• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

April 2014 Q2ii

Matthew H

Keen member
Hello there,

I have a question about the cost of bonus (500) and the 10% transfer from the WP fund to the NP fund.
The question says that this transfer isn't allowed for in the asset figures quoted (50k and 45k).
In the solvency ratio part of the solution it says that:
assets = assets in WP fund + assets in NP fund
= 45,000 + 50,000 = 90,000

But should it not be:
assets = assets in WP fund + assets in NP fund
= (45,000 - 10%*500) + (50,000 + 10%*500)

I appreciate that this makes no difference to the asset value (90,000) calculated but I just want to be sure I'm not missing anything.

As it is presented in the solution, when we calculate the EV as:
EV = PVFP + NA + Transfer
= 21,000 + 5,000 + 50

It seems like the 50 is allowed for somewhere but there's not an equal and opposite allowance elsewhere - i.e., it's made from 'thin-air'.

Thanks,
Matt
 
Hi Matthew

For the solvency ratio part, as long as we have the total assets of the company correct, it doesn't matter which of the two funds those assets are in. So yes we could say we want it to be after the transfer of 10%*500 between the funds, exactly as you've done, but it's equally fine to just add the before the transfer asset figures as the solution has. Hopefully this reassures that you're not missing anything.

For the EV part, we're focusing on including those assets within each fund that will ultimately belong to the shareholders. For the WP fund, the 1,000 PVFP picks up nearly all of this because of the way it is defined (in particular we don't have a separate net assets in the With-Profits Fund in this case because the PVFP has assumed that the surplus assets will be distributed as bonus over the lifetime of the policies). The only element of shareholder value from the WP fund not included in the 1,000 is the 50 transfer due at the valuation date, so we just need to add that element. We don't need an equal and opposite allowance elsewhere (as might have done if we had a WP net assets figure to 'reduce' - but that's been dealt with already in the PVFP in this case).

Hope this helps
Lynn
 
Hi Matthew

For the solvency ratio part, as long as we have the total assets of the company correct, it doesn't matter which of the two funds those assets are in. So yes we could say we want it to be after the transfer of 10%*500 between the funds, exactly as you've done, but it's equally fine to just add the before the transfer asset figures as the solution has. Hopefully this reassures that you're not missing anything.

For the EV part, we're focusing on including those assets within each fund that will ultimately belong to the shareholders. For the WP fund, the 1,000 PVFP picks up nearly all of this because of the way it is defined (in particular we don't have a separate net assets in the With-Profits Fund in this case because the PVFP has assumed that the surplus assets will be distributed as bonus over the lifetime of the policies). The only element of shareholder value from the WP fund not included in the 1,000 is the 50 transfer due at the valuation date, so we just need to add that element. We don't need an equal and opposite allowance elsewhere (as might have done if we had a WP net assets figure to 'reduce' - but that's been dealt with already in the PVFP in this case).

Hope this helps
Lynn

Hello Lynn,

Thank you very much for clarifying.

Matt
 
Back
Top