MIB – Medical Information Bureau

  • There is a serious question of public policy for this Committee to examine in hush-hush Bureaus, the MIB, and other “CIA type” techniques, which collusively, and without knowledge of the consumer, provide for the exchange of very personal information among hundreds of insurance companies.

—  Statement of Leonard Woodcock, President, United Automobile Workers (p4) 

1972 – GOV (Senate) – Commercial Health and Accident Insurance Industry,  Philip Hart (D-MI)

  • 1983 – LC – MIB, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue
    • United States Tax Court
    • Date published: Feb 22, 1983
    • 80 T.C. 438 (U.S.T.C. 1983)
    • Docket No. 5297-81
    • Opinion – [link-CaseText]
      • Petitioner’s Organization and Operation
      • The origin of the petitioner can be traced back to at least as early as 1890, when a group of domestic life insurance medical directors formed the “Rejection Exchange” for the exchange of medical and other information of underwriting significance. In 1902, the functions of the “Rejection Exchange” were taken over by the Association of Life Insurance Medical Directors of  America, a professional organization of medical directors, which thereafter conducted the exchange under the name “Medical Information Bureau” (bureau). In 1947, the bureau was reorganized as a separate, unincorporated nonprofit association.
      • On May 10, 1978, petitioner was organized under Delaware law as a nonprofit, membership corporation, and on May 25, 1978, succeeded to the bureau’s functions and assumed all its assets and liabilities. On or about July 3, 1978, petitioner filed with respondent a Form 1024, Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a), seeking recognition of tax exemption as a business league under section 501(c)(6). By letter dated April 17, 1980, respondent advised petitioner that its application for exemption had been denied.
        • In 1948, the bureau was issued a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that it qualified for exemption under the predecessor of sec. 501(c)(6).
          • 4. Jockey Club v. United States133 Ct. Cl. 787137 F. Supp. 419 (1956), should be compared with National Leather & Shoe Finders Association v. Commissioner9 T.C. 121, 126 (1947), in which we found that an organization was not engaged in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit when it published a trade magazine of an educational nature and circulated it free of charge to nonmembers.

Linton Yield

  • Albert Linton 
  • James Hunt
  • Richard C. MURPHY: One of your charges was to comment on the use of the Linton yields for dissimilar plans and to compare the costs.
    • Has your group made much progress on that issue?
  • William SNELL, Northwestern Mutual: We have looked into that and are not ready to comment at this time, but that issue will be part of the report. We are dividing Linton yield into three possible uses:
    • 1. Comparing similar plans
    • 2. Comparing dissimilar plans
    • 3. Comparing whole life with term and a savings fund
  • Richard MINCK, [ACLI] Have you done any Linton yield calculations for term insurance policies?

1979– SOA – Cost Disclosure (Moss Report), Society of Actuaries – 18p

  • The NAIC committee on cost comparison considered and rejected Linton Yield-the method now proposed by the FTC-primarily because the committee believed that any system that attempted to separate the insurance and savings elements of a life insurance contract would create more misunderstanding than enlightenment for consumers.  (p50)

—  Jim Martin, chairman of the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. My professional background is in marketing and I, too, represent the American Council of Life Insurance [ACLI] here today

1979 0710 and 1017 – GOV (Senate) – FTC Study of Life Insurance Cost Disclosure, Howard Cannon (D-NV)   —  [BonkNote]  

Yield Index

  • Yield Index Advisory Committee – NAIC
  • 1989 – SOA – What Will Be The Life Insurance Products Of The Future, Society of Actuaries – 18p
  •  1987 – SOA – Regulatory Update, rsa87v13n216 – Society of Actuaries – 26p
    • The NAIC Yield Index Advisory Committee was started in the middle of 1984 at the behest of the regulatory community; notable among them is John Montgomery (California)
    • The main thing that triggered their interest in having such an advisory committee formed was what our committee came to call the big red 12% ad.
    • We have all seen lots of them.
      • “Buy the new Extravagance Plus policy with the Miller life –12%.”
      • And if there is any other text in the ad it is probably not much and certainly little, if any, of the conditions that pertain to the base on which the 12% is credited. The regulatory community started to become concerned about that advertising then.
    • That concern continues because you still see a lot of the ads.
  • 3. Make Recommendations on Optional Form of the Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation with Yield Index
  • Mr. Foley explained that the concept of a yield index was very popular in the 1970s and early 1980s.
    • At that time the NAIC adopted a model regulation with an Optional Form of the Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation with Yield Index.
    • California was the only state that adopted the Yield Index and Mr. Summers noted that it has since been repealed.
    • Mr. Foley noted that when the Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation was revised at the Summer National Meeting all references to indices were deleted.
    • Mr. Batte moved, and Mr. Hartnedy seconded a motion to delete the Optional Form of Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation with Yield Index from the list of official NAIC model laws. The motion passed.

2000-3, NAIC Proceedings

  • 1984-2, NAIC Proceedings
    • 2. Adopted charges of advisory committee which include development of yield index (first priority) and study of test limits in the NAIC Model Life Insurance Disclosure Regulation.

  • 1988-1, NAIC Proceedings
    • Project No. 7a “Disclosure of Interest Yield Index:”
      • Questions had previously been raised as to whether the product rankings would be similar under the interest-adjusted index and the yield index for interest sensitive life insurance products, such as universal life plans.
  • 1991-2A, NAIC Proceedings
    • 5. Ratification of Amendments to the Optional Form of the Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation with Yield Index. Mr. Strauss explained that when the Life Insurance Disclosure Mode] Regulation amendments were adopted in December 1990, identical amendments should have been made to the Optional Form of the Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation With Yield Index. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the committee directed that the December 1990 amendments be made to the Optional Form of the Disclosure Regulation and directed that any future amendments to either model regulation be automatically made in the other model regulation unless there was specific wording to the contrary (Attachment Five-A).
  • 2000-3, NAIC Proceedings
    • Mr. Batte moved, and Mr. Hartnedy seconded a motion to delete the Optional Form of Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation with Yield Index from the list of official NAIC model laws. The motion passed.
  • John MacBain: I think the rationalization we’re seeing in pricing is motivated by a lot of things.
    • But it’s amazing how rational industry became when regulators started concentrating on solvency, and after the federal government started concentrating on our industry, after what happened to the savings and loans.
    • I think that has pushed us into more “rational behavior.”
    • And I, for one, am pleased because it’s brought the actuary much more into focus than a few years ago.
    • But I’m a little concerned that, if interest rates turn around and investment gains start to accrue, perhaps we will become less rational.
    • I’m glad to see that illustrations are becoming rational, although I’m not sure that what California did is rational, in terms of requiring this yield index, which absolutely nobody on the consumer side is going to understand.
    • But I’d be interested in getting a feel for whether the panel feels that, when the economy turns around and investment gains are more amendable, whether the pricing will continue to be as “rational”?

1994 – SOA – The Driving Forces Behind Participating – Universal Life (UL) – Nonguaranteed Element Product Development, Society of Actuaries – 12p

Ratebook

  • In the use of these illustrations, agents must carefully discriminate between what is guaranteed in the policy, and what is only a possibility…  (p42 of 240)

1896 – Ratebook – Premium Rates, Guarantees and Illustrations of Policies – New York Life Insurance Company – 240p

  • Universal Life is a ratebook and more, all by itself. If you say you have Universal Life, you in fact have more of a product than you probably have in your current portfolio at the present time.

—  Thomas F. Eason

1983 – SOA – Individual Life Insurance, Society of Actuaries – 22p

  • Adjustable Life – Best’s Flitcraft Compendium – Ratebook
    • 1983 – Minnesota Mutual – Adjustable Life II – p335
    • 1987 – Minnesota Mutual – Adjustable Life III – p272
  • Traditional ratebooks simply do not work with Adjustable Life.
    • In the first place, it is not feasible to print rate pages for every conceivable plan.
    • Secondly, it is impossible to print rate tables for plans which have been adjusted, because the amount of reserve in force at the time of change effects the calculation of the new values.
    • Adjustable Life is truly a product of the computer age, and both the home office and the field must rely heavily on modern technology.

—  Alice M. Neenan

1978 – SOA – Adjustable Life Products, Moderator: Samuel H. Turner, Society of Actuaries – 20p

  • 1896 – Ratebook – Premium Rates, Guarantees and Illustrations of Policies – New York Life Insurance Company – 240p
  • 1901 – Ratebook – The Unique Comparative Chart of Premium Rates of the Regular Life Ins. 
  • 1902 – Ratebook – The Unique Chart of Co-operative Assessment Associations: A Comparative and Analytical Compendium of Regular Life and Assessment Insurance

  • 1912 – Ratebook – Little Gem Chart of Dividends, National Underwriter – [GooglePlay-157p]
  • 1926 – Ratebook – Little Gem Life Chart, National Underwriter- [GooglePlay-707p]
  • Best’s Flitcraft Compendium
  • Handy Guide to Premium Rates, Applications and Policies of American Life, The Spectator
    • 1918 – Ratebook – Handy Guide to Premium Rates, Applications and Policies of American Life, The Spectator – [GooglePlay-877p]
  • Little Gem
    • Life Rates and Data (Replaced Little Gem – Source: 1973 GOV The Life Insurance Industry Part 2, p936)
  • National Underwriter
    • adjusted index book – <WishList>
    • Cost Facts on Life Insurance – <WishList>
      • Big Gap in Life Insurance Costs Found in Study by … The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com › 1972/04/19 › archives › big-… Apr 19, 1972 – Much of the original data stemmed from a book titled “Cost Facts on Life Insurance: Interest‐Adjusted Method,” pub lished at $25 a copy by …
  • Spectator Handy Guide
  • Unique Manual
  • C. Universal Life
    • From the beginning, a necessity for successful marketing of universal life has been the ability of the seller to illustrate the performance of a policy tailored (within policy limits) to the needs and resources of the prospective purchaser.
    • The agent and prospect have the ability to choose almost any pattern of benefits and premiums.
    • No longer is the sale limited to one of several fixed plans of insurance from a ratebook.  Each one is different.
    • Any system of policy illustrations will have some limitations on this flexibility. (p151)

1991-1992 – SOA – Final Report* of the Task Force for Research on Life Insurance Sales Illustrations, Society of Actuaries – 142p

  • (p793) – Late in 1970 the National Underwriter (an insurance trade publication ) published a volume called “Cost Facts on Life Insurance Interest – Adjusted Method” – <WishList>

—  Edwin Matz, [ALIA], Senior Executive Vice President of the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company

1973 0612 – GOV (Senate) – Review of Veterans’ Insurance Programs, Harold E. Hughes (D-IA) – Part 2 – [PDF-545p-GooglePlay]

  • Universal Life is a ratebook and more, all by itself. If you say you have Universal Life, you in fact have more of a product than you probably have in your current portfolio at the present time.
  • The National Underwriter has recently published their 1983 adjusted index book.
    • There are 100 universal life policies in the back with the same type of display they have had in the past two or three years.
  • It is really educational to look at that and see the different patterns of cash values and other aspects of the policies.
  • If you look at the Union Central policy, you will find that the loadings are relatively steep compared to the average.
    • That reflects relatively steep field compensation.
    • This type of pricing fits the criteria of an actuarially sound product.
  • Until we find that the product is not marketable, which so far does not appear to be the case, we will keep that philosophy in pricing.

—  Thomas F. Eason

1983 – SOA – Individual Life Insurance, Society of Actuaries – 22p

  • E. F. ESTES expressed the opinion that:
    • (1) because of the comparatively limited actuarial facilities of most smaller companies, the issuance and servicing of plans requiring special quotations create problems out of proportion to their value to the company, and
    • (2) the problem can be greatly minimized if the agency department will see to it that the agent is effectively trained to meet with regular ratebook plans many of the isolated situations which at first appearance suggest special treatment.

1953 – SOA – Agency Problems–Resulting From Special Policies, Society of Actuaries – 3p

Interest Adjusted Method

  • IAM – Interest Adjusted Method
  • Interest Adjusted Index
  • C.L. TROWBRIDGE:
    • My interest in this challenging subject goes back to my membership on the 1970 Joint Special Committee chaired by Jack Moorhead.
    • This Committee proposed what was then known as the interest-adjusted method, which later became the basis of the NAIC approach now in effect in some 2/3 of the states.

1981 – SOA – Individual Life Insurance Cost Disclosure Issues, Society of Actuaries – 22p

  • 1973 – SOA – A Ratio of Interest-Adusted Cost Indexed for the Comparison of Dissimilar Life Insurance Contracts, by Peter L.J. Ryall, tsa73v25pt1n72ab5 – Society of Actuaries – 28p

1982-1, NAIC Proceedings

Data Bank

  • Concept of a Life Insurance Policy Data Bank
  • A national data bank, organized and operated through the auspices of the NAIC, would serve as a depository for raw data on new as well as existing policies for cooperating insurers. It is anticipated that the national data bank would:
  • The data bank would receive information directly from insurers in coded or machine-readable form. The format for the data would be standardized and subject to infrequent changes.
  • Many companies would wish to be data contributors.

1980-2, NAIC Proceedings

  • One point should be mentioned that, from a research point of view, does tie together the proposed NAIC recommendation and the Hart subcommittee activities.
    • That is the data bank that Senator Hart and his staff have accumulated, and may choose to add to, by questionnaire.
  • The NAIC-drafted proposal envisions that the Hart data bank will be available for calculations and analyses in order to accomplish some of the research projects in their proposal.
  • Should the Society eventually be engaged in research regarding the various cost disclosure/cost comparison methods, it probably would be with the use of that bank of statistical data.

Bartley Munson 

1973 – SOA – Price Disclosure and Cost Comparison, Society of Actuaries – 186p

1974-1, NAIC Proceedings

  • Life Insurance Cost Comparison (C3) Task Force: Research Project Reports Available, May, 1975 – PROJECT REPORTS – Research Project One
    • (Production of a life insurance cost data base in cooperation with the Antitrust Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee.)
  • Portions published by the Antitrust Subcommittee as follows:
    • United States. Senate. Judiciary Committee. The Life Insurance Industry: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly
    • 1973 / 1974 – GOV (Senate) – The Life Insurance Industry, Phillip Hart (D-MI) – 4 Parts  —  [BonkNote]

1975-2, NAIC Proc.

Focus Groups / Consumer Testing

  • We hear a lot about, “we did some market research and we found that this percent of our policyholders didn’t know what it was buying.” 

—  Justin N. Hornburg

1995 – SOA – Practical Illustrations and Nonforfeiture Values, Society of Actuaries – 14p

  • A great deal of the confusion seems to stem from a lack of understanding of how cash value insurance products work and a lack of understanding of insurance terminology.
  • Also, because most people presume that if you pay your premium continuously, your policy will remain in effect, quite a few people had a hard time understanding how or why the policy would terminate in policy year 31.
    • This was simply foreign to their way of thinking.
  • One person was so confused that he said that the maturity age and endowment benefit were moot points, since the policy was going to end at year 31 anyway.

1990-1A, NAIC Proceedings – NAIC / LIMRA – Universal Life Disclosure Form Test Market Results, NAIC Product Development Task Force- 10p

  • 1979-2, NAIC Proceedings
    • Consumer Reaction to Cost Disclosure: An Annotated Bibliography of Studies
    • Life Insurance Committee Advisory Committee on Monitoring the Impact of the NAIC Model Life Insurance Solicitation Regulation
  • 1981 – AP – The NAIC Model Life Insurance Solicitation Regulation: Measuring the Consumer Impact in New Jersey, Roger A. Formisano – 22p
  • 2001-4V1, NAIC Proceedings – Do Product Disclosures Inform and Safeguard Insurance Policyholders? – 11p 
  • Joel Ario (Pennsylvania Insurance Commissionere… said the consumer complaint analysts in a state are a “focus group” that each state should rely on.

2009-3, NAIC Proceedings

  • 4) Illustrations Focus Groups
    • One of the key motivations of the working group is the conviction that an illustration should be more of an education tool than a sales tool. 
    • He said to be sure that the illustration format the working group devises will educate rather than confuse the consumer, the group has expressed an interest in having testing done with focus groups. 

1994-4, NAIC Proceedings

  • A survey was used in Fairbanks v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Co.85 to defeat a showing of materiality.
    • In that case, defendants relied on a survey commissioned by plaintiff’s counsel, in which 500 policyholders were asked if they would have purchased their policies had it been disclosed that the policies were not permanent.
    • A total of 47.4% of the respondents said they would still have purchased the policies.86
    • Citing the survey results, the court found that the materiality issue was subject to individual proof, and affirmed the lower court’s denial of class certification.87

2016 – LR – Recent Trends in the Use of Surveys in Advertising Law Disputes; an Update on the Case Law, by Kenneth Plevan – 45p

  • NAIC
    • Life Insurance Buyer’s Guide Working Group
    • Life Insurance Illustrations Working Group
    • Product Development Task Force
    • Consumer Issues Disclosure Working Group
    • Consumer Disclosure Issues Working Group
    • David Lyons (Iowa), William Hager (Iowa)

  • 1979-2, NAIC Proceedings
    • Consumer Reaction to Cost Disclosure: An Annotated Bibliography of Studies
    • Life Insurance Committee Advisory Committee on Monitoring the Impact of the NAIC Model Life Insurance Solicitation Regulation
  • 1990-1A – NAIC Proceedings – NAIC / LIMRA Focus Group – Universal Life Disclosure Form Test Market Results – 10p
  • 1993 – Policy Information for Applicant- Universal Life – 3p, Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation – Appendix D
    • Found in 1993 0525 –  GOV (Senate) – When Will Policyholders Be Given The Truth About Life Insurance? – [PDF-354p-GooglePlay, No Video]->Not on govinfo.gov
  • 2001-1V2 – NAIC Proceedings – Do Product Disclosures Inform and Safeguard Insurance Policyholders? – 11p
  • ACADEMIC
    • 1972 – AP – An Empirical Investigation of Attitudes Toward the Life Insurance – Marketing – 181p
    • 1978 – AP – Consumer Accessing and Use of Information in Making Life Insurance Purchase Decisions, Jacob Jacoby – 124p
    • 1981 – AP – The NAIC Model Life Insurance Solicitation Regulation: Measuring the Consumer Impact in New Jersey, Roger A. Formisano – 22p
  • ACTUARIAL
    • 1982 – SOA – Universal Life Update, Society of Actuaries (rsa82v8n34) – 26p
    • 1991 – SOA – Illustrations, Society of Actuaries – 20p
    • 1991-1992 – SOA – Final Report* of the Task Force for Research on Life Insurance Sales Illustrations, Society of Actuaries – 142p
    • 1996 – SOA – Nonforfeiture Law Developments (rsa96v22n38pd), Society of Actuaries – 23p
  • INDUSTRY
    • 2005 – SOA – Regarding Your Direct Response Offer, As published in the Winter 2004 edition of LIMRA’s MarketFacts Quarterly Barometer, ndn-2005-iss49-jacques-neyer – Society of Actuaries – 8p
    • MAP – “Monitoring the Attitudes of the Public”
  • LAW
    • 2014 – LR – The No Reading Problem in Contract Law, by Ian Ayres* & Alan Schwartz, Stanford Law Review – 66p
  • 3. Plaintiffs failed to prove consumer expectations
    • That failure properly doomed Plaintiffs’ claim. See, e.g., Clemens, 534 F.3d at 1026 (proof of UCL fraud claim requires proof of consumer expectations by class-wide evidence: “a few isolated examples of actual deception,” “personal experience,” “personal assumptions,” and personal “expectations” of named plaintiffs are insufficient).
    • Plaintiffs can hardly complain about the court commenting on the absence of survey evidence– Plaintiffs’ own expert testified that, without a survey, he could not opine about consumer expectations. ER791 59:18-21.

lswclassaction.com/docs/download/SANFRAN-%238165194-v1-2016_02_08_042_Appellees_Answering_Brief.pdf

  • To date, no state has adopted these forms.
  • Why this complete lack of action after all the effort in developing the forms?

—  Tony Spano, ACLI

1990 – SOA – Quality of Life Insurance Sales Illustrations, Society of Actuaries – 16p

⇒ [Bonk: “these forms” – 1990-1A, NAIC Proceedings – NAIC / LIMRA – Universal Life Disclosure Form Focus Group Summary  —   [BonkNote]  —  10p

  • John KELLER, Northwestern Mutual:  I’ll respond briefly to the suggestion that we use focus groups to get the consumer point of view.
    • We did consider that early on in our work and rejected it for a couple of reasons.
      • One was the time constraints we were under and the cost of doing focus groups.
      • But probably the most important reason is that if you get 15 people in a room who are recent purchasers of life insurance and then spend an hour or two dissecting the sales process and the use of their illustrations in that sales process, you’re likely to have 13 people coming out slightly or greatly disillusioned over what they just did.
    • We found that our field force and our marketing department didn’t like that idea at all.
    • So if somebody could think of a way to get to the consumer without causing real problems among recent buyers, who are our most fragile customers, we would like to hear it.

  • Judy FAUCETT:  In line with John’s comments, we were told by one group that actually runs focus groups that if you got a group of recent purchasers of insurance in a room, you might get responses of what they think they did or what they think they should have done, as opposed to what they actually did.

1991 – SOA – Illustrations, Society of Actuaries – 20p

  • It seems more like we are focused within, and we are afraid to go out and ask the consumer, “What do you really want?”
  • Maybe we need to have some focus groups.
  • But, as I say, maybe that too would be a problem because we do not even know the right questions to ask because we have not educated our customer about our products and services. 

—  Larry J. Bruning

1996 – SOA – Nonforfeiture Law Developments (rsa96v22n38pd), Society of Actuaries – 23p

  • Baseline Consumer Surveys
  • Formisano’s survey of life insurance policyholders is now some 20 years old and is in dire need of updating and elaboration.
    • An important first step would be to survey groups of recently enrolled policyholders (e.g., universal life, long-term care, credit life) who have been exposed to the current generation of NAIC model disclosures.
    • The purpose would be to obtain baseline data about their exposure to and awareness of disclosure messages, comprehension of key disclosures, the beliefs and meanings they extract from product messages, and their ability to use disclosures correctly.
  • 3. Effectiveness of Disclosures
    • Commissioner Morrison asked the NAIC staff to report on the literature search on the effectiveness of disclosures.
    • Ms. Lindley-Myers indicated that the research centered on the effectiveness of disclosures and their usefulness as related to insurance products.
      • Unfortunately, there is very little information available on this topic.
      • With the exception of product liability and warranties, there is very little information involving disclosure in an insurance setting.
      • However, she indicated that Larry Kirsch of IMR Health Economics, LLC in Brookline, MA, had produced an issues generating paper entitled, Do Product Disclosures Inform and Safeguard Insurance Policyholders? (Attachment Three-C).

2001-4V1 NAIC Proceedings

  • 1994 1210 – NAIC – ATTACHMENT TWO-A – NAIC CONSUMER INFORMATION RESEARCH PROJECT
  • 1. PROJECT SCOPE
    • The project will be conducted under the oversight of the NAIC and the Consumer Information Working Group.
    • The design of the research and the release of the final report will be subject to the approval of the NAIC.

  • Tim Ghan (Nev.) presented a draft research proposal for a study of consumer information in personal lines insurance (Attachment Two-A).
    • The proposed study would involve three steps:
      • 1) a review of the relevant literature;
      • 2) an analysis of the extent of consumer information and its impact on competition and market performance; and
      • 3) an analysis of how consumer information could be most effectively enhanced.

  • Brenda Cude (Cooperative Extension Service at University of Illinois – Champaign/Urbana)
    • …noted the widespread lack of consumer knowledge about insurance, citing a Consumer Federation of America (CFA) study that found that the adults tested were able to answer only 54% of the insurance questions they were given.
    • She stressed the difference between consumer information and education and why both are important.
    • She added that there is a need for information that time-pressed and limited reading ability individuals can use easily at the point of need.
  • Sam Sarab (W.Va.) suggested that consumers could be surveyed as to the different information sources they have been exposed to.

  • Robert Klein (NAIC/SSO) responded that the personal lines market study would not analyze the quality of consumer information, as contemplated in the proposal.

1994-4, NAIC Proceedings

1996-2 Possitible Survey Topics
  • Commissioner Lyons reported that AARP will be doing a review with senior citizens on the readability and understandability of the disclosure form.
    • He reminded committee members that the working group will be doing additional work to determine whether these policies provide minimum values to consumers.
    • He said that decision would be made after an NAIC staff actuary completes a study of the value of these policies.
    • The working group plans to provide that information and its recommendations to the Life Insurance (A) Committee in 1991.

1991-1A, NAIC PRoceedings

  • Because of the concerns expressed by several states over the potential impact of the survey and at the suggestion of NAIC staff, a draft of the survey was forwarded to the Special (EX) Committee on the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
    • The Executive Committee designated Commissioner Earl Pomeroy, as chair of that committee and as the President of NAIC, to provide further input and direction.
    • Accordingly, on Sept. 10, I met with Commissioner Pomeroy, along with Mike Hessler (Ill.), Tom Reents (Neb.) and Art Chartrand (NAIC) to review these issues.
    • First, I wish to greatly express my appreciation to Commissioner Pomeroy for articulating his concerns and providing a productive framework for this subgroup to continue to carryout its charge.
    • As a result of that meeting, it was mutually agreed to suspend the activity on the current survey and to proceed as follows:
  • 2. Commissioner Pomeroy was very supportive of the subgroup recommending to EX3 Subcommittee that it pursue its investigation and make any appropriate recommendations in regard to the use of purported “consumer” groups fronting as leads or advertising agencies for insurance companies.

1991-1A, NAIC Proceedings

TO: Members of the Market Conduct & Consumer Affairs (EX3) Subcommittee
FROM: Brad Connor (Mo.), Chair of EX3 Subgroup on Unfair Trade Practices
DATE: October 11, 1990 .
RE: Meeting with NAIC Leadership on Subgroup’s Projects

R-Ratio / R-Factor

  • In essence, the model regulation <Universal Life Model Regulation> assumes that at issue, all universal life policies are permanent plans.
  • The r-ratio is meant to measure the extent to which the policy is “on track” as a permanent plan.

Statutory Valuation of Individual Life and Annuity Contracts | 5th Edition, Claire, Lombardi and Summers

  • Conseco, Garn Lawsuit, R-Factor
  • 1988 – SOA – Update on Universal Life Reserves and Non-Forfeiture Values, Society of Actuaries – 36p
  • The purpose of the “r” factor, however, is really quite simple.
    • If the actual account value is less than the GMF <Guaranteed Maturity Fund>, then future guaranteed policy benefits will run out before the maturity date.

—  Shane Chalke

1984 – SOA – NAIC Update, Society of Actuaries – 24p

  • The letter “r” is equal to one, unless the policy is a flexible premium policy and the policy value is less than the guaranteed maturity fund, in which case “r” is the ratio of the policy value to the guaranteed maturity fund.

Universal Life Insurance Model Regulation – (#585): 

  • The funding level affects:
    • 1. Universal life commissioners reserve valuation method reserves — In particular the r factor is the ratio of the actual fund value to the guaranteed maturity fund.
      • Since r is capped at I00%, using a ratio based on the average fund for all policies may not produce the actual reserve.
    • 2. Cash values — The funding level affects cash values since 100% of the surrender charge may not be available on minimally funded policies.
    • 3. Premium Assumptions — Different funding levels will have different premium payment patterns, which range from a term level premium to fully funded premium to dump-in premiums. Premium persistency may also vary by funding level.
    • 4. Future earnings — As a result of a combination of the above items, future earnings may differ by funding level.

1994 – SOA – Valuation Actuary Symposium Proceedings – Session 8 – Life and Deferred Annuity Liability, Society of Actuaries – 32p