• 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.

Persistency assumption for pricing

P

Phani Vasantarao

Member
CH17, flashcard 12 says that persistency assumptions are only needed if we are using cashflow method, and not formula method. But why is this so? If the insurer ignores lapse rate and uses formula method, aren't they putting themselves at risk of losses due to high lapse rate?
 
CH17, flashcard 12 says that persistency assumptions are only needed if we are using cashflow method, and not formula method. But why is this so? If the insurer ignores lapse rate and uses formula method, aren't they putting themselves at risk of losses due to high lapse rate?
The formula method uses the big A and small a functions, eg from the yellow tables, to calculate values. These functions consider mortality rates, but not persistency rates, so we are implicitly assuming 100% persistency.

Yes, I agree that assuming 100% persistency can be imprudent, eg if the surrender value is bigger than the reserve. On the other hand, assuming 100% persistency can be prudent if surrenders are a source of profit and surrender values are lower than the reserves.

This is one of the reasons that the cashflow method is considered to be better than the formula method.

In practice, where insurers use a formula approach, they will often perform a separate persistency check. For example, reserving rules could be set as the larger of a formula calculation or the surrender value, ie assuming the more expensive of no surrenders or 100% surrenders.

Best wishes

Mark
 
The formula method uses the big A and small a functions, eg from the yellow tables, to calculate values. These functions consider mortality rates, but not persistency rates, so we are implicitly assuming 100% persistency.

Yes, I agree that assuming 100% persistency can be imprudent, eg if the surrender value is bigger than the reserve. On the other hand, assuming 100% persistency can be prudent if surrenders are a source of profit and surrender values are lower than the reserves.

This is one of the reasons that the cashflow method is considered to be better than the formula method.

In practice, where insurers use a formula approach, they will often perform a separate persistency check. For example, reserving rules could be set as the larger of a formula calculation or the surrender value, ie assuming the more expensive of no surrenders or 100% surrenders.

Best wishes

Mark
Thanks, Mark
 
Back
Top