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.

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-27-2018, 11:43 AM
SweepTheLeg's Avatar
SweepTheLeg SweepTheLeg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cincinnati
Favorite beer: Yeti
Posts: 56
Question Multiple of CSO for Guaranteed COIs

Traditionally, guaranteed COIs have been set to 100% of the CSO table that is used for the non-forfeiture basis. Does anyone know if there are any restrictions which would prevent the use of or cause problems by setting guaranteed COIs at a multiple above the CSO? If it is allowed, is there any cap? 100% of the table would still be used for non-forfeiture and 7702/7702A calculations.

The product would be filed via the Compact. In reading their rules, we have not seen anything that would prevent us. We have also seen some articles, such as 2017 CSO Implementation: Product Implications and Considerations" in the July 2016 issue of Product Matters that would seem to imply one could use a multiple greater than 100%. Alas, the traditional approach mentioned earlier, has us being cautious. Pointing me to any sort of documentation or article would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, what would the reserve implications be? Would this force us to hold reserves according to the multiple of the table, instead of using 100% of the table?
Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 11:21 PM
JMO Fan's Avatar
JMO Fan JMO Fan is offline
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: out in the woods
Favorite beer: Frostop Root
Posts: 5,255

Some UL companies used various COI tables before 7702/7702A. That law made it too hard to prove that any policy with non-CSO COIs is life insurance. Prepare well for a difficult tax demonstration.
GMPs would be calculated using guaranteed COIs. UL reserves would depend upon the level of funding for each policy, but cashflow testing could give other results. That depends on how policyowners pay.
I thought this WAS a real job
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2018, 01:48 PM
SweepTheLeg's Avatar
SweepTheLeg SweepTheLeg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cincinnati
Favorite beer: Yeti
Posts: 56

We would be using 100% of the 2017 CSO for our 7702/7702A calculations. The guaranteed COIs also don't come into play directly in those calculations either, so I don't see it being a tax issue there. There could be other implications with tax reserves, but that is a later issue.

We would use the guaranteed COIs in calculating the GMP and GMF. We have seen guaranteed COIs greater that the 2001 CSO on UL riders on the base insured, and only PA and NJ prevented that in filing the rider, just still not sure if allowable in the base COIs.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2018, 03:21 PM
StuK01 StuK01 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
College: SUNY Albany
Posts: 1
Exclamation Use of Multiple of CSO Table

I wouldn't go there. I reviewed many SERFF filings and found only one company that tried to do this for 2017 CSO (and they are missing two big state approvals, as I understand it). I'm aware that NYS would not allow it, and there is at least one other state that would have an issue with this - can't recall which state, I think it was Texas. One other thing. Florida has the smoothness test requirement, and you'll probably have difficulty complying, even though it is an awkward and nonsensical test. Also, California has a test that compares the Guaranteed Cash Surrender Value with the SNFL Minimum Cash Value test. Good luck with that test when the guaranteed rates differ from that used with SNFL. It makes no sense to me to limit t0 100% of (2017) CSO, but that's besides the point. I would suggest use of face amount loads, etc. In other words, move some of the expenses and mortality costs to a face amount load or other policy load. It's not great, but that's what the 2017 CSO seems to require. Good luck.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2019, 08:09 AM
DES DES is offline
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 78

"awkward and nonsensical test"

And that is putting it kindly. It is the most ridiculous busy-work I have ever done in my 20+ year career. It's just an exercise in algebraic manipulation for a UL product.

I don't remember the exact context, but we called FL and asked them if we could leave out the test, explaining that it didn't make any difference to the product. She didn't respond to our arguments at all, just said, you need to show that you comply with that regulation. What a bubble these regulators live in sometimes.
Reply With Quote

cso, guaranteed coi, maximum

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 06:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.17478 seconds with 11 queries