J
jonbon
Member
...in chapter one...does anyone know why they are only single premium and not regular premium products?
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E
examstudent
Member
Hi
I wonder about that idea too..i thought it might be to do with the fact that the guarantee in teh product implies a large liability that creates a large new buisness strain that must be partially offset with a large single premium as opposed to smaller regualr premiums spread over several years...
I wonder about that idea too..i thought it might be to do with the fact that the guarantee in teh product implies a large liability that creates a large new buisness strain that must be partially offset with a large single premium as opposed to smaller regualr premiums spread over several years...
E
examstudent
Member
though please could somebody confirm wether this is the reason or what the exact answer is
P
Paul
Member
Single premium
The main reasons I think you don't see regular-premium versions are complexity and cost.
With regular premiums, you would have to accumulate each (monthly) premium from its payment date to maturity in line with the index. This would get quite complex for, say, a 5 year monthly-premium contract. It would also be hard to make it clear to policyholders that this calculation has been performed correctly.
If every policy is backed by either:
The resulting high charges would put off most policyholders (and insurers!).
Because of this, they tend to be single premium contracts. They also tend to be launched in tranches, so that all the GEBS in a single issue start on the same day and have same term. This makes it easier for the insurer to back by only buying the OTC derivatives on the launch date.
The main reasons I think you don't see regular-premium versions are complexity and cost.
With regular premiums, you would have to accumulate each (monthly) premium from its payment date to maturity in line with the index. This would get quite complex for, say, a 5 year monthly-premium contract. It would also be hard to make it clear to policyholders that this calculation has been performed correctly.
If every policy is backed by either:
- Calls (to give equity upside) and FI bonds (to meet the guarantee); or
- Shares (to give the equity up-side) and puts (to meet the guarantee)
The resulting high charges would put off most policyholders (and insurers!).
Because of this, they tend to be single premium contracts. They also tend to be launched in tranches, so that all the GEBS in a single issue start on the same day and have same term. This makes it easier for the insurer to back by only buying the OTC derivatives on the launch date.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Mike Lewry
Member
Why GEBs are single premium products
Paul's second point gets close to the main reason.
Since the key to these products is the correct derivative backing, the terms that a company can offer policyholders is crucially dependent on the price of the derivatives, which will be constantly changing.
With the single premium version, a company will agree provisional terms with an investment bank to buy up to a certain amount of the required derivative. The company can then price the product, and assuming the terms don't worsen prior to launch, can then sell up to the agreed amount to policyholders and buy the required amount of derivative backing from the bank.
(As an aside, I know of one company where the terms did worsen between initial agreement and launch. The prudent thing to do would have been to alter the product terms or delay the launch, but instead the company decided to launch the product anyway and put off buying the derivative backing in the hope that the terms would move back in the comapny's favour. Unfortunately, the terms got worse and worse and by the time the company did buy the derivatives, they had lost far more than they would ever make from the product!)
A company wanting to offer a regular premium version wouldn't know what terms it would be be able to get for future derivative purchases, so wouldn't know what terms to offer policyholders. The theoretically correct terms would be constantly changing anyway, making cross-subsidy over time a big issue. You might suggest buying all the derivatives now at known prices, but this would involve making estimates of new business volumes, withdrawals, mortality etc. These estimates would never be correct and so you'd end up with the wrong amount of derivatives and so either have wasted money or have insufficient protection. This would lead to excessive risk for the company and a product that would be too expensive to sell.
Of course, a company could choose to issue a regular premium version (investment houses do offer tracker funds with downside protection of various types), but the risks are far greater and such products aren't covered by SA2.
That's more than I expected to type, but I hope it's helpful.
Paul's second point gets close to the main reason.
Since the key to these products is the correct derivative backing, the terms that a company can offer policyholders is crucially dependent on the price of the derivatives, which will be constantly changing.
With the single premium version, a company will agree provisional terms with an investment bank to buy up to a certain amount of the required derivative. The company can then price the product, and assuming the terms don't worsen prior to launch, can then sell up to the agreed amount to policyholders and buy the required amount of derivative backing from the bank.
(As an aside, I know of one company where the terms did worsen between initial agreement and launch. The prudent thing to do would have been to alter the product terms or delay the launch, but instead the company decided to launch the product anyway and put off buying the derivative backing in the hope that the terms would move back in the comapny's favour. Unfortunately, the terms got worse and worse and by the time the company did buy the derivatives, they had lost far more than they would ever make from the product!)
A company wanting to offer a regular premium version wouldn't know what terms it would be be able to get for future derivative purchases, so wouldn't know what terms to offer policyholders. The theoretically correct terms would be constantly changing anyway, making cross-subsidy over time a big issue. You might suggest buying all the derivatives now at known prices, but this would involve making estimates of new business volumes, withdrawals, mortality etc. These estimates would never be correct and so you'd end up with the wrong amount of derivatives and so either have wasted money or have insufficient protection. This would lead to excessive risk for the company and a product that would be too expensive to sell.
Of course, a company could choose to issue a regular premium version (investment houses do offer tracker funds with downside protection of various types), but the risks are far greater and such products aren't covered by SA2.
That's more than I expected to type, but I hope it's helpful.
E
examstudent
Member
Hi
Thanks very much Paul and Mike for that information .......
Thanks very much Paul and Mike for that information .......
J
jonbon
Member
many thanks Paul and Mike for detailed explanation.