• 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.

Charging for Cost of guarantees

S

sadie1990

Member
Hi there,

If we have a guaranteed benefit at maturity of a uwp product and we charge for this guarantee by an asset share deduction. Why then will the cost of the guarantee be increased? I understand that the asset share will be reduced by the charges but what is the point of having a charge for guarantees if it worsens the situation regarding total cost?

Any help appreciated.
 
I like this question. Hope the tutors can offer guidance.

I've personally got a lot of thoughts in my mind now and seem to be thinking about extreme scenarios:

1) Yes, the cost of providing the guarantees will increase because of the reductions in asset shares, BUT;

2) When a company is offering a guarantee, it will take a view as to the average expected loss it will make as a result of this guarantee (so for eg out of a 1000 stochastic projections, 300 scenarios might show the guarantee bites, and the average of these 300 will be the cost of the guarantee). This loss to the company is in other words a profit to the policyholder.

3) Therefore, based on (2), the intention of reducing the asset share is to compensate for the loss to the company or to charge the policyholder for the profit they are expected to make. Since this is iterative, in calculating for this charge you will want to stop at some point naturally where the balance between the cost of the guarantee and the reduction in asset shares is at an optimal position otherwise you'll end up reducing asset shares to zero and using up the estate to fund the whole benefit under the product.

4) The only missing portion to balance the equation then is how the charges we apply are actually used; ie maybe these are used to purchase put options that give a benefit close to the gap between the asset share and the guaranteed benefit; or this is converted into a higher premium that the policyholder can pay which after accumulation, reaches the guaranteed benefit etc; or again just simply used as a reserve for the anticipated losses to come for the company.
 
If we have a guaranteed benefit at maturity of a uwp product and we charge for this guarantee by an asset share deduction. Why then will the cost of the guarantee be increased? I understand that the asset share will be reduced by the charges but what is the point of having a charge for guarantees if it worsens the situation regarding total cost?
Click to expand...

It is all to do with timing, before introducing the charges into the asset share calculation to meet the cost of guarantees, the company would still need to reserve for the costs of guarantees. So the Peak 2 future-policy related liabilities would still need to include these costs and hence increase.

If the company then introduces charges to meet these guarantee costs, then Peak 2 with-profit benefit reserve (retrospective asset share) won't change immediately. Peak 2 future-policy related liabilities will be able to take credit for these future charges, and so should reduce (as the future policy related liabilities will now include : cost of guarantees - charges to help meet the cost of guarantees).

In the future, the with-profits benefit reserve will get gradually smaller than it would otherwise have been due to the deduction of the new charges introduced.

Does this help?

Thanks

Em
 
Last edited:
Thank you Em, your example makes sense to me.

I am basing my question on the solution to Q2 iii of the April 2005 SA2 exam where it says " company A should bear in mind that reducing the asset share via charges for guarantees will further increase the cost of guarantees." Are we saying that although the cost of guarantees will increase due to a lower asset share, the charges that we will take credit for will reduce this cost?
 
Hi Em,

Sorry I too am confused about this, and I am still a bit stuck even after your reply.

If I am reading your response correctly, it sounds like if you charge for the guarantee, then FPRL goes down as the cost of guarantees go down?

But the cost of guarantees go up (according to this)?
 
Sorry, are you saying that it goes down immediately, but in the long run the cost of guarantees increases as the WPBR is smaller?

(Apologies for the double post, I couldn't edit due to the delay between posting and appearing)
 
Hi

I am basing my question on the solution to Q2 iii of the April 2005 SA2 exam where it says " company A should bear in mind that reducing the asset share via charges for guarantees will further increase the cost of guarantees." Are we saying that although the cost of guarantees will increase due to a lower asset share, the charges that we will take credit for will reduce this cost?
Click to expand...

The solution is saying that if the charges are taken from the asset share then the probability of the asset share being less than the guaranteed benefit is higher and so the cost of guarantee is likely to increase.

The company will need to decide how much they charge for this cost and how much they absorb, smooth, etc as the more they take off the asset share and take credit for the higher the cost will be.

Does this help?

Thanks

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