RBC - adjustment for investment income

Chris Heim ( (no email) )
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:17:22 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE8529.DB923CA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Page 336 of the RBC paper discusses the theoretical differences between the
adjustment for investment income for reserving and written premium risk.
The footnote actually gives an example. However the rest of the text seems
to indicate that the factors would be equal since both use the IRS payment
pattern at a 5% rate. Can anyone make sense of this?

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE8529.DB923CA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

Page=20336 of the RBC paper discusses the theoretical differences between the=20adjustment for investment income for reserving and written premium =risk. =20The footnote actually gives an example.  However the rest of the =text seems=20to indicate that the factors would be equal since both use the IRS =payment=20pattern at a 5% rate.  Can anyone make sense of=20this?
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE8529.DB923CA0--