So, we're looking at a realistic-basis firm, that has some without-profits business.
For without-profits business NOT written in a with-profits fund: Only a Peak 1 valuation of the without-profits business is needed. (ie we only ever do Peak 2 and WPICC for any with-profits funds).
For without-profits business written in a with-profits fund: For the Peak 1 valuation of this fund, the without-profits assets and liabilities are included. For the Peak 2 valuation of this fund, the without-profits business is included by adding its PVIF to the assets side of the balance sheet.
Yes, that's right
Yes, should be comparing like with like. So, for the with-profits business, we have:
Peak 1 assets backing WP business - Peak 1 WP liabilities = 100
Peak 2 assets backing WP business - Peak 2 WP liabilities = 50.
If there's no without-profits business, then as you say Peak 2 bites and WPICC = 50.
If there is without-profits (NP) business written in this fund, then we still end up comparing like with like as we then have:
Peak 1 total assets (ie backing WP business + backing NP business) - Peak 1 WP liabs - Peak 1 NP liabs = 120 (say)
Peak 2 assets backing WP business + PVIF of NP business - Peak 2 WP liab = 65 (say)
WPICC would then be 55.
The comparison is "consistent" in that for NP business we've got "assets - liabs" in Peak 1 and "PVIF" in Peak 2. (Remembering that PVIF is the discounted value of future profits ie future "assets - liabs")
(Added : should add for completeness that my numerical example oversimplifies things In reality, the Peak 2 WP liabs may be affected by the NP PVIF, eg via the the future-policy related liabs)
Hope this helps a little?
Last edited: Apr 10, 2010