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



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-07-2015, 04:41 PM
Don Quijote Don Quijote is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,407
Default

hasnt been mentioned yet, so I will ask if it's a bureaucratic step and they want a fellow to sign rather than an associate of the relevant society?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-07-2015, 04:45 PM
Coldaine Coldaine is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 35
Default

My apologies, a bit of clarification:

The denial isn't because I'm wickedly incompetent. They're denying the rate increase because in their opinion the original rates approved in 2002 were not priced with minimal competence. And as an answer to the above, the final correspondence goes out with the approval and signature of my boss, who is a FSA.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-07-2015, 04:54 PM
actexp actexp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,149
Default

Sounds like a bad choice of words. What is the coverage-is this an individual DI policy? If so, is the increase only designed to make future premiums (new business plus existing business) adequate, or are you somehow trying to make up for 12 years of "losses"? What is x equal to? Is it interest rates, recovery rates, disability frequency at particular durations or particular ages, etc. I can see where a DOI isn't going to give you a 60% increase because of initial pricing assumptions being way off, but they might entertain a discussion of phasing something in over a period of time. IMO, approval from a DOI 12 years ago won't (and shouldn't) buy you anything.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-07-2015, 05:08 PM
Coldaine Coldaine is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actexp View Post
Sounds like a bad choice of words. What is the coverage-is this an individual DI policy? If so, is the increase only designed to make future premiums (new business plus existing business) adequate, or are you somehow trying to make up for 12 years of "losses"? What is x equal to? Is it interest rates, recovery rates, disability frequency at particular durations or particular ages, etc. I can see where a DOI isn't going to give you a 60% increase because of initial pricing assumptions being way off, but they might entertain a discussion of phasing something in over a period of time. IMO, approval from a DOI 12 years ago won't (and shouldn't) buy you anything.
Yes, individual DI. The increases are to restore the loss ratio to reasonable levels, about 15% worse than pricing. Thank you for the last comment, I wasn't sure if previous DOI approval meant anything in the actuarial world.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-08-2015, 09:35 AM
actexp actexp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,149
Default

15% on a 12 year old block doesn't sound unreasonable, assuming the 15% is to make all future premiums adequate and prior years' underpricing has been swallowed forevermore by your company during those intervening years. If law allows you to file for rate increases, suggest you call the DOI actuary. Might have to trim back some of your assumptions and not get whole 15%, but that is point of discussion. See where they are coming from and what specific objections are.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-08-2015, 09:45 AM
Guest
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Send back an email: "u callin me dum, bro?"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-08-2015, 11:17 AM
FormLetter's Avatar
FormLetter FormLetter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 49,283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldaine View Post
My apologies, a bit of clarification:

The denial isn't because I'm wickedly incompetent. They're denying the rate increase because in their opinion the original rates approved in 2002 were not priced with minimal competence. And as an answer to the above, the final correspondence goes out with the approval and signature of my boss, who is a FSA.
What? 2002? Ninja-risk-acknowledged, but: More background is needed.

-----edited to add------

I see some more background was given. You need more detail from the reviewing actuary for sure.
__________________
Come join the AO Rap Battle Tournament 2013:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...33#post7082433
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-14-2015, 01:57 PM
Coldaine Coldaine is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 35
Default

Final resolution to all this, the DOI ended up withdrawing the filing. That's another oddity, I know the requesting company can withdraw, and the DOI can disapprove but I've never had the DOI withdraw it for us.

Oh well, it'll be whomever does the filings next year's problem now.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-14-2015, 02:09 PM
Gal Friday Gal Friday is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 963
Default

Florida. Amirite???
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-14-2015, 02:10 PM
actexp actexp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldaine View Post
Final resolution to all this, the DOI ended up withdrawing the filing. That's another oddity, I know the requesting company can withdraw, and the DOI can disapprove but I've never had the DOI withdraw it for us.

Oh well, it'll be whomever does the filings next year's problem now.
That's a serff term that DOIs use when they are essentially disapproving and closing out a rate filing. Your company/boss or yourself should be talking to the DOI and re-filing, not just punting until next year, imo.
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 01:53 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 0.41485 seconds with 9 queries