scholarly journals Group Life Insurance and Pension Plans

1961 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 458-460
Author(s):  
J. J. E. Dosne
Keyword(s):  
Life Insurance ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Group Life

Life Insurance in Canada—Some Aspects and Recent Developments

1958 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 463-546
Author(s):  
G. T. Westwater ◽  
J. C. Burns
Keyword(s):  
Life Insurance ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
List Type ◽  
Ordinary Life ◽  
Professional Societies ◽  
Group Life ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Insurance Business

SynopsisThe paper describes certain aspects of life insurance business in Canada under the following headings :—(a) Legislation and regulation, both federal and provincial(b) Taxation(c) Investment of funds(d) Agency system(e) Ordinary life insurance, including a description of some current developments(f) Group pension plans(g) Group life insurance(h) Actuarial and professional societies.In dealing with the above subjects emphasis has been placed on matters where the Canadian practice may differ somewhat from the British.

The Impact of Social Security Tax Contributions on Group Life Insurance Premiums

1987 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 712 ◽  
Author(s):  
George E. Rejda ◽  
James R. Schmidt ◽  
Michael J. McNamara
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Life Insurance ◽  
Insurance Premiums ◽  
Social Security Tax ◽  
Group Life ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Experience rating with Poisson mixtures

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 304-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garfield O. Brown ◽  
Winston S. Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Life Insurance ◽  
Dirichlet Process ◽  
Posterior Probability ◽  
Mixture Distribution ◽  
Reversible Jump ◽  
Dirichlet Process Prior ◽  
Poisson Mixtures ◽  
Group Life ◽  
Insurance Portfolio ◽  
Poisson Mixture Model

AbstractWe propose a Poisson mixture model for count data to determine the number of groups in a Group Life insurance portfolio consisting of claim numbers or deaths. We take a non-parametric Bayesian approach to modelling this mixture distribution using a Dirichlet process prior and use reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo to estimate the number of components in the mixture. Unlike Haastrup, we show that the assumption of identical heterogeneity for all groups may not hold as 88% of the posterior probability is assigned to models with two or three components, and 11% to models with four or five components, whereas models with one component are never visited. Our major contribution is showing how to account for both model uncertainty and parameter estimation within a single framework.

scholarly journals The Casualty Actuarial Society and Actuarial Studies in development of Non-Life Insurance in North America

1958 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-31
Author(s):  
L. H. Longley-Cook
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Life Insurance ◽  
Early Life ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Special Interests ◽  
Scientific Approach ◽  
Actuarial Studies ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Independent Organization

Thank you, Mr. Masterson, Sir George and friends. Mr. Masterson told you that Mr. Longley-Cook was going to give this report originally. Since he can't, he has turned it over to me, and I shall deliver it practically the way he has written it.The profession of actuary originating in the need for a scientific approach to the problems of early life insurance companies, has broadened its scope over the years, and many actuaries now provide valuable contributions to the scientific study of problems in insurance, commerce and industry which are completely unrelated to life insurance. Because a large majority of actuaries are concerned, however, with problems of life insurance and pension plans, those outside these fields have felt the need for an association which is concerned with their special interests.I feel most honoured to take part in the birth of Astin, an association for the study of insurance problems outside of the life insurance field. It was most wise that Astin has been formed as a section of the International Congress and not as an independent organization because, although our problems may be different, we will gain much in our mutual association.A specialist should not, in his devotion to his particular line of study, lose touch with the broader and more general developments of science. Cross-fertilization of ideas can, on many occasions, prove invaluable. It was over 48 years ago that Mr. Stanley Otis and others suggested that a society of actuaries and statisticians of liability companies be formed. Some five years later, the Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Society of America—later to be known by the shorter title of Casualty Actuarial Society—was inaugurated.

scholarly journals Most Efficient Fluctuation Reserves

1974 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-76
Author(s):  
D. G. Halmstad
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Life Insurance ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
Absolute Amount ◽  
Insurance Company ◽  
Life Insurance Company ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Similar Nature ◽  
Minimum Capital ◽  
Group Life

In 1935 the New York Insurance Department introduced the concept of special contingency funds for certain types of insurance. Such requirements had first been introduced in 1925 for mutual workmen's compensation companies. Clear, consistent principles for these funds were not stated at the time, but their purpose seems to be to provide a cushion that may be used in time of serious financial difficulty.In group life insurance, this fund is a “special contingency reserve” and is carried at the suggestion of the New York Department). For mutual casualty, nonprofit hospitalization and medical indemnity plans, and for reciprocal insurers, the fund is treated as “special contingent surplus”, and is a mandated substitute for the minimum capital required of stock insurers). The U.S. federal Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959 recognizes special credits of a similar nature for health, non-participating life and group life and health insurance coverages.In all of these cases, the accumulations or credits are defined by a designated percentage of premiums). For the New York Department group life reserve and the Income Tax health and group life credit, a maximum is defined by a second percentage of the same annual premiums base. For the nonprofit plans' surplus, a similar maximum in terms of premium is used. However, in the case of mutual casualty companies, and of reciprocal insurers, the “special contingency surplus” must be built up to a defined absolute amount equal to the amount that would be required as capital of a stock company; there are no statutory provisions for withdrawing any part of such a fund once it is accumulated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document