Life Insurance?

[sidicks]

CarlosFandango11 said:

I don't think that you're a life actuary. If you are and have qualified recently, you would have passed SA2, titled Life Insurance.

I'll stick with the IFoA's view.

Which part of the Actuaries' code applies to Life Insurance Actuaries?!

[sidicks]

trickywoo said:

The qualification is Life Actuary without distinction to insurance / assurance.

The qualification is Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries (FIA) Or Fellow of the Faculty of Actuaries (FFA)

[CarlosFandango11]

sidicks said:

Which part of the Actuaries' code applies to Life Insurance Actuaries?!

By the Actuaries' code, do you mean this?
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/document...

[sidicks]

CarlosFandango11 said:

By the Actuaries' code, do you mean this?
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/document...

Sorry, I meant the associated guidance notes - specifically APS G1 and APS L1 for example - on the same page of the website your'e looking at!

[trickywoo]

CarlosFandango11 said:

By the Actuaries' code, do you mean this?
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/document...

Careful, he doesn't seem to like the use of google

The fact he seems not to know the difference between a 'term assurance' policy and an 'assurance' policy would suggest google would actually be his friend.

[sidicks]

trickywoo said:

Careful, he doesn't seem to like the use of google

Carlos is also an Actuary, so he's knowledgeable in this area - he's not trying to use Google to pretend he know more than he does. You on the other hand....

trickywoo said:

The fact he seems not to know the difference between a 'term assurance' policy and an 'assurance' policy would suggest google would actually be his friend.

Eh? A term assurance policy is a type of assurance policy, both part of long-term life insurance business.

HTH

[CarlosFandango11]

sidicks said:

I meant the associated guidance notes - APS G1 and APS L1 for example - on the same page of the website your'e looking at!

I hadn't realised that before. So the IFoA have contradicting views on the use of assurance or insurance.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/assurance said:

In the context of life insurance, a technical distinction is made between assurance and insurance. Assurance is used of policies under whose terms a payment is guaranteed, either after a fixed term or on the death of the insured person; insurance is the general term, and is used in particular of policies under whose terms a payment would be made only in certain circumstances (e.g. accident or death within a limited period)

Which implies term assurance if a life insurance product and not life assurance.

[trickywoo]

CarlosFandango11 said:

Which implies term assurance is a life insurance product and not life assurance.

I'll expect a magnanimous apology from you Sidicks (the great man that are) shortly as I do feel you have been unnecessarily rude and patronising.

HTH

[sidicks]

CarlosFandango11 said:

sidicks said:

I meant the associated guidance notes - APS G1 and APS L1 for example - on the same page of the website your'e looking at!

I hadn't realised that before. So the IFoA have contradicting views on the use of assurance or insurance.

Traditionally, assurance is a subset of insurance I.e. all assurance policies are insurance policies but not all insurance policies are assurance policies! That's how insurers are regulated etc.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/assurance said:

In the context of life insurance, a technical distinction is made between assurance and insurance. Assurance is used of policies under whose terms a payment is guaranteed, either after a fixed term or on the death of the insured person;

insurance is the general term and is used in particular of policies under whose terms a payment would be made only in certain circumstances (e.g. accident or death within a limited period)

CarlosFandango11 said:

Which implies term assurance if a life insurance product and not life assurance.

However, that would imply that term assurance products are not subject to the same regulation as endowment assurances (which is nonsense!)

Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th January 14:58

[sidicks]

trickywoo said:

I'll expect a magnanimous apology from you Sidicks (the great man that are) shortly as I do feel you have been unnecessarily rude and patronising.

HTH

Depends if you believe this definition is flawed or not, given what actually happens in practice and with the regulation of insurance, which would directly contradict this definition! I believe that even if this definition is now being used in practice. It doesn't represent the underlying facts!

Apologies if I've offended you.

The implication is that term assurance is not assurance business even though it falls under assurance legislation and requires a life assurance actuary to sign off the year end reserves...

Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th January 15:03

[CarlosFandango11]

sidicks said:

Depends if you believe this definition is flawed or not, given what actually happens in practice and with the regulation of insurance, which wild directly contradict this definition!

The implication is that term assurance is not assurance business even though it falls under assurance legislation and requires a life assurance actuary to sign off the year end reserves...

Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th January 14:57

I'm not particularly hot on regulations.... Although I do recall that for IFRS, business is split between investment and insurance...

I suspect that definition for life assurance/insurance business vary depending on context.

[sidicks]

CarlosFandango11 said:

I'm not particularly hot on regulations.... Although I do recall that for IFRS, business is split between investment and insurance...

I suspect that definition for life assurance/insurance business vary depending on context.

There's certainty a good reason that the majority of the original insurers established to write life insurance policies had 'assured' in their titles! And why these policies have a Sum Assured, not a Sum Insurer. And why all assurance policies are related to mortiality risk in some way.

Clearly, whilst the historic reasons and current regulatory rules may support my side, there maybe also be a different definition also in practical use today, so i do owe trickywoo some form of apology (see above!).

I still maintain that this claim is fundamentally incorrect:

trickywoo said:

The legal defination of life insurance and life assurance is as I've described it.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th January 16:43

[Cheib]

Sarnie said:

Cheib said:

Take out multiple policies rather than just one....i.e. if you want £100k of cover take out two for £50k. As the poster above said Life Insurance is cheap when you are young but you may find you don't need as much when you're older...if you take out multiple policies you can just let one lapse and then (in the above example) have one still going for £50k. To let £100k policy lapse and then take out a new £50k policy would be very expensive...it....or if circumstances change and you just can't afford the cover etc you can change

I took out three policies rather than one....the price difference was tiny. I think 1 or 2% vs having one single policy.

You can simply reduce the sum assured of a policy rather than taking 3 policies.

Life providers would be more than happy to reduce their risk at any point.

It's increasing the sum assured thats usually not possible as you are asking for increased risk based on the initial underwriting that took place when you applied. Most provider will allow a small increase of up to 25% but anymore would require a new policy and application......

Didn't know that (and clearly neither did my IFA)...that said I can do it without referring to anyone and being subject to a change in their stance on this in the future. Which with things like this is a meaningful risk!

[Mojooo]

I presume it is generally worth getting life insurance when you are young as the premiums will go up a lot as you get older - say even 5 years?

Also for the same reason would you not 'lock in' for say 40 years rather than taking out 15 years and then doing it again in 15 years when you are a higher risk?

[dalenorth1]

It can be but as circumstances change so much it's best to take the appropriate cover for your current situation and review every couple of years. We review all our clients annually to ensure they still have the most appropriate policies.

[Sarnie]

Mojooo said:

......... and then doing it again in 15 years when you are a higher risk?

.....and also in 15 years time there is a liklehood that you may have experienced some sort of health issue that may mean cover is expensive, impossible to secure or perhaps end up with an exclusion inserted to the policy to exclude that condition, that would have been covered if you'd taken the longer policy at the outset.

[Mojooo]

dalenorth1 said:

It can be but as circumstances change so much it's best to take the appropriate cover for your current situation and review every couple of years. We review all our clients annually to ensure they still have the most appropriate policies.

I tried responding to your email but its bounced back as invalid domain.

[dalenorth1]

How odd. Try me on [e-mail]

[dalenorth]

Sorry this is the right account, it appears I loved PH that much I had two accounts!!

[Ginge R]

Sarnie said:

.....and also in 15 years time there is a liklehood that you may have experienced some sort of health issue that may mean cover is expensive, impossible to secure or perhaps end up with an exclusion inserted to the policy to exclude that condition, that would have been covered if you'd taken the longer policy at the outset.

Chatted with a new client the other month. Having been divorced in middle age, and having once bought a cheap joint life policy and already surrendered it in favour of her partner, she found herself having to look around for fresh cover in her late forties.