Y
Yohav
Member
They ask why the 35 year SV figure is negative.
It seem that when appling the formula described in (i) the SV appear to be extremly positive (+50 K)
I don't understand why the premiums accumulation isn't took into account.
It seem that when appling the formula described in (i) the SV appear to be extremly positive (+50 K)
I don't understand why the premiums accumulation isn't took into account.