• Lonnie Milton Graul:  Don't you think part of the response to the interrogatories might be the choice of the lesser of two evils?
    • An honest response might be, "The rates we are currently illustrating are not supportable because we illustrate on the portfolio rate and the portfolio rate is higher than the new money rate.
    • If everything else stays the same, the credited rate is going to go down."
    • If you gave that answer to the question and were in a major company and your competitor or a consumer advocate gets a hold of that, they can say, "Look, they are telling you a lie."
    • What is the alternative? --- Give an incomplete answer, an incoherent answer?
      • This seems to be the norm.
    • An insurance regulator might think the answer was inadequate but that is three or four years from now when they do an examination.
  • Larry R. Robinson, ACLI: You have pointed out a very real danger. 

1988 - SOA - Actuarial Opinion on Non-Guaranteed Elements, Society of Actuaries - 12p

  • One thing that should be reconsidered is the purpose of the interrogatories.
    • If they are truly intended to comment on the appropriateness of company illustrations, then we might serve our purpose better by requiring actuarial certification of the illustrations themselves rather than burying that opinion in the company's statutory annual statement.

-- Bradley E. Barks

1993 - SOA - Sales Illustrations: We Can't Life With Them, But We Can't Live Without Them!, Society of Actuaries - 20p