an underwriting loss of $461 million in 2005. The improvement was due to lower catastrophe losses, increased premiums earned, declines in auto and homeowners claim frequency excluding catastrophes and higher favorable reserve reestimates related to prior years including $223 million of favorable development relating to catastrophe losses, partially offset by the higher cost of the catastrophe reinsurance program and increased current year severity. For further discussion and quantification of the impact of reserve estimates and assumptions, see the Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A.

        Allstate Protection generated an underwriting loss of $461 million during 2005 compared to underwriting income of $2.47 billion in 2004. The decline was the result of increased catastrophe losses, lower favorable reserve reestimates related to prior years including $94 million of unfavorable development relating to catastrophe losses and increased current year claim severity, partly offset by increased premiums earned, declines in auto and homeowners claim frequency excluding catastrophes and lower operating costs. In 2005, claims and claims expense and the claims and claims expense ratio include the effect of $120 million or 0.4 points related to an accrual for a settlement of a worker classification lawsuit challenging our overtime exemption under California wage and hour laws ("accrual for litigation"). For further discussion and quantification of the impact of reserve estimates, reserve reestimates and assumptions, see the Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A.

        Allstate Protection generated underwriting income of $2.47 billion during 2004 compared to $1.90 billion in 2003. The increase in underwriting income was the result of increased premiums earned, declines in auto and homeowners claim frequency excluding catastrophes and favorable reserve reestimates related to prior years, partially offset by higher catastrophe losses, increased operating costs and expenses and increased current year claim severity.

Claims and claims expense during 2005 includes estimated catastrophe losses of $5.00 billion, net of reinsurance and other recoveries, related to hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, and 2004 includes estimated catastrophe losses of $2.00 billion, net of recoveries from the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund ("FHCF"),FHCF, related to hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne. These estimates include net losses on personal lines auto and property policies and net losses on commercial policies. For a further discussion of catastrophe losses, see page 45.

        Changes in auto current year claim severity are generally influenced by inflation in the medical and auto repair sectors of the economy. We mitigate these effects through various loss management programs. Injury claims are affected largely by medical cost inflation while physical damage claims are affected largely by auto repair cost inflation and used car prices. Our rate of increase in incurred injury claim severity during 2005 and 2004 was lower than the relevant medical cost indices. For auto physical damage coverages, we monitor our rate of increase in average cost per claim against a weighted average of the Maintenance and Repair price index and the Parts & Equipment price index. In 2005 and 2004, our rate of increase in incurred physical damage current year claim severity was generally lower than the weighted index. We believe our claim settlement initiatives, such as improvements to the claim settlement process, medical management programs, the use of special investigative units to detect fraud and handle suspect claims, litigation management and defense strategies, as well as various loss management initiatives underway, contribute to the mitigation of injury and physical damage severity trends.

        Changes in homeowners current year claim severity are generally influenced by inflation in the cost of building materials, the cost of construction and property repair services, the cost of replacing home furnishings and other contents, the types of claims that qualify for coverage, deductibles and other economic and environmental factors. In 2005 and 2004, we experienced an increase in homeowners severity compared to prior year. We employ various loss management programs to mitigate the effect of these factors; however, homeowners severity may increase. We have also taken numerous actions that we expect to contribute to profitable trends in the homeowners loss ratio.62.



        Loss ratios are a measure of profitability. Loss ratios by product, and expense and combined ratios by brand, are shown in the following table. These ratios are defined on page 30.45.



 Loss Ratio
 Effect of Catastrophe Losses
on the Loss Ratio


  
  
  
 Effect of
Catastrophe Losses
on the Loss Ratio



 2005
 2004
 2003
 2005
 2004
 2003

 2006
 2005
 2004
 2006
 2005
 2004
Allstate brand loss ratio:Allstate brand loss ratio:            Allstate brand loss ratio:            
Standard autoStandard auto 65.7 64.4 70.1 2.9 0.7 1.4Standard auto 61.5 65.7 64.4 0.6 2.9 0.7
Non-standard autoNon-standard auto 57.8 53.9 65.6 2.6 0.9 0.7Non-standard auto 56.1 57.8 53.9  2.6 0.9
Auto 64.9 63.2 69.5 2.8 0.7 1.3Auto 61.1 64.9 63.2 0.5 2.8 0.7
HomeownersHomeowners 110.7 67.4 63.2 70.5 29.2 21.8Homeowners 50.4 110.7 67.4 10.9 70.5 29.2
OtherOther 91.7 84.6 68.1 35.3 27.7 5.6Other 52.1 91.7 84.6 (0.9)35.3 27.7

Total Allstate brand loss ratio

Total Allstate brand loss ratio

 

78.2

 

66.3

 

68.0

 

21.8

 

9.8

 

6.2

Total Allstate brand loss ratio

 

57.8

 

78.2

 

66.3

 

2.8

 

21.8

 

9.8
Allstate brand expense ratioAllstate brand expense ratio 23.5 23.9 23.5      Allstate brand expense ratio 24.7 23.5 23.9      
 
 
 
        
 
 
      
Allstate brand combined ratioAllstate brand combined ratio 101.7 90.2 91.5      Allstate brand combined ratio 82.5 101.7 90.2      
 
 
 
        
 
 
      

Encompass brand loss ratio:

Encompass brand loss ratio:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Encompass brand loss ratio:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Standard autoStandard auto 66.9 61.3 69.4 1.7 0.5 0.7Standard auto 60.0 66.9 61.3 (0.3)1.7 0.5
Non-standard auto (Deerbrook)Non-standard auto (Deerbrook) 67.2 75.8 84.7 0.8 0.6 0.7Non-standard auto (Deerbrook) 76.5 67.2 75.8 1.0 0.8 0.6
Auto 67.0 63.1 71.2 1.7 0.6 0.7Auto 61.3 67.0 63.1 (0.2)1.7 0.6
HomeownersHomeowners 77.8 63.7 76.7 30.6 16.4 16.6Homeowners 58.6 77.8 63.7 17.3 30.6 16.4
OtherOther 82.1 84.4 71.5 17.9 5.7 4.0Other 81.6 82.1 84.4 7.9 17.9 5.7

Total Encompass brand loss ratio

Total Encompass brand loss ratio

 

71.3

 

64.7

 

72.6

 

11.2

 

5.1

 

4.9

Total Encompass brand loss ratio

 

62.1

 

71.3

 

64.7

 

5.6

 

11.2

 

5.1
Encompass brand expense ratioEncompass brand expense ratio 29.9 29.0 29.3      Encompass brand expense ratio 28.7 29.9 29.0      
 
 
 
        
 
 
      
Encompass brand combined ratioEncompass brand combined ratio 101.2 93.7 101.9      Encompass brand combined ratio 90.8 101.2 93.7      
 
 
 
        
 
 
      

Total Allstate Protection loss ratio

Total Allstate Protection loss ratio

 

77.7

 

66.2

 

68.4

 

21.0

 

9.5

 

6.0

Total Allstate Protection loss ratio

 

58.1

 

77.7

 

66.2

 

3.0

 

21.0

 

9.5
Allstate Protection expense ratioAllstate Protection expense ratio 24.0 24.3 23.9      Allstate Protection expense ratio 25.0 24.0 24.3      
 
 
 
        
 
 
      
Allstate Protection combined ratioAllstate Protection combined ratio 101.7 90.5 92.3      Allstate Protection combined ratio 83.1 101.7 90.5      
 
 
 
        
 
 
      

Standard auto loss ratio decreased 4.2 points for the Allstate brand and 6.9 points for the Encompass brand in 2006 when compared to 2005 due to lower catastrophes, higher premiums earned in Allstate brand, lower claim frequency excluding catastrophes and favorable reserve reestimates related to prior years, partially offset by higher current year claim severity. Standard auto loss ratio increased 1.3 points for the Allstate brand and 5.6 points for the Encompass brand in 2005 when compared to 2004. The increases were due to higher catastrophe losses and higher current year claim severity more than offsetting higher premiums earned in Allstate brand and lower claim frequency excluding catastrophes. The Allstate brand loss ratio in 2005 also included the impact of an accrual for litigation of 0.6 points. The Encompass brand standard auto loss ratio in 2005 was also unfavorably impacted as a result of higher current year claim severity partially offset by lower claim frequency. Standard

Non-standard auto loss ratio declined 5.7 points for the Allstate brand and 8.1decreased 1.7 points for the Encompass brand in 20042006 when compared to 2003. These declines were2005 due to higher premiums earned,lower catastrophes, lower claim frequency and favorable reserve reestimates related to prior years, and lower claim frequency, partially offset by higher current year claim severity.

severity and lower premiums earned. Non-standard auto loss ratio for the Encompass brand increased 9.3 points in 2006 when compared to 2005 due to higher current year claim severity and lower premiums earned, partially offset by lower catastrophes and



lower claim frequency excluding catastrophes. Non-standard auto loss ratio for the Allstate brand increased 3.9 points in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to decreases in premiums earned, higher catastrophe losses and higher current year claim severity partly offset by lower claim frequency. The Allstate brand loss ratio in 2005 also included an accrual for litigation of 0.2 points. Non-standard auto loss ratio for the Encompass brand decreased 8.6 points in 2005 when compared to 2004 due to lower claim frequency, partially offset by higher current year claim severity. Non-standard auto

Auto loss ratio declined 11.7 decreased 3.8 points for the Allstate brand and 8.95.7 points for the Encompass brand in 20042006 when compared to 2003. These declines were2005 due to lower catastrophes, higher premiums earned in Allstate brand, lower claim frequency excluding catastrophes and favorable reserve



reestimates related to prior years, and lower claim frequency, partially offset by higher current year claim severity.

Auto loss ratio increased 1.7 points for the Allstate brand and 3.9 points for the Encompass brand in 2005 when compared to 2004. The increases were due to higher premiums earned in Allstate brand and lower claim frequency excluding catastrophes being more than offset by higher catastrophe losses and higher current year claim severity. The Allstate brand loss ratio in 2005 also included an accrual for litigation of 0.6 points. Auto

Homeowners loss ratio declined 6.3 decreased 60.3 points for the Allstate brand and 8.119.2 points for the Encompass brand in 20042006 when compared to 2003. These declines were2005 due to lower catastrophes, higher premiums earned, lower claim frequency excluding catastrophes, and higher favorable Allstate brand reserve reestimates related to prior years, lower claim frequency and higher premiums earned for Allstate brand, partially offset by higher current year claim severity.

severity and higher ceded earned premium for catastrophe reinsurance. Homeowners loss ratio increased 43.3 points for the Allstate brand and 14.1 points for the Encompass brand in 2005 when compared to 2004. The increases were due to higher catastrophe losses, unfavorable reserve reestimates related to prior years and higher current year claim severity partially offset by higher premiums earned and lower claim frequency excluding catastrophes. The Allstate brand loss ratio in 2005 also included an accrual for litigation of 0.2 points. Homeowners loss ratio increased 4.2 points for the Allstate brand and declined 13.0 points for the Encompass brand in 2004 when compared to 2003. These fluctuations were due to higher catastrophes partially offset by higher premiums earned, favorable reserve reestimates related to prior years and lower claim frequency, excluding catastrophes for the Allstate brand, and higher current year claim severity.

Expense ratio for Allstate Protection decreased 0.3increased 1.0 points in 20052006 when compared to 20042005 primarily due to increased restructuring and related charges due to a Voluntary Termination Offer ("VTO"), increased employee benefits and incentives, increased marketing and the impact of higher ceded premiums for catastrophe reinsurance. In 2005, the ratio decreased primarily due to a reduction in employee incentives due to lower financial results for 2005. In 2004, the ratio increased due to higher amortization of DAC resulting from higher agent incentives and increases in marketing expense.


        The impact of specific costs and expenses on the expense ratio is included in the following table.


 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand
 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand
 Allstate Protection

 2005
 2004
 2003
 2005
 2004
 2003
 2006
 2005
 2004
 2006
 2005
 2004
 2006
 2005
 2004
Amortization of DAC 14.7 14.5 13.9 20.5 19.6 19.1 14.7 14.7 14.5 19.7 20.5 19.6 15.1 15.1 14.9
Other costs and expenses 8.7 9.2 9.3 9.1 9.0 9.9 9.4 8.7 9.2 8.7 9.1 9.0 9.3 8.7 9.2
Restructuring and related charges 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total expense ratio 23.5 23.9 23.5 29.9 29.0 29.3 24.7 23.5 23.9 28.7 29.9 29.0 25.0 24.0 24.3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        The expense ratio for the standard auto and homeowners businesses generally approximates the total Allstate Protection expense ratio of 25.0 in 2006, 24.0 in 2005 and 24.3 in 2004 and 23.9 in 2003.2004. The expense ratio for the non-standard auto business generally is lower than the total Allstate Protection expense ratio due to lower agent commission rates and higher average premiums for non-standard auto as compared to standard auto. The Encompass brand expense ratioDAC amortization is higher on average than the expense ratio of the Allstate brand DAC amortization due to higher commission rates and licensing fees paid to CNA Financial Corporation, which ended in the fourth quarter of 2005. The licensing fees were 1.5% of premiums written by independent agencies appointed by CNA for a period of six years after acquisition of the CNA personal lines business ("Encompass") in 1999.rates.

        Allstate Protection underwriting income was impacted by restructuring charges. For a more detailed discussion of these charges, see Note 12 of the consolidated financial statements. Net income was favorably impacted in 2005 and 2004 by adjustments of prior years' tax liabilities totaling $40 million and $6 million, respectively.million.



        DAC    We establish a DAC asset for costs that vary with and are primarily related to acquiring business, principally agents' remuneration, premium taxes, certain underwriting and direct mail solicitation expenses. For the Allstate Protection business, DAC is amortized to income consistent with the time frames in which premiums are earned.

        The balance of DAC for each product type at December 31, is included in the following table.



 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand
 Total Allstate Protection

 Allstate brand
 Encompass brand
 Total Allstate
Protection

(in millions)

(in millions)

 2005
 2004
 2005
 2004
 2005
 2004
(in millions)

 2006
 2005
 2006
 2005
 2006
 2005
Standard autoStandard auto $554 $537 $113 $123 $667 $660Standard auto $575 $554 $108 $113 $683 $667
Non-standard autoNon-standard auto  55  62  3  4  58  66Non-standard auto 47 55 3 3 50 58
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Auto  609  599  116  127  725  726Auto 622 609 111 116 733 725
HomeownersHomeowners  464  447  65  61  529  508Homeowners 470 464 62 65 532 529
Other personal linesOther personal lines  214  213  16  13  230  226Other personal lines 207 214 13 16 220 230
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total DACTotal DAC $1,287 $1,259 $197 $201 $1,484 $1,460Total DAC $1,299 $1,287 $186 $197 $1,485 $1,484
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Catastrophe Management

Catastrophe Losses are an inherent risk of the property-liability insurance industry that have contributed, and will continue to contribute, to potentially material year-to-year fluctuations in our results of operations and financial position. We define a "catastrophe" as an event that produces pretax losses before reinsurance in excess of $1 million and involves multiple first party policyholders, or an event that produces a number of claims in excess of a preset, per-event threshold of average claims in a specific area, occurring within a certain amount of time following the event. Catastrophes are caused by various natural events including earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, tornadoes, hailstorms, hurricanes, tropical storms, high winds and winter storms. We are also exposed to certain human-made catastrophic events, such as certain acts of terrorism or industrial accidents. The nature and level of catastrophes in any period cannot be predicted.



Historical Catastrophe Experience Since the beginning of 1992, the average annual impact of catastrophes on our Property-Liability loss ratio was 7.67.2 points. However, this average does not reflect the impact of some of the more significant actions we have taken to limit our catastrophe exposure. Consequently, we think it is useful to consider the impact of catastrophes after excluding losses that are now partially or substantially covered by the California Earthquake Authority ("CEA"), FHCF or placed with a third party, such as hurricane coverage in Hawaii. The average annual impact of all catastrophes, excluding losses from Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki and losses from California earthquakes, on our Property-Liability loss ratio was 6.15.8 points since the beginning of 1992.

        Comparatively, the average annual impact of catastrophes on the homeowners loss ratio for the years 1992 through 20052006 is shown in the following table.


 Average annual impact of
catastrophes on the
homeowners loss ratio

 Average annual impact of catastrophes on the
homeowners loss ratio excluding losses from
Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki, and losses
from California earthquakes

 Average annual impact of catastrophes on the homeowners loss ratio
 Average annual impact of catastrophes on the homeowners loss ratio excluding losses from Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki, and losses from
California earthquakes

Eastern and gulf coast states 38.0 31.4
Hurricane exposure states 34.7 28.9
All other 22.0 14.3 21.4 14.6
Total 30.7 23.7 28.7 22.4

        Over time we have limited our aggregate insurance exposure to catastrophe losses in certain regions of the country that are subject to high levels of natural catastrophes. Limitations include our participation in various state facilities, such as the CEA, which provides insurance for California earthquake losses; the FHCF, which provides reimbursements on certain qualifying Florida hurricane losses; and other state



facilities, such as wind pools. However, the impact of these actions may be diminished by the growth in insured values, the effect of state insurance laws and regulations and by the effect of competitive considerations. In addition, in various states we are required to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations that provide insurance coverage to individuals or entities that otherwise are unable to purchase such coverage from private insurers. Because of our participation in these and other state facilities such as wind pools, we may be exposed to losses that surpass the capitalization of these facilities and/or to assessments from these facilities.

        Actions we have taken or are considering to attain an acceptable catastrophe exposure level in our property business include:

    removing wind coverage from certain policies and allowing our agencies to help customers apply for wind coverage through state facilities such as wind pools;

    changes in rates, deductibles and coverage;

    limitations on new business writings;

    changes to underwriting requirements, including limitations in coastal and adjacent counties;

    not offering continuing coverage to some existing policyholders;

    purchasing reinsurance or engaging in other forms of risk transfer arrangements;

    discontinuing coverage for certain types of residences; and/or

    withdrawing from certain geographic markets.

        In the normal course of business, we may supplement our claims processes by utilizing third party adjusters, appraisers, engineers, inspectors, other professionals and information sources to assess and settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims. For example, our longstanding contract with Pilot



Catastrophe Services ("Pilot") for additional claims adjusters contributes to our ability to complete more timely settlement of catastrophe claims.

Hurricanes

        We consider the greatest areas of potential catastrophe losses due to hurricanes to generally be major metropolitan centers in counties along the eastern and gulf coasts of the United States. Policies in force attributable to counties along the eastern and gulf coasts, including the entire state of Florida, represented approximately 25% of total homeowners policies in force during 2005. Generally, the average premium on a property policy near these coasts is greater than other areas.

        ExamplesWe are addressing our risk of hurricane loss by, among other actions, taken in 2005 and early 2006 to reduce our exposure in these areas include purchasing reinsurance as discussed below; a moratorium on personal homeowners new business writings and the non-renewal of select policies in eight coastal counties in the state of New York; a definitive agreement with Universal whereby a portion of existing customers in Florida will have new policies available when their policies expire and are not renewed; and exiting the commercial property market in Florida beginning in May 2005. We have also received approval for homeowners premium rate increases in the state of Florida averaging 7.9% implemented in August 2005, followed by an additional rate increase averaging 18.2%, implemented in October 2005. The October rate increase is subject to review by the state regulator to the extent that the actual expense ratios, including the cost of additional reinsurance to be acquired, are less than estimated expense ratiosfor specific states and on a countrywide basis for our personal lines property insurance, and in the rate increase filings. Further, the rate increase is subject to refund or credits to the extent the approved rate is determined to have resulted in an excessive rate for the 12-month period starting October 1, 2005.

        While hurricanes can also be devastating to inland areas we anticipate that our actions will be less extensive in these areas and they will be determined based on an assessment of our local exposure.

Earthquakes

        We consider the greatest areas of potential catastrophe losses due to earthquakes to be major metropolitan areas near fault lines in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, South Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee. Premiums written attributable to earthquake coverage totaled approximately $60 million in 2005. Earthquake coverage is generally written as an option or as a standard covered peril depending on policy language requirements in each state.

        Our current strategy is to significantly reduce earthquake exposure by limiting earthquake coverage in policies, pursuing alternative markets for placement of this coverage and purchasing reinsurance. The implementation of the alternative markets strategy is subject to the identification and negotiation of arrangements with other companies to allow our agencies to place the coverage. Our initial focus will be in states with the highest earthquake exposure. Examples of actions we have already taken in these areas include our discontinuation of writing earthquake coverage in California following the formation of the CEA in 1996, allowing our agencies to place new business earthquake coverage with another carrier in the state of South Carolina beginning in 2005 and no longer offering new optional coverage and removing optional coverage from policies in most states beginning in 2006. We also continue to evaluate purchases of reinsurance including coverage for potential assessments from the CEA. We anticipate that implementation of limitations on new and renewal optional earthquake coverage will not adversely impact either auto or homeowners production and that it will cause a relatively immaterial decline in premiums written, but will result in a material reduction of exposure from catastrophic earthquake losses. We also expect that this reduction in exposure will allow for some reduction in our capital requirements.


        We include catastrophe losses in property-liability claims and claims expense. As a result, catastrophe losses affect both our underwriting results and loss ratios. During 2005, catastrophe losses net of reinsurance and other anticipated recoveries totaled $5.67 billion, compared to catastrophe losses of $2.47 billion in 2004 and $1.49 billion in 2003. Of the $5.67 billion of catastrophe losses incurred during 2005, $5.00 billion relatedexposed to hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and $120 million related to assessments from FL Citizens. Through February 8, 2006, approximately 78% of the property claim counts and 97% of the auto claim counts related to each of these events are closed, and we expect substantially all of(for further information on our remaining estimated net losses related to the 2005 hurricane season will be paid during 2006. We had $2.89 billion of gross catastrophe related reserves held at December 31, 2005.

($ in millions)

 Gross Losses
 Recoveries
 Net Losses
Hurricane Katrina $3,626 $2 $3,624
Hurricane Rita  1,114  250  864
Hurricane Wilma  721  213  508
  
 
 
Total Loss Estimate $5,461 $465 $4,996
  
 
   
FL Citizens assessments        120
Other catastrophes        558
        
        $5,674
        

Hurricane Katrina

        Hurricane Katrina made initial landfall in Florida on August 25, 2005 and again in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama on August 29, 2005.

        Catastrophe claims and claims expense estimates include losses from approximately 207,000 expected claims of which over 193,000 claims have been reported. The estimates of catastrophe claims and claims expense by product are shown in the following table.

($ in millions)

 Allstate
brand

 Encompass
brand

 Total
Hurricane Katrina         
Standard auto $243 $17 $260
Non-standard auto  22  1  23
Homeowners  2,794  126  2,920
Other  284  21  305
  
 
 
Total personal lines $3,343 $165 $3,508
Commercial  116  N/A  116
  
 
 
Total loss estimate, net of reinsurance $3,459 $165 $3,624
  
 
 

Total loss estimate, gross of reinsurance

 

$

3,461

 

$

165

 

$

3,626
Reinsurance recoverable  2    2
  
 
 
Total loss estimate, net of reinsurance $3,459 $165 $3,624
  
 
 

Hurricane Rita

        Hurricane Rita made landfall near the border of Texas and Louisiana on September 24, 2005. Catastrophe claims and claims expense estimates include losses from approximately 84,000 expected claims of which over 72,000 claims have been reported. The estimates of claims and claims expense by product are shown in the following table.

($ in millions)

 Allstate
brand

 Encompass
brand

 Total
Hurricane Rita         
Standard auto $25 $1 $26
Non-standard auto  4    4
Homeowners  686  10  696
Other  74  1  75
  
 
 
Total personal lines $789 $12 $801
Commercial  63  N/A  63
  
 
 
Total loss estimate, net of reinsurance $852 $12 $864
  
 
 

Total loss estimate, gross of reinsurance

 

$

1,102

 

$

12

 

$

1,114
Reinsurance recoverable(1)  250    250
  
 
 
Total loss estimate, net of reinsurance $852 $12 $864
  
 
 

(1)
An affiliate of the company, Allstate Texas Lloyd's, a syndicate insurance company cedes 100% of its business net of reinsurance with external parties to Allstate Insurance Company.

Hurricane Wilma

        Hurricane Wilma made landfall in the state of Florida on October 24, 2005. Catastrophe claims and claims expense estimates include losses from approximately 103,000 expected claims of which over 93,000 claims have been reported. The estimates of claims and claims expense by product are shown in the following table.

($ in millions)

 Allstate
brand

 Encompass
brand

 Total
Hurricane Wilma         
Standard auto $95 $2 $97
Non-standard auto  10    10
Homeowners  160  3  163
Other  144  2  146
  
 
 
Total personal lines  409  7  416
Commercial  92  N/A  92
  
 
 
Total loss estimate, net of reinsurance $501 $7 $508
  
 
 

Total loss estimate, gross of reinsurance

 

$

712

 

$

9

 

$

721
Reinsurance recoverable  211  2  213
  
 
 
Total loss estimate, net of reinsurance $501 $7 $508
  
 
 

        Estimates of residential property losses for Hurricane Wilma have exceeded the FHCF estimated retention of $262 million, thus permitting reimbursement of 90% of qualifying personal property losses above the retention up to an estimated maximum of $945 million. In addition, Allstate Floridian has reinsurance on certain personal homeowners policies in Florida with Universal. For further discussion of these reinsurance and other recoveries,program see the reinsurance section of the Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A&A); limiting personal homeowners new business writings in coastal areas in southern and Note 9eastern states; not offering continuing coverage on certain policies in coastal counties in New York and 13certain other states; and entering into Royal Palm 1 and Royal Palm 2. Our actions are expected to continue during 2007 in northeastern and certain other hurricane prone states.

        In January of 2007 the state of Florida enacted new property legislation which, among other actions, expands the capacity of the consolidated financial statements.

        InFHCF, prohibits excess profits for property insurers in the normal coursestate, expands the time for non-renewal notification, requires carriers writing certain types of business, we mayauto coverages in the state to also supplement our claims processes by utilizing third party adjusters, appraisers, engineers, inspectors, other professionalswrite homeowners coverage unless that carrier is affiliated with a carrier that writes homeowners insurance in that state, and information sources to assess and settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims. For example, during the fourth quarter of 2005 our longstanding contract with Pilot Catastrophe Services ("Pilot")expands policyholder eligibility for additional claims adjustors aided in our ability to complete more timely claims payments.

        Catastrophe losses also include $120 million of accruals for two assessments from FL Citizens and $34 million from Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ("LAFL Citizens"). These entities wereFL Citizens was created by their respective statesthe state to provide insurance to property owners unable to obtain coverage in the private insurance market. The comprehensive and extensive legislative changes essentially position FL Citizens to be a direct competitor to the private insurance property market and can levy an assessment onparticipants. See Note 13 for a description of the ability of FL Citizens to assess participating insurance companies for aits financial deficit. After paying assessments,We are currently assessing the impact of this legislation on our catastrophe risk management strategy in the state of Florida.

Earthquakes

        Actions taken related to our risk of earthquake loss include purchasing reinsurance on a countrywide basis and in the state of Kentucky for our personal lines property insurance; no longer offering new optional earthquake coverage in most states; removing optional earthquake coverage on approximately 250,000 property policies at December 31, 2006 (approximately 400,000 property policies at December 31, 2005) upon renewal in most states; and entering into arrangements to make earthquake coverage available through other insurers for new and renewal business. These arrangements with third party insurers include many of the approximately 170,000 renewal property customers at December 31, 2006 in the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Washington.

        By the end of 2007, we expectanticipate that we will have eliminated approximately 90% of our subsidiaries will be able to recoup themoptional earthquake coverages countrywide, based on our policies in part throughforce at December 31, 2005. Allstate's premiums written attributable to optional earthquake coverage totaled approximately $33 million in the state. These recoupments will be recorded as an offset to catastrophe losses2006 ($60 million in the period that the related premiums are written and are expected to be primarily recorded over the next two years. For further discussion of these assessments, see Note 13 of the consolidated financial statements.2005).

        ClaimsWhile this is a countrywide strategy, we will continue to have optional earthquake coverage available in certain states due to regulatory and claims expense during 2004 includes estimated catastropheother reasons. We also will continue to have exposure to earthquake risk on certain policies and coverages that do not specifically exclude coverage for earthquake losses, including our auto policies, and to fires following earthquakes. Allstate policyholders in



the state of $2.00 billion, net of recoveriesCalifornia are offered coverage through the CEA, a privately-financed, publicly-managed state agency created to provide insurance coverage for earthquake damage. Allstate is subject to assessments from the FHCF,CEA under certain circumstances.

Fires Following Earthquakes

        Actions taken related to hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan,our risk of loss from fires following earthquakes include changing homeowners underwriting requirements in California and Jeanne. This estimate includes net lossespurchasing additional reinsurance on personal lines autoa countrywide basis, in California and property policies and net losses on commercial policies.in Kentucky.

Allstate Protection Outlook

    Allstate Protection premiums written in 2007 will be slightly higher than 2006 levels. We expect to see continued growth of Allstate brand auto premiums written due to increased PIF resulting from increases in the number of agencies representing us, advertising effectiveness and higher customer loyalty, however total Allstate Protection premiums written will likely be comparable to 2005 levels due tobeing partially offset by the estimated effects of catastrophe management actions on homeowners and other property premiums, including the impacts of increased ceded premiums for catastrophe reinsurance.reinsurance totaling approximately $165 million during 2007.

    We expectplan to experience a slowing rate of decline inintroduce our new non-standard auto product, and Encompass brand standard auto while maintaining profitabilityAllstate Blue, in these businesses.selective states during 2007. We anticipate that this new product will contribute favorably to the non-standard premiums written trends.

    We expect that volatility in the level of catastrophes or claim frequency we experience will contribute to variation in our underwriting results, however this volatility will be somewhat mitigated due to our catastrophe management actions including purchases of reinsurance.

    We willexpect our auto and homeowners frequencies, excluding catastrophes, during 2007 to be comparable with 2006 results and auto and homeowners severity increases to be consistent with relevant indices.

    We plan to continue to study the efficiencies of our operations and cost structure for additional areas where costs may be reduced. Any reductions in costs we achieve, however, may be offset by the costs of other new initiatives, such as increased expenditures for technologymarketing and reinsurance. For example, there will be an investment in claims technology of approximately $95 million over 2006, 2007 and 2008 as a result of our claims system reengineering. In addition, other factors may increase our expenses, including increases in benefit expenses and guaranty fund assessments.technology.

    DISCONTINUED LINES AND COVERAGES SEGMENT

            Overview    The Discontinued Lines and Coverages segment includes results from insurance coverage that we no longer write and results for certain commercial and other businesses in run-off. Our exposure to asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is reported in this segment. We have assigned management of this segment to a designated group of professionals with expertise in claims handling, policy coverage interpretation and exposure identification. As part of its responsibilities, this group is also regularly engaged in policy buybacks, settlements and reinsurance assumed and ceded commutations.


            Summarized underwriting results for the years ended December 31, are presented in the following table.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Premiums written $(2)$4 $12  $1 $(2)$4 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Premiums earned $1 $6 $13  $3 $1 $6 
    Claims and claims expense (167) (635) (574) (132) (167) (635)
    Other costs and expenses (9) (9) (10) (10) (9) (9)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Underwriting loss $(175)$(638)$(571) $(139)$(175)$(638)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

            Underwriting loss of $139 million in 2006 primarily related to an $86 million reestimate of asbestos reserves. Also contributing to the 2006 underwriting loss was a $10 million reestimate of environmental reserves and a $26 million increase in the allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance recoverables. The cost of administering claims settlements totaled $19 million, $18 million and $22 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

            During 2005, the underwriting loss was primarily due to reestimates of asbestos reserves totaling $139 million. The cost of administering claims settlements totaled $18 million, $22 million and $23 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

            During 2004, the underwriting loss was primarily due to reestimates of asbestos reserves totaling $463 million, and an increase of $136 million in the allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance.

            See the Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves section of the MD&A for a more detailed discussion.

    Discontinued Lines and Coverages Outlook

      We may continue to experience asbestos losses in the future. These losses could be due to the potential adverse impact of new information relating to new and additional claims or the impact of resolving unsettled claims based on unanticipated events such as litigation or legislative, judicial and regulatory actions. Because of our annual "ground up" review, we believe that our reserves are appropriately established based on available information, technology, laws and regulations.

      We are somewhat encouraged that the pace of industry asbestos claim activity seems to be slowing, perhaps reflecting various recent state legislative and judicial actions with respect to medical criteria and increased legal scrutiny of the legitimacy of claims. In addition, we continue to monitor the possibility of federal legislation related to these claims.

    PROPERTY-LIABILITY INVESTMENT RESULTS

    Net investment income increased 3.5% in 2006 when compared to 2005, after increasing 1.0% in 2005 when compared to last year, after increasing 5.7% in 2004 when compared to 2003.2004. These increases were due to higher income from partnerships and higher fixed income portfolio balances resulting from positive cash flows from operations and investment activities, partially offset by lower portfolio yields.balances.



            The following table presents the average pretax investment yields for the year ended December 31.


     2005(1)(3)
     2004(2)(3)
     2003(2)(3)
      2006(1)(3)
     2005(1)(3)
     2004(2)(3)
     
    Fixed income securities: tax-exempt 5.2%5.4%5.5% 5.1%5.2%5.4%
    Fixed income securities: tax-exempt equivalent 7.6 7.9 7.8  7.4 7.6 7.9 
    Fixed income securities: taxable 5.0 5.2 5.5  5.3 5.0 5.2 
    Equity securities 4.8 4.6 4.4  5.1 4.8 4.6 
    Mortgage loans 5.5 5.5 7.7  5.2 5.5 5.5 
    Total portfolio 5.0 5.1 5.3  5.2 5.0 5.1 

    (1)
    Pretax yield is calculated as investment income (including dividend income in the case of equity securities) divided by the average of the investment balances at the beginning and end of period and any interim quarters.

    (2)
    Pretax yield is calculated as investment income (including dividend income in the case of equity securities) divided by the average of the beginning and end of period investment balances.

    (3)
    Amortized cost basis is used to calculate the average investment balance for fixed income securities and mortgage loans. Cost is used for equity securities.

    Net realized capital gains and losses, after-tax were $227 million in 2006 compared to $339 million in 2005 compared toand $397 million in 2004 and $192 million in 2003.2004. The following table presents the factors driving the net realized capital gains and losses results.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Investment write-downs $(30)$(46)$(110) $(26)$(30)$(46)
    Dispositions 516 697 385  451 516 697 
    Valuation of derivative instruments 10 10 10  43 10 10 
    Settlements of derivative instruments 20 (69) 3  (120) 20 (69)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Realized capital gains and losses, pretax 516 592 288  348 516 592 
    Income tax expense (177) (195) (96) (121) (177) (195)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Realized capital gains and losses, after-tax $339 $397 $192  $227 $339 $397 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

            For a further discussion of net realized capital gains and losses, see the Investments section of the MD&A.

    Property-Liability Investment Outlook

      As a result of our recent years' catastrophe experience andWe expect the level of dividends paid by Allstate Insurance Company ("AIC") to The Allstate Corporation in 2005, investment income for2007 to increase from 2006 is expectedwhich may lead to slightly decline relative to the prior year due to lower cash flows from operating activities causing a decline in portfolio balances.

      Allstate expects to experience lowerbalances and investment yields due, in part, to the reinvestment of proceeds from maturities and the investment of cash flows from operations in securities yielding less than the average portfolio rate due to the impact of the current interest rate environment.income.

    PROPERTY-LIABILITY CLAIMS AND CLAIMS EXPENSE RESERVES

            Underwriting results of Property-Liability are significantly influenced by estimates of property-liability claims and claims expense reserves. We describeFor a description of our reserve process, in the Application of Critical Accounting Policies section of the MD&A andsee Note 7 of the consolidated financial statements.statements and for a further description of our reserving policies and the potential variability in our reserve estimates, see the Application of Critical Accounting Estimates section of the MD&A. These



    reserves are an estimate of amounts necessary to settle all outstanding claims, including IBNR claims, as of the reporting date.

            Reserves are established for claims as they occur for each line of business based on estimates of the ultimate cost to settle the claims. The actual loss results are compared to prior estimates and differences are recorded as reserve reestimates. The primary actuarial technique used to estimate reserves and provide for losses is a "chain ladder" estimation process in which historical loss patterns are applied to actual paid losses and reported losses (paid losses plus individual case reserves set by claim adjusters) for an accident year or a report year to create an estimate of how losses are likely to develop over time. An accident year refers to classifying claims based on the year in which the claims occurred. A report year refers to classifying claims based on the year in which the claims are reported. Both classifications are used to prepare estimates of required reserves for payments to be made in the future.

            In the chain ladder estimation technique, a ratio (development factor) is calculated which compares current results to results in the prior period for each accident year. A three-year or two-year average development factor, based on historical results, is usually multiplied by the current experience to estimate the development of losses of each accident year from the current time period into the next time period. The development factors for the next time periods for each accident year are compounded over the remaining calendar years to calculate an estimate of ultimate losses for each accident year. Occasionally, unusual aberrations in loss patterns are caused by factors such as changes in claim reporting, settlement patterns, unusually large losses, process changes, legal or regulatory changes, and other influences. In these instances, analyses of alternate development factor selections are performed to evaluate the effect of these factors, and actuarial judgment is applied to make appropriate development factor assumptions needed to develop a best estimate of ultimate losses. Paid losses are then subtracted from estimated ultimate losses to determine the indicated reserves. The difference between indicated reserves and recorded reserves is the amount of reserve reestimate.

            Reserves are reestimated quarterly. When new development factors are calculated from actual losses, and they differ from estimated development factors used in previous reserve estimates, assumptions about losses and required reserves are revised based on the new development factors. Changes to reserves are recorded in the period in which development factor changes result in reserve reestimates.

            Over one thousand actuarial estimates of the types described above are prepared each quarter to monitor losses for each line of insurance, major components of losses (such as coverages and perils), major states or groups of states and for reported losses and IBNR. Often, several different estimates are prepared for each detailed component, incorporating alternative analyses of changing claim settlement patterns and other influences on losses, from which we select our best estimate for each component, occasionally incorporating additional analyses and actuarial judgment, as described above. These estimates also incorporate the historical impact of inflation into reserve estimates, the implicit assumption being that a multi-year average development factor represents an adequate provision. Based on our review of these estimates, our best estimate of required reserves for each state/line/coverage component is recorded for each accident year, and the required reserves for each component are summed to create the reserve balances carried on our Consolidated Statements of Financial Position.

            The facts and circumstances leading to our reestimate of reserves relate to revisions to the development factors used to predict how losses are likely to develop from the end of a reporting period



    until all claims have been paid. Reestimates occur because actual losses are different than that predicted by the estimated development factors used in prior reserve estimates. At December 31, 2005,2006, the impact of a reserve reestimation resulting in a one percent increase or decrease in net reserves would be a decrease or increase of approximately $120$108 million in net income. A reserve reestimation resulting in a one percent decrease in net reserves would increase net income by approximately $120 million. For a further description of our



    reserving policies and the potential variability in our reserve estimates, see the Application of Critical Accounting Policies section of the MD&A.

            For Allstate Protection, at each reporting date the highest degree of uncertainty in estimates of losses arises from claims remaining to be settled for the current accident year and the most recent preceding accident year. The greatest degree of uncertainty exists in the current accident year because, at the end of the current accident year, the percentage of losses that have not been reported or settled and that consequently must be estimated, is higher than it will be as time elapses. Most of these losses relate to damaged property such as automobiles and to medical care for injuries from accidents. During the first year after the end of an accident year, a large portion of the total losses for that accident year are settled. When accident year losses paid through the end of the first year following the accident year are incorporated into updated actuarial estimates, the trends inherent in the settlement of claims emerge more clearly. Consequently, this is the point in time at which we tend to make our largest reestimates of losses for an accident year. After the second year, the losses that we pay for an accident year typically relate to claims that are more difficult to settle, such as those involving serious injuries or litigation. Private passenger auto insurance provides a good illustration of the uncertainty of future loss estimates: our typical annual percentage payout of reserves (estimated losses) for an accident year is approximately 45% in the first year after the end of the accident year, 20% in the second year, 15% in the third year, 10% in the fourth year, and the remaining 10% thereafter.

            The table below shows total net reserves as of December 31, 2006, 2005 2004 and 20032004 for Allstate brand, Encompass brand and Discontinued Lines and Coverages lines of business.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
     2006
     2005
     2004
    Allstate brand $15,423 $13,204 $12,866 $13,220 $15,423 $13,204
    Encompass brand 1,331 1,230 1,277 1,236 1,331 1,230
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Protection $16,754 $14,434 $14,143 $14,456 $16,754 $14,434
    Discontinued Lines and Coverages 2,177 2,327 1,837 2,154 2,177 2,327
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Property-Liability $18,931 $16,761 $15,980 $16,610 $18,931 $16,761
     
     
     
     
     
     

            The table below shows reserves, net of reinsurance, representing the estimated cost of outstanding claims as they were recorded at the beginning of years 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, and the effect of reestimates in each year.


     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    (in millions)

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate(1)

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate(1)

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate(1)

      Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate(1)

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate(1)

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate(1)

     
    Allstate brand $13,204 $(613)$12,866 $(872)$12,361 $(209) $15,423 $(1,085)$13,204 $(613)$12,866 $(872)
    Encompass brand  1,230  (22) 1,277  7 1,227  36   1,331  (18) 1,230  (22) 1,277  7 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Protection $14,434 $(635)$14,143 $(865)$13,588 $(173) $16,754 $(1,103)$14,434 $(635)$14,143 $(865)
    Discontinued Lines and Coverages  2,327  167 1,837  635 1,430  574   2,177  132 2,327  167 1,837  635 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Property-Liability $16,761 $(468)$15,980 $(230)$15,018 $401  $18,931 $(971)$16,761 $(468)$15,980 $(230)
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Reserve reestimates, after-tax    $(304)   $(150)   $261     $(631)   $(304)   $(150)
        
       
       
         
       
       
     
    Net income     1,765    3,181    2,705      4,993    1,765    3,181 
        
       
       
         
       
       
     
    Reserve reestimates as a % of net income     17.2%    4.7%    (9.6)%     12.6%    17.2%    4.7%
        
       
       
         
       
       
     

    (1)
    Favorable reserve reestimates are shown in parentheses.

    Allstate Protection

            The table below shows Allstate Protection net reserves representing the estimated cost of outstanding claims as they were recorded at the beginning of years 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, and the effect of reestimates in each year.


     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    (in millions)

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

      Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     
    Auto $10,228 $(661)$10,419 $(657)$10,378 $(221) $10,460 $(737)$10,228 $(661)$10,419 $(657)
    Homeowners  1,917  7 1,873  (169) 1,664  13   3,675  (244) 1,917  7 1,873  (169)
    Other Lines  2,289  19 1,851  (39) 1,546  35   2,619  (122) 2,289  19 1,851  (39)
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Protection $14,434 $(635)$14,143 $(865)$13,588 $(173) $16,754 $(1,103)$14,434 $(635)$14,143 $(865)
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Underwriting (loss) income     (461)    2,468    1,903 
    Underwriting income (loss)     4,636    (461)    2,468 
        
       
       
         
       
       
     
    Reserve reestimates as a % of underwriting income (loss)     137.7%    35.0%    9.1%     23.8%    137.7%    35.0%
        
       
       
         
       
       
     

            Auto reserve reestimates in 2006, 2005 2004 and 20032004 were primarily the result of auto injury severity development that was better than expected and late reported loss development that was better than expected, primarily due to lower frequency trends in recent years.

            Homeowners reserve reestimates in 2006 were primarily due to favorable catastrophe reestimates including a decrease in the expected assessment from FL Citizens, late reported loss development that was better than expected and injury severity development that was better than expected.

            Unfavorable homeowner reserve reestimates in 2005 were primarily due to severity development that was greater than expected. In 2005, reestimates included $66 million related to 2004 hurricanes of which $31 million was the FL Citizens assessment that was accruable in 2005. These were offset primarily by late reported loss development that was better than expected.

            Homeowners reserve reestimates in 2004 were primarily due to late reported loss development that was better than expected. Homeowners reserve reestimates in 2003 were primarily due to severity development that was greater than expected and additional losses from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, partially offset by the release of reserves due to lower than anticipated losses in Texas related to mold claims.

            Other lines reserve reestimates in 2006 were primarily due to favorable catastrophe reestimates and the result of claim severity development different than anticipated in previous estimates. Other lines reserve reestimates in 2005 2004, and 20032004 were primarily the result of claim severity development different than anticipated in previous estimates.



            Pending, new and closed claims for Allstate Protection, for the years ended December 31, are summarized in the following table.

    Number of Claims

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Auto              
    Pending, beginning of year 551,211 569,549 635,304  569,334 551,211 569,549 
    New 5,615,440 5,367,891 5,480,516  5,256,600 5,615,440 5,367,891 
    Total closed (5,597,317)(5,386,229)(5,546,271) (5,303,390)(5,597,317)(5,386,229)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Pending, end of year 569,334 551,211 569,549  522,544 569,334 551,211 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

    Homeowners

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Pending, beginning of year 84,910 62,080 87,058  197,326 84,910 62,080 
    New 1,329,164 995,569 962,673  835,900 1,329,164 995,569 
    Total closed (1,216,748)(972,739)(987,651) (960,238)(1,216,748)(972,739)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Pending, end of year 197,326 84,910 62,080  72,988 197,326 84,910 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

    Other lines

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Pending, beginning of year 60,572 46,671 53,117  79,560 60,572 46,671 
    New 427,956 385,298 356,037  312,546 427,956 385,298 
    Total closed (408,968)(371,397)(362,483) (349,852)(408,968)(371,397)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Pending, end of year 79,560 60,572 46,671  42,254 79,560 60,572 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

    Total Allstate Protection

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Pending, beginning of year 696,693 678,300 775,479  846,220 696,693 678,300 
    New 7,372,560 6,748,758 6,799,226  6,405,046 7,372,560 6,748,758 
    Total closed (7,223,033)(6,730,365)(6,896,405) (6,613,480)(7,223,033)(6,730,365)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Pending, end of year 846,220 696,693 678,300  637,786 846,220 696,693 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

            We believe the net loss reserves for Allstate Protection exposures are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws and regulations.

            The following tables reflect the accident years to which the reestimates shown above are applicable for Allstate brand, Encompass brand and Discontinued Lines and Coverages lines of business. Favorable reserve reestimates are shown in these tables in parentheses.


    2006 Prior year reserve reestimates

    (in millions)

     1996 &
    Prior

     1997
     1998
     1999
     2000
     2001
     2002
     2003
     2004
     2005
     Total
     
    Allstate brand $18 $(8)$(3)$(5)$(2)$(22)$(2)$(48)$(282)$(731)$(1,085)
    Encompass brand            (6)   (10) (22) 20  (18)
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Protection  18  (8) (3) (5) (2) (28) (2) (58) (304) (711) (1,103)
    Discontinued Lines and Coverages  132                    132 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Property-Liability $150 $(8)$(3)$(5)$(2)$(28)$(2)$(58)$(304)$(711)$(971)
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    2005 Prior year reserve reestimates

    (in millions)

     1995 &
    Prior

     1996
     1997
     1998
     1999
     2000
     2001
     2002
     2003
     2004
     Total
     
    Allstate brand $124 $(5)$(1)$(17)$1 $(15)$(10)$(43)$(256)$(391)$(613)
    Encompass brand            (2) (1) (6) (9) (4) (22)
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Protection  124  (5) (1) (17) 1  (17) (11) (49) (265) (395) (635)
    Discontinued Lines and Coverages  167                    167 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Property-Liability $291 $(5)$(1)$(17)$1 $(17)$(11)$(49)$(265)$(395)$(468)
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    (in millions)

     1995 &
    Prior

     1996
     1997
     1998
     1999
     2000
     2001
     2002
     2003
     2004
     Total
     
    Allstate brand $124 $(5)$(1)$(17)$1 $(15)$(10)$(43)$(256)$(391)$(613)
    Encompass brand            (2) (1) (6) (9) (4) (22)
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Protection  124  (5) (1) (17) 1  (17) (11) (49) (265) (395) (635)
    Discontinued Lines and Coverages  167                    167 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Property-Liability $291 $(5)$(1)$(17)$1 $(17)$(11)$(49)$(265)$(395)$(468)
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    2004 Prior year reserve reestimates

    (in millions)

     1994 &
    Prior

     1995
     1996
     1997
     1998
     1999
     2000
     2001
     2002
     2003
     Total
     
    Allstate brand $131 $28 $11 $(11)$(26)$(57)$(102)$(105)$(192)$(549)$(872)
    Encompass brand  (4)         8  10  2  9  (18) 7 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Protection  127  28  11  (11) (26) (49) (92) (103) (183) (567) (865)
    Discontinued Lines and Coverages  635                    635 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Property-Liability $762 $28 $11 $(11)$(26)$(49)$(92)$(103)$(183)$(567)$(230)
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    2003 Prior year reserve reestimates

    (in millions)

     1993 &
    Prior

     1994
     1995
     1996
     1997
     1998
     1999
     2000
     2001
     2002
     Total
      1994 &
    Prior

     1995
     1996
     1997
     1998
     1999
     2000
     2001
     2002
     2003
     Total
     
    Allstate brand $50 $38 $7 $17 $19 $26 $4 $(21)$(78)$(271)$(209) $131 $28 $11 $(11)$(26)$(57)$(102)$(105)$(192)$(549)$(872)
    Encompass brand (2)             12  10  16  36  (4)         8  10  2  9  (18) 7 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Protection 48  38  7  17  19  26  4  (9) (68) (255) (173) 127  28  11  (11) (26) (49) (92) (103) (183) (567) (865)
    Discontinued Lines and Coverages 574                    574  635                    635 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Property-Liability $622 $38 $7 $17 $19 $26 $4 $(9)$(68)$(255)$401  $762 $28 $11 $(11)$(26)$(49)$(92)$(103)$(183)$(567)$(230)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

            Allstate brand experienced $613$1,085 million and $872$613 million of favorable prior year reserve reestimates in 20052006 and 2004,2005, respectively. This was primarily due to auto injury severity development and late reported loss development that was better than expected.

            The Allstate brand experienced $209 million ofexpected and including favorable prior year reserve reestimates in 2003. This was primarily due to auto injury severity and late reported loss development that was better than expected and the release of reserves due to lower than anticipatedcatastrophe losses in Texas related to mold claims.2006 and unfavorable in 2005.

            These trends are primarily responsible for revisions to loss development factors, as previously described, used to predict how losses are likely to develop from the end of a reporting period until all claims have been paid. Because these trends cause actual losses to differ from those predicted by the estimated development factors used in prior reserve estimates, reserves are revised as actuarial studies validate new trends based on the indications of updated development factor calculations.

            The impact of these reestimates on the Allstate brand underwriting income (loss) income is shown in the table below.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Reserve reestimates $613 $872 $209  $1,085 $613 $872 
    Allstate brand underwriting (loss) income (437) 2,340 1,941 
    Reserve reestimates as a % of underwriting (loss) income 140.3% 37.3% 10.8%
    Allstate brand underwriting income (loss) 4,451 (437) 2,340 
    Reserve reestimates as a % of underwriting income (loss) 24.4% 140.3% 37.3%

            Encompass brand Reserve reestimates in 2006 and 2005 were related to lower than anticipated claim settlement costs. Reserve reestimates in 2004 and 2003 were related to higher than anticipated claim settlement costs.



            The impact of these reestimates on the Encompass brand underwriting income (loss) income is shown in the table below.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Reserve reestimates $22 $(7)$(36) $18 $22 $(7)
    Encompass brand underwriting (loss) income (24) 128 (38)
    Reserve reestimates as a % of underwriting (loss) income 91.7% (5.5)% (94.7)%
    Encompass brand underwriting income (loss) 185 (24) 128 
    Reserve reestimates as a % of underwriting income (loss) 9.7% 91.7% (5.5)%

            Discontinued Lines and Coverages    We conduct an annual review in the third quarter of each year to evaluate and establish asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines reserves. Reserves are recorded in the reporting period in which they are determined. Using established industry and actuarial best practices and assuming no change in the regulatory or economic environment, this detailed and comprehensive "ground up" methodology determines reserves based on assessments of the characteristics of exposure (e.g. claim activity, potential liability, jurisdiction, products versus non-products exposure) presented by individual policyholders.

            Reserve reestimates for the Discontinued Lines and Coverages, as shown in the table below, were increased primarily for asbestos in 2006 and 2005 and for asbestos and other discontinued lines in 2004 and 2003.2004.


     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    (in millions)

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

      Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     Jan 1
    Reserves

     Reserve
    Reestimate

     
    Asbestos Claims $1,464 $139 $1,079 $463 $635 $520  $1,373 $86 $1,464 $139 $1,079 $463 
    Environmental Claims  232  2 257   304  2  205 10 232 2 257  
    Other Discontinued Lines  631  26 501  172 491  52  599 36 631 26 501 172 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Discontinued Lines and Coverages $2,327 $167 $1,837 $635 $1,430 $574  $2,177 $132 $2,327 $167 $1,837 $635 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Underwriting (loss) income     (175)    (638)    (571)   (139)   (175)   (638)
        
       
       
        
       
       
     
    Reserve reestimates as a % of underwriting (loss) income     (95.4)%    (99.5)%    (100.5)%   (95.0)%   (95.4)%   (99.5)%
        
       
       
        
       
       
     

            Reserve additions for asbestos in 2006, 2005 and 2004, and 2003, totaling $86 million, $139 million $463 million and $520$463 million, respectively, were primarily for products-related coverage. They were essentially a result of a continuing level of increased claim activity being reported by excess insurance policyholders with existing active claims, excess policyholders with new claims, and reestimates of liabilities for increased assumed reinsurance cessions, as ceding companies (other insurance carriers) also experienced increased claim activity. Increased claim activity over prior estimates has also resulted in an increased estimate for future claims reported. These trends are consistent with the trends of other carriers in the industry, which we believe are related to increased publicity and awareness of coverage, ongoing litigation, potential congressionalCongressional activity, and bankruptcy actions.

            During 2004, reserve reestimates, including an increase in the allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance recoverables, included $150 million for other discontinued lines exposures in run-off, and $22 million related to the cost of administering claim settlements and miscellaneous run-off exposures.

            During 2003, reserve reestimates included $29 million for other discontinued lines exposures in run-off, and $23 million related to the cost of administering claim settlements and miscellaneous run-off exposures.

            Our exposure to asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims arises principally from assumed reinsurance coverage written during the 1960s through the mid-1980s, including reinsurance on



    primary insurance written on large United States companies, and from direct excess insurance written from 1972 through 1985, including substantial excess general liability coverages on Fortune 500 companies. Additional exposure stems from direct primary commercial insurance written during the 1960s through the mid-1980s. Other discontinued lines exposures primarily relate to general liability and product liability mass tort claims, such as those for medical devices and other products.

            In 1986, the general liability policy form used by us and others in the property-liability industry was amended to introduce an "absolute pollution exclusion," which excluded coverage for environmental damage claims, and to add an asbestos exclusion. Most general liability policies issued prior to 1987 contain annual aggregate limits for product liability coverage. General liability policies issued in 1987 and thereafter contain annual aggregate limits for product liability coverage and annual aggregate limits for all coverages. Our experience to date is that these policy form changes have limited the extent of our exposure to environmental and asbestos claim risks.

            Our exposure to liability for asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines losses manifests differently depending on whether it arises from assumed reinsurance coverage, direct excess insurance, or direct primary commercial insurance. The direct insurance coverage we provided that covered asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines was substantially "excess" in nature.

            Direct excess insurance and reinsurance involve coverage written by us for specific layers of protection above retentions and other insurance plans. The nature of excess coverage and reinsurance provided to other insurers limits our exposure to loss to specific layers of protection in excess of policyholder retention or primary insurance plans. Our exposure is further limited by the significant reinsurance that we have purchased on our direct excess business.

            Our assumed reinsurance business involved writing generally small participations in other insurers' reinsurance programs. The reinsured losses in which we participate may be a proportion of all eligible losses or eligible losses in excess of defined retentions. The majority of our assumed reinsurance exposure, approximately 85%, is for excess of loss coverage, while the remaining 15% is for pro-rata coverage.

            Our direct primary commercial insurance business did not include coverage to large asbestos manufacturers. This business comprises a cross section of policyholders engaged in many diverse business sectors located throughout the country.



            The table below summarizes reserves and claim activity for asbestos and environmental claims before (Gross) and after (Net) the effects of reinsurance for the past three years.


     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    (in millions, except ratios)

     Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
      Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
     
    Asbestos claims                          
    Beginning reserves $2,427 $1,464 $1,583 $1,079 $904 $635  $2,205 $1,373 $2,427 $1,464 $1,583 $1,079 
    Incurred claims and claims expense 200 139 971 463 800 520  143 86 200 139 971 463 
    Claims and claims expense paid (422) (230) (127) (78) (121) (76) (150) (84) (422) (230) (127) (78)
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Ending reserves $2,205 $1,373 $2,427 $1,464 $1,583 $1,079  $2,198 $1,375 $2,205 $1,373 $2,427 $1,464 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Annual survival ratio 5.2 6.0 19.1 18.8 13.1 14.2  14.7 16.4 5.2 6.0 19.1 18.8 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    3-year survival ratio 9.9 10.7 16.1 13.9 11.1 10.9  9.4 10.5 9.9 10.7 16.1 13.9 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Environmental claims

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Beginning reserves $281 $232 $315 $257 $393 $304  $252 $205 $281 $232 $315 $257 
    Incurred claims and claims expense 3 2 1   2  22 10 3 2 1  
    Claims and claims expense paid (32) (29) (35) (25) (78) (49) (25) (21) (32) (29) (35) (25)
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Ending reserves $252 $205 $281 $232 $315 $257  $249 $194 $252 $205 $281 $232 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Annual survival ratio 7.9 7.2 8.1 9.1 4.0 5.2  9.8 8.9 7.9 7.2 8.1 9.1 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    3-year survival ratio 5.2 6.0 4.3 5.0 4.3 5.0  8.1 7.7 5.2 6.0 4.3 5.0 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Combined environmental and asbestos claims

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Annual survival ratio 5.4 6.1 16.7 16.4 9.5 10.7  14.0 14.8 5.4 6.1 16.7 16.4 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    3-year survival ratio 9.0 9.7 12.5 11.2 8.8 8.9  9.3 10.1 9.0 9.7 12.5 11.2 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Percentage of IBNR in ending reserves   68.0%   61.6%   59.9%   66.5%   68.0%   61.6%

            The survival ratio is calculated by taking our ending reserves divided by payments made during the year. This is a commonly used but extremely simplistic and imprecise approach to measuring the adequacy of asbestos and environmental reserve levels. Many factors, such as mix of business, level of coverage provided and settlement procedures have significant impacts on the amount of environmental and asbestos claims and claims expense reserves, claim payments and the resultant ratio. As payments result in corresponding reserve reductions, survival ratios can be expected to vary over time.

            In 2006, the asbestos survival ratios improved due to a reduced level of claim payments. In 2005, the asbestos survival ratio declined due to an increase in claims paid, primarily due to commutations, policy buy-backs, and settlement agreements that, in turn caused reduced reserve levels.

            In 2004, the asbestos survival ratios improved due to higher reserve balances and relatively low payments. In 2004, the environmental survival ratios improved due to lower claim payments.



            The total commutations, policy buy-backs, and settlement agreements and the survival ratios for asbestos and environmental claims for 2006, 2005 2004 and 20032004 excluding these commutations, policy buy-backs, and settlement agreements, are represented in the following table.


     2005
     2004
     2003
     2006
     2005
     2004
    (in millions, except ratios)

     Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
     Gross
     Net
    Asbestos claims                        
    Commutations, policy buy-backs & settlement agreements $322 $176 $32 $22 $54 $33 $61 $30 $322 $176 $32 $22
    Annual survival ratio 21.1 24.9 25.2 25.5 22.7 24.2 24.0 24.8 21.1 24.9 25.2 25.5
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    3-year survival ratio 24.7 26.8 31.7 28.4 21.9 22.2 22.9 25.1 24.7 26.8 31.7 28.4
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Environmental claims

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Commutations, policy buy-backs & settlement agreements $13 $13 $22 $14 $42 $24 $7 $6 $13 $13 $22 $14
    Annual survival ratio 13.7 13.1 21.7 20.7 8.4 10.0 13.5 12.7 13.7 13.1 21.7 20.7
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    3-year survival ratio 13.1 13.2 9.7 10.0 7.7 8.4 15.2 14.0 13.1 13.2 9.7 10.0
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Combined environmental and asbestos claims

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Total commutations, policy buy-backs & settlement agreements $335 $189 $54 $36 $96 $57 $68 $36 $335 $189 $54 $36
    Annual survival ratio 20.0 22.2 24.8 24.7 17.7 19.0 22.2 22.2 20.0 22.2 24.8 24.7
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    3-year survival ratio 22.6 23.6 25.6 22.6 16.7 16.9 21.8 22.8 22.6 23.6 25.6 22.6
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

            Our three-year net average survival ratio excluding commutations, policy buy-backs, and settlement agreements is viewed to be another measure of current reserve adequacy as it determinesadequacy. It reflects a more normalized survival ratio by measuring the impact over three years and by excluding from payments amounts no longer carried in the reserves and not viewed in this ratio as a continuing payment level. Now at 26.825.1 years for asbestos as of December 31, 2005,2006, we consider it to represent a strong reserve position. A one-year increase in the three-year average asbestos survival ratio at December 31, 20052006 would require an after-tax increase in reserves of approximately $33$36 million.

            Our net asbestos reserves by type of exposure and total reserve additions are shown in the following table.

     
     December 31, 2005
     December 31, 2004
     December 31, 2003
     
    (in millions)

     Active
    Policy-
    holders

     Net
    Reserves

     % of
    Reserves

     Active
    Policy-
    holders

     Net
    Reserves

     % of
    Reserves

     Active
    Policy-
    holders

     Net
    Reserves

     % of
    Reserves

     
    Direct policyholders:                      
    —Primary 46 $18 1%52 $23 2%52 $28 3%
    —Excess 333  180 13 322  297 20 286  201 19 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total 379  198 14%374  320 22%338  229 22%
      
          
          
          
    Assumed reinsurance    215 16    222 15    191 17 
    IBNR claims    960 70    922 63    659 61 
        
     
       
     
       
     
     
    Total net reserves   $1,373 100%  $1,464 100%  $1,079 100%
        
     
       
     
       
     
     

    Total reserve additions

     

     

     

    $

    139

     

     

     

     

     

    $

    463

     

     

     

     

     

    $

    514

    (1)

     

     
        
         
         
       

    (1)
    Excludes a $6 million increase in the allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance recoverables.

     
     December 31, 2006
     December 31, 2005
     December 31, 2004
     
    (in millions)

     Active
    Policy-
    holders

     Net
    Reserves

     % of
    Reserves

     Active
    Policy-
    holders

     Net
    Reserves

     % of
    Reserves

     Active
    Policy-
    holders

     Net
    Reserves

     % of
    Reserves

     
    Direct policyholders:                      
    —Primary 47 $15 1%46 $18 1%52 $23 2%
    —Excess 340  214 16 333  180 13 322  297 20 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total 387  229 17%379  198 14%374  320 22%
      
          
          
          
    Assumed reinsurance    203 15    215 16    222 15 
    IBNR claims    943 68    960 70    922 63 
        
     
       
     
       
     
     
    Total net reserves   $1,375 100%  $1,373 100%  $1,464 100%
        
     
       
     
       
     
     

    Total reserve additions

     

     

     

    $

    86

     

     

     

     

     

    $

    139

     

     

     

     

     

    $

    463

     

     

     
        
         
         
       

            During the last three years, 186132 direct primary and excess policyholders reported new claims, and 8783 policyholders were closed, increasing the number of active policyholders by 9949 during the period. The 99 49



    increase comprised 8 from 2006, 5 from 2005 and 36 from 2004 and 58 from 2003.2004. The increase of 58 from 20052006 included 3731 new policyholders reporting new claims and 32the closing of 23 policyholders' claims were closed.claims. Reserve additions for asbestos for the year ended December 31, 2005,2006, totaled $139$86 million and included the following factors:


     
     Year ended
    December 31, 2005

     Year ended
    December 31, 2004

     Year ended
    December 31, 2003

    New Claims(1) 256 361 265
     
     Year ended
    December 31, 2006

     Year ended
    December 31, 2005

     Year ended
    December 31, 2004

    New Claims(1) 245 256 361

            Our non-products case reserves represent approximately 5% of total asbestos case reserves. We do not anticipate significant changes in this percentage as insureds' retentions associated with excess insurance programs and assumed reinsurance exposure are seldom exceeded. We did not write direct primary insurance on policyholders with the potential for significant non-products-related loss exposure.

            For environmental exposures, a comprehensive "ground up" review, using processes similar to those used for the asbestos review, is also conducted in the third quarter of each year. The analysis performed produced a $10 million increase in 2005, 20042006 and 2003 produced essentially no change in reserve estimates.estimates in 2005 or 2004.



            Pending, new, total closed and closed without payment claims for asbestos and environmental exposures for the years ended December 31, are summarized in the following table.

    Number of Claims

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Asbestos              
    Pending, beginning of year 8,630 8,210 6,900  8,806 8,630 8,210 
    New 1,635 1,959 2,267  1,220 1,635 1,959 
    Total closed (1,459)(1,539)(957) (851)(1,459)(1,539)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Pending, end of year 8,806 8,630 8,210  9,175 8,806 8,630 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Closed without payment 829 805 594  596 829 805 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Environmental       
    Pending, beginning of year 4,896 5,775 6,100 
    New 612 689 1,125 
    Total closed (737)(1,568)(1,450)
            
     
     
     
    Pending, end of year 4,771 4,896 5,775 
     
     
     
     
    Closed without payment 513 1,115 1,006 
     
     
     
     



    Environmental

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Pending, beginning of year 5,775 6,100 7,352 
    New 689 1,125 954 
    Total closed (1,568)(1,450)(2,206)
      
     
     
     
    Pending, end of year 4,896 5,775 6,100 
      
     
     
     
    Closed without payment 1,115 1,006 1,776 
      
     
     
     

            Our reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures could be affected by tort reform, class action litigation, and other potential legislation and judicial decisions. Environmental exposures could also be affected by a change in the existing federal Superfund law and similar state statutes. There can be no assurance that any reform legislation will be enacted or that any such legislation will provide for a fair, effective and cost-efficient system for settlement of asbestos or environmental claims. We are unable to determine the effect, if any, that such legislation will have on results of operations or financial position.

            Reserves for Other Discontinued Lines provide for remaining loss and loss expense liabilities related to business no longer written by us, other than asbestos and environmental, and are presented in the following table.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
    Other mass torts $203 $205 $234
    Workers' compensation  151  152  132
    Commercial and other  245  274  135
      
     
     
    Other discontinued lines $599 $631 $501
      
     
     

            Other mass torts describes direct excess and reinsurance general liability coverage provided for cumulative injury losses other than asbestos and environmental. Workers' compensation and commercial and other include run-off from discontinued direct primary, direct excess and reinsurance commercial insurance operations of various coverage exposures other than asbestos and environmental. Reserves are based on considerations similar to those previously described, as they relate to the characteristics of specific individual coverage exposures.

            We believe that our reserves are appropriately established based on assessments of pertinent factors and characteristics of exposure (e.g. claim activity, potential liability, jurisdiction, products versus non-products exposure) presented by individual policyholders, assuming no change in the legal, legislative or economic environment. Another comprehensive "ground up" review will be completed in the third quarter of 2006, as well as assessments each quarter to determine if any intervening significant events or developments require an interim adjustment to reserves.

            Property-Liability Reinsurance Ceded    For Allstate Protection, we utilize reinsurance to reduce exposure to catastrophe risk and manage capital while lessening earnings volatility and improving shareholder return, and to support the required statutory surplus and the insurance financial strength ratings of certain subsidiaries such as Allstate Floridian Insurance Company ("AFIC") and Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company. We purchase significant reinsurance where we believe the greatest benefit may be achieved relative to our aggregate countrywide exposure. The price and terms of reinsurance and the credit quality of the reinsurer are considered in the purchase process, along with whether the price can be appropriately reflected in the costs that are considered in setting future rates charged to policyholders. We also participate in various reinsurance mechanisms, including industry pools and facilities, which are backed by the financial resources of the property-liability insurance company participants, and have



    historically purchased reinsurance to mitigate long-tail liability lines, including environmental, asbestos and other discontinued lines exposures. We retain primary liability as a direct insurer for all risks ceded to reinsurers.

            The impacts of reinsurance on our reserve for claims and claims expense at December 31 are summarized in the following table, net of allowances we have established for uncollectible amounts.


     Gross claims and
    claims expense
    reserves

     Reinsurance
    recoverable on
    paid and unpaid
    claims, net

     Reserve for Property-Liability
    insurance claims
    and claims expense

     Reinsurance recoverables, net
    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2005
     2004
     2006
     2005
     2006
     2005
    Industry pools and facilities $2,811 $2,217 $2,241 $1,596 $1,920 $2,811 $1,325 $2,241
    Asbestos and environmental 2,457 2,708 1,003 1,045 2,447 2,457 930 1,003
    Other including allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance recoverables 16,849 14,413 126 86 14,499 16,849 79 126
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Property-Liability $22,117 $19,338 $3,370 $2,727 $18,866 $22,117 $2,334 $3,370
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

            When purchasing reinsurance, we evaluate the financial condition         Reinsurance recoverables include an estimate of the reinsurer, as well asamount of property-liability insurance claims and claims expense reserves that may be ceded under the terms of the reinsurance agreements, including incurred but not reported unpaid losses. We calculate our ceded reinsurance estimate based on the terms of each applicable reinsurance agreement, including an estimate of how IBNR losses will ultimately be ceded under the agreement. We also consider other limitations and price of coverage. Estimating amountscoverage exclusions under our reinsurance agreements. Accordingly, our estimate of reinsurance recoverables is also impacted by thesubject to similar risks and uncertainties involved in the establishmentas our estimate of loss reserves.reserve for property-liability claims and claims expense. We believe the recoverables are appropriately established; however, as our underlying reserves continue to develop, the amount ultimately recoverable may vary from amounts currently recorded. We regularly evaluate the reinsurers and the respective amounts recoverable, and a provision for uncollectible reinsurance is recorded if needed. The establishment of reinsurance recoverables and the related allowance for uncollectible reinsurance recoverables is also an inherently uncertain process involving estimates. Changes in estimates could result in additional changes to the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

            The allowance for uncollectible reinsurance relates to Discontinued Lines and Coverages reinsurance recoverables and was $235 million and $213 million at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. These amounts represent 20.5% and 17.3%, respectively of the related reinsurance recoverable balances. The allowance is based upon our ongoing review of amounts outstanding, length of collection periods, changes in reinsurer credit standing, and other relevant factors. In addition, in the ordinary course of business, we may become involved in coverage disputes with certain of our reinsurers which may ultimately result in lawsuits and arbitrations brought by or against such reinsurers to determine the parties' rights and obligations under the various reinsurance agreements. We employ dedicated specialists to manage reinsurance collections and disputes. We also consider recent developments in commutation activity between reinsurers and cedants, and recent trends in arbitration and litigation outcomes in disputes between cedants and reinsurers in seeking to maximize our reinsurance recoveries.

            Adverse developments in the insurance industry have recently led to a decline in the financial strength of some of our reinsurance carriers, causing amounts recoverable from them and future claims ceded to them to be considered a higher risk. Recently thereThere has also been consolidation activity in the industry, which causes reinsurance risk across the industry to be concentrated among fewer companies. In addition, over the last several years the industry has increasingly segregated asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines exposures into separate legal entities with dedicated capital. Regulatory bodies in certain cases have supported these actions. We are unable to determine the impact, if any, that these developments will have on the collectibility of reinsurance recoverables in the future.

            The allowance for uncollectible reinsurance relates to Discontinued Lines and Coverages reinsurance recoverables and was $213 million and $230 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These amounts represent 17.3% and 16.9%, respectively of the related reinsurance recoverable balances.



            The largest reinsurance recoverable balances are shown in the following table at December 31, net of allowances we have established for uncollectible amounts.


     A.M. Best
    Financial
    Strength
    Rating

     Reinsurance recoverable on paid and unpaid claims, net

     A.M. Best
    Financial
    Strength
    Rating

     Reinsurance recoverable on
    paid and unpaid claims, net

    (in millions)

      
     2005
     2004
    (in millions)

      
     2006
     2005
    Industry pools and facilities      Industry pools and facilities      
    Michigan Catastrophic Claim Association ("MCCA") N/A $1,043 $831Michigan Catastrophic Claim Association ("MCCA") N/A $1,022 $1,043
    National Flood Insurance Program N/A 743 27
    New Jersey Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment FundNew Jersey Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund N/A 127 157
    FHCF N/A 229 486FHCF N/A 70 229
    New Jersey Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund N/A 157 176
    North Carolina Reinsurance Facility N/A 69 73North Carolina Reinsurance Facility N/A 67 69
    National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP")National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP") N/A 33 743
    Other N/A  3Other   6 
       
     
       
     
    Total   2,241 1,596Total   1,325 2,241
       
     
       
     

    Asbestos and environmental and Other

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Asbestos and environmental and Other

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Lloyd's of London ("Lloyd's") A 247 236Lloyd's of London ("Lloyd's") A 271 247
    Employers Reinsurance Corporation A 91 87Employers Reinsurance Corporation A 85 91
    Turegum Vers.Ges.Ag N/A 57 52
    Harper Insurance LimitedHarper Insurance Limited N/A 67 57
    Clearwater Insurance Company A 51 52Clearwater Insurance Company A 45 51
    Ace American Reinsurance Corporation B- 40 44
    New England Reinsurance Corporation N/A 40 51
    SCORSCOR A 41 29
    Other, including allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance recoverables N/A 603 609Other, including allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance recoverables   500 654
       
     
       
     
    Total   1,129 1,131Total   1,009 1,129
       
     
       
     
    Total Property-Liability   $3,370 $2,727
       
     
    Total Property-Liability   $2,334 $3,370
       
     

            The effects of reinsurance ceded on our property-liability premiums earned and claims and claims expense for the years ended December 31, are summarized in the following table.

    (in millions)

     2006
     2005
     2004
    Ceded property-liability premiums earned $1,113 $586 $399
      
     
     
    Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense         
     Industry pool and facilities         
      FHCF $146 $197 $703
      NFIP  32  3,298  171
      MCCA  36  267  325
      Other  71  73  96
      
     
     
     Subtotal industry pools and facilities  285  3,835  1,295
    Asbestos and environmental and other  178  182  304
      
     
     
    Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense $463 $4,017 $1,599
      
     
     

            For the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, ceded property-liability premiums earned increased $527 million and $187 million, respectively, when compared to prior years, as a result of amounts incurred for catastrophe reinsurance when compared to the prior year.



            Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense decreased in 2006 primarily as a result of lower catastrophe loss experience, resulting in lower cessions to the FHCF and the NFIP and lower cessions to the MCCA. Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense increased in 2005 as a result of the 2005 and 2004 catastrophes, including cessions to the NFIP. Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense for asbestos and environmental and other claims were primarily the result of reserve reestimates. For further discussion see the Discontinued Lines and Coverages Segment and Property-Liability Claims and Claims Expense Reserves sections of our MD&A.

            For a detailed description of the MCCA, FHCF and Lloyd's, see Note 9 of the consolidated financial statements. At December 31, 2005,2006, other than the recoverable balances listed above, no other amount due or estimated to be due from any single Property-Liability reinsurer was in excess of $29$30 million.

            Allstate sells and administers policies as a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP").NFIP. Ceded premiums earned include $232 million, $199 million and $181 million, in 2006, 2005, and $169 million, in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively, and ceded losses incurred include $32 million, $3.30 billion and $171 million, in 2006, 2005 and $64 million, in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively, for this program. Under the arrangement, the Federal Government is obligated to pay all claims. The NFIP has no impact on our net income or financial position and is included net of ceded premiums and losses with our other personal lines business.business in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. We receive expense allowances from NFIP as reimbursement for underwriting administration, commission, claims management and adjuster fees. These policies are not included in any of our core business statistics such as PIF, new net premiums written, loss ratio, combined ratio or catastrophe losses.

            We enter into certain inter-company insurance and reinsurance transactions for the Property-Liability operations in order to maintain underwriting control and manage insurance risk among various legal entities. These reinsurance agreements have been approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities. All significant inter-company transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

            An affiliate of the company, Allstate Texas Lloyd's ("ATL"), a syndicate insurance company, cedes 100% of its business net of reinsurance with external parties to AIC. At December 31, 2006 and 2005, ATL hashad $58 million and $250 million, respectively, of reinsurance recoverable primarily related to losses incurred from Hurricane Rita.



    Catastrophe Reinsurance

            Our Allstate Protectionpersonal lines catastrophe reinsurance has beenprogram is designed, utilizing our risk management methodology, to coordinate coverage provided under various treaties.address our exposure to catastrophes nationwide. Our program provides reinsurance protection to us for catastrophes including storms named or numbered by the National Weather Service, earthquakes and fires following earthquakes.

            As discussed below, our reinsurance program is composedcomprised of treatiesagreements that provide coverage for the occurrence of certain qualifying catastrophes in specific states including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Texas ("multi-year"); other states along the southern and eastern coasts ("South-East") principally for hurricanes; in California for fires following earthquakes ("California fires following"); in New Jersey for losses in excess of the multi year agreement ("New Jersey excess") and in Kentucky for earthquakes and fires following earthquakes ("Kentucky"). Another reinsurance agreement provides coverage nationwide, excluding Florida, for the aggregate or sum of catastrophe losses in excess of an annual retention associated with storms named or numbered by the National Weather Service, earthquakes and fires following earthquakes ("aggregate excess").

            During January 2007, we completed the renewal of our aggregate excess, South-East and New Jersey excess reinsurance contracts, opted to expand coverage in the existing multi-year contracts for New Jersey and Texas and added a new agreement covering Kentucky earthquake and fires following



    earthquakes. These contracts will be effective June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008, with the exception of the aggregate excess contract which is effective June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2009. The aggregate excess contract has a 5% retention by Allstate in the first year and a 20% retention by Allstate in the second year. We also expect to place contracts for the state specific personal linesof Florida later this year, once the state's recent legislative actions have been assessed, and should become effective on June 1, 2007 for the beginning of the hurricane catastrophe exposures, withseason. The Florida component of the reinsurance program is designed separately from the other components of the program to address the distinct needs of our separately capitalized legal entities in that state.

            The multi-year agreements have various retentions and limits. In addition,limits designed commensurate with the amount of catastrophe risk, measured on an annual basis, in each covered state. A description of these retentions and limits appears in the following tables and charts. The multi-year, California fires following, New Jersey excess, South-East and Kentucky agreements cover qualifying losses related to a specific qualifying event in excess of the agreement's retention. Reinsurance recoveries under each agreement are equal to the qualifying losses in excess of the agreement's retention for a specific event multiplied by the percentage of reinsurance placed up to the agreement's occurrence limit.

            We estimate that the total annualized cost of all reinsurance programs will be approximately $770 million per year or $193 million per quarter, including an estimate for reinsurance coverage in Florida. This is compared to annualized cost of approximately $800 million per year during the 2006 hurricane season, for an estimated decrease of $30 million on an annualized basis due to lower expected cost of coverage in Florida. On a calendar year basis, we estimate a cost of $193 million per quarter during 2007, for a total of $770 million, including an estimate for reinsurance coverage in Florida. This represents an estimated increase of $165 million over the 2006 calendar year due to the effective dates of the contracts. During 2006, our actual costs were $73 million in the first quarter, $114 million in the second quarter, $211 in the third quarter and $209 million in the fourth quarter of 2006 for a total of $607 million during the year. We currently expect that a similar level of coverage will be purchased or renewed for the comparable 2008 period. The actual placement of the Florida program, includescontractual redeterminations and risk transfers of certain catastrophe and other liability exposures during 2007 may cause our total annualized cost to differ from our current estimates.

            We continue to aggressively seek to cover our reinsurance cost in premium rates. Through the end of 2006, we have submitted more than 350 rate filings in 29 states related to the cost of our reinsurance programs. Including rates approved in Florida and other states related to our reinsurance programs, rates currently effective reflect approximately 40% of the total cost of our reinsurance programs, and will be included in premiums written during 2007. We expect rates will be in effect which will reflect over 50% of the total cost of these reinsurance programs by the end of 2007, and be included in premiums written during 2008.

            Since the financial condition of the reinsurer is a critical deciding factor when entering into an aggregate excess agreement, the majority of the limits of these programs are placed with reinsurers who currently have an A.M. Best insurance financial strength rating of A+ or better. The remaining limits are placed with reinsurers who currently have an A.M. Best insurance financial strength rating no lower than A-, with three exceptions. Two of the three exceptions have a Standard and Poors rating of AA- and we will have collateral for the entire contract limit exposure for the third reinsurer which is not rated by either rating agency. Because of these ratings, we do not expect that our ability to cede losses in the future will be impaired.


            The terms, retentions and limits Allstate Protection's personal lines propertyfor Allstate's catastrophe management reinsurance agreements in place as of June 1, 2007 are listed in the following table.

    (in millions)

     Effective Date
     %
    Placed

     Reinstatement
     Retention
     Per Occurrence
    Limit

    Coordinated coverage            
    Aggregate excess(1) 6/1/2007 95 for year 1; 80 for year 2 None $2,000 $2,000

    California fire following(2)

     

    2/1/2006

     

    95

     

    2 limits over 28 month term, prepaid

     

     

    520

     

     

    1,500

    Multi-year(3):

     

    6/1/2005

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Connecticut

     

     

     

    95

     

    2 limits over remaining term, prepaid

     

     

    129

     

     

    200

    New Jersey

     

     

     

    95

     

    1 reinstatement each contract year over 3-year term, premium required

     

     

    140

     

     

    300

    New York(4)

     

     

     

    90

     

    2 limits over remaining term, prepaid

     

     

    830

     

     

    1,000

    Texas(5)

     

     

     

    95

     

    2 limits over remaining term, prepaid

     

     

    399

     

     

    750

    New Jersey excess(6)

     

    6/1/2007

     

    95

     

    1 reinstatement, premium required

     

     

    440

     

     

    200

    South-East(7)

     

    6/1/2007

     

    95

     

    1 reinstatement premium required

     

     

    500

     

     

    500

    Kentucky(8)

     

    6/1/2007

     

    95

     

    1 reinstatement, premium required

     

     

    10

     

     

    40

    Coordinated Coverage

    (1)
    Aggregate Excess—This agreement has a one year term, effective 6/1/2007 to 5/31/2008, and auto catastrophea two year term, effective 6/1/2007 to 5/31/2009. It covers the aggregation of qualifying losses for storms named or numbered by the National Weather Service, earthquakes and fires following earthquakes in excess of $2 billion in aggregated losses up to the treaty limit of $2 billion, excluding Florida. Losses recovered, if any, from the state specific treaties are excluded when determining the retention of the aggregate excess agreement.

            Multi-year individual state reinsurance treaties cover personal property excess catastrophe losses in seven states: Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas through May 31, 2008 and Florida through May 31, 2007 (the "multi-year treaties"). The annual retentions and limits on these treaties in effect since June 1, 2005 are shown in the following table.

    State
     % Placed
     Annual Retention
    (in millions)

     Limit
    (in millions)

    Connecticut 95 $100 $200
    New Jersey 95 100  100
    New York 90 750  1,000
    North Carolina 10 80  175
    South Carolina 10 97  435
    Texas(2) 95 320  550
    Florida 90 Excess of FHCF
    Reimbursement(1)
      900

    (1)
    The FHCF provides 90% reimbursement of qualifying personal property losses up to an estimated maximum. Currently, this maximum is estimated to be $945 million in excess of Allstate's retention of $262 million for the two largest hurricanes and $87 million for other hurricanes.

    (2)
    Reinsurance is recoverable by ATL, a syndicate insurance company. ATL also has a 100% reinsurance agreement with AIC covering losses in excess of and/or not reinsured by the Texas treaty.

            The annual retentions and limits on the agreements expected to be in place during 2006 are shown in the following table. For further discussion of these reinsurance agreements, see Note 9 of the consolidated financial statements.


     
     Effective
    Date

     %
    Placed

     Reinstatement/Limits
     Annual Retention
    (in millions)

     Limit
    (in millions)

    Aggregate excess(1) 6/1/2006 95 None $2,000 $2,000

    California fire following(2)

     

    2/1/2006

     

    95

     

    2 limits over 28 month term and as noted above

     

    500

     

     

    1,500

    Multi-year(3):

     

    6/1/2005
    (as revised effective 6/1/2006)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Connecticut

     

     

     

    95

     

    2 limits over 3-year term

     

    100

     

     

    200

    New Jersey

     

     

     

    95

     

    1 reinstatement over 3-year term with reinstatement premium required

     

    100

     

     

    200

    New York(4)

     

     

     

    90

     

    2 limits over 3-year term

     

    750

     

     

    1,000

    Texas(5)

     

     

     

    95

     

    2 limits for each year over 3-year term

     

    320

     

     

    650

    Florida

     

     

     

    90

     

    2 limits over 2-year term

     

    Excess of FHCF
    Reimbursement(6)

     

     

    900

    New Jersey(7)

     

    6/1/2006

     

    95

     

     

     

    Excess of New Jersey
    Multi-year treaty

     

     

    300

    (1)
    Aggregate Excess Agreement—This agreement is effective 6/1/2006 for 1 year and covers storms named or numbered by the National Weather Service, earthquakes, and fires following earthquakes for the Allstate and Encompass brandProtection personal lines auto and property business countrywide, except for Florida.Florida, in excess of $2 billion in aggregated losses per contract year. Losses recovered,recoverable if any, from our California firefires following, agreement, multi-year, treaties and any new New Jersey agreementexcess, South-East and Kentucky agreements are excluded when determining the retention of this agreement. The one year contract is 15% placed or $.3 billion of the total $2 billion limit. The two year term contract is 80% placed or $1.6 billion of the total $2 billion limit leaving Allstate the option to place up to an additional 15% in year two. The aggregate excess agreement in effect for 6/1/2006 to 5/31/2007 was placed prior to the South-East agreement and accordingly did not provide for its consideration.


    The preliminary reinsurance premium is subject to redetermination for exposure changes.

    (2)
    California Fire Following Agreement—This agreement is effective 2/1/2006 and expires 5/31/2008. This agreement covers Allstate and Encompass brandProtection personal property excess catastrophe losses in California for fires following earthquakes. This agreement provides in total $3$1.5 billion of coverage for all qualifying losses with one reinstatement except when a qualifying loss occurrence exceeds $2 billion, then for 21 days no additional recovery can occur for any losses within the same seismic geographically affected area. The retention on this agreement is subject to remeasurement.


    (3)
    Multi-year Treaties—Agreements—These treatiesagreements have been in effect since 6/1/2005 and cover the Allstate brand personal property excess catastrophe losses, expiring 5/31/2008, except for the treaty in Florida. The Florida treaty provides coverage for property policies written by Allstate Floridian and it expires 5/31/2007. This chart reflects our expectation that we will expand coverage limits by $100 million per year on the New Jersey and Texas treaties effective 6/1/2006, and that we expect to terminate the existing treaties in North Carolina and South Carolina on 5/31/2006.2008. The retentions limits and/or reinsurance premiums on these treatiesagreements are also subject to annual remeasurements on their anniversary dates. The Company is planning to elect $100 million of additional coverage effective 6/1/2007 in the states of Texas and New Jersey.

    (4)
    Two separate reinsurance treatiesagreements provide coverage for catastrophe risks in the Statestate of New York: AIC has a $500,000,000$512 retention and a $550,000,000$550 limit, and Allstate Indemnity Company ("AI") has a $250,000,000$318 retention and a $450,000,000$450 limit.

    (5)
    The Texas treatyagreement is with ATL, a syndicate insurance company. ATL also has a 100% reinsurance agreement with AIC covering losses in excess of and/or not reinsured by the Texas treaty.agreement.

    (6)
    FHCF—New Jersey Excess—This agreement is effective 6/1/2007 for 1 year and covers Allstate Protection personal property catastrophe losses in excess of the New Jersey multi-year agreement.

    (7)
    South-East—This agreement is effective 6/1/2007 for 1 year and covers Allstate Protection personal property excess catastrophe losses for storms named or numbered by the National Weather Service. This agreement covers personal property business in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island and the District of Columbia. The South-East agreement in effect for 6/1/2006 to 5/31/2007 did not cover business in Rhode Island, provided one reinstatement of $180 million of the $400 million limit placed and was 80% placed.


    The preliminary reinsurance premium is subject to redetermination for exposure changes.

    (8)
    Kentucky—This agreement is effective 6/1/2007 for one-year and covers Allstate Protection's personal property excess catastrophe losses for earthquakes and fires following earthquakes.

            Highlights of certain other contract terms and conditions for all of Allstate's catastrophe management reinsurance agreements effective June 1, 2007 are listed in the following table.


    South-East
    Aggregate Excess
    Multi-year, New Jersey excess, California fires
    following and Kentucky

    Business ReinsuredPersonal Lines
    Property business
    Personal Lines
    Property and Auto business
    Personal Lines
    Property business

    Location (s)


    11 states and Washington, DC


    Nationwide except Florida


    Each specific state

    Covered Losses


    1 specific peril—storms named or numbered by the National Weather Service


    3 specific perils—storms named or numbered by the National Weather Service, earthquakes, and fires following earthquakes


    Multi-year and New Jersey excess: multi-perils—includes hurricanes and earthquakes
    California fires following: 1 specific peril—fires following earthquakes
    Kentucky—earthquakes and fires following earthquakes.

    Brands Reinsured


    Allstate Brand
    Encompass Brand


    Allstate Brand
    Encompass Brand


    Multi-year: Allstate Brand
    New Jersey excess, California fires following, Kentucky: Allstate Brand and Encompass Brand


    Exclusions, other than typical market negotiated exclusions


    Automobile
    Terrorism
    Commercial


    Assessment exposure to
    CEA
    Terrorism
    Commercial


    Automobile
    Terrorism
    Commercial


    Loss Occurrence




    Sum of all qualifying losses from named or numbered storms by the National Weather Service over 96 hours




    Sum of all qualifying losses and sum of all qualifying occurrences (Aggregate)

    Losses over 96 hours from a named or numbered storm

    Losses over 168 hours for an earthquake

    Losses over 168 hours within a 336 hour period for fires following an earthquake




    Sum of all qualifying losses for a specific occurrence over 168 hours

    Windstorm related occurrences over 96 hours

    Riot related occurrences over 72 hours

    California fires following occurrences over 168 hours. No additional recovery can occur for any losses within the same seismic geographically affected area for an additional 336 hours when a qualifying loss exceeds $2 billion. Kentucky earthquake and fires following earthquake occurrences over 336 hours.

    Loss adjustment expenses included within ultimate net loss


    10% of qualifying losses


    10% of qualifying losses


    Multi-year and California fires following: actual expenses
    New Jersey excess and Kentucky: 10% of qualifying losses

            Currently, the Company has reinsurance programs in place that will be expiring May 31, 2007 including the aggregate excess, South-East and New Jersey excess which have similar retentions, limits and placement (South-East increased from 80% placed in 2006 to 95% placed in 2007) as described above. In addition, Allstate Floridian has in-force four separate reinsurance agreements effective June 1, 2006 for one year, and an excess of loss agreement effective June 1, 2005 expiring on May 31, 2007, all of which cover personal property excess catastrophe losses in Florida. These agreements, listed below, coordinate coverage with the FHCF. For both Royal Palm 1 and the Universal arrangement, we have agreed to share recoveries from the FHCF and certain of our reinsurance agreements, as these recoveries



    pertain to policies included in these arrangements, in proportion to total losses and recoveries and limited to coverage available. We anticipate that we will have a similar agreement to share recoveries on the Royal Palm 2 agreement.

      FHCF Retention—provides coverage on $100 million of losses in excess of $50 million and is 70% placed.

      FHCF Sliver—provides coverage on 10% co-participation of the FHCF payout (estimated at $476 million), or $48 million, and is 100% placed.

      Excess of loss agreement—provides 90% reimbursement for $900 million of Allstate Floridian's property catastrophe losses in excess of the FHCF retention and reimbursement. While the limit is $900 million, $200 million of this limit was acquired by Royal Palm.

      Excess of loss sliver—provides coverage on half of Allstate's 10% retention on our existing excess of loss agreement, or $45 million (5% placed of $900 million limit), and is 100% placed.

      Additional excess of loss—provides coverage on $200 million of losses in excess of the FHCF and our existing additional excess of loss agreement once $100 million has been reimbursed by the FHCF for prior event(s) and after recovery under the excess of loss agreement. This agreement is 95% placed, and is adjusted to only exclude policies reinsured by Universal.

    The FHCF provides 90% reimbursement ofon qualifying personalAllstate Floridian property losses up to an estimated maximum. Currently, thiscombined maximum is estimated to be $945of $753 million in excess of Allstate'sa combined retention of $262$254 million for each of the two largest hurricanes and $87a retention of $85 million for all other hurricanes. These estimates are subject to annual remeasurements athurricanes for the season beginning June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007, as each of the four companies comprising Allstate Floridian has separate estimated reinsurance maximum reimbursements and limits. New property legislation enacted in 2007 added a temporary emergency additional coverage option ("TEACO") that is below the mandatory FHCF fiscal yearcoverage retention and a temporary increase in coverage limits option ("TICL") that has optional layers of 6/1. This is an annual programcoverage with a first season and second seasonlimits above the mandatory FHCF coverage provision.

    (7)
    New Jersey Agreement—This agreement is being contemplated, but has not yet been placed. This agreement is expected to be effective 6/1/2006.

    limit. We anticipate thatare currently assessing the total cost of these agreements will be approximately $600 million per year or $150 million per quarter. This represents an increase of approximately $400 million per year or $100 million per quarter over our current cost, once these agreements are fully placed and effective. Based on the effective dates of these agreements, our costs are expected to be approximately $60 million in the first quarter of 2006, $100 million in the second quarter of 2006 and $150 million in the third and fourth quarters of 2006. We will aggressively seek regulatory approvals, despite the challenging regulatory environment in each state, to include reinsurance costs in our premium rates in order to mitigate the impactimpacts of this increase. We currently expect that this level or a similar levellegislation on our 2007 reinsurance program for the state.

            As of reinsurance coverage will be purchased or renewed for 2007.December 31, 2006 we have not ceded any losses related to 2006 catastrophic events.

    ALLSTATE FINANCIAL 20052006 HIGHLIGHTS


    (in millions)

     2006
     2005
     Change
     
    Favorable/(unfavorable)          
    Life and annuity premiums and contract charges $136 $416 $(280)
    Net investment income  17  51  (34)
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments(1)  1  4  (3)
    Contract benefits  (13) (148) 135 
    Interest credited to contractholder funds(2)  (21) (57) 36 
      
     
     
     
     Gross margin(4)  120  266  (146)
    Realized capital gains and losses  (9) (11) 2 
    Amortization of DAC and DSI(3)  (47) (53) 6 
    Operating costs and expenses  (43) (163) 120 
    Loss on disposition of operations  (89)   (89)
      
     
     
     
     Income from operations before income tax expense $(68)$39 $(107)
      
     
     
     

    Investment margin

     

    $

    (3

    )

    $

    (2

    )

    $

    (1

    )
    Benefit margin  13  5  8 
    Contract charges and fees  110  263  (153)
      
     
     
     
    Gross margin(4) $120 $266 $(146)
      
     
     
     

    (1)
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments are reflected as a component of realized capital gains and losses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

    (2)
    For purposes of calculating gross margin, amortization of deferred sales inducements ("DSI") is excluded from interest credited to contractholder funds and aggregated with amortization of DAC due to the similarity in the substance of the two items. Amortization of DSI for variable annuities totaled $3 million and $6 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively.

    (3)
    Amortization deceleration of $55 million was recognized in 2005 for variable annuities.

    (4)
    Gross margin and its components are measures that are not based on GAAP. Gross margin, investment margin and benefit margin are defined on pages 91, 93 and 94, respectively.

    ALLSTATE FINANCIAL SEGMENT

            Overview and Strategy    The Allstate Financial segment is a major provider of life insurance, retirement and investment products, and supplemental accident and health insurance to individual and institutional customers. Allstate Financial's mission is to assist financial services professionals in meeting their clients' financial protection, retirement and investment needs by providing top-tierconsumer-focused products delivered with reliable and efficient service.

            WeOur primary objectives are pursuing the following actions and strategies to improve Allstate Financial's return on equity:equity and position it for profitable growth. In the near-term, this will require us to balance sales goals with new business return targets. Our actions to accomplish these objectives include improving returns on new business by increasing sales of Allstate Financial products through Allstate Agencies, increasing sales of life insurance products, and maintaining and developing focused top-tier products, deepening distribution partner relationships, improving our cost structurediscipline through scale and efficiencies, advancing our enterprise risk management program and leveraging the strength of the Allstate brand name across products and distribution channels.while improving capital efficiency. The execution of our business strategies has and may continue to involve simplifying our business model, and focusing on those products and distribution relationships where we can secure strong leadership positions while generating acceptable returns. This may require modifying the numberreturns and bringing to market a selection of products marketed (for example, through such actions as our exit from the guaranteed investment contract market and the long-term care product market and the sale of our direct response distribution business in 2004); terminating underperforming distribution relationships; merging or disposing of non-strategic legal entities (such as the merger of Glenbrook Life and Annuity Company into Allstate Life Insurance Company ("ALIC") in 2005 and the planned sales of five legal entities); reducing policy administration software systems; and other actions that we may determine are appropriateinnovative, consumer-focused products.

            We plan to successfully execute our business strategies.



            Our individual retail product line includescontinue offering a wide varietysuite of products designed to meet the financial protection, retirementthat protects consumers financially and investment needs of our customers. Individualhelps them better prepare for retirement. Our retail products include deferred and immediate fixed annuities; interest-sensitive, traditional and variable life interest-sensitive life,insurance; supplemental accident and health insurance, variable life, fixed and variable annuitiesinsurance; and funding agreements backing retail medium-term notes. Banking products and services are also offered to customers through the Allstate Bank. Individual retail products are sold through a variety of distribution channels including Allstate exclusive agencies, independent agents (including master brokerage agencies and workplace enrolling agents), and financial service firms such as banks, broker/dealers and specialized structured settlement brokers. Allstate Bank products can also be obtained directly through the Internet and a toll-free number. Our institutional product line consists primarily of funding agreements sold to unaffiliated trusts that use them to back medium-term notes issued to institutional and individual investors.



            Summarized financial data for the years ended December 31 is presented in the following table.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Revenues              
    Life and annuity premiums and contract charges $2,049 $2,072 $2,304  $1,964 $2,049 $2,072 
    Net investment income 3,830 3,410 3,233  4,173 3,830 3,410 
    Realized capital gains and losses 19 1 (85) (77) 19 1 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Total revenues 5,898 5,483 5,452  6,060 5,898 5,483 

    Costs and expenses

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Life and annuity contract benefits (1,615) (1,618) (1,851) (1,570) (1,615) (1,618)
    Interest credited to contractholder funds (2,403) (2,001) (1,846) (2,609) (2,403) (2,001)
    Amortization of DAC (629) (591) (538) (626) (629) (591)
    Operating costs and expenses (632) (634) (672) (468) (632) (634)
    Restructuring and related charges (2) (5) (7) (24) (2) (5)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Total costs and expenses (5,281) (4,849) (4,914) (5,297) (5,281) (4,849)

    Loss on disposition of operations

     

    (13

    )

     

    (24

    )

     

    (46

    )

     

    (92

    )

     

    (13

    )

     

    (24

    )
    Income tax expense (188) (189) (170) (207) (188) (189)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle,
    after-tax
     416 421 322  464 416 421 
    Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, after-tax  (175) (17)   (175)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Net income $416 $246 $305  $464 $416 $246 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

    Investments

     

    $

    75,233

     

    $

    72,530

     

    $

    62,895

     

     

    $

    75,951

     

    $

    75,233

     

    $

    72,530

     
    Separate accounts assets 15,235 14,377 13,425 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Investments, including Separate accounts assets $90,468 $86,907 $76,320 
     
     
     
     

            Life and annuity premiums and contract charges    Premiums represent revenues generated from traditional life, immediate annuities with life contingencies, accident and health and other insurance products that have significant mortality or morbidity risk. Contract charges are revenues generated from interest-sensitive life, variable annuities, fixed annuities and institutional products for which deposits are classified as contractholder funds or separate accounts liabilities. Contract charges are assessed against the contractholder account values for maintenance, administration, cost of insurance and surrender prior to contractually specified dates. As a result, changes in contractholder funds and separate accounts liabilities are considered in the evaluation of growth and as indicators of future levels of revenues. Subsequent to the close of our reinsurance transaction with Prudential Financial Inc. ("Prudential") on June 1, 2006, variable annuity contract charges on the business subject to the transaction are fully reinsured to Prudential and presented net of reinsurance on the Consolidated Statements of Operations (see Note 3 of the consolidated financial statements).



            The following table summarizes life and annuity premiums and contract charges by product.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004(1)
     2003(1)
    Premiums         
    Traditional life $282 $337 $402
    Immediate annuities with life contingencies  197  316  413
    Accident and health and other  439  392  550
      
     
     
    Total premiums  918  1,045  1,365

    Contract charges

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Interest-sensitive life  786  729  688
    Fixed annuities  65  52  37
    Variable annuities  280  246  206
    Institutional products      8
      
     
     
    Total contract charges  1,131  1,027  939
      
     
     
    Life and annuity premiums and contract charges $2,049 $2,072 $2,304
      
     
     

    (1)
    To conform
    (in millions)

     2006
     2005
     2004
    Premiums         
    Traditional life $281 $282 $337
    Immediate annuities with life contingencies  278  197  316
    Accident and health and other  340  439  392
      
     
     
    Total premiums  899  918  1,045

    Contract charges

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Interest-sensitive life  853  786  729
    Fixed annuities  73  65  52
    Variable annuities  139  280  246
      
     
     
    Total contract charges  1,065  1,131  1,027
      
     
     
    Life and annuity premiums and contract charges $1,964 $2,049 $2,072
      
     
     

            Total premiums decreased 2.1% in 2006 compared to 2005. Excluding the impact of the transfer of the loan protection business to the current period presentation,Allstate Protection segment effective January 1, 2006, premiums increased 11.7% in 2006 compared to 2005. This increase in 2006 was attributable primarily to increased premiums on immediate annuities with life contingencies, due to certain prior year amounts have been reclassified.

            The following table summarizespricing refinements and a more favorable pricing environment in 2006. Additionally, in 2006, excluding the impact of the transfer of the loan protection business, accident and health and other premiums and contract charges by distribution channel.increased $14 million due to increased sales of these products.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
    Premiums         
    Allstate agencies $387 $395 $319
    Independent agents  387  356  373
    Specialized brokers  141  243  390
    Other  3  51  283
      
     
     
    Total premiums  918  1,045  1,365

    Contract charges

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Allstate agencies  521  462  440
    Independent agents  305  301  279
    Broker dealers  223  199  172
    Banks  53  35  15
    Specialized brokers  26  27  30
    Other  3  3  3
      
     
     
    Total contract charges  1,131  1,027  939
      
     
     
    Life and annuity premiums and contract charges $2,049 $2,072 $2,304
      
     
     

            Total premiums decreased 12.2% in 2005 compared to 2004 as lower premiums on immediate annuities with life contingencies and traditional life products more than offset higher premiums on accident, health and other premiums. Premiums on immediate annuities with life contingencies declined primarily as a result of pricing actions taken to improve our returns on new business and reflect our current expectations of mortality. Our new pricing hasPricing changes led to a shift in our sales mix from immediate annuities with life contingencies to immediate annuities without life contingencies, which are accounted for as deposits rather than as premiums. The decline in traditional life premiums was primarily due to the absence of certain premiums in 2005 resulting from the disposal of our direct response distribution



    business in 2004. The increase in accident, health and other premiums was primarily attributable to higher underwriting retention.

            Total premiums decreased 23.4%Contract charges declined 5.8% in 20042006 compared to 2003. The decrease was primarily due to the disposal of2005. Excluding contract charges on variable annuities, substantially all of our direct response distributionwhich are reinsured to Prudential effective June 1, 2006, contract charges increased 8.8% in 2006 compared to 2005. The increase was mostly due to higher contract charges on interest-sensitive life products resulting from growth of business which resulted in lower accident and health and other premiums and traditional life premiums. Additionally, 2004 reflects lower premiumsforce. Contract charges on immediatefixed annuities with life contingencies as underwriting actions takenwere slightly higher in 2003 reduced the maximum premium received on individual contracts sold.2006 due to increased surrender charges.

            Contract charges increased 10.1% in 2005 compared to 2004. The increase was due to higher contract charges on interest-sensitive life, variable annuities and, to a lesser extent, fixed annuities. The increase in the interest-sensitive life contract charges werewas attributable to in-force business growth resulting from deposits and credited interest more than offsetting surrenders and benefits. Higher variable annuity contract charges were primarily the result of higher account values and participation fees. Fixed annuity contract charges in 2005 reflect higher surrender charges compared with the prior year.



            Contract charges increased 9.4% in 2004 compared to 2003. The increase was primarily due to higher contract charges on interest-sensitive life and variable annuities. The increase in the interest-sensitive life contract charges was attributable to in-force business growth resulting from deposits and credited interest more than offsetting contract charges, surrenders and benefits. Higher variable annuity contract charges were the result of increased average account values during 2004, reflecting positive investment results during 2003 and 2004. Variable annuity contract charges, as a percent of average separate account values, increased to 175 basis points in 2004 from 166 basis points in 2003 driven by increases in fees charged for our variable annuity benefits on the Allstate Advisor product in addition to a higher percentage of our in-force contracts providing these benefits.

    Contractholder funds represent interest-bearing liabilities arising from the sale of individual and institutional products, such as interest-sensitive life, fixed annuities, bank deposits and funding agreements. The balance of contractholder funds is equal to the cumulative deposits received and interest credited to the contractholder less cumulative contract maturities, benefits, surrenders, withdrawals and contract charges for mortality or administrative expenses.expenses



            The following table shows the changes in contractholder funds.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005(1)
     2004(1)
     
    Contractholder funds, beginning balance $55,709 $47,071 $40,751  $60,040 $55,709 $47,071 

    Impact of adoption of SOP 03-1(1)(2)

     


     

    421

     


     

     


     


     

    421

     

    Deposits

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Fixed annuities (immediate and deferred) 5,926 7,322 5,266 
    Institutional products (primarily funding agreements) 3,773 3,987 2,713 
    Fixed annuities 6,007 5,926 7,322 
    Institutional products (funding agreements) 2,100 3,773 3,987 
    Interest-sensitive life 1,404 1,375 1,074  1,416 1,404 1,375 
    Variable annuity and life deposits allocated to fixed accounts 395 495 893  99 395 495 
    Bank and other deposits 883 701 681  856 883 701 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Total deposits 12,381 13,880 10,627  10,478 12,381 13,880 

    Interest credited

     

    2,404

     

    1,991

     

    1,846

     

     

    2,666

     

    2,404

     

    1,991

     

    Maturities, benefits, withdrawals and other adjustments

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Maturities of institutional products (3,090) (2,518) (2,163) (2,726) (3,090) (2,518)
    Benefits (984) (729) (505) (1,517) (1,348) (1,062)
    Surrenders and partial withdrawals (5,098) (3,438) (2,728) (5,945) (4,734) (3,105)
    Contract charges (698) (655) (622) (749) (698) (655)
    Net transfers to separate accounts (339) (412) (416) (145) (339) (412)
    Fair value hedge adjustments for institutional products (289) 38 131 
    Fair value hedge adjustments 38 (289) 38 
    Other adjustments 44 60 150  (109) 44 60 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Total maturities, benefits, withdrawals and other adjustments (10,454) (7,654) (6,153) (11,153) (10,454) (7,654)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Contractholder funds, ending balance $60,040 $55,709 $47,071  $62,031 $60,040 $55,709 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

    (1)
    To conform to the current period presentation, certain prior period balances have been reclassified.

    (2)
    The increase in contractholder funds due to the adoption of Statement of Position No. 03-1, "Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises for Certain Nontraditional Long-Duration Contracts and for Separate Accounts" ("SOP 03-1") reflects the reclassification of certain products previously included as a component of separate accounts to contractholder funds, the reclassification of deferred sales inducements ("DSI")DSI from contractholder funds to other assets and the establishment of reserves for certain liabilities that are primarily related to income and other guarantees provided under fixed annuity, variable annuity and interest-sensitive life contracts.

            Lower contractholder depositsContractholder funds increased 3.3% and increased surrenders7.8% in 2006 and partial withdrawals as well as higher institutional product maturities contributed to a reduction in the growth rate of2005, respectively. Average contractholder funds increased 5.5% in 2006 compared to 2005 and 13.1% in 2005 compared to 2004. AverageThe reduction in the rate at which contractholder funds grew was due primarily to lower contractholder deposits and increased 13.1%contractholder surrenders and withdrawals.

            Contractholder deposits decreased 15.4% in 20052006 compared to 2005 due to decreased deposits on funding agreements and, to a 16.6%lesser extent, lower variable annuity and life deposits allocated to fixed accounts due to the disposition of substantially all of our variable annuity business through reinsurance effective June 1, 2006. These items were partially offset by higher fixed annuity deposits. Allstate Financial



    prioritizes the allocation of fixed income investments to support sales of retail products having the best opportunity for sustainable growth and return while maintaining a retail market presence. Consequently, sales of institutional products may vary from period to period. In 2006, deposits on institutional products declined 44.3% compared to 2005. Higher fixed annuity deposits in 2006 were the result of a $546 million increase in 2004.deposits on Allstate® Treasury-Linked Annuity contracts. This increase was partially offset by modest declines in deposits on traditional deferred annuities and market value adjusted annuities. These declines were in part impacted by our actions to improve new business returns and reduced consumer demand. Consumer demand for fixed annuities is influenced by market interest rates on short-term deposit products and equity market conditions, which can increase the relative attractiveness of competing investment alternatives.

            Contractholder deposits decreased 10.8% in 2005 compared to 2004 due to lower deposits on fixed annuities. Fixed annuity deposits declined 19.1% in 2005 as lower deposits on traditional deferred fixed annuities and market value adjusted annuities were partially offset by increased deposits on immediate annuities without life contingencies. The decline in fixed annuity deposits resulted from reduced consumer demand relative to certificates of deposit and other short-term investmentsdeposit products due to increases in short-term interest rates without corresponding increases in longer term rates, and pricing actions to increase fixed annuity product returns. A continuation of the current interest rate environment may limit the level of future fixed annuity deposits. Institutional product deposits decreased 5.4% in 2005 compared to 2004. Our institutional business sales remain opportunistic

            Surrenders and as such, institutional product deposits were intermittent during the year.



            Contractholder deposits increased 30.6% in 2004 compared to 2003 due primarily to greater issuances ofpartial withdrawals on deferred fixed annuities, interest-sensitive life policiesproducts and retail and institutional funding agreements. Fixed annuity depositsAllstate Bank products increased 39.0%25.6% in 20042006 compared to 2003 due2005, while the withdrawal rate, based on the beginning of the period contractholder funds balance, increased to strong consumer demand, competitive pricing13.9% for 2006 from 11.7% and effective distribution efforts9.1%, for 2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase in the surrender rate in 2006 was influenced by multiple factors, including the relatively low interest rate environment during the last several years, which reduced reinvestment opportunities and increased the number of policies with little or no surrender charge protection. Also influencing the increase was our bank channel. Institutional product deposits increased 47.0%crediting rate strategies related to renewal business implemented to improve investment spreads on selected contracts. The increase in 2004 comparedsurrenders and partial withdrawals in 2006 is consistent with management's expectation that in the current interest rate environment and with a larger number of contractholders with relatively low or no surrender charges, more contractholders may choose to 2003, largely duemove their funds to favorable market conditions for our funding agreements and the broadeningcompeting investment alternatives. The aging of our customer base through the development and launch of our new Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") registered program in the second quarter of 2004 and our new registered retail funding agreement program in the fourth quarter. The registered programs generated $1.74 billion of new funding agreement deposits during 2004 including $85 million in retail funding agreement deposits.in-force business may cause this trend to continue.

            Surrenders and partial withdrawals increased 48.3%52.5% in 2005 compared to 2004 driven mostly by higher surrenders of market value adjusted annuities due to a portion of these contracts entering a 30-45 day window in which there were no surrender charges or market value adjustments. The lack of surrender charges and market value adjustments combined with the interest rate environment, which included a relatively small difference between short-term and long-term interest rates, caused contractholders to choose competing short-term investment alternatives. The withdrawal rate for 2005, 2004 and 2003 was 11.6%, 9.3% and 8.6%, respectively, based on the beginning of period contractholder funds balance excluding institutional product reserves. Surrenders and withdrawals may vary with changes in interest rates and equity market conditions and the aging of our in-force contracts.

            Separate accounts liabilities represent contractholders' claims to the related separate accounts assets. Separate accounts liabilities primarily arise from the sale of variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies. The following table shows the changes in separate accounts liabilities.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
     
    Separate accounts liabilities, beginning balance $14,377 $13,425 $11,125 

    Impact of adoption of SOP 03-1(1)

     

     


     

     

    (204

    )

     


     

    Variable annuity and life deposits

     

     

    1,877

     

     

    1,763

     

     

    2,284

     
    Variable annuity and life deposits allocated to fixed accounts  (395) (495) (893)
      
     
     
     
    Net deposits  1,482  1,268  1,391 
    Investment results  1,060  1,348  2,393 
    Contract charges  (283) (256) (220)
    Net transfers from fixed accounts  339  412  416 
    Surrenders and benefits  (1,740) (1,616) (1,680)
      
     
     
     
    Separate accounts liabilities, ending balance $15,235 $14,377 $13,425 
      
     
     
     

    (1)
    The decrease in separate accounts due to the adoption of SOP 03-1 reflects the reclassification of certain products previously included as a component of separate accounts to contractholder funds.

            Separate accounts liabilities increased 6.0% as of December 31, 2005 compared to December 31, 2004. This is compared to an increase of 7.1% as of December 31, 2004 compared to December 31, 2003. The decline in the rate at which separate accounts liabilities increased was primarily attributable to less favorable market performance and increased surrenders and benefits, partially offset by higher net deposits. Net variable annuity and life deposits increased 16.9% in 2005 compared to 2004 and declined 8.8% in 2004 compared to 2003. Variable product deposits vary with equity market conditions and consumer preferences related to our product features. Variable annuity contractholders often allocate a



    significant portion of their initial variable annuity contract deposit into a fixed rate investment option. The level of this activity is reflected above in the deposits allocated to fixed accounts, while all other transfer activity between the fixed and separate accounts investment options is reflected in net transfers from fixed accounts. The liability for the fixed portion of variable annuity contracts is reflected in contractholder funds.

    Net investment income increased 9.0% in 2006 compared to 2005 and 12.3% in 2005 compared to 20042004. The 2006 increase was due to increased investment yields and 5.5% in 2004higher average portfolio balances. The higher portfolio yields were primarily due to increased yields on floating rate instruments resulting from higher short-term market interest rates and improved yields on assets supporting deferred fixed annuities. In 2005, the increase compared to 2003. The increase in 20052004 was primarily the result of increased portfolio balances and, to a lesser extent, increased yields on floating rate assets due to higher short-term interest rates and increased income on partnership interests, partially offset by lower yields on fixed income securities. In 2004, the increase compared to 2003 was due to higher portfolio balances partially offset by lower portfolio yields. Higher average portfolio balances in both years resulted from the investment of cash flows from operating and financing activities related primarily to deposits from fixed annuities, institutional funding agreements and interest-sensitive life policies. Investment balances as of December 31, 2005,2006, increased 3.7%1.0% from December 31, 20042005 and increased 15.3%3.7% as of December 31, 20042005 compared to December 31, 2003. The decline in the rate at which investments increased in 2005 compared to 2004 was the result of a lesser increase in contractholder funds and a decline in unrealized capital gains on fixed income securities in 2005 compared with a slight increase in 2004. Changes in portfolio yields are primarily driven by purchases, including reinvestments, of fixed income securities with yields higher or lower than the current portfolio average as well as significant changes in short-term interest rates.


    Net income analysis is presented in the following table.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Life and annuity premiums and contract charges $2,049 $2,072 $2,304  $1,964 $2,049 $2,072 
    Net investment income 3,830 3,410 3,233  4,173 3,830 3,410 
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments(1) 63 49 23  56 63 49 
    Contract benefits (1,615) (1,618) (1,851) (1,570) (1,615) (1,618)
    Interest credited to contractholder funds(2) (2,329) (1,956) (1,846) (2,561) (2,329) (1,956)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Gross margin 1,998 1,957 1,863  2,062 1,998 1,957 

    Amortization of DAC and DSI

     

    (545

    )

     

    (498

    )

     

    (492

    )

    Amortization of DAC and DSI(2)(3)

     

    (729

    )

     

    (545

    )

     

    (498

    )
    Operating costs and expenses (632) (634) (672) (468) (632) (634)
    Restructuring and related charges (2) (5) (7) (24) (2) (5)
    Income tax expense (260) (269) (243) (265) (260) (269)
    Realized capital gains and losses, after-tax 12 (3) (53) (50) 12 (3)
    DAC and DSI amortization relating to realized capital gains and losses, after-tax(3) (103) (89) (30) 36 (103) (89)
    Reclassification of periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments, after-tax (40) (32) (15) (36) (40) (32)
    Loss on disposition of operations, after-tax (12) (6) (29) (62) (12) (6)
    Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle,
    after-tax
      (175) (17)   (175)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Net income $416 $246 $305  $464 $416 $246 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

    (1)
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments are reflected as a component of realized capital gains and losses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

    (2)
    Beginning in 2004,For purposes of calculating gross margin, amortization of DSI is excluded from interest credited to contractholder funds for purposesand aggregated with amortization of calculating gross margin.DAC due to the similarity in the substance of the two items. Amortization of DSI totaled $48 million, $74 million and $45 million in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Prior

    (3)
    Amortization of DAC and DSI relating to realized capital gains and losses is analyzed separately because realized capital gains and losses may vary significantly between periods have not been restated.and obscure trends in our business. Amortization of DAC and DSI relating to realized capital gains and losses was $55 million, $(158) million and $(138) million in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

    Gross margin, a non-GAAP measure, representsis comprised of life and annuity premiums and contract charges, and net investment income, and periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments, less contract benefits and interest credited to contractholder funds excluding amortization of DSI. We reclassifyGross margin also includes periodic settlements and accruals on certain non-hedge derivative instruments into gross(see additional discussion under "investment margin to report them in a manner consistent with the economically hedged investments, replicated assets or product attributes (e.g. net investment income or interest credited to contractholder funds) and by doing so, appropriately reflect trends in product performance."). We use gross margin as a component of our evaluation of the profitability of Allstate Financial's life insurance and financial product portfolio. Additionally, for many of our products, including fixed annuities, variable life and annuities, and interest-sensitive life insurance, the amortization of DAC and DSI is determined based on actual and expected gross margin. Gross margin is comprised of three components that are utilized to further analyze the business: investment margin, benefit margin, and contract charges and fees. We believe gross margin and its components are useful to investors because they allow for the evaluation of income components separately and in the aggregate when reviewing performance. Gross margin, investment margin and benefit margin should not be considered as a substitute for net income and do not reflect the overall profitability of the business. Net income is the GAAP measure that is most directly comparable to these margins. Gross margin is reconciled to Allstate Financial's GAAP net income in the previous table.table above.



            The components of gross margin are reconciled to the corresponding financial statement line items in the following table.

     
     2006
     
    (in millions)

     Investment
    Margin

     Benefit
    Margin

     Contract Charges
    and Fees

     Gross
    Margin

     
    Life and annuity premiums $ $899 $ $899 
    Contract charges    638  427  1,065 
    Net investment income  4,173      4,173 
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments(1)  56      56 
    Contract benefits  (539) (1,031)   (1,570)
    Interest credited to contractholder funds(2)  (2,561)     (2,561)
      
     
     
     
     
      $1,129 $506 $427 $2,062 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     2005
     
    (in millions)

     Investment
    Margin

     Benefit
    Margin

     Contract Charges
    and Fees

     Gross
    Margin

     
    Life and annuity premiums $ $918 $ $918 
    Contract charges    631  500  1,131 
    Net investment income  3,830      3,830 
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments(1)  63      63 
    Contract benefits  (530) (1,085)   (1,615)
    Interest credited to contractholder funds(2)  (2,329)     (2,329)
      
     
     
     
     
      $1,034 $464 $500 $1,998 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     2004(3)
     
    (in millions)

     Investment
    Margin

     Benefit
    Margin

     Contract Charges
    and Fees

     Gross
    Margin

     
    Life and annuity premiums $ $1,045 $ $1,045 
    Contract charges    562  465  1,027 
    Net investment income  3,410      3,410 
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments(1)  49      49 
    Contract benefits  (533) (1,085)   (1,618)
    Interest credited to contractholder funds(2)  (1,956)     (1,956)
      
     
     
     
     
      $970 $522 $465 $1,957 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     2003(3)
     
    (in millions)

     Investment
    Margin

     Benefit
    Margin

     Contract Charges
    and Fees

     Gross
    Margin

     
    Life and annuity premiums $ $1,365 $ $1,365 
    Contract charges    535  404  939 
    Net investment income  3,233      3,233 
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments(1)  23      23 
    Contract benefits  (517) (1,334)   (1,851)
    Interest credited to contractholder funds(2)  (1,846)     (1,846)
      
     
     
     
     
      $893 $566 $404 $1,863 
      
     
     
     
     
     
     2004
     
    (in millions)

     Investment
    Margin

     Benefit
    Margin

     Contract Charges
    and Fees

     Gross
    Margin

     
    Life and annuity premiums $ $1,045 $ $1,045 
    Contract charges    562  465  1,027 
    Net investment income  3,410      3,410 
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments(1)  49      49 
    Contract benefits  (533) (1,085)   (1,618)
    Interest credited to contractholder funds(2)  (1,956)     (1,956)
      
     
     
     
     
      $970 $522 $465 $1,957 
      
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Periodic settlements and accruals on non-hedge derivative instruments are reflected as a component of realized capital gains and losses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

    (2)
    Beginning in 2004,For purposes of calculating gross margin, amortization of DSI is excluded from interest credited to contractholder funds for purposesand aggregated with amortization of calculating gross margin.DAC due to the similarity in the substance of the two items. Amortization of DSI totaled $48 million, $74 million and $45 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Prior periods have not been restated.

    (3)
    2004 and 2003 have been restated

            Gross margin increased 3.2% in 2006 compared to conform2005 due to the current period presentation. In connection therewith, contract charges related to guaranteed minimum death, income, accumulationincreased investment and withdrawal benefits on variable annuities have been reclassified to benefit margin, from maintenance charges. Additionally, amounts previously presented as maintenance charges and surrender charges are now presented in the aggregate aspartially offset by lower contract charges and fees. Further,The decline in contract charges and fees was driven by the absence of contract charges on variable annuities that were reinsured effective June 1,



    2006 in conjunction with Allstate Financial's disposition of substantially all of its variable annuity business. Excluding the impact of the reinsurance of our variable annuity business and the transfer of the loan protection business to the Allstate Workplace Division margins were conformed. These reclassifications did not resultProtection segment effective January 1, 2006, gross margin increased 12.1% in a change in gross margin.


    2006 compared to 2005. Gross margin increased 2.1% in 2005 compared to 2004 and 5.0% in 2004 compareddue to 2003. The increase in both periods was the result of higher investment margin and contract charges and fees, partially offset by lower benefit margin.

    Investment margin is a component of gross margin, both of which are non-GAAP measures. Investment margin represents the excess of net investment income and periodic settlements and accruals on certain non-hedge derivative instruments over interest credited to contractholder funds and the implied interest on life-contingent immediate annuities included in the reserve for life-contingent contract benefits. We utilize derivative instruments as economic hedges of investments or contractholder funds or to replicate fixed income securities. These instruments either do not qualify for hedge accounting or are not designated as hedges for accounting purposes. Such derivatives are accounted for at fair value, and reported in realized capital gains and losses. Periodic settlements and accruals on these derivative instruments are included as a component of gross margin, consistent with their intended use to enhance or maintain investment income and margin, and together with the economically hedged investments or product attributes (e.g., net investment income or interest credited to contractholders funds) or replicated investments, to appropriately reflect trends in product performance. Amortization of DSI is excluded from interest credited to contractholder funds for purposes of calculating investment margin. We use investment margin to evaluate Allstate Financial's profitability related to the difference between investment returns on assets supporting certain products and amounts credited to customers ("spread") during a fiscal period.

            Investment margin by product group is shown in the following table.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004(1)
     2003(1)
     2006
     2005
     2004
    Annuities $683 $623 $546 $771 $683 $623
    Life insurance 219 212 231 223 219 212
    Institutional products 122 121 107 126 122 121
    Bank and other 10 14 9 9 10 14
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total investment margin $1,034 $970 $893 $1,129 $1,034 $970
     
     
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    2004

            Investment margin increased 9.2% in 2006 compared to 2005 primarily due to improved yields on assets supporting deferred fixed annuities, crediting rate actions relating to renewal business and 2003 have been restated to conform to the current period presentation.

    growth in contractholder funds. Investment margin increased 6.6% in 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to growth in our fixed annuity business, partially offset by lower weighted average investment spreads on interest-sensitive life and immediate annuities. Investment margin increased 8.6% in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily due to higher contractholder funds and actions to reduce crediting rates, partially offset by lower portfolio yields. As of December 31, 2005, 71% of our interest-sensitive life and fixed annuity contracts, excluding market value adjusted annuities and equity-indexed annuities, had a guaranteed crediting rate of 3% or higher. Of these contracts, 79% have crediting rates that were at the minimum guaranteed rate at December 31, 2005. The approximate difference between the weighted average crediting rate and the average guaranteed rate on interest-sensitive life and fixed annuity contracts, excluding market value adjusted annuities and equity indexed annuities, was 46 basis points as of December 31, 2005 compared with 52 basis points as of December 31, 2004 and 70 basis points as of December 31, 2003.



            The following table summarizes the annualized weighted average investment yield, interest crediting rates and investment spreads during 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003.2004.

     
     Weighted Average
    Investment Yield

     Weighted Average
    Interest Crediting Rate

     Weighted Average
    Investment Spreads

     
     2005
     2004
     2003
     2005
     2004
     2003
     2005
     2004
     2003
    Interest-sensitive life 6.3% 6.5% 6.9% 4.8% 4.7% 4.9% 1.5% 1.8% 2.0%
    Fixed annuities—deferred annuities 5.5    5.8    6.4    3.8    4.1    4.6    1.7    1.7    1.8   
    Fixed annuities—immediate annuities with and without life contingencies 7.4    7.6    7.9    6.7    6.8    7.1    0.7    0.8    0.8   
    Institutional 4.6    3.1    3.5    3.6    2.1    2.5    1.0    1.0    1.0   
    Investments supporting capital, traditional life and other products 6.2    6.3    6.2    N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

     
     Weighted Average
    Investment Yield

     Weighted Average
    Interest Crediting Rate

     Weighted Average
    Investment Spreads

     
     
     2006
     2005
     2004
     2006
     2005
     2004
     2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Interest-sensitive life 6.2%6.3%6.5%4.7%4.8%4.7%1.5%1.5%1.8%
    Deferred fixed annuities 5.7 5.5 5.8 3.7 3.8 4.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 
    Immediate fixed annuities with and without life contingencies 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.6 6.7 6.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 
    Institutional 6.0 4.6 3.1 5.0 3.6 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 
    Investments supporting capital, traditional life and other products 5.7 6.2 6.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

            The following table summarizes the liabilities as of December 31 for these contracts and policies.

    (in millions)

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
    (in millions)

     2006
     2005
     2004
    Fixed annuities—immediate annuities with life contingencies $7,894 $7,720 $7,433
    Immediate fixed annuities with life contingenciesImmediate fixed annuities with life contingencies $8,144 $7,894 $7,720
    Other life contingent contracts and otherOther life contingent contracts and other 4,588 4,034 3,587Other life contingent contracts and other 4,642 4,588 4,034
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Reserve for life-contingent contracts $12,482 $11,754 $11,020
    Reserve for life-contingent contracts benefits $12,786 $12,482 $11,754
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Interest-sensitive life

    Interest-sensitive life

     

    $

    8,842

     

    $

    8,280

     

    $

    7,536

    Interest-sensitive life

     

    $

    9,050

     

    $

    8,842

     

    $

    8,280
    Fixed annuities—deferred annuities 33,890 31,390 25,917
    Fixed annuities—immediate annuities without life Contingencies 3,603 3,247 2,866
    Deferred fixed annuitiesDeferred fixed annuities 35,533 33,890 31,390
    Immediate fixed annuities without life contingenciesImmediate fixed annuities without life contingencies 3,783 3,603 3,247
    InstitutionalInstitutional 12,431 11,279 9,387Institutional 12,467 12,431 11,279
    Allstate BankAllstate Bank 882 840 806Allstate Bank 773 882 840
    Market value adjustments related to derivative instruments and otherMarket value adjustments related to derivative instruments and other 392 673 559Market value adjustments related to derivative instruments and other 425 392 673
     
     
     
    ��
     
     
    Contractholder funds $60,040 $55,709 47,071Contractholder funds $62,031 $60,040 55,709
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Benefit margin is a component of gross margin, both of which are non-GAAP measures. Benefit margin represents life and life-contingent immediate annuity premiums, cost of insurance contract charges and, prior to the disposal of substantially all of our variable annuity business through reinsurance, variable annuity contract charges for contract guarantees less contract benefits. Benefit margin excludes the implied interest on life-contingent immediate annuities, which is included in the calculation of investment margin. We use the benefit margin to evaluate Allstate Financial's underwriting performance, as it reflects the profitability of our products with respect to mortality or morbidity risk during a fiscal period.

            Benefit margin by product group is shown in the following table.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004(1)
     2003(1)
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Life insurance $544 $572 $654  $549 $544 $572 
    Annuities (80) (50) (88) (43) (80) (50)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Total benefit margin $464 $522 $566  $506 $464 $522 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

    (1)
    2004

            Benefit margin increased 9.1% in 2006 compared to 2005. Benefit margin for 2005 includes $60 million of amounts that were classified as contract charges and 2003 have been restated to conformfees beginning in 2006. Further, benefit margin for 2005 includes $29 million related to the current period presentation.

    loan protection business transferred to Allstate Protection beginning in 2006. Excluding these reclassifications, benefit margin increased 34.9% in 2006 compared to 2005 due primarily to improved life insurance mortality experience in 2006, and to a lesser extent, in force business growth.

            Benefit margin declined 11.1% in 2005 compared to 2004. Our life insurance and annuity business contributed equally to the decline in 2005. The decline in our annuity benefit margin was primarily driven by unfavorable mortality experience on immediate annuities with life contingencies and an increase in variable annuity contract benefits. The decline in our life insurance benefit margin was primarily due to the absence of margin on certain products resulting from the disposal of our direct response distribution business in the prior year and modestly unfavorable mortality experience on our traditional life business, partially offset by growth in our life insurance in force.

            Benefit margin decreased 7.8% in 2004 compared to 2003. This decline was primarily the result of the disposal of substantially all of our direct response distribution business and unfavorable mortality experience on life-contingent immediate annuities, partially offset by an improved benefit margin on life insurance products and lower contract benefits related to guaranteed minimum death benefits ("GMDBs") on variable annuities.



            As required by SOP 03-1, as of January 1, 2004, a reserve was established for death and income benefits provided under variable annuities and secondary guarantees on certain interest-sensitive life contracts and fixed annuities. For variable annuities, the reserve includes GMDBs and guaranteed minimum income benefits ("GMIBs").

            Annuity benefit margin will continue to be adversely impacted by certain closed blocks of life-contingent immediate annuities for which benefit payments are anticipated to extend beyond their original pricing expectations. The annuity benefit margin in future periods will fluctuate based on the timing of annuitant deaths on these life-contingent immediate annuities and the annual evaluation of assumptions used in our valuation models for variable and fixed annuity guarantees.

    Amortization of DAC and DSI, excluding amortization related to realized capital gains and losses, increased 33.8% in 2006 compared to 2005 primarily due to improved gross profits on investment contracts resulting from increased investment and benefit margin, and lower expenses. Additionally, DAC and DSI amortization for 2006 includes a write-off totaling $27 million for the present value of future profits related to a block of corporate owned life insurance policies that terminated due to the bankruptcy of the policyholder. Partially offsetting these increases was the significant reduction in amortization on the variable annuity contracts due to the disposition of this business effective June 1, 2006 through reinsurance. DAC and DSI amortization related to realized capital gains and losses, after-tax, changed by a favorable $139 million in 2006 compared to 2005. The impact of realized capital gains and losses on amortization of DAC and DSI is dependent upon the relationship between the assets that give rise to the gain or loss and the product liability supported by the assets. Fluctuations result from changes in the impact of realized capital gains and losses on actual and expected gross profits.

            The DAC and DSI assets were reduced by $726 million and $70 million, respectively, in 2006 as a result of the disposition of substantially all of Allstate Financial's variable annuity business.

            Amortization of DAC and DSI increased 9.4% in 2005 compared to 2004 as a result of higher gross margin. DAC and DSI amortization related to realized capital gains and losses, after-tax, increased $14 million in 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to increased realized capital gains on investments supporting certain fixed annuities.

            In the first quarter of 2005, we performed our annual comprehensive evaluation of the assumptions used in our valuation models for all investment products, including variable and fixed annuities and interest-sensitive and variable life products, which resulted in net DAC and DSI amortization acceleration of $7 million (commonly referred to as "DAC and DSI unlocking"). The DAC and DSI unlocking includes amortization acceleration on fixed annuities of $62 million and $3 million on interest-sensitive and variable life products, partially offset by amortization deceleration on variable annuities of $58 million. The amortization acceleration on fixed annuities was primarily due to higher than expected lapses on market value adjusted annuities and faster than anticipated investment portfolio yield declines. The amortization deceleration on variable annuities was mostly attributable to better than anticipated equity market performance and persistency in 2004.

            In the prior year, the comparable DAC and DSI unlocking was a net acceleration of amortization of $0.5 million, which included deceleration of amortization related to interest-sensitive life and acceleration of amortization related to fixed annuities.

            Amortization of DAC and DSI increased 1.2% during 2004 compared to 2003. The higher amortization is reflective of increased gross margins on fixed and variable annuities. In 2003, amortization of DAC and DSI included a net acceleration of DAC amortization totaling $89 million and $37 million of DAC amortization on the direct response distribution business sold in 2004.

            The adoption of SOP 03-1 in 2004 required a new modeling approach for estimating expected future gross profits that are used when determining the amortization of DAC. Because of this new modeling approach, effective January 1, 2004, the variable annuity DAC and DSI assets were reduced by $124 million. This reduction was recognized as a component of cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle.



            The changes in the DAC asset are summarized in the following tables.

    (in millions)

     Beginning
    balance
    December 31,
    2004

     Impact of
    Adoption of
    SOP 03-1

     Impact of
    Disposal
    of DR

     Acquisition
    costs
    deferred

     Amortization
    charged to
    income(3)

     Amortization
    (acceleration)
    deceleration
    charged to
    income(1)

     Effect of
    unrealized
    capital
    gains
    and losses

     Ending
    balance
    December 31,
    2005

    Traditional life $581 $ $ $67 $(50)$ $ $598
    Interest-sensitive life  1,529      241  (143) (2) 71  1,696
    Variable annuities  628      110  (106) 55  43  730
    Investment contracts  594      347  (282) (51) 477  1,085
    Accident, health and other  176      83  (50)     209
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total $3,508 $ $ $848 $(631)$2 $591 $4,318
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    (in millions)

     Beginning
    balance
    December 31,
    2003

     Impact of
    Adoption of
    SOP 03-1(2)

     Impact of
    Disposal
    of DR

     Acquisition
    costs
    deferred

     Amortization
    charged to
    income(3)

     Amortization
    (acceleration)
    deceleration
    charged to
    income(1)

     Effect of
    unrealized
    capital
    gains and
    losses

     Ending
    balance
    December 31,
    2004

    Traditional life $720 $(6)$(145)$73 $(61)$ $ $581
    Interest-sensitive life  1,355  18    207  (129) 67  11  1,529
    Variable annuities  766  (143)   123  (134)   16  628
    Investment contracts  453  (7)   429  (231) (59) 9  594
    Accident, health and other  223  4  (93) 86  (44)     176
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total $3,517 $(134)$(238)$918 $(599)$8 $36 $3,508
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    (in millions)

     Beginning balance December 31, 2005
     Impact of Disposal of variable annuities
     Acquisition costs deferred
     Amortization charged to income(1)
     Amortization (acceleration) deceleration charged to income(2)
     Effect of unrealized capital gains and losses
     Ending balance December 31, 2006
    Traditional life $598 $ $72 $(59)$ $ $611
    Interest-sensitive life  1,696    272  (223) (18) 47  1,774
    Variable annuities  730  (726) 46  (46)     4
    Investment contracts  1,085    362  (247) 16  13  1,229
    Accident, health and other  209    70  (49)     230
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total $4,318 $(726)$822 $(624)$(2)$60 $3,848
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    (in millions)

     Beginning
    balance
    December 31,
    2004

     Acquisition
    costs deferred

     Amortization
    charged to
    income(1)

     Amortization
    (acceleration)
    deceleration
    charged to
    income(2)

     Effect of
    unrealized
    capital gains
    and losses

     Ending balance
    December 31,
    2005

    Traditional life $581 $67 $(50)$ $ $598
    Interest-sensitive life  1,529  241  (143) (2) 71  1,696
    Variable annuities  628  110  (106) 55  43  730
    Investment contracts  594  347  (282) (51) 477  1,085
    Accident, health and other  176  83  (50)     209
      
     
     
     
     
     
    Total $3,508 $848 $(631)$2 $591 $4,318
      
     
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Included as a component of Amortization of DAC on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

    (2)
    The impact of adoption of SOP 03-1 includes a write-down in variable annuity DAC of $108 million, the reclassification of DSI from DAC to other assets resulting in a decrease to DAC of $44 million, an increase to DAC of $8 million for an adjustment to the effect of unrealized capital gains and losses and the reclassification of unearned revenue from DAC to contractholder funds resulting in an increase to DAC of $10 million.

    (3)
    The amortization of DAC for interest-sensitive life, variable annuities and investment contracts is proportionate to the recognition of gross profits, which include realized capital gains and losses. Fluctuations in amortization for these products may result as actual realized capital gains and losses differ from the amounts utilized in the determination of estimated gross profits. Amortization related to realized capital gains and losses was $126$50 million and $120$(126) million in 2006 and 2005, and 2004, respectively.

    (2)
    Included as a component of amortization of DAC on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

    Operating costs and expenses decreased 25.9% in 2006 compared to 2005 and declined slightly in 2005 compared to 2004 and decreased 5.7% in 2004 compared to 2003.2004. The following table summarizes operating costs and expenses.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
     2006
     2005
     2004
    Non-deferrable acquisition costs $245 $256 $286 $175 $245 $256
    Other operating costs and expenses 387 378 386 293 387 378
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total operating costs and expenses $632 $634 $672 $468 $632 $634
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Restructuring and related charges $24 $2 $5
     
     
     

            Non-deferrable acquisition costs declined 28.6% in 2006 compared to 2005 due primarily to the transfer of the loan protection business to Allstate Protection effective January 1, 2006 and a reduction in non-deferrable commissions, which was primarily due to the disposal of substantially all of Allstate Financial's variable annuity business effective June 1, 2006. Non-deferrable acquisition costs related to the loan protection business amounted to $39 million in 2005.

            Other operating costs and expenses declined $94 million or 24.3% in 2006 compared to 2005. The disposition of substantially all of our variable annuity business through reinsurance and the transfer of the loan protection business resulted in $51 million of this reduction. The remaining decline relates to a $28 million charge in the prior year for an increase in a liability for future benefits of a previously



    discontinued benefit plan, and expense savings initiatives, including the VTO. For more information on the VTO, see Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

            Non-deferrable acquisition costs declined 4.3% in 2005 compared to 2004 as the prior year included a $15 million charge related to loss experience on certain credit insurance policies. The impact of this charge was partially offset by higher premium taxes and non-deferrable commissions in 2005. Other



    operating costs and expenses increased 2.4% in 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to a $28 million increase in a liability for future benefits of a previously discontinued benefit plan, partially offset by lower employee and technology expenses reflecting our continuing actions to simplify operationsexpenses.

            Restructuring and reduce costs.

            The decline in total operatingrelated charges for 2006 reflect costs and expenses in 2004 compared to 2003 was primarily attributablerelated to the disposal of substantially all of our direct response distribution business. Excluding the impact of the disposition, non-deferrable acquisition costs increased due to higher non-deferrable renewal commissions; taxes, licenses and fees; and the charge related to loss experience on certain credit insurance policies. For other operating costs and expenses, the decline due to the disposition was partially offset by higher technology and employee related expenses.VTO.

            Net income was favorably impacted in 20052006 and 20042005 by adjustments ofto prior years' tax liabilities totaling $10 million and $19 million, and $3 million, respectively. These amounts are presented as a component of income tax expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

    Net realized capital gains and losses are presented in the following table for the years ended December 31.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Investment write-downs $(24)$(82)$(180) $(21)$(24)$(82)
    Dispositions 88 131 71  (87) 88 131 
    Valuation of derivative instruments (105) (55) 6  (17) (105) (55)
    Settlement of derivative instruments 60 7 18  48 60 7 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Realized capital gains and losses, pretax 19 1 (85) (77) 19 1 
    Income tax (expense) benefit (7) (4) 32  27 (7) (4)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Realized capital gains and losses, after-tax $12 $(3)$(53) $(50)$12 $(3)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

            For further discussion of realized capital gains and losses, see the Investments section of MD&A.

            Reinsurance Ceded    We enter into reinsurance agreements with unaffiliated carriers to limit our risk of mortality losses. As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, 48% and 2004, 49%, respectively, of our face amount of life insurance in force was reinsured. As of December 31, 2006, for certain term life insurance policies, we ceded up to 90% of the mortality risk depending on the length of the term. Comparatively, as of December 31, 2005, for certain term life insurance, policies, we ceded 25-90% of the mortality risk depending on the length of the term and policy premium guarantees and the date of policy issuance. Comparatively, as of December 31, 2004, for certain term life insurance policies,guarantees. Additionally, we ceded 25-100%substantially all of the mortality risk. Additionally,risk associated with our variable annuity business and we cede 100% of the morbidity risk on substantially all of our long-term care contracts. SinceBeginning in 2006, we increased our mortality risk retention to $5 million per individual life for certain insurance applications meeting certain criteria. Prior to 2006, but subsequent to October 1998, we have ceded the mortality risk on new life contracts that exceedexceeded $2 million per individual whereaslife. For business sold prior to October 1998, we ceded mortality risk in excess of specific amounts up to $1 million per life for individual coverage. Also, on certain in-force variable annuity contracts we cede 100% of the mortality and certain other risks related to product features.life. We retain primary liability as a direct insurer for all risks ceded to reinsurers.



            The impacts of reinsurance on our reserve for life-contingent contract benefits and contractholder funds at December 31, are summarized in the following table.


     Reinsurance recoverable on
    paid and unpaid claims

     Reinsurance recoverable on paid and unpaid claims
    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2006
     2005
    Annuities(1) $1,654 $172
    Life insurance $1,123 $1,010 1,225 1,123
    Long-term care 412 315 518 412
    Other 275 271 96 103
     
     
     
     
    Total Allstate Financial $1,810 $1,596 $3,493 $1,810
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Reinsurance recoverables as of December 31, 2006 include $1.49 billion for general account reserves related to variable annuities. Substantially all of our variable annuity business was reinsured effective June 1, 2006.

            The estimation of reinsurance recoverables is impacted by the uncertainties involved in the establishment of reserves.

            Developments in the insurance industry have included consolidation activity between reinsurers, which has resulted in reinsurance risk across the industry being concentrated among fewer companies. In 2005, we increased our percentage of underwriting retention of new term life insurance policies by approximately 10-15% on average depending on product mix.

    Our reinsurance recoverables, summarized by reinsurer as of December 31, are shown in the following table.


      
     Reinsurance
    recoverable on paid
    and unpaid claims

      
     Reinsurance
    recoverable on paid
    and unpaid claims


     S&P Financial
    Strength
    Rating

     S&P Financial
    Strength
    Rating

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2006
     2005
    Prudential Insurance Company of America AA- $1,490 $
    Employers Reassurance Corporation A $336 $246 A+ 439 336
    RGA Reinsurance Company AA- 262 230 AA- 295 262
    Transamerica Financial Life Insurance AA 185 146
    Transamerica Life Group AA 233 185
    Swiss Re Life and Health America, Inc. AA 155 144 AA- 161 155
    Paul Revere Life Insurance Company BBB+ 152 156 BBB+ 147 152
    Scottish Re Group A- 123 111 BB 127 123
    Munich American Reassurance A+ 92 82
    Manulife Insurance Company AA+ 87 90 AAA 82 87
    Munich American Reassurance A+ 82 72
    Mutual of Omaha Insurance AA- 76 69 AA- 79 76
    Security Life of Denver AA 70 59 AA 73 70
    American Health & Life Insurance Co. NR 50 60
    Triton Insurance Company NR 62 58 NR 65 62
    Lincoln National Life Insurance AA- 55 52 AA 59 55
    American Health & Life Insurance Co. NR 50 50
    Other(1)   115 103   101 115
       
     
       
     
    Total   $1,810 $1,596   $3,493 $1,810
       
     
       
     

    (1)
    As of December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, the other category includes $71$74 million and $69$71 million, respectively, of recoverables due from reinsurers with an investment grade credit rating from S&P.

            We continuously monitor the creditworthiness of reinsurers in order to determine our risk of recoverability on an individual and aggregate basis, and a provision for uncollectible reinsurance is recorded if needed. No amounts have been deemed unrecoverable in the three-years ended December 31, 2005.2006.



            We enter into certain inter-company reinsurance transactions for the Allstate Financial operations in order to maintain underwriting control and manage insurance risk among various legal entities. These reinsurance agreements have been approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities. All significant inter-company transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

    Allstate Financial Outlook


    INVESTMENTS

            An important component of our financial results is the return on our investment portfolios. Investment portfolios are segmented between the Property-Liability, Allstate Financial and Corporate and Other operations. The investment portfolios are managed based upon the nature of each respective business and its corresponding liability structure.

            Overview and Strategy    The Property-Liability portfolio's investment strategy emphasizes safety of principal and consistent income generation, within a total return framework. This approach, which has produced competitive returns over time, is designed to ensure financial strength and stability for paying claims, while maximizing economic value and surplus growth. We employ a strategic asset allocation model, which takes into account the nature of the liabilities and risk tolerances, as well as the risk/return parameters of the various asset classes in which we invest. The model's recommended asset allocation, along with duration and liquidity considerations, guides our initial asset allocation. This is further adjusted based on our analysis of relative valueother potential market opportunities in different markets.available. Portfolio performance is measured against outside benchmarks at target allocation weights.

            The Allstate Financial portfolio's investment strategy focuses on the need for risk-adjusted spread on the underlying liabilities while maximizing return on capital. We believe investment spread is maximized by selecting assets that perform favorably on a long-term basis and by disposing of certain assets to minimize the effect of downgrades and defaults. We believe this strategy maintains the investment margin necessary to sustain income over time. The portfolio management approach employs a combination of recognized market, analytical and proprietary modeling, including a strategic asset allocation model, as the primary basis for the allocation of interest sensitive, illiquid and credit assets as well as for



    determining overall below investment grade exposure and diversification requirements. Within the ranges set by the strategic asset allocation model, tactical investment decisions are made in consideration of prevailing market conditions.

            The Corporate and Other portfolio's investment strategy balances the pursuit of competitive returns with the unique liquidity needs of the portfolio relative to the overall corporate capital structure. The portfolio is primarily invested in high quality, highly-liquid fixed income and short-term securities with additional investments in less liquid holdings in order to enhance overall returns.



            As a result of tactical decisions in each of the portfolios, we may sell securities during the period in which fair value has declined below amortized cost for fixed income securities or cost for equity securities. Portfolio reviews,monitoring, which includeincludes identifying securities that are other than temporarilyother-than-temporarily impaired and recognizing impairment on securities in an unrealized loss position for which we do not have the intent and ability to hold until recovery, are conducted regularly. For more information, see the Portfolio Monitoring section of the MD&A.

            Portfolio Composition    The composition of the investment portfolios at December 31, 20052006 is presented in the table below. Also see Notes 2 and 5 of the consolidated financial statements for investment accounting policies and additional information.



     Property-Liability
     Allstate Financial(3)
     Corporate and Other(3)
     Total
     
     Property-Liability
     Allstate Financial(3)
     Corporate
    and Other(3)

     Total
     
    (in millions)

    (in millions)

      
     Percent
    to total

      
     Percent
    to total

      
     Percent
    to total

      
     Percent
    to total

     (in millions)

      
     Percent
    to total

      
     Percent
    to total

      
     Percent
    to total

      
     Percent
    to total

     
    Fixed income securities(1)Fixed income securities(1) $32,221 81.4%$63,782 84.8%$2,062 59.1%$98,065 82.9%Fixed income securities(1) $32,791 78.7%$63,956 84.2%$1,573 73.4%$98,320 82.1%
    Equity securities(2)Equity securities(2) 5,765 14.6  331 0.4  68 1.9  6,164 5.2 Equity securities(2) 7,153 17.2  538 0.7  86 4.0  7,777 6.5 
    Mortgage loansMortgage loans 507 1.3  8,241 11.0     8,748 7.4 Mortgage loans 649 1.5  8,818 11.6     9,467 7.9 
    Short-termShort-term 1,075 2.7  1,035 1.4  1,360 39.0  3,470 2.9 Short-term 1,067 2.6  879 1.2  484 22.6  2,430 2.0 
    OtherOther 6   1,844 2.4     1,850 1.6 Other 3   1,760 2.3     1,763 1.5 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
       
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total $39,574 100.0%$75,233 100.0%$3,490 100.0%$118,297 100.0%Total $41,663 100.0%$75,951 100.0%$2,143 100.0%$119,757 100.0%
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
       
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Fixed income securities are carried at fair value. Amortized cost basis for these securities was $31.33$31.96 billion, $61.52$62.37 billion and $1.93$1.45 billion for Property-Liability, Allstate Financial and Corporate and Other, respectively.

    (2)
    Equity securities are carried at fair value. Cost basis for these securities was $4.48$5.41 billion, $325$527 million, and $68$86 million for Property-Liability, Allstate Financial and Corporate and Other, respectively.

    (3)
    Balances reflect the elimination of related party investments between Allstate Financial and Corporate and Other.

            Total investments increased to $119.76 billion at December 31, 2006 from $118.30 billion at December 31, 2005, from $115.53 billion at December 31, 2004, primarily due to positive cash flows from operating activities, includingincreased net unrealized gains on equity securities and increased funds associated with securities lending, partially offset by cash used for share repurchasesthe transfer of funds to Prudential in conjunction with the disposition of Allstate Financial's variable annuity business through reinsurance and decreased net unrealized gains on fixed income securities.

            The Property-Liability investment portfolio decreasedincreased to $41.66 billion at December 31, 2006 from $39.57 billion at December 31, 2005, from $40.27 billion at December 31, 2004, primarily due to positive cash flows from operating activities and increased net unrealized gains on equity securities, partially offset by dividends paid by AIC to The Allstate Corporation and payments of catastrophe claims, partially offset by positive cash flows from other operating activities.Corporation.

            The Allstate Financial investment portfolio increased to $75.95 billion at December 31, 2006, from $75.23 billion at December 31, 2005, from $72.53 billion at December 31, 2004, primarily due to positive cash flows from operating and financing activities, partially offset by payments totaling approximately $826 million related to the disposition through reinsurance of



    substantially all of our variable annuity business, decreased net unrealized capital gains on fixed income securities.securities and dividends of $675 million paid by ALIC to its parent, AIC. ALIC paid these dividends as a result of excess capital resulting from the disposition of substantially all of Allstate Financial's variable annuity business through reinsurance.

            The Corporate and Other investment portfolio increaseddecreased to $2.14 billion at December 31, 2006, from $3.49 billion at December 31, 2005, from $2.73 billion at December 31, 2004. This increase is primarily due to additional investments madecash flows used in the portfolio of Kennett Capital, Inc. ("Kennett Capital"), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, the original source of which was dividends from AIC,financing activities, partially offset by proceeds from our debt issuance. For further information on our debt issuance, see the liquidationCapital Resources and Liquidity section of an investment management variable interest entity ("VIE") with investments of $298 million.the MD&A.

            Total investments at amortized cost related to collateral received in connection with securities lending business activities, funds received in connection with securities repurchase agreements, and collateral posted by counterparties related to derivative transactions, decreasedincreased to $4.14 billion at December 31, 2006, from $4.10 billion at December 31, 2005, from $4.85 billion at December 31, 2004.2005.



            We use different methodologies to estimate the fair value of publicly and non-publicly traded marketable investment securities and exchange traded and non-exchange traded derivative contracts. For a discussion of these methods, see the Application of Critical Accounting PoliciesEstimates section of the MD&A.

            The following table shows total investments, categorized by the method used to determine fair value at December 31, 2005.2006.


     Investments
      
     Investments
     Derivative
    Contracts(1)

    (in millions)

     Carrying
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     Derivative
    Contracts
    Fair Value

     Carrying
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     Fair
    Value

    Fair value based on independent market quotations $92,291 78.0%$69 $92,833 77.5%$129
    Fair value based on models and other valuation methods 13,708 11.6 976 13,171 11.0 1,256
    Mortgage loans, policy loans, bank loans and certain limited partnership and other investments, valued at cost, amortized cost and the equity method 12,298 10.4  13,753 11.5  
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total $118,297 100.0%$1,045 $119,757 100.0%$1,385
     
     
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Derivative fair value includes derivatives classified as assets and liabilities on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position and excludes derivatives related to Allstate Financial products (see Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements).

            Fixed Income Securities    See Note 5 of the consolidated financial statements for a table showing the amortized cost, unrealized gains, unrealized losses and fair value for each type of fixed income security for the years ended December 31, 20052006 and 2004.2005.

            Municipal bonds, including tax-exempt and taxable securities, totaled $26.74$25.61 billion and 96.6%96.7% were rated investment grade at December 31, 2005.2006. Approximately 64.5%64.6% of the municipal bond portfolio was insured by seveneight bond insurers and accordingly have a Moody's equivalent rating of Aaa or Aa. The municipal bond portfolio at December 31, 20052006 consisted of approximately 3,5003,400 issues from approximately 2,5002,300 issuers. The largest exposure to a single issuer was approximately 1% of the municipal bond portfolio. Corporate entities were the ultimate obligors of approximately 8.9%9.0% of the municipal bond portfolio.


            Corporate bonds totaled $40.13$40.83 billion and 90.2%89.5% were rated investment grade at December 31, 2005.2006. As of December 31, 2005,2006, the portfolio contained $17.72$18.33 billion of privately placed corporate obligations 44.2% of the total corporate obligations in the portfolio,or 44.9%, compared with $17.41$17.72 billion or 44.2% at December 31, 2004.2005. Included within privately placed corporate obligations are bank loans, which are primarily senior secured corporate loans, and other non-publicly traded corporate obligations. Approximately $15.63$15.98 billion or 88.2%87.2% of the privately placed corporate obligations consisted of fixed rate privately placed securities. The primary benefits of fixed rate privately placed securities when compared to publicly issued securities aremay include generally higher yields, improved cash flow predictability through pro-rata sinking funds, and a combination of covenant and call protection features designed to better protect the holder against losses resulting from credit deterioration, reinvestment risk or fluctuations in interest rates. A disadvantage of fixed rate privately placed securities when compared to publicly issued securities is relatively reduced liquidity. At December 31, 2005, 89.0%2006, 88.0% of the privately placed securities were rated investment grade.

            Foreign government securities totaled $2.95$2.82 billion and 95.5%96.4% were rated investment grade at December 31, 2005.2006.

            Mortgage-backed securities ("MBS") totaled $9.04$7.92 billion and 99.8% were rated investment grade at December 31, 2005, all of which were investment grade. In our MBS portfolio, the2006. The credit risk associated with MBS is mitigated due to the fact that 64.7% of the portfolio consists of securities that were issued by, or have underlying collateral that is guaranteed by U.S. government agencies or U.S. government sponsored entities. The MBS portfolio is subject to interest rate risk since price volatility and the ultimate realized yield are affected by the rate of prepayment of the underlying mortgages.



            Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities ("CMBS") totaled $6.99$7.84 billion and 99.9% were rated investment grade at December 31, 2005.2006. CMBS investments primarily represent pools of commercial mortgages, broadly diversified across property types and geographical area. The CMBS portfolio is subject to credit risk, but unlike other structured products, is generally not subject to prepayment risk due to protections within the underlying commercial mortgages, whereby borrowers are effectively restricted from prepaying their mortgages due to changes in interest rates. Credit defaults can result in credit directed prepayments. Approximately 82.2%72.2% of the CMBS portfolio had a Moody's rating of Aaa or a Standard & Poor's or Fitch rating of AAA, the highest rating category,categories, at December 31, 2005.2006.

            Asset-backed securities ("ABS") totaled $8.08$9.21 billion and 98.6% were rated investment grade at December 31, 2005.2006. Our ABS portfolio is subject to credit and interest rate risk. Credit risk is managed by monitoring the performance of the collateral. In addition, many of the securities in the ABS portfolio are credit enhanced with features such as over-collateralization, subordinated structures, reserve funds, guarantees and/or insurance. Approximately 65.1%66.4% of the ABS portfolio had a Moody's rating of Aaa or a Standard & Poor's ("S&P")or Fitch rating of AAA, the highest rating category.categories. A portion of the ABS portfolio is also subject to interest rate risk since, for example, price volatility and ultimate realized yield are affected by the rate of prepayment of the underlying assets. As of December 31, 2006, 86.5% of the portfolio was less sensitive to interest rate risk due to the payment terms or underlying collateral of the securities. The ABS portfolio includes collateralized debt obligations and other bonds that are secured by a variety of asset types, predominately home equity loans, credit card receivables and auto loans as well as collateralized debt obligations that are predominately secured by corporate bonds and loans.

            We may utilize derivative financial instruments to help manage the exposure to interest rate risk from the fixed income securities portfolio. For a more detailed discussion of interest rate risk and our use of derivative financial instruments, see the Market Risk section of the MD&A and Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements.



            At December 31, 2005, 94.8%2006, 94.6% of the consolidated fixed income securities portfolio was rated investment grade, which is defined as a security having a rating from The National Association of Insurance Commissioners ("NAIC") of 1 or 2; a rating of Aaa, Aa, A or Baa from Moody's or a rating of AAA, AA, A or BBB from S&P,Standard & Poor's, Fitch or Dominion;Dominion or a rating of aaa, aa, a or bbb from A.M. Best; or a comparable internal rating if an externally provided rating is not available.

            The following table summarizes the credit quality of the fixed income securities portfolio at December 31, 2005.2006.

    (in millions)

    (in millions)

     Property-Liability
     Allstate Financial
     Corporate
    and Other

     Total
     (in millions)

     Property-Liability
     Allstate Financial
     Corporate
    and Other

     Total
     
    NAIC
    Rating

     Moody's
    Equivalent

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to total

      Moody's
    Equivalent

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to total

     
    1 Aaa/Aa/A $27,897 86.6%$43,546 68.3%$1,976 95.8%$73,419 74.9% Aaa/Aa/A $28,449 86.8%$44,276 69.2%$1,483 94.3%$74,208 75.5%
    2 Baa 2,412 7.5  17,059 26.7  48 2.3  19,519 19.9  Baa  2,329 7.1  16,363 25.6  50 3.1  18,742 19.1 
    3 Ba 836 2.6  2,217 3.5     3,053 3.1  Ba  777 2.4  2,466 3.9     3,243 3.3 
    4 B 745 2.3  809 1.3     1,554 1.6  B  905 2.7  764 1.2     1,669 1.7 
    5 Caa or lower 253 0.8  59 0.1  16 0.8  328 0.3  Caa or lower  266 0.8  70 0.1  20 1.3  356 0.3 
    6
     In or near    default 78 0.2  92 0.1  22 1.1  192 0.2  In or near default  65 0.2  17   20 1.3  102 0.1 
       
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
        
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     Total $32,221 100.0%$63,782 100.0%$2,062 100.0%$98,065 100.0% Total $32,791 100.0%$63,956 100.0%$1,573 100.0%$98,320 100.0%
       
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
        
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

            Equity Securities    Equity securities include common and non-redeemable preferred stocks, limited partnership investments, real estate investment trust equity investments and limited partnership investments.non-redeemable preferred stocks. The equity securities portfolio was $7.78 billion at December 31, 2006 compared to $6.16 billion at December 31, 2005 compared to $5.90 billion at December 31, 2004.2005. The increase is primarily attributable to positive cash flows from operations. Gross unrealized gains totaled $1.77 billion at December 31, 2006 compared to $1.31 billion at December 31, 2005 compared to $1.34 billion2005. Gross unrealized losses totaled $20 million at December 31, 2004. Gross unrealized losses totaled2006 compared to $22 million at December 31, 2005 compared to $14 million at December 31, 2004.2005.

            Unrealized Gains and Losses    See Note 5 of the consolidated financial statements for further disclosures regarding unrealized losses on fixed income and equity securities and factors considered in



    determining whether the securities are not other than temporarilyother-than-temporarily impaired. The unrealized net capital gains on fixed income and equity securities at December 31, 20052006 totaled $4.58$4.29 billion, a decrease of $1.81 billion


    $288 million since December 31, 2004.2005. Gross unrealized gains and losses on fixed income securities by type and sector are provided in the table below.



      
     Gross unrealized
      

      
     Gross unrealized
      
    At December 31, 2005

     Amortized
    cost

     Fair
    value

    Gains
     Losses
    At December 31, 2006

    At December 31, 2006

     Amortized
    cost

     Gross unrealized
     Fair
    value

    (in millions)

    (in millions)

      
      
      
      
    (in millions)

      
      
      
      
    Corporate:Corporate:        Corporate:        
    Consumer goods (cyclical and non-cyclical) $6,378 $95 $(71)$6,402
    Consumer goods (cyclical and non-cyclical) $6,541 $137 $(71)$6,607Utilities 6,139 269 (59) 6,349
    Public utilities 5,802 433 (27) 6,208Banking 6,214 115 (55) 6,274
    Banking 5,581 159 (39) 5,701Financial services 5,635 69 (43) 5,661
    Financial services 5,247 78 (58) 5,267Capital goods 3,948 68 (38) 3,978
    Capital goods 3,872 103 (34) 3,941Communications 2,903 70 (21) 2,952
    Communications 3,080 100 (25) 3,155Basic industry 2,293 40 (17) 2,316
    Basic industry 2,343 63 (22) 2,384Other 1,897 69 (16) 1,950
    Energy 2,237 71 (18) 2,290Energy 1,911 40 (24) 1,927
    Transportation 1,893 84 (22) 1,955Transportation 1,870 69 (19) 1,920
    Other 1,820 85 (17) 1,888Technology 1,075 19 (9) 1,085
    Technology 724 21 (7) 738Foreign Government 11   11
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total corporate fixed income portfolioTotal corporate fixed income portfolio 39,140 1,334 (340) 40,134Total corporate fixed income portfolio 40,274 923 (372) 40,825

    U.S. government and agencies

    U.S. government and agencies

     

    3,151

     

    880

     

    (4

    )

     

    4,027

    U.S. government and agencies

     

    3,284

     

    758

     

    (9

    )

     

    4,033
    MunicipalMunicipal 25,621 1,152 (33) 26,740Municipal 24,665 1,003 (60) 25,608
    Foreign governmentForeign government 2,558 400 (4) 2,954Foreign government 2,489 333 (4) 2,818
    Mortgage-backed securitiesMortgage-backed securities 9,123 38 (122) 9,039Mortgage-backed securities 7,962 41 (87) 7,916
    Commercial mortgage-backed securitiesCommercial mortgage-backed securities 7,004 52 (67) 6,989Commercial mortgage-backed securities 7,834 67 (64) 7,837
    Asset-backed securitiesAsset-backed securities 8,087 40 (44) 8,083Asset-backed securities 9,202 40 (31) 9,211
    Redeemable preferred stockRedeemable preferred stock 93 6  99Redeemable preferred stock 70 2  72
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total fixed income securitiesTotal fixed income securities $94,777 $3,902 $(614)$98,065Total fixed income securities $95,780 $3,167 $(627)$98,320
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

            The consumer goods, utilities, banking, financial services, banking,and capital goods public utilities, and communications sectors had the highest concentration of gross unrealized losses in our corporate fixed income securities portfolio at December 31, 2005.2006. The gross unrealized losses in these sectors were primarily company specific and interest rate related. Approximately $33related and company specific. As of December 31, 2006, $342 million or 91.9% of the total gross unrealized losses in the corporate fixed income portfolio were associated with the automobile industry, which includes direct debt issuances of automobile manufacturers, captive automotive financing companies and automobile parts and equipment suppliers, which are reported above in the consumer goods and financial services sectors. Fixed income security values in the automobile industry were primarily depressed due to company specific conditions. Additionally, approximately $5 million of the total gross unrealized losses in the corporate fixed income portfolio and $7$251 million or 98.4% of the total gross unrealized losses in the asset-backedremaining fixed income securities portfolio were associated withrated investment grade. Unrealized losses on investment grade securities are principally related to rising interest rates or changes in credit spreads since the airline industry for which valuessecurities were depressed due to company or issue specific conditions and economic issues, including fuel costs.acquired. All securities in an unrealized loss position at December 31, 20052006 were included in our portfolio monitoring process wherein it was determined that thefor determining which declines in value were not other than temporary.other-than-temporary.



            The following table shows the composition by credit quality of the fixed income securities with gross unrealized losses at December 31, 2005.2006.

    (in millions)

    (in millions)

      
      
      
      
     (in millions)

      
      
      
      
     
    NAIC
    Rating

     Moody's
    Equivalent

     Unrealized
    Loss

     Percent
    to Total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to Total

      Moody's
    Equivalent

     Unrealized
    Loss

     Percent
    to Total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to Total

     
    1 Aaa/Aa/A $(396)64.5%$24,025 74.9% Aaa/Aa/A $(422)67.3%$24,198 74.2%
    2 Baa (155)25.2  6,718 21.0  Baa (171)27.3  7,204 22.1 
    3 Ba (34)5.5  858 2.7  Ba (24)3.8  826 2.5 
    4 B (22)3.6  354 1.1  B (7)1.1  253 0.8 
    5 Caa or lower (6)1.0  71 0.2  Caa or lower (3)0.5  93 0.3 
    6 In or near default (1)0.2  31 0.1  In or near default    25 0.1 
       
     
     
     
        
     
     
     
     
     Total $(614)100.0%$32,057 100.0% Total $(627)100.0%$32,599 100.0%
       
     
     
     
        
     
     
     
     

            The table above includes 5737 securities that have not yet received an NAIC rating, for which we have assigned a comparable internal rating, with a fair value totaling $669$373 million and an unrealized loss of $14$8 million. Due to lags between the funding of an investment, execution of final legal documents, filing with the Securities Valuation Office ("SVO") of the NAIC, and rating by the SVO, we will always have a small number of securities that have a pending rating.

            At December 31, 2005, $5512006, $593 million, or 89.7%94.6%, of the gross unrealized losses were related to investment grade fixed income securities. Unrealized losses on investment grade securities principally relate to changes in interest rates or changes in sector-related credit spreads since the securities were acquired.

            As of December 31, 2005, $632006, $34 million of the gross unrealized losses were related to below investment grade fixed income securities. Of this amount, 14.3%there were in ano significant unrealized loss positionpositions (greater than or equal to 20% of amortized cost) for six or more consecutive months prior to December 31, 2005.2006. Included among the securities rated below investment grade are both public and privately placed high-yield bonds and securities that were investment grade when originally acquired. We mitigate the credit risk of investing in below investment grade fixed income securities by limiting the percentage of our fixed income portfolio invested in such securities, through diversification of the portfolio, and active credit monitoring and portfolio management.

            The scheduled maturity dates for fixed income securities in an unrealized loss position at December 31, 20052006 are shown below. Actual maturities may differ from those scheduled as a result of prepayments by the issuers.

    (in millions)

     Unrealized Loss
     Percent
    to Total

     Fair
    Value

     Percent
    to Total

      Unrealized Loss
     Percent
    to Total

     Fair Value
     Percent
    to Total

     
    Due in one year or less $(4)0.7%$359 1.1% $(5)0.8%$673 2.1%
    Due after one year through five years (102)16.6 5,400 16.8  (96)15.3 5,979 18.3 
    Due after five years through ten years (191)31.1 8,885 27.7  (200)31.9 8,330 25.6 
    Due after ten years (151)24.6 7,132 22.3  (208)33.2 9,358 28.7 
    Mortgage- and asset- backed securities(1) (166)27.0 10,281 32.1  (118)18.8 8,259 25.3 
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
    Total $(614)100.0%$32,057 100.0% $(627)100.0%$32,599 100.0%
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Because of the potential for prepayment, mortgage- and asset-backed securities are not categorized based on their contractual maturities.

            The equity portfolio is comprised of securities in the following sectors.

    (in millions)

     Gross unrealized
      
    At December 31, 2005

      
     Fair
    Value

    Cost
     Gains
     Losses

      
     Gross unrealized
      
    (in millions)
    At December 31, 2006

      
     Fair
    Value

    Cost
     Gains
     Losses
    Consumer goods (cyclical and non-cyclical) $872 $244 $(10)$1,106 $1,003 $290 $(7)$1,286
    Technology 415 141 (3) 553 413 169 (4) 578
    Financial services 560 167 (1) 726 625 263 (1) 887
    Real estate 275 173 (1) 447 241 251  492
    Capital goods 238 127 (1) 364 358 143 (2) 499
    Banking 309 83  392 298 78  376
    Communications 230 50 (4) 276 295 111 (2) 404
    Energy 262 164 (1) 425 301 198 (3) 496
    Basic industry 155 47 (1) 201 153 76 (1) 228
    Utilities 129 36  165 128 54  182
    Transportation 70 21  91 75 21  96
    Other(1) 1,358 60  1,418 2,136 117  2,253
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total equities $4,873 $1,313 $(22)$6,164 $6,026 $1,771 $(20)$7,777
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Other consists primarily of limited partnership investments and index-based securities.

            At December 31, 2005,2006, the consumer goods, communicationstechnology and technologyenergy sectors had the highest concentration of gross unrealized losses in our equity portfolio, which were company and sector specific. We expect eventual recovery of these securities and the related sectors. All securities in an unrealized loss position at December 31, 20052006 were included in our portfolio monitoring process wherein it was determined that thefor determining which declines in value were not other than temporary.other-than-temporary.

            Portfolio Monitoring    We have a comprehensive portfolio monitoring process to identify and evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, fixed income and equity securities whose carrying value may be other than temporarilyother-than-temporarily impaired. The process includes a quarterly review of all securities using a screening process to identify those securities whose fair value compared to amortized cost for fixed income securities or cost for equity securities is below established thresholds for certain time periods, or which are identified through other monitoring criteria such as ratings downgrades or payment defaults. The securities identified, in addition to other securities for which we may have a concern, are evaluated based on facts and circumstances for inclusion on our watch-list. As a result of approved programs involving the disposition of investments such as changes in duration and revisions to strategic asset allocations and liquidity actions, and certain dispositions anticipated by portfolio managers, we also conduct a portfolio review to recognize impairment on securities in an unrealized loss position for which we do not have the intent and ability to hold until recovery. All securities in an unrealized loss position at December 31, 20052006 were included in our portfolio monitoring process wherein it was determined that thefor determining which declines in value were not other than temporary.other-than-temporary.



            The following table summarizes fixed income and equity securities in a gross unrealized loss position according to significance, aging and investment grade classification.



     December 31, 2005
     December 31, 2004
     
     December 31, 2006
     December 31, 2005
     


     Fixed Income
      
      
     Fixed Income
      
      
     
     Fixed Income
      
      
     Fixed Income
      
      
     
    (in millions except number of issues)

    (in millions except number of issues)

     Investment
    Grade

     Below
    Investment
    Grade

     Equity
     Total
     Investment
    Grade

     Below
    Investment
    Grade

     Equity
     Total
     (in millions except number of issues)

     Investment
    Grade

     Below
    Investment
    Grade

     Equity
     Total
     Investment
    Grade

     Below
    Investment
    Grade

     Equity
     Total
     
    Category (i): Unrealized loss less than 20% of cost(1)Category (i): Unrealized loss less than 20% of cost(1)                         Category (i): Unrealized loss less than 20% of cost(1)                 
    Number of Issues  4,267  270  192  4,729  1,889  145  105  2,139 Number of Issues 4,883 184 180 5,247 4,267 270 192 4,729 
    Fair Value $30,703 $1,293 $311 $32,307 $13,418 $841 $175 $14,434 Fair Value $31,402 $1,193 $179 $32,774 $30,703 $1,293 $311 $32,307 
    Unrealized $(540)$(52)$(17)$(609)$(169)$(41)$(11)$(221)Unrealized $(593)$(33)$(14)$(640)$(540)$(52)$(17)$(609)

    Category (ii): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for a period of less than 6 consecutive months(1)

    Category (ii): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for a period of less than 6 consecutive months(1)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Category (ii): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for a period of less than 6 consecutive months(1)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Number of Issues  6  4  35  45  4  3  22  29 Number of Issues 1 2 27 30 6 4 35 45 
    Fair Value $40 $7 $10 $57 $4 $2 $6 $12 Fair Value $ $4 $9 $13 $40 $7 $10 $57 
    Unrealized $(11)$(2)$(4)$(17)$(2)$(1)$(2)$(5)Unrealized $ $(1)$(4)$(5)$(11)$(2)$(4)$(17)

    Category (iii): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for a period of 6 or more consecutive months, but less than 12 consecutive months(1)

    Category (iii): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for a period of 6 or more consecutive months, but less than 12 consecutive months(1)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Category (iii): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for a period of 6 or more consecutive months, but less than 12 consecutive months(1)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Number of Issues    1  15  16    3  22  25 Number of Issues   17 17  1 15 16 
    Fair Value $ $6 $2 $8 $ $19 $3 $22 Fair Value $ $ $2 $2 $ $6 $2 $8 
    Unrealized $ $(2)$(1)$(3)$ $(6)$(1)$(7)Unrealized $ $ $(1)$(1)$ $(2)$(1)$(3)

    Category (iv): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for twelve or more consecutive months(1)

    Category (iv): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for twelve or more consecutive months(1)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Category (iv): Unrealized loss greater than or equal to 20% of cost for twelve or more consecutive months(1)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Number of Issues    2    2    5    5 Number of Issues   4 4  2  2 
    Fair Value $ $8 $ $8 $ $15 $ $15 Fair Value $ $ $1 $1 $ $8 $ $8 
    Unrealized $ $(7)$ $(7)$ $(9)$ $(9)Unrealized $ $ $(1)$(1)$ $(7)$ $(7)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
       
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Number of IssuesTotal Number of Issues  4,273  277  242  4,792  1,893  156  149  2,198 Total Number of Issues 4,884 186 228 5,298 4,273 277 242 4,792 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
       
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Fair ValueTotal Fair Value $30,743 $1,314 $323 $32,380 $13,422 $877 $184 $14,483 Total Fair Value $31,402 $1,197 $191 $32,790 $30,743 $1,314 $323 $32,380 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
       
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Unrealized LossesTotal Unrealized Losses $(551)$(63)$(22)$(636)$(171)$(57)$(14)$(242)Total Unrealized Losses $(593)$(34)$(20)$(647)$(551)$(63)$(22)$(636)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
       
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    For fixed income securities, cost represents amortized cost.

            The largest individual unrealized loss was $4 million for category (i) and $5$1 million for category (ii) as of December 31, 2005.2006.



            Categories (i) and (ii) have generally been adversely affected by overall economic conditions including interest rate increases and the market's evaluation of certain sectors. The degree to which and/or length of time that the securities have been in an unrealized loss position does not suggest that these securities pose a high risk of being other than temporarilyother-than-temporarily impaired. Categories (iii) and (iv) have primarily been adversely affected by industry and issue specific conditions. All of the securities in these categories are monitored for impairment. We expect that the fair values of these securities will recover over time.



            Whenever our initial analysis indicates that a fixed income security's unrealized loss of 20% or more for at least 36 months or any equity security's unrealized loss of 20% or more for at least 12 months is temporary, additional evaluations and management approvals are required to substantiate that a write-down is not appropriate. As of December 31, 2005, one security with an unrealized loss of $3 million2006, no securities met these criteria.

            The following table contains the individual securities with the largest unrealized losses as of December 31, 2005.2006. No other fixed income or equity security had an unrealized loss greater than $3$2 million or 0.5%0.3% of the total unrealized loss on fixed income and equity securities.

    (in millions)

     Unrealized
    Loss

     Fair
    Value

     NAIC
    Rating

     Unrealized
    Loss
    Category

    Automotive Supplier $(5)$20 2 (ii)
    Asset backed security  (4) 4 4 (iv)
    Foreign airport operator  (4) 36 1 (i)
    Pharmaceutical company  (4) 60 N/A (i)
    Mortgage backed security  (4) 168 1 (i)
    Paper manufacturer and distributor  (4) 36 2 (i)
      
     
        
    Total $(25)$324    
      
     
        
    (in millions)

     Unrealized
    Loss

     Fair
    Value

     NAIC
    Rating

     Unrealized
    Loss Category

    Food Processing Company(1) $(4)$16 N/A (i)
    Financial Institution  (3) 47 1 (i)
    Food Processing Company  (3) 32 2 (i)
    Gaming/Lodging Company  (3) 31 3 (i)
    Auto Supplier  (3) 17 3 (i)
    Government Securities  (3) 141 1 (i)
    Energy service provider  (3) 33 1 (i)
      
     
        
    Total $(22)$317    
      
     
        

    (1)
    This loss was related to an equity security that does not receive a credit quality related rating from the NAIC.

            We monitor the quality of our fixed income portfolio by categorizing certain investments as "problem", "restructured" or "potential problem." Problem fixed income securities are securities in default with respect to principal or interest and/or securities issued by companies that have gone into bankruptcy subsequent to our acquisition of the security. Restructured fixed income securities have rates and terms that are not consistent with market rates or terms prevailing at the time of the restructuring. Potential problem fixed income securities are current with respect to contractual principal and/or interest, but because of other facts and circumstances, we have concerns regarding the borrower's ability to pay future principal and interest, which causes us to believe these securities may be classified as problem or restructured in the future.



            The following table summarizes problem, restructured and potential problem fixed income securities at December 31.


     2005
     2004
      2006
     2005
     
    (in millions)

     Amortized
    cost

     Fair
    value

     Percent of
    total Fixed
    Income
    portfolio

     Amortized
    cost

     Fair
    value

     Percent of
    total Fixed
    Income
    portfolio

      Amortized
    cost

     Fair
    value

     Percent of
    total Fixed
    Income
    portfolio

     Amortized
    cost

     Fair
    value

     Percent of
    total Fixed
    Income
    portfolio

     
    Problem $172 $188 0.2%$150 $153 0.1% $65 $84 0.1%$172 $188 0.2%
    Restructured 33 34   75 75 0.1  33 33  33 34  
    Potential problem 178 191 0.2  265 269 0.3  139 149 0.2 178 191 0.2 
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total net carrying value $383 $413 0.4%$490 $497 0.5% $237 $266 0.3%$383 $413 0.4%
     
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Cumulative write-downs recognized(1) $304     $351      $298     $304     
     
         
          
         
         

    (1)
    Cumulative write-downs recognized only reflects write-downs related to securities within the problem, potential problem and restructured categories.

            We have experienced an increasea decrease in the amortized cost of fixed income securities categorized as problem as of December 31, 2005 compared to December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily related to the addition of securities to the problem category as a result of company specific issues, including the bankruptcy filings of certain airlines. The decrease in the amortized cost of fixed income securities categorized as restructured and potential problem as of December 31, 20052006 compared to December 31, 20042005. The decrease was primarily relateddue to dispositions.dispositions and the removal of securities upon improving conditions.

            We evaluated each of these securities through our portfolio monitoring process at December 31, 20052006 and recorded write-downs when appropriate. We further concluded that any remaining unrealized losses on these securities were temporary in nature and that we have the intent and ability to hold the securitysecurities until recovery. While these balances may increase in the future, particularly if economic conditions are unfavorable, management expects that the total amount of securities in these categories will remain low relative to the total fixed income securities portfolio.

            Net Realized Capital Gains and Losses    The following table presents the components of realized capital gains and losses and the related tax effect for the years ended December 31.

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Investment write-downs $(55)$(129)$(294) $(47)$(55)$(129)
    Dispositions 619 828 453  379 619 828 
    Valuation of derivative instruments (95) (46) 16  26 (95) (46)
    Settlement of derivative instruments 80 (62) 21  (72) 80 (62)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Realized capital gains and losses, pretax 549 591 196  286 549 591 
    Income tax expense (189) (199) (62) (100) (189) (199)
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
    Realized capital gains and losses, after-tax $360 $392 $134  $186 $360 $392 
     
     
     
      
     
     
     

            Dispositions in the above table include sales, losses recognized in anticipation of dispositions and other transactions such as calls and prepayments. We may sell securities during the period in which fair value has declined below amortized cost forimpaired fixed income, cost or equity securities or cost for equity securities. In certainthat were in an unrealized loss position at the previous reporting date in situations where new factors such as negative developments, subsequent credit deterioration, relative valuechanging liquidity needs, and newly identified market opportunities market liquidity concerns and portfolio reallocations can subsequentlycause a change in our previous intent to continue holdinghold a security.

            Included in investment write-downs were $11 million of realized losses relatedsecurity to airline industry holdings. Forrecovery or maturity. The loss for the year ended December 31, 2005, dispositions included net2006 on the settlement of derivative instruments was primarily driven by $111 million of realized gains on saleslosses from commodity-based excess return swaps and futures contracts. For portfolio diversification, we enter into commodity-based investments through the use of



    $827 million excess return swaps and losses recordedfutures contracts whose returns are tied to a commodity-based index which declined in connection with anticipated dispositions of $208 million. The net realized gains were comprised of gross gains of $1.17 billion and gross losses of $341 million. The $341 million in gross losses primarily consisted of $192 million from sales of fixed income securities and $142 million from sales of equity securities.value.

            A changing interest rate environment will drive changes in our portfolio duration targets at a tactical level. A duration target and range is established with an economic view of liabilities relative to a long-term portfolio view. Tactical duration adjustments within management's approved ranges are accomplished through both cash market transactions and derivative activities that generate realized gains and losses and through new purchases. As a component of our approach to managing portfolio duration, realized gains and losses on derivative instruments are most appropriately considered in conjunction with the unrealized gains and losses on the fixed income portfolio. This approach mitigates the impacts of general interest rate changes to the overall financial condition of the corporation.

            BecauseDispositions included net realized gains on sales and other transactions such as calls and prepayments of $491 million and losses recorded in connection with anticipated dispositions of $112 million. The net realized gains on sales and other transactions were comprised of gross gains of $958 million and gross losses of $467 million. The $467 million in gross losses primarily consisted of $317 million from sales of fixed income securities and $143 million from sales of equity securities.



            During our comprehensive portfolio reviews, we ascertain whether there are any approved programs involving the disposition of investments such as changes in duration, revision to strategic asset allocation and liquidity actions; and any dispositions anticipated by the portfolio managers resulting from their on-going comprehensive reviews of the levelportfolios. Upon approval of catastrophe losses experienced during 2005 andsuch programs, we identify a population of suitable investments, typically larger than needed to execute the possibility that we may need to have additional cash available to pay claims, we identified a portfoliodisposition, from which we would consider selecting specific securities are selected to sellsell. Due to meet these needs. Certainour change in intent to hold until recovery, we recognize impairments, which are included in losses from dispositions, on any of these securities we identified were in an unrealized loss position, for whichposition. When the objectives of the programs are accomplished, any remaining securities are redesignated as intent to hold until recovery.

            For the year ended December 31, 2006, we recognized $34$112 million of losses in anticipation of dispositions duerelated to a change in our intent to hold certain securities with unrealized losses until they recover in value. The change in our intent was driven by certain approved programs, including funding for the disposition through reinsurance of substantially all of Allstate Financial's variable annuity business, yield enhancement strategies for Allstate Financial, a liquidity strategy review for Corporate and Other segment, and changes to strategic asset allocations for Allstate Protection. These programs were completed during 2006. Additionally, ongoing comprehensive reviews of both the Allstate Protection and Allstate Financial portfolios resulted in the identification of anticipated dispositions by the portfolio managers. At December 31, 2006, the fair value of securities for which we did not have the intent to hold until recovery.recovery totaled $375 million.

            At December 31, 2005, the fair value of the securities in thisfor which we did not have the intent to hold until recovery totaled $14.37 billion. Approved programs involving the disposition of securities included liquidity needs to pay catastrophe claims, revisions to strategic asset allocations for Allstate Protection, and dispositions anticipated by the portfolio was $13.13 billion.

            Because of an anticipated rise in interest rates, as well as changes in existing market conditions and long-term asset return assumptions, certain changes are planned within various portfolios. These included continued asset-liability management strategies,managers resulting from their on-going comprehensive reviews of ourthe portfolios and changes being made to our strategic asset allocations, including Property-Liability duration. In addition, we decided to pursue yield enhancement strategies for the Allstate Financial portfolio. Certain of the securities we identified were in an unrealized loss position, foron which we recognized $174$208 million of losses in anticipation of dispositions due to a change in our intent to hold the securities until recovery. At December 31, 2005, the fair value of the securities in these portfolios was $1.24 billion.

            Gains from dispositions during 2004 include $90 million of net capital gains from a repositioning of the equity portfolio and $49 million of net capital gains from the liquidation of the Allstate Floridian Insurance Company portfolio in anticipation of liquidity needs to settle hurricane catastrophe claims.2005. These objectives were accomplished during 2006.

            The ten largest losses from sales of individual securities for the year ended December 31, 20052006 totaled $45$26 million with the largest loss being $9$4 million and the smallest loss being $3$2 million. NoneOne of the $45securities comprising the $26 million related to securities that werewas in an unrealized loss position greater than or equal to 20% of amortized cost for fixed income securities or cost for equity securities for a period of less than six or more consecutive months prior to sale.months.

            Our largest aggregate loss on dispositions and writedowns are shown in the following table by issuer and its affiliates. No other issuer together with its affiliates had an aggregated loss on dispositions and



    writedowns greater than 0.8%0.6% of the total gross loss on dispositions and writedowns on fixed income and equity securities.

    (in millions)

     Fair Value at
    Disposition
    ("Proceeds")

     Loss on
    Dispositions(1)

     Write-
    downs

     December 31,
    2005
    Holdings(2)

     Net
    Unrealized
    Gain (Loss)

      Fair Value at Disposition
    ("Proceeds")

     Loss on
    Dispositions(1)

     Write-
    downs

     December 31, 2006
    Holdings(2)

     Net
    Unrealized
    Gain (Loss)

     
    Automobile Manufacturer(3) $87 $(33)$ $128 $(6)
    Automobile Manufacturer(3) 47 (11)  145 (16)
    Limited Partnership Investment Fund $ $ $(6)$32 $ 
    Household Product Retailer 43 (4)  30  
    Aircraft Securitized Trust   (9) 6     (4) 2  
    Automobile Manufacturer 71 (4)  56 (1)
    Gaming/Lodging Company 49 (4)  64 (2)
    Pharmaceutical Company 30 (8)  92 (4) 17 (4)  83 5 
    Limited Partnership Investment Fund   (5) 13  
    Insurance and Financial Services Company 47 (5)  114 21 
    Financial Services  (5)    
    Hydro-electric Energy Company   (5) 19  
    Healthcare Provider 37 (4)  44 (2)
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
    Total $211 $(62)$(19)$517 $(5) $217 $(20)$(10)$311 $ 
     
     
     
     
     
      
     
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Dispositions include losses recognized in anticipation of dispositions.

    (2)
    Holdings include fixed income securities at amortized cost or equity securities at cost.

    (3)
    Losses due to a decision to decrease our exposure to two large domestic auto manufacturers and as a result of changing economic circumstances, including the decline in their overall market share.

            The circumstances of the above losses are considered to be company specific and are not expected to have an effect on other holdings in our portfolios.

            Mortgage Loans    Our mortgage loan portfolio which is primarily held in the Allstate Financial portfolio was $9.47 billion at December 31, 2006 and $8.75 billion at December 31, 2005, and $7.86 billion at December 31, 2004, and comprised primarily of loans secured by first mortgages on developed commercial real estate. Geographical and property type diversification are key considerations used to manage our mortgage loan risk.

            We closely monitor our commercial mortgage loan portfolio on a loan-by-loan basis. Loans with an estimated collateral value less than the loan balance, as well as loans with other characteristics indicative of higher than normal credit risk, are reviewed by financial and investment management at least quarterly for purposes of establishing valuation allowances and placing loans on non-accrual status. The underlying collateral values are based upon either discounted property cash flow projections or a commonly used valuation method that utilizes a one-year projection of expected annual income divided by an expected rate of return. We had no net realized capital losses related to write-downs on mortgage loans for the yearyears ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 and had $1 million and $4 million for the yearsyear ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.2004.

            Short-Term Investments    Our short-term investment portfolio was $3.47$2.43 billion and $4.13$3.47 billion at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, respectively. We invest available cash balances primarily in taxable short-term securities having a final maturity date or redemption date of less than one year.

            We also participate inAs one of our business activities, we conduct securities lending, primarily as an investment yield enhancement, with third parties such as brokerage firms. We obtain collateral in an amount generally equal to 102% and 105% of the fair value of domestic and foreign securities, respectively, and monitor the market value of the securities loaned on a daily basis with additional collateral obtained as necessary. The cash we receive is invested in short-term and fixed income investments, and an offsetting liability is recorded in other liabilities and accrued expense. At December 31, 2005,2006, the amount of securities lending collateral



    reinvested in short-term investments had a carrying value of $650$987 million. This compares to $1.43 billion$650 million at December 31, 2004.2005.


    MARKET RISK

            Market risk is the risk that we will incur losses due to adverse changes in equity, interest, commodity, or currency exchange rates and prices. Our primary market risk exposures are to changes in interest rates and equity prices, although we also have a smaller exposure to changes in foreign currency exchange rates.rates and commodity prices.

            The active management of market risk is integral to our results of operations. We may use the following approaches to manage exposure to market risk within defined tolerance ranges: 1) rebalancing existing asset or liability portfolios, 2) changing the character of investments purchased in the future and 3) using derivative instruments to modify the market risk characteristics of existing assets and liabilities or assets expected to be purchased. For a more detailed discussion of our use of derivative financial instruments, see Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements.

            Overview    We generate substantial investible funds from our Property-Liability and Allstate Financial businesses. In formulating and implementing guidelines for investing funds, we seek to earn returns that enhance our ability to offer competitive rates and prices to customers while contributing to attractive and stable profits and long-term capital growth. Accordingly, our investment decisions and objectives are a function of the underlying risks and product profiles of each business.

            Investment policies define the overall framework for managing market and other investment risks, including accountability and control over risk management activities. Subsidiaries that conduct investment activities follow policies that have been approved by their respective boards of directors. These investment policies specify the investment limits and strategies that are appropriate given the liquidity, surplus, product profile and regulatory requirements of the subsidiary. Executive oversight and investment activities are conducted primarily through subsidiaries' boards of directors and investment committees. For Allstate Financial, its asset-liability management ("ALM") policies further define the overall framework for managing market and investment risks. ALM focuses on strategies to enhance yields, mitigate investmentmarket risks and optimize capital to improve profitability and returns for Allstate Financial. Allstate Financial ALM activities follow asset-liability policies that have been approved by their respective boards of directors. These ALM policies specify limits, ranges and/or targets for investments that best meet Allstate Financial's business objectives in light of its product liabilities.

            We manage our exposure to market risk through the use of asset allocation, duration and value-at-risk limits, through the use of simulation and, as appropriate, through the use of stress tests. We have asset allocation limits that place restrictions on the total funds that may be invested within an asset class. We have duration limits on the Property-Liability and Allstate Financial investment portfolios and, as appropriate, on individual components of these portfolios. These duration limits place restrictions on the amount of interest rate risk that may be taken. Our value-at-risk limits are intended to restrict the potential loss in fair value that could arise from adverse movements in the fixed income, equity, and currency markets based on historical volatilities and correlations among market risk factors. Comprehensive day-to-day management of market risk within defined tolerance ranges occurs as portfolio managers buy and sell within their respective markets based upon the acceptable boundaries established by investment policies. For Allstate Financial, this day-to-day management is integrated with and informed by the activities of the ALM organization. This integration results in a prudent, methodical and effective adjudication of market risk and return, conditioned by the unique demands and dynamics of



    Allstate Financial's product liabilities and supported by the application of advanced risk technology and analytics.



            Although we apply a similar overall philosophy to market risk, the underlying business frameworks and the accounting and regulatory environments differ considerably between the Property-Liability and Allstate Financial businesses affecting investment decisions and risk parameters.

            Interest rate risk is the risk that we will incur a loss due to adverse changes in interest rates. This risk arises from many of our primary activities, as we invest substantial funds in interest rate-sensitive assets and issue interest rate-sensitive liabilities, primarily in our Allstate Financial operations.liabilities.

            We manage the interest rate risk in our assets relative to the interest rate risk in our liabilities. One of the measures used to quantify this exposure is duration. Duration measures the price sensitivity of the assets and liabilities to changes in interest rates. For example, if interest rates increase 100 basis points, the fair value of an asset exhibiting a duration of 5 is expected to decrease in value by approximately 5%. At December 31, 2005,2006, the difference between our asset and liability duration was approximately 0.50,0.23, compared to a 0.840.50 gap at December 31, 2004.2005. A positive duration gap indicates that the fair value of our assets is more sensitive to interest rate movements than the fair value of our liabilities.

            Most of our duration gap originates from the Property-Liability operations, with the primary liabilities being auto and homeowners claims. In the management of investments supporting the Property-Liability business, we adhere to an objective of emphasizing safety of principal and consistency of income within a total return framework. This approach is designed to ensure our financial strength and stability for paying claims, while maximizing economic value and surplus growth. This objective generally results in a positive duration mismatch between the Property-Liability assets and liabilities.

            For the Allstate Financial business, we seek to invest premiums, contract charges and deposits to generate future cash flows that will fund future claims, benefits and expenses, and that will earn stable margins across a wide variety of interest rate and economic scenarios. In order to achieve this objective and limit interest rate risk for Allstate Financial, we adhere to a philosophy of managing the duration of assets and related liabilities. This philosophy may include using interest rate swaps, futures, forwards, caps, floors and floorsswaptions to reduce the interest rate risk resulting from mismatches between existing assets and liabilities, and financial futures and other derivative instruments to hedge the interest rate risk of anticipated purchases and sales of investments and product sales to customers.

            We pledge and receive collateral on certain types of derivative contracts. For futures and option contracts traded on exchanges, we have pledged securities as margin deposits totaling $33$61 million as of December 31, 2005.2006. For over-the-counter derivative transactions involvingincluding interest rate swaps, foreign currency swaps, interest rate caps, interest rate floor agreements, and credit default swaps, master netting agreements are used. These agreements allow us to net payments due for transactions covered by the agreements, and when applicable, we are required to post collateral. As of December 31, 2005,2006, we held $352$361 million of cash pledged by counterparties as collateral for over-the-counter instruments and did not have anypledged $10 million in securities as collateral pledged to counterparties.

            To calculate the duration gap between assets and liabilities, we project asset and liability cash flows and calculate their net present value using a risk-free market interest rate adjusted for credit quality, sector attributes, liquidity and other specific risks. Duration is calculated by revaluing these cash flows at alternative interest rates and determining the percentage change in aggregate fair value. The cash flows used in this calculation include the expected maturity and repricing characteristics of our derivative financial instruments, all other financial instruments (as described in Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements), and certain other items including unearned premiums, property-liability claims and claims expense reserves, interest-sensitive liabilities and annuity liabilities. The projections include assumptions



    (based (based upon historical market experience and our experience) that reflect the effect of changing interest rates on the prepayment, lapse, leverage and/or option features of instruments, where applicable. Such



    assumptions relate primarily to mortgage-backed securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, municipal housing bonds, callable municipal and corporate obligations, and fixed rate single and flexible premium deferred annuities. Additionally, the calculations include assumptions regarding the renewal of property-liability policies.

            Based upon the information and assumptions we use in this duration calculation, and interest rates in effect at December 31, 2005,2006, we estimate that a 100 basis point immediate, parallel increase in interest rates ("rate shock") would decrease the net fair value of the assets and liabilities by approximately $1.45$1.76 billion, compared to $1.79$1.45 billion at December 31, 2004. There are $7.04 billion of assets supporting life insurance products such as traditional and interest-sensitive life that are not financial instruments. These assets and the associated liabilities have not been included in the above estimate. The $7.04 billion of assets excluded from the calculation has decreased from the $7.32 billion reported at December 31, 2004 due to a decrease in the in-force account value of interest-sensitive life products. Based on assumptions described above, in the event of a 100 basis point immediate increase in interest rates, the assets supporting life insurance products would decrease in value by $456 million, compared to a decrease of $427 million at December 31, 2004. Also reflected2005. Reflected in the duration calculation are the effects of a program that uses short futures to manage the Property-Liability interest rate risk exposures relative to duration targets. Based on contracts in place at December 31, 2005,2006, we would recognize realized capital gains totaling $27$40 million in the event of a 100 basis point immediate, parallel interest rate increase and $27$40 million in realized capital losses in the event of a 100 basis point immediate, parallel interest rate decrease. The selection of a 100 basis point immediate parallel change in interest rates should not be construed as our prediction of future market events, but only as an illustration of the potential effect of such an event. There are $7.08 billion of assets supporting life insurance products such as traditional and interest-sensitive life that are not financial instruments. These assets and the associated liabilities have not been included in the above estimate. The $7.08 billion of assets excluded from the calculation has increased from the $7.04 billion reported at December 31, 2005 due to an increase in the in-force account value of interest-sensitive life products. Based on assumptions described above, in the event of a 100 basis point immediate increase in interest rates, the assets supporting life insurance products would decrease in value by $457 million, compared to a decrease of $456 million at December 31, 2005.

            To the extent that conditions differ from the assumptions we used in these calculations, duration and rate shock measures could be significantly impacted. Additionally, our calculations assume that the current relationship between short-term and long-term interest rates (the term structure of interest rates) will remain constant over time. As a result, these calculations may not fully capture the effect of non-parallel changes in the term structure of interest rates and/or large changes in interest rates.

            Equity price riskis the risk that we will incur losses due to adverse changes in the general levels of the equity markets. At December 31, 2005,2006, we held approximately $4.97$5.87 billion in common stocks and $2.03$2.99 billion in other securities with equity risk (including primarily convertible securities, limited partnership funds, non-redeemable preferred securities and equity-linked notes), compared to approximately $4.88$4.97 billion in common stocks and $1.82$2.30 billion in other equity investments at December 31, 2004.2005. Approximately 100.0% and 66.3%53.5% of these totals, respectively, represented assets of the Property-Liability operations at December 31, 2005,2006, compared to approximately 99.8%100.0% and 65.8%58.4%, respectively, at December 31, 2004.2005. Additionally, we had $750 million in short Standard & Poor's 500 Composite Price Index ("S&P 500") futures at December 31, 2006 with a fair value of $3 million.

            At December 31, 2005,2006, our portfolio of common stocks and other securities with equity investmentsrisk had a beta of approximately 0.95,1.02, compared to a beta of approximately 0.850.96 at December 31, 2004.2005. Beta represents a widely used methodology to describe, quantitatively, an investment's market risk characteristics relative to an index such as the Standard & Poor's 500 Composite Price Index ("S&P 500").500. Based on the beta analysis, we estimate that if the S&P 500 decreases by 10%, the fair value of our equity investments will decrease by approximately 9.5%10.2%. Likewise, we estimate that if the S&P 500 increases by 10%, the fair value of our equity investments will increase by approximately 9.5%10.2%. Based upon the information and assumptions we used to calculate beta at December 31, 2005,2006, we estimate that an immediate decrease in the S&P 500 of 10% would decrease the net fair value of our equity investments identified above by approximately $824 million, compared to $695 million at December 31, 2005. Reflected in the equity calculation are the



    $667 million, comparedeffects of a program that uses short futures to $569 millionmanage Property-Liability equity risk exposures relative to equity targets. Based on contracts in place at December 31, 2004.2006, we would recognize realized capital gains totaling $75 million in the event of a 10% immediate decrease in the S&P 500 and capital losses totaling $75 million in the event of a 10% immediate increase in the S&P 500. The selection of a 10% immediate decrease in the S&P 500 should not be construed as our prediction of future market events, but only as an illustration of the potential effect of such an event.

            The beta of our common stocks and other securities with equity investmentsrisk was determined by comparing the monthly total returns of the equitythese investments to monthly total returns of the S&P 500 over a three-year historical period. Since beta is historically based, projecting future price volatility using this method involves an inherent assumption that historical volatility and correlation relationships between stocks and the composition of our portfolio will not change in the future. Therefore, the illustrations noted above may not reflect our actual experience if future volatility and correlation relationships differ from the historical relationships.

            At December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, we had separate accounts assets related to variable annuity and variable life contracts with account values totaling $16.17 billion and $15.24 billion, and $14.38 billion, respectively. We earnEquity risk exists for contract charges as a percentagebased on separate account balances and guarantees for death and/or income benefits provided by our variable products. In 2006, we disposed of these account values. In the event of an immediate decline of 10% in the account values due to equity market declines, we would have earned approximately $25 million and $24 million less in fee income at December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.

            Variable annuity contracts sold by Allstate Financial have a GMDB and customers may have chosen to purchase an enhanced GMDB, a GMIB from 1998 to December 31, 2003, a TrueReturnSM guaranteed minimum accumulation benefit ("GMAB") beginning in 2004, and a SureIncomeSM guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit ("GMWB") beginning in 2005. These guarantees subject us to additional equity market risk because the beneficiary or contractholder may receive a benefit that is greater than their corresponding account value. GMDBs are payable upon death. GMIBs may be exercised on or after the tenth-year anniversary (not prior to 2008)substantially all of the contract if the contractholder elects to receivevariable annuity business through a defined stream of payments ("annuitize"). GMABs are credited to the contractholder account on a contract anniversary date that is pre-determined by the contractholder, between the eighth and twentieth year after contract issue (not prior to 2012). GMABs guarantee an account value of up to 2.5 times (or 250%) of the amount depositedreinsurance agreement with Prudential as described in the contract, depending on the amount of time the contract is in force and adherence to certain fund allocation requirements. GMWBs may be payable if the contractholder elects to take partial withdrawals. GMWBs guarantee that the contractholder can take annual partial withdrawals up to 8% of the amount deposited in the contract until their withdrawals total the initial deposit.

            In January 2004, we established reserves for GMDBs and GMIBs in conjunction with the adoption of SOP 03-1. Because of this change in accounting, guarantee payments are now recognized over future periods rather than expensed as paid. For more details about this adopted accounting guidance and the calculation of the related reserves see Notes 2 and 8Note 3 of the consolidated financial statements.statements, and therefore mitigated this aspect of our risk. Equity risk for our variable life business relates to contract charges and policyholder benefits. Total variable life contract charges for 2006 and 2005 were $86 million and $79 million, respectively. Separate account liabilities related to variable life contracts were $826 million and $721 million in December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.

            At December 31, 20052006 and 2004, the guaranteed value of the death benefits in excess of account values was estimated to be $1.52 billion and $1.80 billion, respectively, net of reinsurance. The decrease in this estimate between periods is attributable to improved equity markets during 2005 and customer surrenders of contracts with in-the-money GMDBs. In both periods, approximately half of this exposure is related to the return of deposits guarantee, while the remaining half is attributable to a death benefit guarantee greater than the original deposits. In addition to reinsurance for a portion of these benefits, we entered into various derivative instruments beginning in 2003 to offset the risk of future death claims on substantially all new business issued on or after January 1, 2003. A similar program was established for GMABs in 2004 and for GMWBs in 2005.

            In the event of an immediate decline in account values of 10% due to equity market declines, payments for guaranteed death benefits at December 31, 2005 would increase by an estimated $15 million in 2006. These payments would be charged against the related reserve rather than directly to



    earnings as paid. Contributions to the reserve for GMDBs would increase by a nominal amount in 2006 in the event of an immediate 10% decline in account values. The selection of a 10% immediate decrease should not be construed as our prediction of future market events, but only as an example to illustrate the potential effect on earnings and cash flow of equity market declines as a result of this guarantee. Also, our actual payment experience in the future may not be consistent with the assumptions used in the model.

            GMIB contracts that we sold provide the contractholder with the right to annuitize based on the highest account value at any anniversary date or on a guaranteed earnings rate based on the initial account value over the specified period. The guaranteed income benefit feature was first offered in our variable annuity products beginning in 1998, with guaranteed benefits available for election by contractholders ten years after issue. Accordingly, the earliest date at which benefits could become payable is 2008. Therefore, in the event of an immediate decline of 10% in contractholders' account values as of December 31, 2005 due to equity market declines, contributions to the reserve would be increased by approximately $1 million in 2006. The selection of a 10% immediate decrease should not be construed as our prediction of future market events, but only as an example to illustrate the potential effect on earnings and cash flow of equity market declines as a result of this guarantee.

            In the event of an immediate decline of 10% in GMAB and GMWB contractholders' account values as of December 31, 2005, due to equity market declines, there would be no net impact on our earnings because these benefits are hedged, however the reserve for GMABs and GMWBs would be increased by approximately $10 million and $2 million, respectively.

            In addition to our GMDB, GMIB and GMAB equity risk, at December 31, 2005 and 2004 we had approximately $2.72$3.47 billion and $2.02$2.72 billion, respectively, in equity-indexed annuity liabilities that provide customers with interest crediting rates based on the performance of the S&P 500. We hedge the equity risk associated with these liabilities through the purchase and sale of equity-indexed options and futures, swap futures,interest rate swaps, and eurodollar futures, maintaining risk within specified value-at-risk limits.

            Allstate Financial also is exposed to equity risk in DAC. Fluctuations in the value of the variable annuity and life contract account values due to the equity market affect DAC amortization, because the expected fee income and guaranteed benefits payable are components of the EGP for variable annuity and life contracts. For a more detailed discussion of DAC, see Note 2 of the consolidated financial statements and the Application of Critical Accounting Policies section of the MD&A.

    Foreign currency exchange rate riskis the risk that we will incur economic losses due to adverse changes in foreign currency exchange rates. This risk primarily arises from our foreign equity investments, including real estate funds and our Canadian operations. We also have funding agreement programs and a small amount of fixed income securities that are denominated in foreign currencies, but we use derivatives to effectively hedge the foreign currency risk of these funding agreements and securities. At December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, we had approximately $1.17$1.02 billion and $1.22$1.17 billion, respectively, in funding agreements denominated in foreign currencies.

            At December 31, 2005,2006, we had approximately $538$637 million in foreign currency denominated equity securities and an additional $566$559 million net investment in our Canadianforeign subsidiaries. These amounts were $455$538 million and $567$601 million, respectively, at December 31, 2004.2005. The foreign currency exposure is almost entirely in the Property-Liability business.

            Based upon the information and assumptions we used at December 31, 2005,2006, we estimate that a 10% immediate unfavorable change in each of the foreign currency exchange rates that we are exposed to would decrease the value of our foreign currency denominated instruments by approximately $110$120 million, compared with an estimated $102$114 million decrease at December 31, 2004.2005. The selection of a



    10% immediate decrease in all currency exchange rates should not be construed as our prediction of future market events, but only as an illustration of the potential effect of such an event. Our currency



    exposure is diversified across 34 countries,21 currencies, compared to 32 countries23 currencies at December 31, 2004.2005. Our largest individual currency exchange exposures at December 31, 2006 were to the Canadian dollar (44.8%) and the Euro (20.9%). The largest individual currency exchange exposures at December 31, 2005 were to the Canadian dollar (52.4%(50.7%) and the Euro (14.7%). The largest individual currency exchange exposures at December 31, 2004 were to the Canadian dollar (56.5%) and the British pound (11.0%(17.5%). Our primary regional exposure is to Western Europe, approximately 27.2%33.4% at December 31, 2005,2006, compared to 28.7%29.5% at December 31, 2004.2005.

            The modeling technique we use to report our currency exposure does not take into account correlation among foreign currency exchange rates. Even though we believe it is very unlikely that all of the foreign currency exchange rates that we are exposed to would simultaneously decrease by 10%, we nonetheless stress test our portfolio under this and other hypothetical extreme adverse market scenarios. Our actual experience may differ from these results because of assumptions we have used or because significant liquidity and market events could occur that we did not foresee.

    Commodity price risk is the risk that we will incur economic losses due to adverse changes in the prices of commodities. This risk arises from our commodity linked investments, such as the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index—a broad based, oil dominated index. At December 31, 2006 and 2005, we had approximately $572 million and $221 million exposure to the index, respectively. This exposure is almost entirely within Property-Liability.

            Based upon the information and assumptions available at December 31, 2006, we estimate that a 10% immediate unfavorable change to the commodity index would decrease the value of our commodity investments by $57 million, compared with an estimated $21 million decrease at December 31, 2005. The selection of a 10% immediate decrease in commodity prices should not be construed as our prediction of future market events, but only as an illustration of the potential effect of such an event.

    PENSION PLANS

            We have defined benefit pension plans, which cover most full-time and certain part-time employees and employee-agents. In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standard ("SFAS") No. 158. For further information on SFAS No. 158, see Note 2 of the consolidated financial statements. See Note 16 of the consolidated financial statements for a complete discussion of these plans and their effect on the consolidated financial statements.

            Also during 2006, the federal government enacted the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the "Act") which changes the manner in which pension funding is determined. The new rules are effective for funding beginning in 2008. We are currently reviewing the implications of the Act, but do not expect it to have a material impact on funding.

            Our obligations have not changed as a result of these developments. The pension and other postretirement plans may be amended or terminated at any time. Any revisions could result in significant changes to our obligations and our obligation to fund the plans.

    As provided for in Statement of Financial Accounting Standard ("SFAS")SFAS No. 87 "Employers' Accounting for Settlements and Curtailments of Defined Benefit Pension Plans and for Termination Benefits,Pensions," the market-related value component of expected returns recognizes plan equity losses and gains over a five-year period, which we believe is consistent with the long-term nature of pension obligations. As a result, the effect of changes in fair value on our net periodic pension cost may be experienced in periods subsequent to those in which the fluctuations actually occur.

            Net periodic pension cost in 20062007 is estimated to be $331$262 million based on current assumptions. Net periodic pension cost increased in 20052006 and 20042005 principally due to decreases in the weighted average discount rate assumption which is based on long-term interest rates, the impact of unfavorable investment returns from prior periods on the market-related value of assets, and the amortization of



    actuarial losses. In each of the years 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, net pension cost included non-cash settlement charges primarily resulting from lump sum distributions made to agents.agents and in 2006 due to higher lump sum payments made to Allstate employees. Settlement charges are expected to continue in the future as we settle our remaining agent pension obligations by making lump sum distributions to agents.

            Amounts recorded for pension cost and minimum pension liabilitiesaccumulated other comprehensive income are significantly affected by fluctuations in the returns on plan assets and the amortization of unrecognized actuarial gains and losses. Plan assets sustained net losses in prior periods primarily due to declines in equity markets. These asset losses, combined with all other unrecognized actuarial gains and losses, resulted in amortization of net actuarial loss (and additional net periodic pension cost) of $143 million in 2006 and $135 million in 2005 and $121 million in 2004.2005. We anticipate that the unrealized loss for our pension plans will exceed 10% of the greater of the projected benefit obligations or the market-related value of assets during the foreseeable future, resulting in additional amortization and net periodic pension cost. In conjunction with the recognition of the net actuarial loss in accumulated other comprehensive income, upon adoption of SFAS No. 158, we recorded a deferred tax asset of $574 million. The deferred tax asset will be amortized in conjunction with the net actuarial losses over the remaining service period of active employees expected to receive benefits. Although realization is not assured, we believe it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will be realized based on the assumption that certain levels of income will be achieved. See Note 14 of the consolidated financial statements for further information on deferred tax assets.

            Amounts recorded for net periodic pension cost and minimum pension liabilitiesaccumulated other comprehensive income are also significantly affected by changes in the assumptions used to determine the weighted average discount rate and the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets. The weighted average discount rate is based on rates at which expected pension benefits attributable to past employee service could effectively be settled on a present value basis at the measurement date. We develop the assumed weighted average discount rate by utilizing the weighted average yield of a theoretical dedicated portfolio derived from bonds available in the Lehman corporate bond universe having ratings of at least "AA" by Standard & Poor's or at least "Aa" by Moody's on the measurement date with cash flows that match expected plan benefit requirements. Significant changes in discount rates, such as those caused by changes in the yield curve, the mix of bonds available in the market, the duration of selected bonds and expected benefit payments, may result in volatility in pension cost and minimum pension liabilities.accumulated other comprehensive income.


            Holding other assumptions constant, a hypothetical decrease of 100 basis points in the weighted average discount rate would result in an increase of $55 million in net periodic pension cost and a $423 million increase in the underfunded liability of our pension plans recorded as accumulated other comprehensive income after-tax as of October 31, 2006, our most recent measurement date, versus an increase of $58 million in net periodic pension cost and ana $1.08 billion increase in the minimum pension liability after-tax as of October 31, 2005, our most recent measurement date, versus an increase of $50 million in net periodic pension cost and a $867 million increase in the minimum pension liability after-tax as of October 31, 2004.2005. A hypothetical increase of 100 basis points in the weighted average discount rate would decrease net periodic pension cost by $45$48 million and would decrease the minimumunderfunded liability of our pension liabilityplans recorded as accumulated other comprehensive income after-tax by $6$353 million as of October 31, 2005,2006, versus a decrease in net periodic pension cost of $41$45 million and a $49$6 million decrease in the minimum pension liability after-tax as of October 31, 2004.2005. This non-symmetrical range results from the non-linear relationship between discount rates and pension obligations, and changes in the amortization of unrealized net actuarial gains and losses. We made contributions during 2005 sufficient to eliminate a minimum pension liability for one of our qualified pension plans. The minimum pension liability reported at December 31, 2005 relates solely to our unfunded non-qualified pension plans.

            The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets reflects the average rate of earnings expected on plan assets. While this rate reflects long-term assumptions and is consistent with long-term historical returns, sustained changes in the market or changes in the mix of plan assets may lead to revisions in



    the assumed long-term rate of return on plan assets that may result in variability of pension cost. Differences between the actual return on plan assets and the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets are a component of unrecognized gains or losses, which may be amortized as a component of net actuarial gains and losses.losses and recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income. As a result, the effect of changes in fair value on our pension cost may be experienced in results of operation in periods subsequent to those in which the fluctuations actually occur.

            Holding other assumptions constant, a hypothetical decrease of 100 basis points in the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets would result in an increase of $38$42 million in pension cost at October 31, 2005,2006, compared to an increase in pension cost of $37$38 million at October 31, 2004.2005. A hypothetical increase of 100 basis points in the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets would result in a decrease in net periodic pension cost of $42 million at October 31, 2006, compared to a decrease in pension cost of $38 million at October 31, 2005, compared to a decrease of $37 million at October 31, 2004. Changes in the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets do not affect the minimum pension liability.2005.

    CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY

    Capital Resources consist of shareholders' equity and debt, representing funds deployed or available to be deployed to support business operations or for general corporate purposes. The following table summarizes our capital resources at December 31.

    (in millions)

    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
     (in millions)

     2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Common stock, retained earnings and other shareholders' equity itemsCommon stock, retained earnings and other shareholders' equity items $18,104 $19,208 $17,809 Common stock, retained earnings and other shareholders' equity items $20,855 $18,104 $19,208 
    Accumulated other comprehensive incomeAccumulated other comprehensive income 2,082 2,615 2,756 Accumulated other comprehensive income 991 2,082 2,615 
     
     
     
       
     
     
     
    Total shareholders' equity 20,186 21,823 20,565 Total shareholders' equity 21,846 20,186 21,823 
    DebtDebt 5,300 5,334 5,076 Debt 4,662 5,300 5,334 
     
     
     
       
     
     
     
    Total capital resources $25,486 $27,157 $25,641 Total capital resources $26,508 $25,486 $27,157 
     
     
     
       
     
     
     

    Ratio of debt to shareholders' equity

    Ratio of debt to shareholders' equity

     

    26.3

    %

     

    24.4

    %

     

    24.7

    %

    Ratio of debt to shareholders' equity

     

    21.3

    %

     

    26.3

    %

     

    24.4

    %
    Ratio of debt to capital resourcesRatio of debt to capital resources 20.8% 19.6% 19.8%Ratio of debt to capital resources 17.6% 20.8% 19.6%

    Shareholders' equity increased in 2006, due to net income which was partly offset by share repurchases, dividends paid to shareholders, decreases in unrealized net capital gains on investments, and the recognition of the net funded status of pension and other post retirement benefit obligations recognized with the adoption of SFAS No. 158. Shareholders' equity declined in 2005 when compared to 2004, due to net income being offset by share repurchases, decreases in unrealized net capital gains on investments and dividends paid to shareholders. Shareholders'

            SFAS No. 158 requires that all previously unrecognized actuarial gains and losses and prior service cost be recognized as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax. The net funded status of pension and other post retirement benefit obligations as of December 31, 2006 decreased shareholders' equity by $1.11 billion, and increased the ratio of debt to shareholders' equity and the ratio of debt to capital resources by 1.0 points and 0.7 points, respectively. As shown in 2004 when compared to 2003, as net income was partially offsetthe table below, our financial ratings were not impacted by sharethis adoption. For further information on SFAS No. 158, see Notes 2 and 16 of the consolidated financial statements and the Pension Plans section of the MD&A.

            Share repurchases and dividends paid to shareholders. In January 2005, we commenced a      We completed our $4.00 billion share repurchase program. As of December 31,program that commenced in January 2005 thisduring November 2006, and commenced a $3.00 billion share repurchase program had $1.55 billion remaining andthat is expected to be completed in 2006.by March 31, 2008. As of December 31, 2006, this program had $2.79 billion remaining.


            Treasury stock is a component of shareholders' equity and, since         Since 1995, we have acquired 337368 million shares of our common stock at a cost of $12.39$14.16 billion, primarily as part of various stock repurchase programs. We have reissued 8491 million shares since 1995, primarily associated with our equity incentive plans, the 1999 acquisition of American Heritage Life Investment Corporation ("AHL") and the 2001 redemption of certain mandatorily redeemable preferred securities.

            The impact of our repurchase programs on total shares outstanding since 1995 has been a net reduction of 274 million shares or 30.6%.

    Debt decreased in 2006, primarily due to net decreases in long-term debt and short-term debt consisting of commercial paper borrowings. Long-term debt decreased due to the December 1, 2006 repayment of $550 million of 5.375% Senior Notes in accordance with their scheduled maturity. We also elected to redeem our $200 million of 7.83% junior subordinated debentures due in 2045, thereby triggering the redemption of 200,000 shares of the 7.83% mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trust ("trust preferred securities") originally issued by Allstate Financing II, an unconsolidated variable interest entity ("VIE"). The debentures and trust preferred securities were redeemed at a price of 103.915% plus accrued and unpaid interest. In 2006, we also purchased a headquarters office building previously owned by a consolidated synthetic lease VIE for $78 million, further reducing long-term debt.

            These redemptions were made from available sources of liquidity including the issuance in March 2006 of $650 million of 5.95% Senior Notes due 2036, utilizing the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in August 2003.

            Debt decreased in 2005, primarily due to decreases in long-term debt partially offset by increased commercial paper borrowings. In May 2005, we issued $800 million of 5.55% Senior Notes due 2035, utilizing the registration statement filed with the SEC in August 2003. The proceeds of this issuance were used for general corporate purposes including to fund the repayment of a portion of the $900 million of 77/8% Senior Notes due 2005, which were repaid at their scheduled maturity, May 1, 2005. In July 2005, we liquidated our consolidated investment management VIE. As a result of the liquidation, long-term debt decreased by $279 million. We plan to use existing sources of liquidity to fund the repayment of our $550 million 5.375% senior notes due in 2006.

            Debt increased in 2004 primarily due to increases in long-term borrowings outstanding. We issued $650 million of 5.00% Senior Notes due in 2014, utilizing the registration statement filed with the SEC in June 2000. The proceeds of this issuance were used for general corporate purposes, including to facilitate the repayment of a portion of the $900 million of 77/8% Senior Notes due 2005 at their scheduled maturity on May 1, 2005. The increase in debt was partially offset by a decrease of $412 million related to the deconsolidation of a VIE resulting from the sale of a portion of the equity interest in the VIE.

            At December 31, 2005, we had2006, there were no outstanding commercial paper borrowings of $413 million with a weighted average interest rate of 4.22%.borrowings.

            Financial Ratings and Strength    The following table summarizes our debt, commercial paper and insurance financial strength ratings at December 31, 2005.2006.

     
     Moody's
     Standard
    & Poor's

     A.M. Best
    The Allstate Corporation (senior long-term debt) A1 A+ a
    The Allstate Corporation (commercial paper) P-1 A-1 AMB-1
    Allstate Insurance Company (insurance financial strength) Aa2 AA A+
    Allstate Life Insurance Company ("ALIC") (insurance financial strength) Aa2 AA A+

            Our ratings are influenced by many factors including our operating and financial performance, asset quality, liquidity, asset/liability management, overall portfolio mix, financial leverage (i.e., debt), exposure to risks such as catastrophes and the current level of operating leverage. We have distinct groups of subsidiaries licensed to sell property and casualty insurance in New Jersey and Florida. These groups maintain separate group ratings and are not reinsured by other Allstate subsidiaries that are not part of these respective groups. The ratings of these groups are influenced by the risks that relate distinctly to each group.



            Many mortgage companies require property owners to have insurance from an insurance carrier with a financial strength rating no lower than B+. Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company and Encompass Insurance Company of New Jersey, which write auto and homeowners insurance, are rated A- by A.M. Best. Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company also has a Demotech rating of A". Allstate Floridian, which writes primarily property insurance, has an A.M. Best rating of B+ with a negative outlook, and remains under review currently. The resolution of this review will be influenced by developments prior to the 2006 hurricane season, including Florida regulatory and legislative actions, Allstate and Allstate Floridian management actions, A.M. Best's assessment of the timing and nature of such developments and their view on the amount of capital and risk-adjusted capitalization deemed necessary to support the ratings. Allstate Floridian Insurance Company and its subsidiary, Allstate Floridian Indemnity Company, also have a Demotech rating of A'. Encompass Floridian Insurance Company and Encompass Floridian Indemnity Company, both subsidiaries of Allstate Floridian, have Demotech ratings of A. In addition, AIC committed to AFIC to make as much as $375 million of additional capital available until May 31, 2006 under specified circumstances if one or more events reduce AFIC's capital to below $272 million initially and to $225 million if subsequent events should occur. In December 2005, $159 million was contributed under this agreement. As of December 31, 2005, AFIC's statutory surplus is approximately $233 million compared to $272 million at December 31, 2004. For Allstate Floridian, premiums written during 2005 totaled $426 million and property PIF, excluding the policies that have already been ceded to Universal, was approximately 560,000 as of December 31, 2005. The extent of Allstate Floridian's management actions are expected to reduce premiums, PIF and the related amount of catastrophe exposure to a level more commensurate with Allstate Floridian's surplus, which has declined in recent years due to losses incurred related to hurricanes, and consistent with its capacity to achieve an acceptable rating from A.M. Best. For examples of such actions taken in 2005 and early 2006 see the Hurricane section of the MD&A.

            Allstate's domestic property-liability and life insurance subsidiaries prepare their statutory basis financial statements in conformity with accounting practices prescribed or permitted by the insurance department of the applicable state of domicile. Statutory surplus is a measure that is often used as a basis for determining dividend paying capacity, operating leverage and premium growth capacity, and it is also reviewed by rating agencies in determining their ratings. As of December 31, 2005,2006, AIC's statutory surplus is approximately $14.8$19.1 billion compared to $16.9$14.8 billion at December 31, 2004. This decline is primarily due to the estimated catastrophe losses related to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and the payment of $3.86 billion of dividends by AIC in 2005. During 2005, The Allstate Corporation committed to contribute capital to AIC. For more details about this commitment, see Note 15 of the consolidated financial statements.



            The ratio of net premiums written to statutory surplus is a common measure of operating leverage used in the property-casualty insurance industry and serves as an indicator of a company's premium growth capacity. Ratios in excess of 3 to 1 are typically considered outside the usual range by insurance regulators and rating agencies. AIC's premium to surplus ratio was 1.8x1.4x on December 31, 20052006 compared to 1.5x1.8x in the prior year.

            We have distinct groups of subsidiaries licensed to sell property and casualty insurance in New Jersey and Florida that maintain separate group ratings. The ratings of these groups are influenced by the risks that relate specifically to each group. Many mortgage companies require property owners to have insurance from an insurance carrier with a secure financial strength rating from an accredited rating agency. Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company and Encompass Insurance Company of New Jersey, which write auto and homeowners insurance, are rated A- by A.M. Best. Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company also has a Demotech rating of A". Allstate Floridian, which writes primarily property insurance, has an A.M. Best rating of B+ with a negative outlook. AFIC and its subsidiary, Allstate Floridian Indemnity Company, also have Demotech financial stability ratings of A'. Encompass Floridian Insurance Company and Encompass Floridian Indemnity Company, both subsidiaries of AFIC, have Demotech financial stability ratings of A.

            State laws specify regulatory actions if an insurer's risk-based capital ("RBC"), a measure of an insurer's solvency, falls below certain levels. The NAIC has a standard formula for annually assessing RBC. The formula for calculating RBC for property-liability companies takes into account asset and credit risks but places more emphasis on underwriting factors for reserving and pricing. The formula for calculating RBC for life insurance companies takes into account factors relating to insurance, business, asset and interest rate risks. At December 31, 2005,2006, the RBC for each of our domestic insurance companies was above levels that would require regulatory actions.



            The NAIC has also developed a set of financial relationships or tests known as the Insurance Regulatory Information System to assist state regulators in monitoring the financial condition of insurance companies and identifying companies that require special attention or actions by insurance regulatory authorities. The NAIC analyzes financial data provided by insurance companies using prescribed ratios, each with defined "usual ranges". Generally, regulators will begin to monitor an insurance company if its ratios fall outside the usual ranges for four or more of the ratios. If an insurance company has insufficient capital, regulators may act to reduce the amount of insurance it can issue. The ratios of our domestic insurance companies are within these ranges.



            Liquidity Sources and Uses    Our potential sources of funds principally include activities shown in the following table.

     
     Property-
    Liability

     Allstate
    Financial

     Corporate and
    and Other

    Receipt of insurance premiums X X  
    Allstate Financial contractholder fund deposits   X  
    Reinsurance recoveries X X  
    Receipts of principal, interest and dividends on investments X X X
    Sales of investments X X X
    Funds from investment repurchase agreements, securities lending,
    dollar roll, commercial paper and lines of credit agreements
     X X X
    Inter-company loans X X X
    Capital contributions from parent X X  
    Dividends from subsidiaries XX
    Tax refunds/settlements   X
    Funds from periodic issuance of additional securities     X
    Funds from the settlement of our benefit plans     X

            Our potential uses of funds principally include activities shown in the following table.

     
     Property-
    Liability

     Allstate
    Financial

     Corporate and
    and Other

    Payment of claims and related expenses X    
    Payment of contract benefits, maturities, surrenders and withdrawals   X  
    Reinsurance cessions and payments X X  
    Operating costs and expenses X X X
    Purchase of investments X X X
    Repayment of investment repurchase agreements, securities lending, dollar roll, commercial paper and lines of credit agreements X X X
    Payment or repayment of inter-company loans X X X
    Capital contributions to subsidiaries X   X
    Dividends to shareholdersshareholders/parent company X X X
    Tax payments/settlements X X X
    Share repurchases     X
    Debt service expenses and repayment X   X
    Settlement payments of employee and agent benefit plans X   X

            The following table summarizes consolidated cash flow activities by business unit.segment.


     Property-Liability
     Allstate Financial
     Corporate
    and Other

     Consolidated
      Property-Liability
     Allstate Financial
     Corporate and Other
     Consolidated
     
    (in millions)

     2005
     2004
     2003
     2005
     2004
     2003
     2005
     2004
     2003
     2005
     2004
     2003
      2006
     2005
     2004
     2006
     2005
     2004
     2006
     2005
     2004
     2006
     2005
     2004
     
    Net cash provided by (used in):                                                                          
    Operating activities $2,872 $4,092 $3,450 $2,502 $1,916 $2,256 $231 $(540)$(15)$5,605 $5,468 $5,691  $2,454 $2,872 $4,092 $2,589 $2,502 $1,916 $12 $231 $(540)$5,055 $5,605 $5,468 
    Investing activities  421  (1,903) (2,344) (4,854) (8,039) (6,769) (718) (781) (351) (5,151) (10,723) (9,464)  (1,257) 421  (1,903) (2,074) (4,854) (8,039) 1,412  (718) (781) (1,919) (5,151) (10,723)
    Financing activities  370  49  11  2,498  6,506  4,554  (3,423) (1,252) (888) (555) 5,303  3,677   (344) 370  49  (152) 2,498  6,506  (2,510) (3,423) (1,252) (3,006) (555) 5,303 
                                
     
     
                                 
     
     
     
    Net (decrease) increase in consolidated cash                            $(101)$48 $(96)
    Net increase (decrease) in consolidated cash                            $130 $(101)$48 
                                
     
     
                                 
     
     
     

            Property-Liability      Lower cash provided by operating activities for Property-Liability in 2006, compared to 2005, was primarily due to higher claim payments related to the prior year hurricanes, partially offset by increased premiums. Lower operating cash flows of the Property-Liability business in 2005, compared to 2004, were primarily due to increased claim payments, partially offset by increased premiums and collections of reinsurance and other recoverables related to catastrophes. Claim payments increased as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Higher operating cashWilma in 2005.

            Cash flows of the Property-Liability businessused in 2004 wereinvesting activities increased in 2006 compared to 2005, primarily due to increased underwriting income despite catastrophe losses in 2004 and contributions made to our defined benefit pension plans in 2004.

    higher investment purchases, partially offset by proceeds from sales of securities. Cash provided by investing activities increased in 2005 primarily as a result of increased proceeds from sales of securities, partially offset by lower operating cash flows and higher dividends paid by AIC to its parent.

            Cash flows used in investingfinancing activities decreasedincreased in 2004,2006 compared to 2003,2005, primarily as a result of less underwriting income being available for investment due to higher operating cash flows offset by dividends paid by AIC to its parent.

    the repayment of short-term debt. Cash provided by financing activities in 2005 was the result of borrowing under our commercial paper program.

            Cash flows were impacted by dividends paid by AIC to its parent, The Allstate Corporation, totaling $1.01 billion, $3.86 billion and $2.49 billion in 2006, 2005 and $1.272004, respectively. During 2007, AIC will be able to pay a total of $4.92 billion in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.dividends. For a description of limitations on the payment of these dividends, see Note 15 of the consolidated financial statements. Based on this limitation, without the prior approval from the Illinois Department of Insurance, AIC will not pay dividends to the Allstate Corporation until the third quarter of 2006.

            We expect that AIC will have sufficient liquidity to pay estimated catastrophe claims and claims expenses from existing sources of funds including operating cash flows, proceeds from the issuance of commercial paper and maturities and sales of investments. We expect the loss reserves from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma to be paid during 2006.

            Allstate Financial      Higher operating cash flows for Allstate Financial in 2006, compared to 2005, primarily related to higher investment income. Higher operating cash flows for Allstate Financial in 2005, compared to 2004, primarily related to higher investment income, partially offset by lower life and annuity premiums. Lower cash

            Cash flows from operatingused in investing activities decreased in 2004, compared to 2003, were2006 primarily due to lower premium collections and higher deferrable expenses paid,decreased net cash provided by financing activities, partially offset by lower policy and contract benefits paid andthe investment of higher interest received on fixed income securities and mortgage loans.

    operating cash flows. Cash flows used in investing activities in 2006 also include the settlements related to the disposition through reinsurance of substantially all our variable annuity business. Cash flows used in investing activities decreased in 2005 due to lower cash provided by financing in 2005, compared to 2004, increased proceeds from sales of securities and higher investment collections, partially offset by the investment of higher operating cash flows.

            Cash flows used in investingfinancing activities increased in 2004 compared to 20032006 as the investmenta result of lower contractholder fund deposits and higher financing cash flows was partially offset by lower operating cash flow.



    surrenders and partial withdrawals. Lower cash flows provided by financing activities in 2005, compared to 2004, were primarily due to higher surrenders of market value adjusted annuities, lower deposits on fixed annuities and institutional products, and increased maturities of institutional products. Increased cash flows from financing activities in 2004, compared to 2003, were primarily attributable to higher deposits of fixed annuities and institutional products, partially offset by fixed annuity withdrawals and institutional product maturities. For quantification of the changes in contractholder funds, see the Allstate Financial Segment section of the MD&A.

            A portion of the Allstate Financial product portfolio, primarily fixed annuity and interest-sensitive life insurance products, is subject to surrender and withdrawal at the discretion of contractholders. The



    following table summarizes Allstate Financial's liabilities for these products by their contractual withdrawal provisions at December 31, 2005. Approximately 15.8% of these liabilities are subject to discretionary withdrawal without adjustment.2006.

    (in millions)

    (in millions)

     2005
    (in millions)

     2006
    Not subject to discretionary withdrawalNot subject to discretionary withdrawal $16,546Not subject to discretionary withdrawal $16,850
    Subject to discretionary withdrawal with adjustments:Subject to discretionary withdrawal with adjustments:  Subject to discretionary withdrawal with adjustments:  
    Specified surrender charges(1) 24,301Specified surrender charges(1) 26,173
    Market value(2) 9,729Market value(2) 10,001
    Subject to discretionary withdrawal without adjustmentsSubject to discretionary withdrawal without adjustments 9,464Subject to discretionary withdrawal without adjustments 9,007
     
     
    Total Contractholder funds(3)Total Contractholder funds(3) $60,040Total Contractholder funds(3) $62,031
     
     

    (1)
    Includes $8.20$9.23 billion of liabilities with a contractual surrender charge of less than 5.0%5% of the account balance.

    (2)
    Approximately $8.61$8.99 billion of the contracts with market value adjusted surrenders have a 30-45 day period during which there is no surrender charge or market value adjustment including approximately $1.60$1.87 billion of market-value adjusted annuities with a period commencing during 2007.

    (3)
    Includes approximately $1.37 billion of contractholder funds on variable annuities reinsured to Prudential effective June 1, 2006.

            To ensure we have the appropriate level of liquidity in this segment, we perform actuarial tests on the impact to cash flows of policy surrenders and other actions under various scenarios. Depending upon the years in which certain policy types were sold with specific surrender provisions, the Allstate Financial cash flow could vary due to higher surrender of policies exiting their surrender charge periods.

            Corporate and Other      Fluctuations in the Corporate and Other operating cash flows, were primarily due to the timing of intercompany settlements. Investing activities primarily relate to activity in the portfolio of Kennett Capital.Capital, Inc. ("Kennett Capital"). Financing cash flows of the Corporate and Other segment reflect actions such as fluctuations in short-term debt, repayment of debt, proceeds from the issuance of debt, dividends to shareholders of The Allstate Corporation and share repurchases; therefore, financing cash flows are affected when we increase or decrease the level of these activities.

            We have established external sources of short-term liquidity that include a commercial paper program, lines-of-credit, dollar rolls and repurchase agreements. In the aggregate, at December 31, 2005,2006, these sources could provide over $3.48$3.89 billion of additional liquidity. For additional liquidity, we can also issue new insurance contracts, incur additional debt and sell assets from our investment portfolio. The liquidity of our investment portfolio varies by type of investment. For example, $17.72$18.33 billion of privately placed corporate obligations that represent 15.0%15.3% of the consolidated investment portfolio, and $8.75$9.47 billion of mortgage loans that represent 7.4%7.9% of the consolidated investment portfolio, generally are considered to be less liquid than many of our other types of investments, such as our U.S. government and agencies, municipal and public corporate fixed income security portfolios. The sources of liquidity for



    The Allstate Corporation include but are not limited to dividends from AIC and $2.34$1.75 billion of investments at Kennett Capital.

            We have access to additional borrowing to support liquidity as follows:


            Our only financial covenant exists with respect to our credit facility and our synthetic lease VIE obligations. The covenant requires that we not exceed a 37.5% debt to capital resources ratio as defined in the agreements. This ratio at December 31, 20052006 was 21.5%18.4%. For quantification of the synthetic lease VIE obligations, see Note 11 of the consolidated financial statements.

            We closely monitor and manage our liquidity through long- and short-term planning that is integrated throughout the corporation, the business segments and investments. Allstate Financial manages the duration of assets and related liabilities through its ALM organization, using a dynamic process that addresses liquidity utilizing the investment portfolio, and components of the portfolio as appropriate, which is routinely subjected to stress testing. Allstate Protection's underwriting cash transactions comprise millions of small transactions that make it possible to statistically determine reasonable expectations of patterns of liquidity, which are subject to volatility from unpredictable catastrophe losses. Property-Liability monitors the duration of its assets and liabilities and maintains a portfolio of highly liquid fixed income and equity securities, including short-term investments, exchange-traded common stock, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, and U.S. government and government agency securities in order to address the variability of its cash flows. Discontinued Lines and Coverages' liabilities are expected to be paid over many years and do not present a significant liquidity risk. Allstate Financial and Property-Liability also have access to funds from our commercial paper program.

            During 2006, ALIC issued an intercompany note in the amount of $500 million payable to its parent, AIC, on demand and, in any event, by March 30, 2007. ALIC used the funds to accelerate purchases of investments based on its outlook of the availability of acceptable investments in the beginning of 2007. ALIC will repay the loan with funds generated in the normal course of business, primarily by sales, investment income and cash collected from investment calls and maturities. The impacts of this loan are eliminated in consolidation.

    Certain remote events and circumstances could constrain our liquidity. Those events and circumstances include, for example, a catastrophe resulting in extraordinary losses, a downgrade in our long-term debt rating of A1, A+ and a (from Moody's, Standard & Poor's and A.M. Best, respectively) to non-investment grade status of below Baa3/BBB-/bb, a downgrade in AIC's financial strength rating from Aa2, AA and A+ (from Moody's, Standard & Poor's and A.M. Best, respectively) to below Baa/BBB/A-, or a downgrade in ALIC's financial strength ratings from Aa2, AA and A+ (from Moody's, Standard & Poor's and A.M. Best, respectively) to below Aa3/AA-/A-. The rating agencies also consider the interdependence of our individually rated entities, therefore, a rating change in one entity could potentially affect the ratings of other related entities.



            Contractual Obligations and Commitments    Our contractual obligations as of December 31, 20052006 and the payments due by period are shown in the following table.

    (in millions)

     Total
     Less than
    1 year

     1-3 years
     4-5 years
     Over
    5 years

     Total
     Less than
    1 year

     1-3 years
     4-5 years
     Over 5 years
    Liabilities for collateral and repurchase agreements(1) $4,102 $4,102 $ $ $ $4,144 $4,144 $ $ $
    Commercial paper 413 413        
    Contractholder funds(2) 72,881 8,669 21,715 12,699 29,798 80,375 9,850 24,174 13,530 32,821
    Reserve for life-contingent contract benefits(3) 28,739 1,210 3,326 2,229 21,974 32,309 1,191 3,465 2,320 25,333
    Long-term debt(4) 8,790 927 534 1,180 6,149 9,423 281 1,313 495 7,334
    Capital lease obligations(4) 97 12 24 24 37 85 12 24 17 32
    Operating leases(4) 822 213 301 168 140 824 208 289 164 163
    Unconditional purchase obligations(4) 533 225 179 98 31 612 246 255 88 23
    Pension obligations(4)(5) 153 129 24  
    Defined benefit pension plans and other postretirement benefit plans(4)(5) 6,328 199 279 291 5,559
    Reserve for property-liability insurance claims and claims expense(6) 22,117 10,368 6,288 2,317 3,144 18,866 8,171 5,831 2,178 2,686
    Other liabilities and accrued expenses(7)(8) 9,941 4,113 223 159 5,446
    Other liabilities and accrued expenses(7)(8) 4,751 4,578 108 25 40
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Total Contractual Cash Obligations $148,588 $30,381 $32,614 $18,874 $66,719 $157,717 $28,880 $35,738 $19,108 $73,991
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    (1)
    Liabilities for collateral and repurchase agreements are typically fully secured with cash or marketable securities.cash. We manage our short-term liquidity position to ensure the availability of a sufficient amount of liquid assets to extinguish short-term liabilities as they come due in the normal course of business.

    (2)
    Contractholder funds represent interest-bearing liabilities arising from the sale of products such as interest-sensitive life, fixed annuities, including immediate annuities without life contingencies, bank deposits and institutional products. These amounts reflect estimated cash payments to be made to policyholders and contractholders. Certain of these contracts, such as immediate annuities without life contingencies and institutional products, involve payment obligations where the amount and timing of the payment is essentially fixed and determinable. These amounts relate to (i) policies or contracts where we are currently making payments and will continue to do so and (ii) contracts where the timing of payments has been determined by the contract. Other contracts, such as interest-sensitive life and fixed deferred annuities, involve payment obligations where the amount and timing of future payments is uncertain. For these contracts and bank deposits, the Company is not currently making payments and will not make payments until (i) the occurrence of an insurable event, such as death, or (ii) the occurrence of a payment triggering event, such as the surrender of or partial withdrawal on a policy or deposit contract, which is outside of the control of the Company. We have estimated the timing of payments related to these contracts based on historical experience and our expectation of future payment patterns. Uncertainties relating to these liabilities include mortality, customer lapse and withdrawal activity, and estimated additional deposits for interest-sensitive life contracts, which may significantly impact both the timing and amount of future payments. Such cash outflows reflect adjustments for the estimated timing of mortality, retirement, and other appropriate factors, but are undiscounted with respect to interest. As a result, the sum of the cash outflows shown for all years in the table of $72.88 billion exceeds the corresponding liability amountsamount of $60.04$62.03 billion included in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as of December 31, 20052006 for contractholder funds. The liability amount in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position reflects the discounting for interest as well as adjustments for the timing of other factors as described above.

    (3)
    The reserve for life-contingent contract benefits relates primarily to traditional life and immediate annuities with life contingencies and reflects the present value of estimated cash payments to be made to policyholders and contractholders. Immediate annuities with life contingencies include (i) contracts where we are currently making payments and will continue to do so until the occurrence of a specific event such as death and (ii) contracts where the timing of a portion of the payments has been determined by the contract. Other contracts, such as traditional life and supplemental accident and health insurance, involve payment obligations where the amount and timing of future payments is uncertain. For these contracts, the Company is not currently making payments and will not make payments until (i) the occurrence of an insurable event, such as death or illness, or (ii) the occurrence of a payment triggering event, such as a surrender of a policy or contract, which is outside of the control of the Company. We have estimated the timing of cash outflows related to these contracts based on historical experience and our expectation of future payment patterns. Uncertainties relating to these liabilities include mortality, morbidity, expenses, customer lapse and withdrawal activity, and renewal premium for life policies, which may significantly impact both the timing and amount of future payments. Such cash outflows reflect adjustments for the estimated timing of mortality,