• 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.

Surrender values

F

fischer

Member
The core reading in the chapter on Surrender Values does an analysis of the prospective and retrospective method of calculating surrender values.
Under this analysis, the retrospective method states that -
"Therefore, it (the earned asset share) would represent the maximum that the company could pay without making a loss. Also, at early durations it will not look too unreasonable compared with the premiums paid."
My question are -
1. Is the maximum the company can pay defined as
max(0,earned asset share)?
The reason I think so is that if the earned asset share is < 0 early on, then the company will surely make a loss. Is this reasonable?
Also, if there are higher than expected surrenders (on a prudent basis), it would only make things worse, wouldn't it?

2. Why does the second sentence say that at early durations it will not look too unreasonable compared to premiums paid?
Again, for each policy there will be high new business strain (unless it is a large single premium policy) and so asset shares would be < 0 at early durations.

3. If we calculate retrospective reserve at time t using the pricing assumptions between 0 and t instead of actual past experience (APE) then
(a) would this retro res calculated on pricing assumptions be lower than the retro res calculated on APE if APE was better than pricing assumptions?
(b) would it be against PRE if the company offered the retro res calculated on pricing assumptions? My point here being that the difference between the actual earned asset share (AS) and the retro res on pricing assumptions can be taken as profit by the company.
This part of the core reading also says that the retro res on APE represents AS - does that mean retro res on APE = AS?

4. In the section on determining basis for surrender values based on retro and pros res, it does not mention withdrawal assumption. Is this because allowing for withdrawals would mean a lower reserve is held and so PH would receive a lower surrender value? Then again, wouldn't lower SV be a good thing to prevent anti-selection where many PH setup pols and then withdraw after some years?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi

fischer said:
The core reading in the chapter on Surrender Values does an analysis of the prospective and retrospective method of calculating surrender values.
Under this analysis, the retrospective method states that -
"Therefore, it (the earned asset share) would represent the maximum that the company could pay without making a loss. Also, at early durations it will not look too unreasonable compared with the premiums paid."
My question are -
1. Is the maximum the company can pay defined as
max(0,earned asset share)?
The reason I think so is that if the earned asset share is < 0 early on, then the company will surely make a loss. Is this reasonable?
Also, if there are higher than expected surrenders (on a prudent basis), it would only make things worse, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes :D

2. Why does the second sentence say that at early durations it will not look too unreasonable compared to premiums paid?
Again, for each policy there will be high new business strain (unless it is a large single premium policy) and so asset shares would be < 0 at early durations.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose the idea is that it won't look too unreasonable compared to premiums paid, provided the initial expenses deducted don't look too unreasonable.

3. If we calculate retrospective reserve at time t using the pricing assumptions between 0 and t instead of actual past experience (APE) then
(a) would this retro res calculated on pricing assumptions be lower than the retro res calculated on APE if APE was better than pricing assumptions?
Click to expand...

Yes

(b) would it be against PRE if the company offered the retro res calculated on pricing assumptions? My point here being that the difference between the actual earned asset share (AS) and the retro res on pricing assumptions can be taken as profit by the company.
Click to expand...

A company could do that I suppose. A prospective reserving method is probably easier though and will also enable the company to take whatever profit it chooses (by an appropriate choice of prospective reserving basis).

This part of the core reading also says that the retro res on APE represents AS - does that mean retro res on APE = AS?
Click to expand...

Yes (or the retro res on APE might be regarded as a proxy to the AS if the company doesn't have data to do an accurate AS for all policies).

4. In the section on determining basis for surrender values based on retro and pros res, it does not mention withdrawal assumption. Is this because allowing for withdrawals would mean a lower reserve is held and so PH would receive a lower surrender value? Then again, wouldn't lower SV be a good thing to prevent anti-selection where many PH setup pols and then withdraw after some years?
Click to expand...
Whether an allowance for withdrawals would result in a higher or lower reserve figure would depend on the size of the withdrawal benefit. The size of the withdrawal benefit is what we're trying to determine here. So, this could all get quite circular......

Hope these comments help :)
Lynn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top