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
  #31  
Old 07-04-2015, 08:50 PM
777888 777888 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 630
Default

Thank you, Gandalf! This is very helpful!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-22-2019, 10:33 AM
Flying Squirrel's Avatar
Flying Squirrel Flying Squirrel is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 859
Default

Bumping to ask this question.

We recently acquired another insurer that had a single premium Whole Life policy they issued as a conversion option for term life products that expired because they reached the max age. We didn't have a conversion option, but after unsuccessfully trying to convince the DOI that we didn't have to offer a conversion policy, we're reviving this one (albeit on a new insurer).

I am still pretty new when it comes to GAAP accounting for Life Insurance. When I caluclate the DPL, it turns negative after about 5 years or so. Profit still emerges as a constant % of inforce, but having to have a negative DPL to get there seems wrong.

So, given a simple single premium whole life policy, can the DPL be negative?
__________________
Everyone's laughing, and riding, and corn-holing except Buster.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-25-2019, 11:38 AM
jraven's Avatar
jraven jraven is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Studying for nothing!
College: Penn State
Posts: 1,309
Default

What does your pattern of (pre-DPL) profits looks like?

I'm a bit rusty on this, but for a single-pay product I'd expect all the profits (without the DPL) to be front-loaded into the first year, and your DPL at the end of year t would just be something like
DPL_t = k x PVF_t(Exposure)
where k is chosen so that
Profit at issue = k x PVF_0(Exposure)

So either your profits aren't all confined to the first year, or your exposure (which seems to be amount in-force) is going negative.
__________________
The Poisson distribution wasn't named after a fish -- it was named after a man ... who was named after a fish.
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 10:32 AM.


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 0.27595 seconds with 9 queries