Description: From a session at a meeting of the Society of Actuaries held in San Diego, CA, June 22-23, 2000 A discussion of liquidity management for life insurance companies marketing institutional clients, in particular with respect to GIC contracts and Funding agreements. Topics included: · What happened at General American with their defaults on funding agreements. Why did the regulators and rating agencies miss the problems? · What was the impact of reinsurance? · What is the effect of adding institutional business such as putable funding agreements on liquidity management? · Are there prudent levels of this business that can be beneficial? · What is the effect of funding agreements with downgrade provisions on liquidity risks, and do such provisions create a preference for sophisticated institutional contract holders?

Description: 1993 SOA Meeting, Quebec. The new SVL has expanded the scope and responsibilities of the valuation actuary. Topics covered: • Risk of legal liability for actuaries? • Vagueness of actuarial standards related to adequacy testing? • Reliance on other company experts? • Consultants versus company actuary perspectives? • The science versus the art of the process?

Description: This report, prepared by Advisory Subgroup I, was included as Appendix 3 of the 1987 Valuation Actuary Handbook. This advisory subgroup, or committee, was appointed by the New York Insurance Department and chaired by Donna Claire. This committee was charged with developing suggested regulations to deal with the concept of the Qualified Actuary and Actuarial Opinion and memorandum in accordance with New York’s recently amended reserve and nonforfeiture laws for guaranteed interest contracts and annuities with and without life contingencies. The actual regulation, New York Regulation 126, combines the work of the committee with Subgroup II, which focused on minimum reserve standards.

Description: From the 1986 Valuation Actuary Symposium, held in Washington DC in October 1986 Discussion of emerging practice and regulations of the NAIC and New York Insurance Department with respect to requirements placed on the methods and assumptions used by the valuation actuary in producing the support for the Actuarial Opinion as to the adequacy of reserves for life insurance companies

Description: This is a summary of the NAIC meeting held in September of 2008.

Description: 1992 SOA Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. This session on repricing the in-force book of business addressed ASB requirements, data gathering, assumption setting, modeling considerations, coordination with financial areas, par versus interest-sensitive products, and communicating results to management.

Description: 1998 Valuation Actuary Symposium. In this open forum questions were fielded by the panel of experts. Some of the questions: 1. How do you pick spreads for use in your reinvestment strategy? 2. What's generally being done in terms of dynamically modeling policyholder lapsation? 3. How do companies treat riders and dump-in premiums and estimated gross profits for GAAP? 4. What impact does the current interest environment have on testing you are going to do this year? 5. Are there any suitable techniques for trying to aggregate the variable products with the fixed products?

Description: 1992 SOA Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. This session on cash-flow testing for product actuaries covered the following topics: 1. Guidance notes designed to help in writing up reports on cash-flow testing. 2. Investment strategies in product design. 3. Surplus requirements.

Description: This session from the 1993 Valuation Actuary Symposium looks at an overview of developments in 1993 including a regulator's viewpoint of various valuation actuary issues, an update on the valuation actuary and health insurance, current developments in reinsurance that should be considered in the valuation process and a sample actuarial opinion and memorandum.

Description: 1996 Valuation Actuary Symposium. A panel of actuarial regulators answered the questions: 1. What are the regulatory expectations from asset adequacy analysis? 2. When regulators review a company's opinion and memoranda, what are the things they are looking for? 3. What are the things that haven't been done as well as they like? 4. What do they feel can be improved on in the process? 5. How does the process itself work?