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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2001, 02:41 PM
Anonymous
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

1. For those of you who issue term products in NY and calculate reserves using selection factors, how do you feel about NOT using selection factors when testing using NY's cash value reg to get a few higher issue ages (without positive cash values)? In other words I see no restrictions in the cash value reg on not using selection factors (even though I do use them on reserves) but I want to know if this is common practice in the industry.
2. Can anyone explain why I am seeing other companies limit the issue ages for term products in NJ or OR?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-09-2001, 04:17 PM
JMO Fan's Avatar
JMO Fan JMO Fan is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: out in the woods
Favorite beer: Frostop Root
Posts: 5,056
Default

Using different mortality for cash values and reserves is not common, but there are generally no laws against it. In Florida, where unisex tables are not permitted for reserves, but are allowed for Norris-case CVs, the sex-distinct tables are often used for reserves with unisex-CV products.
I've even seen a rare product with ALB for cash values (consumer-friendly?) and ANB for reserves.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-09-2001, 04:44 PM
urysohn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Using different mortality for CVs and reserves may not be common for plans that actually have cash values, but I think it is very common for term plans. I think the general rule would be to use whatever basis you need to (as long as it is consistent across all testing for that plan) in order to maximize your issue ages, durations, etc.

I didn't notice any problems in NJ with our recent filings. In Oregon, they actually want certification that you are following Actuarial Guideline XXII "Interpretations Regarding Nonforfeiture Values for Policies with Indeterminate Premiums". The long and short of it is that you need to test cash values using both current and guaranteed premiums. So a 30 year term plan with a 15-year guarantee period needs to pass cash value tests as though it had 30 years of level premium. I think a number of PD actuaries don't realize that Actuarial Guideline is in place. You should, of course, follow the Guidelines in ALL states, but I know Oregon wanted a certification that we had actually tested it under both scenarios.
Washington (state, not district) also has issue age limitations. They have a reg which forces you to test CV's both with and without any one-year-term tail on the policy. for instance, if you're 20 year term plan offers 20 years of level premium (current or guaranteed, doesn't matter) followed by annually increasing rates to age 85, WA requires you to test it as a pure 20-year-and-done plan as well as with the term-to-age-85 rates. That makes it much more difficult to pass the CV tests.
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 02:47 AM.


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 0.27234 seconds with 9 queries