Additional 2 Flashcards
Considerations when deciding on split between RB and TB for closed fund
- should consider what the previous company’s philosophy
- since PRE would have formed, a similar philosophy should be followed
- since it is a closed book of business, changes could be warranted because you would need to distribute any surplus equitably over remaining policies
- consider the term profile of the book of business - longer the average term to maturity, the more policyholders would require RB for peace of mind
- consider the funding level of the portfolio - the higher the funding level, the higher the TB could be
- equities have volatile returns, so company would want to keep guarantees low to protect solvency, hence prefer RB to TB
- RBs increase guarantees so increase risk of insolvency
- TBs can be varied up or down so can absorb capital losses
- will also depend on volume of business remaining in closed book
- will depend on assets invested in and if company intends to change the split of assets
- low free assets increase risk, so TB preferred
- reserves for RB would need bigger margins if backed by equities, which would reduce free capital further
- TBs defer surplus distribution, decrease guarantees and increase free assets
- split should reflect marketing literature
- will not wish to deviate too far from competitor’s practice
- shareholders would prefer RB due to earlier payments to them
Why company may hold equity in excess of the minimum solvency margin
- maintain a probability of ruin that is acceptable to the company’s shareholders
- maintain an acceptable solvency ratio relative to the other insurers in the market
- maintain a pre-determined credit rating
- fund new business plans
- fund large expenditures expected in the future
- allow more investment freedom
- reinsure less
- allow management more freedom to pursue profitable projects
- maintain funds for potential opportunities
Why is it not always possible for pure matching?
- liabilities are not always known with certainty e.g. may be linked to mortality, may not be any assets linked to mortality
- if assets are chosen to match the longest of the liability payments, the earlier income from the assets will exceed the short-term liability outgo. This exposes the company to reinvestment risk
- assets with a long enough term might not be available
- assets that fully match increasing benefits might not be available
- there is also uncertainty around future cash inflows and on what future terms they can be invested.
Asset enhancing financial reinsurance
- allows you to unlock a proportion of the value of profitable in force business
- VIF is the excess of the statutory reserves over the realistic reserves
- VIF will be released over time, but is currently an off-balance sheet, non-tangible item
- in exchange for entering into a reinsurance contract on existing business, typically an original terms QS, the reinsurer gives the insurer cash now
- this is paid back over the next few years from the future emergence of the VIF as future profits
Reduce new business strain on contract that doesn’t have unit-related FMC
Negative non-unit reserve
- for policies where future charges exceed the non-unit related liabilities, negative non-unit reserve can be held
- will reduce the overall reserve required to be held by taking advanced credit for future positive cashflows
- loan from the contracts with positive non-unit reserves
- repaid as profit emerges
Constraints of negative non-unit reserves
- needs to be allowed by local legislation
- sum of unit and non-unit reserve for a policy should not be less than any guaranteed surrender value
- there should be adequate non-unit surrender penalties to ensure that the value of the future cashflows is not lost on surrender
- the future profits arising on the policy with the negative non-unit reserve should arise in time to repay the loan
- after taking account of the future non-unit reserves, there should be no future negative cashflows for the policy
- the sum of all unit and non-unit related reserves should not be negative
- the negative non-unit reserves should be determined prudently
Market-consistent approach to determining policyholder provisions
June 2106, Q6 i
Diversification benefits when calculating minimum solvency requirement
- the aggregated solvency margin should be reduced to allow for diversification benefits that exist between individual risks
- this is because it is unlikely that investment and mortality shocks will happen at the same time
- diversification benefits can be allowed for through the use of a correlation matrix
- this could be allowed for using copulas
- the solvency margin calculated using correlation matrices may be too low due to the non-linearity and non-separability of individual risks
- the linearity property of correlation matrices requires that the solvency margin required is a linear function of the risk drivers, but this is not always the case
- risk drivers may interact with each other and certain scenarios coincide, albeit with very small probability
Describe the cashflow model that could be used to determine the value of the expected future profit from the in-force UWP business
June 2017 Q2 iii
Describe LTC insurance
- LTC insurance provides for the cost of long term care
- which involves all forms of continuing personal or nursing care and associated domestic services
- intended for people who are unable to look after themselves without some degree of support
- it may be provided in the insured’s own home, at a day centre, or at a state-sponsored care-home setting
- can be funded by the state, private funding by individuals or charities
- can be provided on an indemnity basis or non-indemnity basis
Negative implications of increasing medical limits
- increased anti-selection (especially if competitor limits are lower)
- more reliance on disclosures - more repudiation of claims
- more volatile morbidity experience
- underwriting systems and manuals need to be updated
- underwriting staff needs to be trained
- brokers may take advantage
- cost of obtaining reinsurance may increase
Basic equity principle in the pricing of a unit-linked fund
- the interests of unitholders not involved in a unit transaction should be unaffected by the transaction
- the unit holders should only be interested in the price at which they bought units in the fund and the price at which they redeem them
- in theory, the movement in price between the two events should only reflect the performance of the underlying assets and charges deductible under the policy terms
- therefore the price of units should be unaffected by creation or cancellation of other units
Data checks
- check data for accuracy and completeness
- perform reconciliation checks by reconciling previous valuation data with current valuation data and policy movements
- reconciliation can be done for number of policies, premiums and sum assured
- policy movements can be reconciled against accounts
- consistency checks with data from previous valuation e.g. average sum assured, ratio of premium to sum assured
- check for unusual values e.g. zero premium
- spot check for inaccurate data
Checks on results
- reconcile results with those of the last supervisory valuation
- perform simple ratio checks on results e.g. increase in reserves as a proportion of premiums
- construct a very simple back of the envelope model using a few model points to represent the whole portfolio. check the full model’s output against this for order of magnitude errors
- perform sensitivity tests on key parameters
- AOS
- analysis of EV to explain reason for change in results
Use of EV in executive remuneration schemes
Nov 2015 Q6 ii
Reasons for performing an analysis of EV
- reconciling to previous year EV
- management information
- information for published accounts
- validate calculations, assumptions and data used in the EV calculation
- show the financial effect of deviation between best estimate assumptions and actual experience
- show the financial impact of new business
- be consistent with reporting performed by competitors