Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Life
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson
Actuarial Jobs

Visit our site for the most up to date jobs for actuaries.

Actuarial Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Health, Life, Pension and Non-Tradtional Jobs.

Actuarial Meeting Schedule
Browse this year's meetings and which recruiters will attend.

Contact DW Simpson
Have a question?
Let's talk.
You'll be glad you did.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-02-2002, 05:40 PM
Jack's Avatar
Jack Jack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 100 Luten Avenue, 10312
Studying for Life
Favorite beer: Free Beer
Posts: 14,880
Default

12/31/01 YC

1Yr 2.03
5Yr 4.41

1/2 the 5 yr 2.20

From Reg126

For the scenarios in paragraph (1) and otherscenarios which may be used, projected interest rates for a 5 yr treasury note need not be reduced beyond the point where the 5 year treas note yield would be at 50% of its original level.

What is the minimum 1yr rate.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-02-2002, 07:43 PM
CallMeCrazy CallMeCrazy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 26
Default

I thought that all yield curve points were subject to the 50% minimum. This may not be explicitly stated in Reg 126, but it's the "standard procedure" that I remember from my cash flow testing days.

Any folks working for NY-domiciled/licensed companies want to jump in on this one?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-03-2002, 12:53 PM
Don Quijote Don Quijote is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,363
Default

I use 50% of current curve as a floor at each point in the curve for the NY scenarios. Make sure your inflation assumptions are consistent with the resulting curve, as well.

I donīt have a published reference for you, but a couple of other actuaries have recommended it to me, so it is probably accepted practice.

If you are the Appointed Actuary and will be signing off on this (my situation is a little easier, since my company is not subject to the NY regs) why not call the NY department or even the Actuarial Standards Board of the AAA and ask "is this acceptable practice"?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-09-2002, 12:01 PM
OldtimeFSA OldtimeFSA is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4
Default

The reg would have said take 50% of the entire Treasury curve as the floor if that is what was wanted. However, in effect it says move the yield curve down until the 5 yr Treasury is at 50% of its initial value and shift the rest of the yield curve accordingly. In this deterministic test, you are not supposed to be changing the slope of the treasury curve (esp in NY).

Here is another way to look at it. The pop down is a 300 bps parallel shift. The reg is says that if 50% of the 5 yr Treas is less than 300 bps, use it. So this year the pop down is a 215 bps shift. Likewise decreasing goes down 50bps a year until a 215 bps drop and the cup goes down 100 bps a year until a 215 bps drop, not 500 bps.

If you want to argue, for example, that 1 year treasuries would never drop below 50% of their current level, that is a separate matter. But as the test is spelled out, one year Treasuries will be at zero in the popdown scenario. (Yes I have "arbitrarily" not let the interest rate become negative.)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-10-2002, 03:42 AM
Don Quijote Don Quijote is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,363
Default

Oldtimer... I think your parenthetical statement at the end is why many people apply the 50% limit all along the curve. If we really want a 215 bp parallel shift, why put a floor at zero?

For practical reasons, of course. The probability that nominal interest rates will be below zero is probably below zero as well (people would simply hold cash which is a US note with a 0% interest rate). The counter argument is that the NY scenarios are not meant to be realistic possibilities, they are stress tests and therefore we should follow the text of the law literally.

However, once we accept the concept that the stress test should have some bounds of practicality, we could conclude that if a 50% limit at 5 years is a reasonable limit, and approved by the regs, then applying that 50% limit along the curve is also reasonable.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.15165 seconds with 11 queries