Sponsored Ads
Pauline Reimer, ASA, MAAA
Pryor Associates
Actuarial Openings: Life, P&C, Health, Pensions, Finance
Ezra Penland Actuarial Recruiters
Top Actuary Jobs
Salary Surveys Apply Bios Casualty Health Life Pension

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Question on Whole Life Insurance COIs

  1. #1
    Actuary.com - Newbie Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3

    Question on Whole Life Insurance COIs

    Hello to all you brainy folks out there !

    This should be a simple question for those involved with Whole Life design.

    I'm only a measley life insurance agent, but I'm getting conflicting info. on the COIs in Whole Life, and if you can believe it, I want to do right by my clients.

    I was trained that EVERY type of permanent insurance has a term component and a side fund. Are the COIs fixed at the issue age age throughout the life of the policy, or do they rise per year as the insured gets older (annual renewable term) ? A

    I already understand the decreasing term = increasing cash value concept, but I thought the term "fixed COIs" as it pertains to Whole Life was due to use of the Standard 1980 CSO and ULs use the 70% 1980 CSO, but ULs allow the insurer to raise COIs to the Standard 1980 CSO. Obviously this does not apply to the states which have mandated use of the 2001 CSO.

    Help.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Airborne View Post
    I was trained that EVERY type of permanent insurance has a term component and a side fund. Are the COIs fixed at the issue age age throughout the life of the policy, or do they rise per year as the insured gets older (annual renewable term) ?

    I already understand the decreasing term = increasing cash value concept, but I thought the term "fixed COIs" as it pertains to Whole Life was due to use of the Standard 1980 CSO and ULs use the 70% 1980 CSO, but ULs allow the insurer to raise COIs to the Standard 1980 CSO. Obviously this does not apply to the states which have mandated use of the 2001 CSO.
    Term + side fund is a simplification. A true side fund is outside the insurance policy.

    Generally mortality increases with age. Thus the mortality charges within a whole life policy will increase with age, the same as an ART. I don't know where you get your 70% figure, current COI charges on UL vary significantly, up to the maximum.

    No states have mandated 2001 CSO yet. 2001 CSO isn't required for use until 1/1/2009.

  3. #3
    Actuary.com - Newbie Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3
    FSA said

    Term + side fund is a simplification. A true side fund is outside the insurance policy.

    Generally mortality increases with age. Thus the mortality charges within a whole life policy will increase with age, the same as an ART. I don't know where you get your 70% figure, current COI charges on UL vary significantly, up to the maximum.


    Could you please elaborate on #2, specifically when you say "generally". Are there times when it does not increase ?

    When I first got into the insurance biz., I got trained by a guy who was initially in sales, but later went to the actuary side. He provided me a set of mortality tables (1958 and 1980 CSO). There is indeed a 70% 1980 CSO, which means the COIs are 30% less than the 1980 CSO Standard

    You're probably right about COIs varying significantly on ULs, which is one of the factors I look at before I make a recommendation.

    Have you worked for more than one insurer ?


    Thanks

  4. #4
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Airborne View Post
    Could you please elaborate on #2, specifically when you say "generally". Are there times when it does not increase ?
    Yes. For example, mortality at birth (in the US at least) is higher than mortality at age 1. Also, certain conditions that cause higher mortality, certain surgeries, for instance, have an increase to mortality that wears off over time. Also, I belive there's a blip in the mid 20's when the accidental death rate wears off faster than the death from other causes increases.


    Quote Originally Posted by Airborne View Post
    Have you worked for more than one insurer ?
    Yes, three. Two life, one health. Most is at a life company.

    I have never seen a 70% of the CSO mortality table. I have seen a table that is a blend of males and females that assumes that 70% of the lives are male and 30% are females, and there are other blends as well, the most common being 80/20. Having seen patterns of mortality there's little chance that I'd use the 80CSO as my expected mortality, especially if the business is underwritten. 80CSO was designed as a valuation table and as such has quite a bit of conservatism.

  5. #5
    Actuary.com - Newbie Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3

    Thanks FSA

    I very much appreciate your input & hope you sincerely believe that I as only an agent am fascinated with the actuarial side of the house & how it exactly relates to what I do.

    Part of my fascination with the actuarial side might be derived from the fact that actuarial science is an "esoteric" body of knowledge, but at least you know you have someone else from the sales side who actually gives a damn about how insurance contracts work, which starts on your side of the house.

  6. #6
    Actuary.com - Level V Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    597
    COIs in UL are guaranteed in the contract; current COIs are declared by the company. In other permanent insurance, they are integrated into the premium. Guaranteed COIs are 80CSO (or 2001CSO in new UL) because, starting in the mid-1980s, the IRS laws used those mortality tables to define life insurance.

    For permanent life, most insurers use mortality tables that are not at all related to 1980 CSO (and usually much lower). The 1980 CSO Tables were created from composite company mortality, conservatively loaded for statutory reserves. Pricing actuaries use other mortality tables for premiums, usually a mix of recent industry mortality with company mortality experience.
    I thought this WAS a real job

  7. #7
    Actuary.com - Newbie Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3
    Hi there,

    Does the insurer guarrantee the mortality cost (the unit cost so to speak/price per thousands) of the ART in the contract. Or can they decide how much the ART cost will be each year based on current factors? Or do they just decrease the dividend scale to effectively control the cost?

    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by FSA View Post
    Term + side fund is a simplification. A true side fund is outside the insurance policy.

    Generally mortality increases with age. Thus the mortality charges within a whole life policy will increase with age, the same as an ART. I don't know where you get your 70% figure, current COI charges on UL vary significantly, up to the maximum.

    No states have mandated 2001 CSO yet. 2001 CSO isn't required for use until 1/1/2009.
    Last edited by agent007; July 21st 2012 at 05:13 PM.

  8. #8
    Actuary.com - Level V Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by agent007 View Post
    Hi there,

    Does the insurer guarrantee the mortality cost (the unit cost so to speak/price per thousands) of the ART in the contract. Or can they decide how much the ART cost will be each year based on current factors? Or do they just decrease the dividend scale to effectively control the cost?

    Thanks.
    WL is virtually never priced with 2001CSO, which is heavily loaded for reserves, and wasn't created for premiums (despite the -misguided- IRS adoption of it in defining premiums for life insurance). COIs embedded in the contract are usually based upon a conservative version of the company's own mortality experience, which is generally below the 2001CSO. The WL "COIs" (which are usually only known to the company's actuaries) are more conservative for par policies (i.e., dividend-paying policies) because the dividends can refund any excess mortality charges.
    I thought this WAS a real job

  9. #9
    Actuary.com - Newbie Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3
    So can an insurer effectively manipulate the amount of paid up additions your policy can purchase at some point in the future by adjusting the cost to purchase the PUA?

    Let's say $1 of dividend declared buys you $4 of PUA in a given year. Then next year, could they manipulate it so that $1 can only buy you $3 the following year?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. List of companies
    By Ken in forum Actuarial Employment, Jobs, Careers, Interviewing, Articles
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: October 4th 2011, 10:58 AM
  2. Life Insurance questions
    By hristov in forum SOA Exam MLC - Actuarial Models, Life Contingencies - with practice exam problems
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 20th 2006, 01:09 PM
  3. Asset liability management in life insurance companies
    By mun_subbu in forum Actuarial - Ask the Professor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 23rd 2005, 11:08 PM
  4. cost of life insurance
    By mrowlette in forum Actuarial - General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 4th 2005, 12:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •