Description: This panel discussion is from the 1991 Meeting of the Society of Actuaries, held May 16-17 in New York. The panelists discuss various aspects of accelerated benefits, also known as “living benefits riders,” such as types of benefits, marketing, tax issues, pricing, valuation, and reinsurance. Regulatory issues are discussed, including the work of the American Council of Life Insurance, ‘ACLI,’ and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, ‘NAIC,’ and their committees, in developing a Model Regulation. Discussion from participants is included. From the Record of Society of Actuaries, Volume 17, No. 2.

Description: This session from the 1995 SOA New York City Meeting covers the Society's research activities directly related to dynamic solvency testing, DST, a historical perspective of insolvencies and the uses of DST to determine financial impairment. From the Record of the Society of Actuaries, Vol. 21, No. 2.

Description: This session at the SOA 1990 San Francisco Spring Meeting focuses on the relationship between the pricing actuary and the valuation actuary from the standpoint of each.

Description: This session 15 PD of the Toronto Spring Meeting includes an update on specific approaches adopted by Canadian insurers and regulators to deal with capital guarantees on segregated fund products, capital modeling in the Canadian banking industry, and emerging issues using these techniques in the U.S. From the Record of the Society of Actuaries, Volume 27, No. 2, Session

Description: Panelists – including a New York state insurance regulator, an insurance-company qualified actuary, and a consulting actuary – discuss initial results from the NY filings for 1986 and 1987, the challenges complying with Reg 126, and what companies have learned so far from it. From the 1988 Record of Society of Actuaries, Vol. 14, No. 3.

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 presentation, session number 6PD, took place at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Society of Actuaries, held October 15-18 in Chicago. The panelists discuss recent and potential developments in statutory reserving for annuity products, including reserves for variable annuities with guaranteed living benefits, NAIC Actuarial Guidelines 33, 34, and 35, new annuity valuation table update, proposed revisions to NAIC Actuarial Guideline 9-A on substandard annuity reserves, reserves for annuities linking returns to general account asset pools, reserves for guaranteed investment contracts with bailouts triggered by downgrades, changes to NAIC Model Actuarial Opinion and Memorandum Regulation, and unified valuation system update. Discussion from participants is included. From the Record of the Society of Actuaries, Volume 26, No. 3.

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 1995 SOA Boston Meeting covers an update on the current status of the proposed new standard non-forfeiture law for life insurance. From the Record of the Society of Actuaries, Vol. 21, No. 4a.

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?