• 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.

Chap 22: Surrender Values

J

jimmytee

Member
Hi all,

refer to Section 4: Analysis of the methods - the retrospective method
- For without profits contracts it has a number of disadvantages including:
(i) it does not say anything about the profit the company would have made if the contract were not surrendered. hence it is not easy to ensure equity either with continuing policyholders or with any shareholders.


Anyone here able to explain the point above? Why would company need to consider the situation where contract were not surrendered and hence the profit made from that?

Appreciate if you guys can help this out. thanks heaps!
 
Hi

I think a good way to see this is to consider a without-profits policy that is surrendered just before maturity.

A retrospective method of calculating the SV is essentially using the asset share as the SV.

Provided the experience during the life of the policy has been reasonably good, we would expect the asset share of a without-profits policy as it approached maturity to be higher than the maturity value. (This is because, at maturity, the company would expect to use most of the asset share to pay the maturity value but also to have some left as the company's profit.)

So, if the company paid SV = asset share just before maturity, it would be taking no profit from the surrendering policy. Indeed the SV may well be bigger than the maturity value that would be paid if the policy was kept in force. This would be odd - and not fair when we compared the treatment of surrendering and maturing policyholders.

Cheers
Lynn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top