August 11, Fred Anderson Chair Indexed Universal Life Illustration Subgroup National Association of Insurance Commissioners

Similar documents
Modeling by the Ceding Company and/or Reinsurer

Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 24: Compliance with the NAIC Life Insurance Illustrations Model Regulation

Practice Note Addendum: Compliance Actuarial Guideline XLIX

With the exposure draft including several layers of red-lining, we have attached a copy of the two sections with all changes accepted.

Please contact Bill Rapp assistant director of Public Policy at the Academy, if you have any questions.

Synthetic GIC Reserve Proposal Supplement to November 2012 Proposal. Deposit Fund Subgroup of the. Annuity Reserves Work Group (ARWG)

Revisions to Actuarial Guideline 49 Recommendations to LATF to Address the Dual Account Issue

Re: Proposed changes to the Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation (#245)

Annual statements for years 2012 and prior did not provide sufficient granular data for us to perform similar analyses.

July 16, Dear Mr. Yanacheak,

The American Academy of Actuaries Duration Blanks Work Group Response to the NAIC Blanks Working Group Proposal. May 2011

Re: Comments on ORSA Guidance in the Financial Analysis and Financial Condition Examiners Handbooks

C1 Work Group Updated Recommendation of Corporate Bond Risk-Based Capital Factors

From the American Academy of Actuaries Annuity Illustrations Work Group

July 31, Submitted electronically via

NAIC Life and Health Actuarial Task Force. Academy Annuity Nonforfeiture Implementation Work Group. Draft Model Regulation (without Premium Buckets)

November 6, Variable and Indexed Annuities in QLACs. Dear Mr. Iwry:

March 25, Blaine Shepherd Chair, Separate Account Risk (E) Working Group National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

October 16, The Honorable Nick Gerhart Chair, Variable Annuities Issues (E) Working Group National Association of Insurance Commissioners

RE: Preliminary Views on Economic Condition Reporting: Financial Projections

RE: Comment Letter on APF to Keep Term and ULSG Separate in VM-20 Calculation to Reduce Allocation Concerns

Use of Qualified Actuary in the Valuation Manual

December 19, Dear Technical Director Cosper,

Re: Proposed Operational Risk Factors and Growth Charge for the Life RBC Formula

December 6, Mr. Patrick Finnegan. International Accounting Standards Board. 30 Cannon Street. London, EC4M 6XH.

Session 20 WS, Life Illustrations. Moderator: Donna Christine Megregian, FSA, MAAA

Life Actuarial (A) Task Force Amendment Proposal Form*

the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Property Risk-Based Capital Working Group March 2010

August 07, Re: Regulation Identifier Number RIN 1210 AB20. To Whom It May Concern:

US Life Insurer Stress Testing

Presented to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Life and Health Actuarial Task Force. San Antonio, TX December 2006

Re: Pre-consultation comments on draft ICP revisions 4, 5, 7 and 8

RE: Recent FASB Educational Sessions on Long-Duration Insurance Contracts

Re: ASB Comments Comments on Second Exposure Draft of the Modeling ASOP

Re: Proposed Regulation 31 CFR Part 10 (REG ) [75 FR 51713]

July 17, Kevin Fry Chair, Investment Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Synthetic GIC Reserve Proposal. Deposit Fund Subgroup of the ARWG

NON-VARIABLE ANNUITY PBR UPDATE

Re: Comments Regarding Coordination Between Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs) Involving Retirement Benefits.

Re: Proposed Actuarial Standard of Practice, Capital Adequacy Assessment for Insurers, Second Exposure Draft

Illustration Actuary Refresher and Recent Developments

Comparison of ACA and STLD Coverage Requirements and Implications for the ACA Markets

July 14, RE: Request for Feedback on the IAIS MOCE Proposal and the C-MOCE. Dear Tom,

SOA Life & Annuity Symposium May 16-17, Session 31 PD, Does Anyone Else Want to be Illustration Actuary this Year?

April The members of the work group that are responsible for this practice note are as follows:

Re: Risk-Based Capital Underwriting Factors September 2007 Report Addendum

Report Regarding Revisions to Actuarial Guideline 25 From the American Academy of Actuaries AG 25 Subgroup

Scenario and Cell Model Reduction

PBR for Regulatory Actuaries

RE: Discussion Draft of Statements of Principles Regarding Property and Casualty Insurance Ratemaking

Report of the American Academy of Actuaries Annuity Reserves Work Group

Metrics to Enable FSOC to Monitor Insurance Industry Systemic Risk

May Link Richardson, CERA, FSA, MAAA, Chairperson

Compliance with the NAIC Life Insurance Illustrations Model Regulation

January 30, Harlan Weller Government Actuary Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 4024 Washington, DC 20220

January 30, Dear Mr. Seeley:

MEMORANDUM. Bruce Friedland, Chair, American Academy of Actuaries Variable Universal Life Subgroup

11/17/2009. Introduction. Outline. Principles-Based Reserving Education Session 7:30-9:00 Maryland Ballroom D. NAIC 2009 Fall National Meeting

Interim Final Rule Health Insurance Issuers Implementing Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

February 14, Re: Regulator Questions on Proposed Factors for Bonds. Dear Mr. Fry,

MEETING MATERIALS PACKET Supplemental Materials

Background Information

Academy/Society Individual Disability Table Work Group (IDTWG) Update. Health Actuarial Task Force (HATF) Meeting. April 5, 2013

III.B. Provisions and Parameters for the Permanent Risk Adjustment Program

May 19, Re: Investment Risk-Based Capital: A Way Forward. Dear Commissioner Fry:

June 30, Technical Director Financial Accounting Standards Board 401 Merritt 7 PO Box 5116 Norwalk, CT Dear Ms.

January 17, Commissioner James Poolman Chairman, NAIC Life Insurance and Annuities (A) Committee

Procedures for Review of Qualifications for Signing NAIC Property and Casualty Annual Statement Loss Reserve Opinion

Report on Principles-Based Reserves for Participating Whole Life From the American Academy of Actuaries Life Reserves Work Group Modeling Team

September 1, International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) (electronic submission) Re: Credit Risk in Liability Measurement

August 15, Al Schmitz, MAAA, FSA, Chairperson LTC PBR Work Group

Steven Ostlund Chair, PPACA Actuarial Subgroup, Accident & Health Working Group National Association of Insurance Commissioners

Risk selection and risk classification, commonly known as underwriting,

August 15, Submitted via to Annual Funding Notice Under ERISA Section 101(f) Dear Mr. Good:

Session 10, Statutory Life and Annuity Valuation Issues. Moderator: Donna R Claire FSA, CERA, MAAA

EXPOSURE DRAFT. Nonguaranteed Elements for Life Insurance and Annuity Products

December 13, 2018 Internal Revenue Service Room 5205 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044

RED 2.1 & 4.2: Quantifying Risk Exposure for ORSA. Moderator: Presenters: Lesley R. Bosniack, CERA, FCAS, MAAA

Insurance Risk 101. Pat Teufel, FSA, MAAA Timothy J. Tongson, FSA, MAAA James E. Rech, MBA, ACAS, ASA, MAAA July 9, 2001 RHOB 2220

Revised Appendix 6, Policyholder Behavior Data Format

9/6/13 Long-Term Care Pricing Subgroup Call Discussion Document

The utilization and cost of reinsurance is a significant consideration in

Actuarial Guideline VA CARVM

A PUBLIC POLICY PRACTICE NOTE

Valuation of Universal Life Policy Liabilities

American Academy of Actuaries Medicare Supplement Work Group

Long-Term Care Reform Options

August 4, Re: Proposed New Regulations under a New Chapter, COMAR Annuity Disclosure

Issue Brief. Claim Reserve Assumption Basis for Long-Term Disability Policies. Use of Date of Incurral Versus Date of Issue.

ACADEMY LIFE AND HEALTH VALUATION LAW MANUAL UPDATES

Document Identifier CMS CMS Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Annual Reporting Form

New Group Long-Term Disability Valuation Table and Actuarial Guideline

NAIC s Center for Insurance Policy and Research Summit: Exploring Insurers Liabilities

Katie Campbell, FSA, MAAA

LARGE DEDUCTIBLE WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURER SURVEY REPORT TO THE NAIC/IAIABC JOINT WORKING GROUP

Re: Review of International Standard of Actuarial Practice 4 IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts Exposure Draft

NAIC Life and Health Actuarial Task Force

September 30, Technical Director Financial Accounting Standards Board 401 Merritt 7 PO Box 5116 Norwalk, CT

May 12, RE: Projection of Cash Balance Benefits. Dear Ms. Judson and Mr. Neis:

PBR Resources from the Life Practice Council of the American Academy of Actuaries

Transcription:

August 11, 2015 Fred Anderson Chair Indexed Universal Life Illustration Subgroup National Association of Insurance Commissioners Co/ Reggie Mazyck: rmazyck@naic.org Dear Fred, Per your request, the Life Illustrations Work Group of the American Academy of Actuaries 1 has prepared the attached paper for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Life Actuarial Task Force (LATF) Indexed Universal Life (IUL) Illustration Subgroup. This paper describes bonus structures that may be available for various life products. It also discusses the illustration Disciplined Current Scale (DCS) supportability testing for life insurance products subject to the NAIC Life Insurance Illustrations Model Regulation (Model), including IUL products that are within the scope of Actuarial Guideline XLIX (AG 49) as well as other life insurance products that are outside the scope of AG 49. This is an educational paper. Accordingly, statements should not be construed as supporting any particular position or product design. In addition, statements may not cover all possible features or practices as noted throughout this paper. If you have any questions, please contact Academy s Life Policy Analyst, Scot Davies, at davies@actuary.org. Sincerely, Linda Rodway, FSA, MAAA Chairperson Illustrations Work Group American Academy of Actuaries 1 The American Academy of Actuaries is an 18,500+ member professional association whose mission is to serve the public and the U.S. actuarial profession. The Academy assists public policymakers on all levels by providing leadership, objective expertise, and actuarial advice on risk and financial security issues. The Academy also sets qualification, practice, and professionalism standards for actuaries in the United States.

TYPES OF BONUSES Terminology* Interest bonus Account value bonus Persistency bonus Premium bonus Cash bonus Guaranteed bonus Nonguaranteed bonus Description Bonus may be expressed as a percent of the interest credit (e.g., interest credit is increased 10%) or as an additional x basis points (e.g., interest credited is increased 50 bps) Bonus expressed as a percent of the account value (e.g., 0.10% AV bonus) Bonus applies in later years (e.g., policy years 11+); may be expressed as an interest bonus or an account value bonus Bonus expressed as a percent of premium paid (e.g., 4% of premium) Bonus paid to policyholder in cash rather than applied to policy values Bonus contractually promised to policyholder Bonus not contractually promised to policyholder *Terminology can differ between insurers. Other types of bonuses are possible. SOURCES OF BONUS FUNDING Bonuses can be funded by one source or multiple sources, regardless of the bonus type. Source Policy charges (UL, IUL), higher premium (whole life) Investment strategy Existing option budget Favorable experience refund Other Description Policy charges (such as cost of insurance (COI) or expense charges) or premiums/dividend modifications in the case of whole life, are set at a level to support mortality costs, expense costs, bonus payments, etc. Modify investment strategy to increase yield In years where the bonus applies, the option budget is used to support both the interest credit and the bonus If claims and/or expenses are lower than expected, a refund may be paid in the form of a nonguaranteed bonus Any combination of the above or other sources are possible EXAMPLE Company X designs a traditional UL policy with the following: Current investment return: 5% Current pricing spread: 1% Expected crediting rate: 5% 1% = 4% If Company X wants to add a 50 basis point interest bonus in years 10+, Company X could: Increase policy charges to pay for the 50 basis point bonus Reduce interest crediting rates in years 1-10 Change investment strategy to increase investment return Any combination of the above or other options are available

ILLUSTRATION BASICS Model Concepts Illustrated Scale: The scale of nonguaranteed elements being illustrated; cannot exceed the lesser of the currently payable scale and the disciplined current scale. Currently Payable Scale: A scale of nonguaranteed elements currently in effect for a policy. Disciplined Current Scale (DCS): A scale of nonguaranteed elements based on actual recent experience: Must reflect a minimum expense assumption Cannot assume any projected improvements Certified annually by the illustration actuary. DCS Testing Goal: Accumulated cash flows the policy s cash surrender value in years 15+ (20+ for secondto-die policies). Accumulated cash flows t = Accumulated cash flows t-1 plus Cash in Premium Investment income incl. hedge payoffs minus Cash out Policy benefits Expenses/commissions Taxes An illustrated policy must pass two tests: 2 1. The self-support test ensures the accumulated, illustrated cash in is sufficient to support both the illustrated cash out and the illustrated policy cash value. Assumes DCS. 2. The lapse-support test limits illustrated values that are heavily subsidized by policyholder lapse assumptions. Assumes 100% persistency assumption in years 6+; otherwise assumes DCS. The illustration actuary must perform DCS testing in accordance with ASOP 24. 2 Note: Policies that can never develop nonforfeiture values are exempt from the lapse-support test.

TESTING DEMONSTRATION The following demonstration shows a hypothetical DCS test for two hypothetical policies: Policy A (no bonus) and Policy B (bonus in years 10+). All other policy features and experience assumptions are assumed to be the same for both policies. Notes: Policy B has a higher cash value due to the bonus. The DCS test is only applicable in years 15+ (for single life policy). Policy B fails DCS test in years 24+ because the cash value exceeds the accumulated cash flows (i.e., the policy is not supportable). Policy A: No bonus Policy B: 0.50% bonus in years 10+ Policy Year Prem Inv Inc Bonus Benefits Exp Tax CV ACF ACF CV Policy Year Prem Inv Inc Bonus Benefits Exp Tax CV ACF ACF CV 5 2,000 84 200 45 80 9,500 1,759 5 2,000 84 200 45 80 9,500 1,759 10 1,548 488 0% 243 39 80 12,756 10,256 10 1,548 488 0.50% 243 39 80 12,814 10,256 15 1,197 888 0% 295 21 80 16,786 18,640 PASS 15 1,197 888 0.50% 295 21 80 17,249 18,640 PASS 16 1,138 969 0% 306 19 80 17,733 20,342 PASS 16 1,138 969 0.50% 306 19 80 18,679 20,342 PASS 17 1,081 1,050 0% 318 16 80 18,734 22,058 PASS 17 1,081 1,050 0.50% 318 16 80 20,227 22,058 PASS 18 1,027 1,133 0% 331 14 80 19,792 23,793 PASS 18 1,027 1,133 0.50% 331 14 80 21,904 23,793 PASS 19 975 1,217 0% 344 12 80 20,909 25,548 PASS 19 975 1,217 0.50% 344 12 80 23,720 25,548 PASS 20 927 1,301 0% 358 11 80 22,089 27,327 PASS 20 927 1,301 0.50% 358 11 80 25,687 27,327 PASS 21 880 1,387 0% 372 10 80 23,335 29,134 PASS 21 880 1,387 0.50% 372 10 80 27,816 29,134 PASS 22 836 1,475 0% 386 8 81 24,652 30,969 PASS 22 836 1,475 0.50% 386 8 81 30,122 30,969 PASS 23 794 1,564 0% 402 7 82 26,044 32,836 PASS 23 794 1,564 0.50% 402 7 82 32,619 32,836 PASS 24 755 1,654 0% 418 6 83 27,514 34,738 PASS 24 755 1,654 0.50% 418 6 83 35,323 34,738 FAIL 25 717 1,747 0% 434 6 84 29,067 36,678 PASS 25 717 1,747 0.50% 434 6 84 38,251 36,678 FAIL EXAMPLE continued Assume Company X chooses to increase policy charges to support the 50 basis point bonus for their traditional UL policy, and then performs DCS testing. If policy PASSES DCS testing Company X can illustrate policy at 4% in years 1-10, 4.50% in years 11+ If policy FAILS DCS testing Company X must find additional ways to either increase the accumulated cash flows or decrease the illustrated cash value, such as: o Further increasing policy charges o Reducing interest crediting rates in years 1-10 o Modifying investment strategy to increase yield o Reducing bonus o Combination of the above and/or other product changes

IUL AND AG 49 Section 4 of AG 49 limits the illustrated credited rate for IUL illustrations. o An illustrated credited rate limit also exists for traditional UL illustrations. Section 5 of AG 49 limits the earned interest rate assumption used in DCS testing. o Limits the hedge payoff assumption ( cash in ) and thus limits the assumed benefit payments ( cash out and/or cash value). o Investment return limits do not exist for whole life or traditional UL illustrations. Bonuses are inherently limited by DCS testing, but are not explicitly limited by Section 4 of AG 49. CONCLUSIONS A bonus is a policy element similar to other elements in the policy (e.g., policy charges and credited rates). Bonus funding may come from a variety of sources, so it should not be assumed that a hedge is the source of an IUL bonus. All policy features and benefits are captured in DCS testing, so an illustration can only show a bonus that passes DCS testing and is compliant with current regulations. A traditional UL policy may illustrate a bonus so long as the policy form passes the applicable DCS tests. AG 49 parallels this approach for IUL policies since there is no explicit bonus limit in Section 4. 1850 M Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone 202 223 8196 Facsimile 202 872 1948 www.actuary.org