Description: This session from the 1994 Valuation Actuary Symposium covers life and annuity valuation issues including an update on the Separate Accounts Technical Resource Group, Regulation XXX, a comparison of the unitary reserve method with the segmented reserve method, New York Regulation 147 and an update on the Annuity Nonforfeiture Technical Resource Group.

Description: This actuarial note is in the nature of an addendum to the paper describing the development of the Commissioners 1960 Standard Group Mortality Table and the 1961 Standard Group Life Insurance Premium Rates based thereon 'TSA, XIII, 586'. A comparison of Canadian to US mortality is made, with this data being used to develop minimum term premiums for Canada.

Description: This article discusses the the 1998 alternartive XXX model regulations and the potential tax impact on the definition of life insurance and on reserve deductions associated therewith.

Description: 1999 SOA Regional Meeting, Atlanta. In this XXX update panelist discuss: 1. History of XXX. 2. Developments and the impact of changes on the original XXX. 3. Impact of changes on the pricing actuary. 4. A regulatory perspective from a regulator.

Description: This article reports the maximum statutory valuation and nonforfeiture interest rates for calendar year 2004 issues of life insurance products and the maximum statutory valuation interest rates for calendar year 2003 issues of annuity products.

Description: This article discusses a number of product variations seen in the market with respect to Universal Life products with secondary death benefit guarantees, factors leading to those designs and considerations regarding the adequacy of reserves that emerge under AXXX formulas. This article also identifies a series of factors that authors believe will make it difficult to quickly and equitably resolve these issues through formula-based changes.

Description: A review of Actuarial Guideline AXXX

Description: Under non-Aristotelian logic, there are multiple values, or shades of gray. Indeed, there may even be unexpected results from logical combinations, like “both” and “neither.” This article discusses how this insight should be applied to the current debate between formula-driven reserves with limited assumption flexibility and the reserve principles approach. For reserve standards, we do need both actuarial judgment grounded in reserving principles and restrictive formula methods or safe harbors.