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


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-08-2009, 01:18 PM
inexactuary's Avatar
inexactuary inexactuary is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: OH
Favorite beer: Newcastle
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter View Post
So, just to be clear, you think that if Company A and Company B sell the exact same policy to the exact same customer save for one difference: A pays $100 in commission and B pays $200. Then B gets to capitalize $200 of profits up front but A only $100? And that makes sense to you?

And if the capitalized profits to be earned on the contract depend on earning credit spreads, the nonsense of traditional accounting only multiplies.
Assuming the premium is adequate to earn a profit, then both Company A and B have zero day one profit (assuming a traditional net premium style reserve), and both will earn profits over time, although Company A's will be higher.

If you don't capitalize the commissions, then the companies have day one losses of $100 and $200. So even though the policies issued have ecomonic value, the transaction incurs a loss. How does that make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-08-2009, 02:06 PM
Commodore64's Avatar
Commodore64 Commodore64 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inexactuary View Post
If you don't capitalize the commissions, then the companies have day one losses of $100 and $200. So even though the policies issued have ecomonic value, the transaction incurs a loss. How does that make sense?
I agree and if this will effect the P&L so strongly, it could create havoc in stock prices.

Does anyone know how this is handled in other industries? For example, in the oil industry, can a company differ drilling costs to when the oil is pumped?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-08-2009, 02:10 PM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore64 View Post
I agree and if this will effect the P&L so strongly, it could create havoc in stock prices.
Actually, before FAS60, analysts were making adjustments to statutory P&L to adjust for this. (Statutory was the only basis at that time.) One of the arguments for FAS60 was to make the information more useful.
In Europe, I think that pretty much all insurers report something called Embedded Value, which basically up-fronts everything. So it's the PV of future profits on all their business. EV is still evolving, but if the accountants win the day, that will be the "real" number for analysts to look at.

On an EV basis, the current period P&L turns out to be the change in EV, reflecting an addition (one hopes) for new business and a lot of +/- on existing business as actual divereges from expected.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-08-2009, 03:46 PM
Anonymouse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
Actually, before FAS60, analysts were making adjustments to statutory P&L to adjust for this. (Statutory was the only basis at that time.) One of the arguments for FAS60 was to make the information more useful.
In Europe, I think that pretty much all insurers report something called Embedded Value, which basically up-fronts everything. So it's the PV of future profits on all their business. EV is still evolving, but if the accountants win the day, that will be the "real" number for analysts to look at.

On an EV basis, the current period P&L turns out to be the change in EV, reflecting an addition (one hopes) for new business and a lot of +/- on existing business as actual divereges from expected.
Yup. It's evolving into a monster too. It basically up-fronts everything, unless there are losses due to severe market disruptions at the statement date, in which case you make up stuff like liquidity premia in order to make the bad look not so bad.

It's very much like what Enron was doing.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-08-2009, 03:48 PM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymouse View Post
Yup. It's evolving into a monster too. It basically up-fronts everything, unless there are losses due to severe market disruptions at the statement date, in which case you make up stuff like liquidity premia in order to make the bad look not so bad.

It's very much like what Enron was doing.
LOL.

So if the accountants say don't DAC acquisition, you use another approach which front-ends all the profit forever. I hope somebody wakes the accountants up. (I think I said that in my OP.)
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-08-2009, 08:52 PM
MNSmith MNSmith is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bermuda
Posts: 196
Default

Acquisition costs are self-capitalizing when using gross premium reserves....like in Canada. The DAC "asset" is embedded in (i.e. lowers) the reserves.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-08-2009, 09:42 PM
Anonymouse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If I'm not mistaken, GNAIE is objecting to an element of the risk margin, not the treatment of acquisition costs.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:31 AM
The Mad Hatter's Avatar
The Mad Hatter The Mad Hatter is online now
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inexactuary View Post
Assuming the premium is adequate to earn a profit, then both Company A and B have zero day one profit (assuming a traditional net premium style reserve), and both will earn profits over time, although Company A's will be higher.

If you don't capitalize the commissions, then the companies have day one losses of $100 and $200. So even though the policies issued have ecomonic value, the transaction incurs a loss. How does that make sense?
If the policies have economic value, that too should be capitalized and the acquisition costs expensed. If the EV >= 200, great for everyone. If not, loss at point of sale for B.
__________________
Someone tells us that God loves us as a father loves his children. We are reassured. But then something awful happens. Some qualification is made.... We are reassured again. But then perhaps we ask: what is this assurance of God's (appropriately qualified) love worth, what is this apparent guarantee really a guarantee against? Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle us to say "God does not love us" or even "God does not exist"?
-- Antony Flew
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:38 AM
PhildeTruth PhildeTruth is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Favorite beer: Allagash White
Posts: 3,236
Default

Dear AO,

Fair value accounting will surely cause more disasters than it prevents.

Regards,

PhildeTruth
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-09-2009, 08:38 AM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNSmith View Post
Acquisition costs are self-capitalizing when using gross premium reserves....like in Canada. The DAC "asset" is embedded in (i.e. lowers) the reserves.
I totally agree. But . . .

when IASB completes its work on Fair Value, Canadian companies will be forced into this new International Standard. Currently, the IASB is still planning to adopt in 2011, which means that the current Canadian method will no longer be used in 2012 and therafter.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
accounting, economy, fair value, fasb

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 12:22 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 0.37042 seconds with 9 queries