Description: In light of the bankruptcies of Enron and WorldCom, this panel at the 2003 Valuation Actuary Symposium addresses legislative and regulatory activity, potential implications for the regulation of professions in the United States, and implications for valuation actuaries.

Description: A description of the current state of the Insurance Capital Standard under development by the IAIS, focusing on liability valuation.

Description: This panel discussion session focuses on individual risk classification including regulation that restricts life and health insurers selection criteria.

Description: Update on the proceedings of the March 2010 NAIC meeting.

Description: In 2020, the Korean insurance regulator, Financial Services Commission (FSC), introduced a coinsurance structure allowing for full risk transfer—including investment risk, interest rate risk, insurance risk, and policyholder lapse risk—as a permitted practice. Expanding use of coinsurance in the Korean insurance market brings a suite of potential benefits to Korean insurance companies including increased financial flexibility, options to improve policyholder protection and shareholder value through optimization of business strategies. As such, FSC’s initiative and intention to introduce coinsurance opportunities to the market is commendable.

Description: Author reported on sessions she attended at September 2009 NAIC meeting, including much information on the Valuation Manual.

Description: This article provides an update on various legislative and regulatory activities including, allowing individual variable annuities, federal standard for fiductiary responsibitlity with respect to pensions, policy loan interest rate and credit insurance issues.

Description: In this session 2PD of the 2004 Valuation Actuary Symposium panelists share their perspectives on valuation-actuary-related issues, including the hot issues from a regulatory concern.

Description: A commentary on whether or not the Illustrations Regulation has been successful.

Description: A pension plan uses Actuarial Equivalence to determine a 'fair' adjustment to pension benefits for form and timing of payment. The definition of Actuarial Equivalence is set in the Plan Document which may not have been reviewed for decades. With a wave of recent pension litigation in the U.S., plan sponsors, attorneys and actuaries now pay more attention to how pension plans define Actuarial Equivalence. How does a change in mortality table or interest rate affect the ultimate benefit? What are the requirements under ERISA and pertinent regulations? Are there court cases that have examined this question before? What are the issues behind the recent lawsuits and what can a plan sponsor do now to reduce their legal exposure? What alternative strategies are available for changing or not changing the definition in the plan document?