Note 1 - Basis of Presentation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements of Unum Group and its subsidiaries (the Company) have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 .

    

In our opinion, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of full year performance.

Note 2 - Accounting Developments

Accounting Updates Adopted in 2013:

Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 210 "Balance Sheet - Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities"

In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued an update requiring additional disclosures and information about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either offset on the balance sheet or are subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement. These disclosures provide information about the effect or potential effect of netting arrangements on an entity's financial position, including the effect or potential effect of rights of set-off associated with certain financial instruments and derivative instruments. In January 2013, the FASB issued an update to clarify the scope of transactions that are subject to the disclosures about offsetting. Specifically, the update applies only to derivatives, repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and securities lending transactions to the extent they are subject to a master netting arrangement or similar agreement. We adopted these updates effective January 1, 2013. The adoption of these updates expanded our disclosures but had no effect on our financial position or results of operations.

ASC 220 "Comprehensive Income"

In February 2013, the FASB issued an update to improve the transparency of reporting reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income by requiring additional information to be presented regarding certain reclassification adjustments. We adopted this update effective January 1, 2013. The adoption of this update expanded our disclosures but had no effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Accounting Updates Adopted in 2012:

ASC 220 "Comprehensive Income"

In June 2011, the FASB issued an update related to the financial statement presentation of comprehensive income. This update requires that non-owner changes in stockholders' equity be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In the two-statement approach, the first statement should present net income and its components, followed consecutively by a second statement presenting total other comprehensive income, the components of other comprehensive income, and the total of comprehensive income. We adopted these updates effective January 1, 2012. The adoption of these updates modified our financial statement presentation but had no effect on our financial position or results of operations.

ASC 350 "Intangibles - Goodwill and Other"

In September 2011, the FASB issued an update which gives companies the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test. An entity is not required to calculate the fair value of a reporting unit unless the entity determines, based on a qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. We adopted this update effective January 1, 2012. The adoption of this update had no effect on our financial position or results of operations.

ASC 820 "Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures"

In May 2011, the FASB issued an update to require additional disclosures regarding fair value measurements and to provide clarifying guidance on the application of existing fair value measurement requirements. Specifically, the update requires additional information on Level 1 and Level 2 transfers within the fair value hierarchy; the categorization by level of the fair value hierarchy for items that are not measured at fair value in the statement of financial position, but for which the fair value of such items is required to be disclosed; and information about the sensitivity of a fair value measurement in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy to changes in unobservable inputs and any interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. We adopted this update effective January 1, 2012. The adoption of this update expanded our disclosures but had no effect on our financial position or results of operations.

ASC 860 "Transfers and Servicing"

In April 2011, the FASB issued an update to revise the criteria for assessing effective control for repurchase agreements and other agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. The determination of whether the transfer of a financial asset subject to a repurchase agreement is a sale is based, in part, on whether the entity maintains effective control over the financial asset. This update removes from the assessment of effective control the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial asset on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee, and the related requirement to demonstrate that the transferor possess adequate collateral to fund substantially all the cost of purchasing replacement financial assets. We adopted this update effective January 1, 2012. The adoption of this update had no effect on our financial position or results of operations.

ASC 944 "Financial Services - Insurance"

In October 2010, the FASB issued an update to address the diversity in practice regarding the interpretation of which costs relating to the acquisition of new or renewal insurance contracts qualify as deferred acquisition costs.  The amendments in the update require that only incremental direct costs associated with the successful acquisition of a new or renewal insurance contract can be capitalized. All other costs are to be expensed as incurred. We adopted this update effective January 1, 2012 and applied the amendments retrospectively, adjusting all prior periods.

Presented as follows are the carrying amounts and fair values of financial instruments. The carrying values of financial instruments such as short-term investments, cash and bank deposits, accounts and premiums receivable, accrued investment income, and short-term debt approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of the instruments. As such, these financial instruments are not included in the following chart.

The methods and assumptions used to estimate fair values of financial instruments are discussed as follows.

Fair Value Measurements for Financial Instruments Not Carried at Fair Value

Mortgage Loans: Fair values are estimated using discounted cash flow analyses and interest rates currently being offered for similar loans to borrowers with similar credit ratings and maturities. Loans with similar characteristics are aggregated for purposes of the calculations. These financial instruments are assigned a Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Policy Loans: Fair values for policy loans, net of reinsurance ceded, are estimated using discounted cash flow analyses and interest rates currently being offered to policyholders with similar policies. Carrying amounts for ceded policy loans, which equal $2,919.8 million and $2,912.7 million as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 , respectively, approximate fair value and are reported on a gross basis in our consolidated balance sheets. A change in interest rates for ceded policy loans will not impact our financial position because the benefits and risks are fully ceded to reinsuring counterparties. These financial instruments are assigned a Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Miscellaneous Long-term Investments: Carrying amounts for tax credit partnerships equal the unamortized balance of our contractual commitments and approximate fair value. Fair values for private equity partnerships are primarily derived from valuations provided by the general partner in the partnerships' financial statements. These financial instruments are assigned a Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Policyholders' Funds: Policyholders' funds are comprised primarily of deferred annuity products and supplementary contracts without life contingencies and represent customer deposits plus interest credited at contract rates. Carrying amounts approximate fair value. These financial instruments are assigned a Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Fair values for insurance contracts other than investment contracts are not required to be disclosed. However, the fair values of liabilities under all insurance contracts are taken into consideration in our overall management of interest rate risk, which seeks to minimize exposure to changing interest rates through the matching of investment maturities with amounts due under insurance contracts.

Long-term Debt: Fair values for long-term debt are obtained from independent pricing services or discounted cash flow analyses based on current incremental borrowing rates for similar types of borrowing arrangements. Debt instruments which are valued using active trades from independent pricing services for which there was current market activity in that specific debt instrument have fair values of $1,241.2 million and $1,212.0 million as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 , respectively, and are assigned a Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Debt instruments which are valued based on prices from pricing services that generally use observable inputs for securities or comparable securities in active markets in their valuation techniques have fair values of $1,713.7 million and $1,756.8 million as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 , respectively, and are assigned a Level 2.

Unfunded Commitments to Investment Partnerships: Unfunded equity commitments represent legally binding amounts that we have committed to certain investment partnerships subject to the partnerships meeting specified conditions. When these conditions are met, we are obligated to invest these amounts in the partnerships. Carrying amounts approximate fair value. These financial instruments are assigned a Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Fair Value Measurements for Financial Instruments Carried at Fair Value

We report fixed maturity securities, derivative financial instruments, and equity securities at fair value in our consolidated balance sheets. The degree of judgment utilized in measuring the fair value of financial instruments generally correlates to the level of pricing observability. Financial instruments with readily available active quoted prices or for which fair value can be measured from actively quoted prices in active markets generally have more pricing observability and less judgment utilized in measuring fair value. An active market for a financial instrument is a market in which transactions for an asset or a similar asset occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. A quoted price in an active market provides the most reliable evidence of fair value and should be used to measure fair value whenever available. Conversely, financial instruments rarely traded or not quoted have less observability and are measured at fair value using valuation techniques that require more judgment. Pricing observability is generally impacted by a number of factors, including the type of financial instrument, whether the financial instrument is new to the market and not yet established, the characteristics specific to the transaction, and overall market conditions.

Valuation techniques used for assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value are generally categorized into three types. The market approach uses prices and other relevant information from market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities. The income approach converts future amounts, such as cash flows or earnings, to a single present amount, or a discounted amount. The cost approach is based upon the amount that currently would be required to replace the service capacity of an asset, or the current replacement cost.

We use valuation techniques that are appropriate in the circumstances and for which sufficient data are available that can be obtained without undue cost and effort. In some cases, a single valuation technique will be appropriate (for example, when valuing an asset or liability using quoted prices in an active market for identical assets or liabilities). In other cases, multiple valuation techniques will be appropriate. If we use multiple valuation techniques to measure fair value, we evaluate and weigh the results, as appropriate, considering the reasonableness of the range indicated by those results. A fair value measurement is the point within that range that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances.

The selection of the valuation method(s) to apply considers the definition of an exit price and depends on the nature of the asset or liability being valued. For assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value, we generally use valuation techniques consistent with the market approach, and to a lesser extent, the income approach. We believe the market approach valuation technique provides more observable data than the income approach, considering the type of investments we hold. Our fair value measurements could differ significantly based on the valuation technique and available inputs. When using a pricing service, we obtain the vendor's pricing documentation to ensure we understand their methodologies. We periodically review and approve the selection of our pricing vendors to ensure we are in agreement with their current methodologies. When markets are less active, brokers may rely more on models with inputs based on the information available only to the broker. Our internal investment management professionals, which include portfolio managers and analysts, monitor securities priced

by brokers and evaluate their prices for reasonableness based on benchmarking to available primary and secondary market information. In weighing a broker quote as an input to fair value, we place less reliance on quotes that do not reflect the result of market transactions. We also consider the nature of the quote, particularly whether the quote is a binding offer. If prices in an inactive market do not reflect current prices for the same or similar assets, adjustments may be necessary to arrive at fair value. When relevant market data is unavailable, which may be the case during periods of market uncertainty, the income approach can, in suitable circumstances, provide a more appropriate fair value. During 2013 , we have applied valuation techniques on a consistent basis to similar assets and liabilities and consistent with those techniques used at year end 2012 .

We use observable and unobservable inputs in measuring the fair value of our financial instruments. Inputs that may be used include the following:

The management of our investment portfolio includes establishing pricing policy and reviewing the reasonableness of sources and inputs used in developing pricing. We review all prices obtained to ensure they are consistent with a variety of observable market inputs and to verify the validity of a security's price.  In the event we receive a vendor's market price that does not appear reasonable based on our market analysis, we may challenge the price and request further information about the assumptions and methodologies used by the vendor to price the security. We may change the vendor price based on a better data source such as an actual trade. We also review all price changes from the prior month which fall outside a predetermined corridor. The overall valuation process for determining fair values may include adjustments to valuations obtained from our pricing sources when they do not represent a valid exit price. These adjustments may be made when, in our judgment and considering our knowledge of the financial conditions and industry in which the issuer operates, certain features of the financial instrument require that an adjustment be made to the value originally obtained from our pricing sources. These features may include the complexity of the financial instrument, the market in which the financial instrument is traded, counterparty credit risk, credit structure, concentration, or liquidity. Additionally, an adjustment to the price derived from a model typically reflects our judgment of the inputs that other participants in the market for the financial instrument being measured at fair value would consider in pricing that same financial instrument. In the event an asset is sold, we test the validity of the fair value determined by our valuation techniques by comparing the selling price to the fair value determined for the asset in the immediately preceding month end reporting period closest to the transaction date.

The parameters and inputs used to validate a price on a security may be adjusted for assumptions about risk and current market conditions on a quarter to quarter basis, as certain features may be more significant drivers of valuation at the time of pricing. Changes to inputs in valuations are not changes to valuation methodologies; rather, the inputs are modified to reflect direct or indirect impacts on asset classes from changes in market conditions.

Fair values for derivatives other than embedded derivatives in modified coinsurance arrangements are based on market quotes or pricing models and represent the net amount of cash we would have paid or received if the contracts had been settled or closed as of the last day of the period. We analyze credit default swap spreads relative to the average credit spread embedded within the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) setting syndicate in determining the effect of credit risk on our

derivatives' fair values.  If net counterparty credit risk for a derivative asset is determined to be material and is not adequately reflected in the LIBOR-based fair value obtained from our pricing sources, we adjust the valuations obtained from our pricing sources. For purposes of valuing net counterparty risk, we measure the fair value of a group of financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the price that would be received to sell a net long position or transfer a net short position for a particular risk exposure in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. In regard to our own credit risk component, we adjust the valuation of derivative liabilities wherein the counterparty is exposed to our credit risk when the LIBOR-based valuation of our derivatives obtained from pricing sources does not effectively include an adequate credit component for our own credit risk.

Fair values for our embedded derivative in a modified coinsurance arrangement are estimated using internal pricing models and represent the hypothetical value of the duration mismatch of assets and liabilities, interest rate risk, and third party credit risk embedded in the modified coinsurance arrangement.

Certain of our investments do not have readily determinable market prices and/or observable inputs or may at times be affected by the lack of market liquidity. For these securities, we use internally prepared valuations combining matrix pricing with vendor purchased software programs, including valuations based on estimates of future profitability, to estimate the fair value. Additionally, we may obtain prices from independent third-party brokers to aid in establishing valuations for certain of these securities. Key assumptions used by us to determine fair value for these securities include risk free interest rates, risk premiums, performance of underlying collateral (if any), and other factors involving significant assumptions which may or may not reflect those of an active market.

At March 31, 2013 , approximately 9.5 percent of our fixed maturity securities were valued using active trades from TRACE pricing or broker market maker prices for which there was current market activity in that specific security (comparable to receiving one binding quote).  The prices obtained were not adjusted, and the assets were classified as Level 1, the highest category of the three-level fair value hierarchy classification wherein inputs are unadjusted and represent quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

The remaining 90.5 percent of our fixed maturity securities were valued based on non-binding quotes or other observable and unobservable inputs, as discussed below.

We consider transactions in inactive or disorderly markets to be less representative of fair value. We use all available observable inputs when measuring fair value, but when significant other unobservable inputs and adjustments are necessary, we classify these assets or liabilities as Level 3.

Fair value measurements by input level for financial instruments carried at fair value are as follows:

 

Transfers of assets between Level 1 and Level 2 are as follows: