Shane Chalke

  • Those illustrations were too aggressive I think.

-- Shane Chalke

1995 - SOA - Current Developments Surrounding Regulations and Standards of Life and Annuity Products, Society of Actuaries - 18p

  • 1983 - SOA - Universal Life Valuation and Nonforfeiture: Generalized Model, Shane A. Chalke and Michael F. Davlin, Society of Actuaries - 72p
    • 1983 - SOA - Universal Life Valuation and NonForfeiture, Chalke, Society of Actuaries -  [Snippets -14p]
  • 1984 - SOA - NAIC Update, Society of Actuaries - 24p
  • 1999 - SOA - Macro Pricing: A Comprehensive Product Development Process, Chalke, Society of Actuaries - 52p
  • Life insurance, because it is a nontangible product, is extremely susceptible to being perceived as whatever people think it to be.

--   Larry Silkes


1983
- SOA - Universal Life Valuation and NonForfeiture: A Generalized Model,  Shane A. Chalke and Michael Davlin, Society of Actuaries - 72p

  • The opinion that nonforfeiture benefits should be mandated was not completely unanimous among the Task Force.
  • Following is a presentation by Shane Chalke to a group of economists at The Institute For Humane Studies at George Mason University on June 29, which presents the opposing view.

1989-4, NAIC Proc. 593

Premium

  • The <Universal Life> Model Regulation assumes that future premiums will be paid at the whole life level, and calls this premium the GMP (the guaranteed maturity premium). 
  • The GMP is analogous to the guideline level premium (GLP) from TEFRA, the only differences being in the area of assumptions.
  • The GMP is calculated using plan guarantees, regardless of their level, and with no restrictions on plan form (20 year endowment, I0 pay life, etc.).
  • For most plans, however, the GMP should be equal to the GLP from TEFRA.

--  Shane Chalke

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

I'll begin my presentation with the Universal Life Model Regulation, as it's by far the more controversial of the two...

  • Another requirement is that policy guarantees must be equal to the valuation basis.
  • In other words, the rate of interest guaranteed to the policyholder must be the same as the valuation rate, and the mortality rates guaranteed to the policyholder must come from the valuation mortality table.

This all sounds very complicated, this projection and discounting procedure, but don't worry, it gets worse.

  • In addition to everything I just went through, there is this troublesome little "r" factor. The regulation says that, if the actual account value is less than the GMP use the GMP instead and then multiply the result by "r", the ratio of the account value to the GMF.
  • So if your actual account value is half of your GMF, you calculate the reserve pretending that it is the GMF, and then take half of it when you're all done.

I'm really surprised that the "r" factor didn't get more publicity, because it really seems as if it came right out of left field.

  • The purpose of the "r" factor, however, is really quite simple.
    • If the actual account value is less than the GMF, then future guaranteed policy benefits will run out before the maturity date.
    • This is true because the GMF is that amount which is exactly on target to mature the policy.

Therefore, anything less than the GMF will be insufficient to mature the policy on a guaranteed basis.

It was felt that in order to reserve adequately for all policy guarantees, it would be desirable to make sure that any projection of benefits extends until the maturity date of the policy. 

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

APPENDIX B - AN ARGUMENT AGAINST REGULATION OF NONFORFEITURE VALUES

  • The opinion that nonforfeiture benefits should be mandated was not completely unanimous among the Task Force.
  • Following is a presentation by Shane Chalke to a group of economists at The Institute For Humane Studies at George Mason University on June 29, which presents the opposing view.

1989-1, NAIC Proceedings