Description: From a session at the 2000 Valuation Actuary Symposium held in Washington DC, September 14-15, 2000 The National Association of Insurance Commissioners NAIC Valuation of Life Insurance Policies Model Regulation XXX sets forth the valuation requirements for life insurance with nonlevel premiums or nonlevel benefits, including term insurance and universal life with certain underlying guarantees. Panelists discussed the issues around implementation of the requirements. The issues discussed include: • Determination of X factors when no credible company mortality exists • Proper treatment of secondary guarantees in universal life insurance • Preparation of the mortality assumption opinion requirements • Impacts on product development and design

Description: From a teaching session at the 2000 Valuation Actuary Symposium held in Washington DC, September 14-15, 2000 Discussion of realistic liability models for use in asset adequacy analysis, asset/liability management, pricing/repricing, financial reporting, or other purposes.

Description: From a session at the 2002 Valuation Actuary Symposium, held in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, September 19–20, 2002 Discussion of issues and the impact of current statutory valuation requirements for life insurance policies. Requirements covered include the Actuarial Standard of Practice on XXX, Actuarial Guideline AXXX, and Actuarial Guidelines 36 and 37. Products and issues discussed include nonlevel premium or nonlevel benefit insurance e.g., selective term, universal life with secondary guarantees or shadow accounts, determination of X factors, interpretation issues regarding XXX, variable life, and variable universal life, equity-indexed universal life, and the new CSO mortality table.

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: From a session at the 2001 Valuation Actuary Symposium, held in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, November 29-30, 2001 Teaching session covering the development of realistic liability models for use in asset adequacy analysis, asset/liability management, pricing/repricing, financial reporting or other corporate purposes. The primary focus is modeling issues for variable product features, such as minimum living or death benefit guarantees on both variable life and annuities, annuity death benefit enhancements, and variable immediate annuities. Topics include: • Analysis of the special risks posed by these products • Selecting realistic dynamic assumptions • Techniques used in modeling these products • Scenario testing and result presentation to best communicate risks

Description: From the 1986 Valuation Actuary Symposium, held in Washington DC in October 1986 Discussion of cash flow testing to assess level of C-1,C-2, and C-3 risk. Also, update on regulatory and legislative issues in Canada pertaining to the Valuation Actuary, reserves, and risk based capital

Description: From a session at the 2001 Valuation Actuary Symposium, held in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, November 29-30, 2001 Presents questions to actuaries who are experts in the field of actuarial valuation of insurance company assets and liabilities.

Description: This discussion is about the new procedures that are being used or are contemplated in the preparation of new rate books and policy forms with reserves and cash values computed under the 1958 CSO Table.

Description: Presented at May 2002 Spring Meeting. Discusses changes to reserving and tax regulations and the implications they have on product development.

Description: This discussion looks at: what period or combination of periods could reliably be used for valuation purposes, if the practice of applying the rate of disability to mixed lives in the construction of monetary tables is appropriate, and problems from the use of the assumed date at commencement of disability as contrasted with the use of the date at the end of the waiting period.