My consulting actuary (Bill) performed RBC C-3 Phase I CFT for 2014 and the result is zero (i.e., no negative surplus arises in aggregate for the CFT projection). As a result we book zero for line 33 on page LR027. Line 34, sub-total interest rate risk, has instruction that if line 33 is zero, to use line 32. Therefore we booked $1.0M in line 34 for C-3 risk.
Another consulting actuary (John) advised us that since we performed RBC C-3 Phase I and have a $0 result, we should use a $1 dollar entry in line 33 of LR027. If we put a $1 in line 33, our total interest rate risk would be ½ of current $1.0M (see instructions in line 34).
John argues that if we had a $1 in the CFT, we would achieve the same result. It is logical to conclude that this is an acceptable practice. It is John's belief that it was never considered that the answer might be $0, as opposed to not performing the testing which would result in a $0 in this field, however different conclusions should be drawn.
Please let me know if you have some thoughts on this matter.
Regards,
Another consulting actuary (John) advised us that since we performed RBC C-3 Phase I and have a $0 result, we should use a $1 dollar entry in line 33 of LR027. If we put a $1 in line 33, our total interest rate risk would be ½ of current $1.0M (see instructions in line 34).
John argues that if we had a $1 in the CFT, we would achieve the same result. It is logical to conclude that this is an acceptable practice. It is John's belief that it was never considered that the answer might be $0, as opposed to not performing the testing which would result in a $0 in this field, however different conclusions should be drawn.
Please let me know if you have some thoughts on this matter.
Regards,
Life RBC determination. Question from page LR027
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire