1. Posts in the subject areas are now being moderated. Please do not post any details about your exam for at least 3 working days. You may not see your post appear for a day or two. See the 'Forum help' thread entitled 'Using forums during exam period' for further information. Wishing you the best of luck with your exams.
    Dismiss Notice

UL and CBs in S2

Discussion in 'SA2' started by i-actuary, Nov 3, 2019.

  1. i-actuary

    i-actuary Active Member

    Hi all,
    i am reading some exercises with regards to UL and how BEL is constructed. most of them have fixed charges. so no CBs apply.
    in the even of having reviewable charges (lets say every 1 year) ;
    1. CBs apply ? if yes the time horizon will be 1 year for BEL? both for unit and non unit reserves?
    2. on the other hand the account vale (asset side) will account for entire the accumulation (investment returs etc) of all premiums paid?
    3. if yes this would make a huge impact on the own funds compared to another company that has fixed charges and in theory these two companies have the same charges and samw investment earnings?
     
    i-actuary, Nov 3, 2019
    #1
  2. Em Francis

    Em Francis ActEd Tutor Staff Member

    Hi
    For (1), yes there is likely to be a contract boundary of one year here, however the unit part of the BEL will include only premiums paid to date.
    For (2), the assets in the balance sheet will also include only premiums paid to date.
    So for (3), there shouldn't be much of a difference in own funds.

    Thanks
    Em
     
    Em Francis, Nov 5, 2019
    #2
  3. i-actuary

    i-actuary Active Member

    Hi Em,
    for 3 if OF =Account value -bel (roughly speaking) . bel with CBs will be much less than BEL without CBs . isnt it the case ?
    thank you
     
    i-actuary, Nov 5, 2019
    #3
  4. Em Francis

    Em Francis ActEd Tutor Staff Member

    Hi
    No: the BEL for a policy with contract boundaries is likely to be higher than the BEL for an equivalent policy without contract boundaries. If the policyholder has paid the same premiums to date, incurred the same charges and earned the same investment return, the unit reserve part of the BEL will be the same for both. The non-unit part of the BEL is effectively the excess of {future expenses & benefits above the unit fund} over future charges – and this would normally be expected to be negative (since the charges would include profit loadings). For the policy with no contract boundaries, the non-unit part will most likely be a greater negative amount than for one which does have such boundaries – because the latter cannot take credit for as much in future charges. However, the unit components of the BEL (which are not impacted by contract boundaries) are normally dominant and so my point was that the impact isn’t necessarily ‘huge’ as had been suggested in the initial post.
    Hope this helps.
    Thanks
    Em
     
    Em Francis, Nov 5, 2019
    #4

Share This Page