Description: This meeting session from the April 1982 Society of Actuaries meeting in Orlando, presented a discussion on allocation of assets and investment income. The discussions included: implications of allocating specific assets to particular lines of business, introduction and management of specific allocation procedures, and the principal allocation methods.

Description: This session from the 1983 SOA Spring Meeting discusses regulatory topics affecting life insurance and annuity product development including Unisex rating, UL reserves and non-forfeiture values, policies without guaranteed cash surrender values, and smoker/non-smoker mortality tables. From Record of Society of Actuaries Vol. 9, No. 2.

Description: This session from the 1983 SOA Hollywood, Florida Meeting reviews NAIC regulation of reinsurance, problems of reinsurance coverage on internal replacements and rewrites, a short Reinsurance Section business report and other current topics. From Record of Society of Actuaries Vol. 9, No. 4

Description: This session from the 1984 SOA Salt Lake City Meeting covers the market for payroll deduction life insurance, organization and service for this market, the administration required, the regulatory issues and the experience.

Description: 1999 SOA Regional Meeting, Atlanta. In this session experts from the regulatory environment and from the insurance industry discussed whether the public interest is best served by the states or the federal government being the primary regulators of insurance or some system of bifurcated regulatory authority shared between the states and the federal government.

Description: From a session at a meeting of the Society of Actuaries held in San Diego, CA, June 22-23, 2000 Discussion of how actuaries can influence federal legislation in issues of interest to life insurance companies.

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: From a session at the annual meeting of the Society of Actuaries held in Chicago, Illinois, October 15-18, 2000 Discussion of purposes and approaches for creating interest-rate scenarios.

Description: This presentation is a panel discussion, session 45PD, from the 2004 Spring Meeting of the Society of Actuaries, held June 14-15 in San Antonio, TX. The panelists note that as new channels like the Internet, work-site marketing and direct marketing become more important, understanding the regulatory environment is essential, and nontraditional distribution, direct marketing, direct sales and telemarketing are increasingly subjected to new forms of regulations at the federal, as well as at the state, levels. The speakers cover the legal aspects of e-signature and voice signature, HIPAA authorization requirements, telemarketing rules, such as the federal “Do Not Call” legislation and other privacy issues. Discussion from participants is included. From the Record of Society of Actuaries, Volume 30, No. 2.

Description: 1993 SOA Spring Meeting, Boston. This session addressed the new risk-based capital requirement. Topics included: 1. How reasonable is the framework of basing the formulas on simplistic application of the C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 risks? 2. Will this be effective in stanching the proliferation of RBC formulas by the regulatory bodies? 3. Which lines of business are treated relatively badly by the formulas? 4. Is there realistically anything that can be done to prevent company comparisons and renkings? 5. What are the administrative problems faced by the regulators in the oversight process requirement that this will create?