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

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-06-2017, 11:42 AM
bmg bmg is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4
Default 1976 SVL Amendments Effective Date

When generally were the 1976 amendments to the SVL approved? As part of a conversion, we're looking at when we can make the change to calculate deficiency reserves using minimum standards rather than using what was used for basic reserves. I can't find much in googling the topic (for our state of domicile or for any state). Thanks in advance.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2017, 01:23 PM
Numbers Nerd's Avatar
Numbers Nerd Numbers Nerd is offline
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Midwest
College: University of Wisconsin
Favorite beer: Ale, Lager, you name it
Posts: 1,669

I can't answer your question directly, but I can provide some context. Until about 1983, when the 1980 CSO was introduced, the 1958 CSO was the valuation standard. Tax reserves equaled stat reserves, and the tax code had effectively not changed since 1959. Interest rates hadn't yet spiked, so reserve calculations still used around 3% - 4%. Single premium products had not yet become widespread (they were used to take advantage of the tax code in the mid 1980's), and there was no such thing as "the definition of life insurance", so you could have cash values equal to 99% of the face amount, and still get full tax deferral of the inside buildup. Universal Life had not yet been invented - the first policy was sold by EF Hutton Life in 1979. Smoker-distinct premiums, although introduced by Standard Life in 1969 were not widespread, and smoker-distinct reserves were not available until a smoker-distinct version of the 1980 CSO came out in about 1986. (The original 1980 CSO was groundbreaking in 1983 because it was sex-distinct; the smoker differentiation came a bit later.)

Umm, what was the question you asked again, sonny?
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2017, 04:18 PM
Steve Grondin Steve Grondin is offline
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,695

You are throwing a weakening in with a conversion? I thought no one else was that crazy.

Are you saying you think computing deficiency reserves under one basis at a prior YE and a different one the next YE isn't a weakening? Or that the weakening of def res basis isn't permitted independently of the basic reserve basis on pre 1976 SVL business?

It is hard for me to imagine a regulator wouldn't permit a weakening to CSO58 minimum standards, either on materiality or conservatism considerations.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2017, 01:25 PM
California's Avatar
California California is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 468
Default Model laws have state adoption history

See page ST-820-3. Select a state and check its Standard Valuation Law. At the end of sections of laws are date references. For example, for California, see below Article 3a repealed and added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 767, Sec. 13.


Insurance Code - INS

DIVISION 2. CLASSES OF INSURANCE [1880 - 12880.5] ( Division 2 enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 145. )

PART 2. LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE [10110 - 11549] ( Part 2 enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 145. )

CHAPTER 5. General Regulation of Life Insurers [10430 - 10509.938] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 145. )

ARTICLE 3a. Standard Valuation Law [10489.1 - 10489.992] ( Article 3a repealed and added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 767, Sec. 13. )
Reply With Quote

1976 amendments, svl

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 06:29 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 0.14846 seconds with 9 queries