------_=_NextPart_001_01BE93DE.63F5D792
Content-Type: text/plain
Actually, my interpretation is that it DOES NOT MATTER what market interest
rate is. Because we are in the Statutory accounting framework defined by
Sholom(not in the real world). In the early section of his paper, he makes
a comparison between the DFA model and the calculation for interest rate
risk. If you are going to use a DFA model to looked at the sensitivity of
surplus to interest rate, then the market changes is important. BUT if you
want to calculate RBC for interest rate risk, then it doesn't matter.
The problem with this whole interest rate risk is that the RBC formula end
up excluding it(except perhaps for apparent loss development piece which is
imbedded in the Reserving charge). This is very strange. The Canadian
surplus requirement did specifically require PC company to put up a margin
for interest rate risk(along with reinsurance recovery, and claim
development), and so is the life side. Sholom acknowledges their existence,
but the RBC for PC in U.S. did not reflect it. One argument has been
sighted in the reading that, maybe the PC has traditionally been looked at
by the regulator as liquid and its investments are mostly short term.
Therefore, we are less prone to interest rate risk. Yeah, right.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: madisoninc@mindspring.com [SMTP:madisoninc@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:20 AM
> To: Eric.Hornick@CentreSolutions.Com
> Cc: studygroup10@lists.casact.org
> Subject: Re: Interest rate risk
>
> Eric,
>
> You may be missing the point. The purpose of interest rate risk is to
> determine the additional capital required from interest rate changes from
> RBC values (risk based capital requirements). In RBC charges, liabilities
> are discounted at a mandatory 5% rate. Thus, if interest rates shift from
> 7% to 8%, you want to consider 1) the change in asset values from 7% to 8%
> (since assets can be valued at market rates in RBC) and 2) the change in
> liability values from 5% (the mandatory value) to 8%, the new value. This
> is not a mismatch.
>
> So yes, if market rates went from 20% to 22%, you do want to consider a 2%
> change in assets vs. a 17% change in liabilities.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> John Gleba
> madisoninc@mindspring.com
> 706-342-7750
>
>
>
>
> At 09:40 AM 4/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ok--I've reached page 30 of 99-10-20B--the last two pages of the last
> >Feldblum study note...and I have a problem I don't understand.
> >
> >The simplified "Exhibit 3", shows assets at a book value using a 1.05 and
> a
> > shocked value of 1.07 but the assets go 1.06 to 1.07.
> >
> >Can anyone explain the logic here or is this simply an error? It seems
> like
> > you're trying to demonstrate a 100 bp swing (based on the assets) but on
> >the liab side you're starting with the 1.05 value (from RBC I guess). It
> >doesn't seem to be a fair comparison.
> >
> >If market rates went from 20 to 22%, for example you wouldn't want to
> >compare a 2 point change in assets with a 17 point change in liabs,
> right?
> >
> >Am I totally missing the point? Thanks
> >
> >
> >
------_=_NextPart_001_01BE93DE.63F5D792
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
Actually, my interpretation =is that it DOES NOT MATTER what market interest rate is. Because =we are in the Statutory accounting framework defined by Sholom(not in =the real world). In the early section of his paper, he makes a =comparison between the DFA model and the calculation for interest rate =risk. If you are going to use a DFA model to looked at the =sensitivity of surplus to interest rate, then the market changes is =important. BUT if you want to calculate RBC for interest rate =risk, then it doesn't matter.
The problem with this whole =interest rate risk is that the RBC formula end up excluding it(except =perhaps for apparent loss development piece which is imbedded in the =Reserving charge). This is very strange. The Canadian =surplus requirement did specifically require PC company to put up a =margin for interest rate risk(along with reinsurance recovery, and =claim development), and so is the life side. Sholom acknowledges =their existence, but the RBC for PC in U.S. did not reflect it. =One argument has been sighted in the reading that, maybe the PC =has traditionally been looked at by the regulator as liquid and its =investments are mostly short term. Therefore, we are less prone =to interest rate risk. Yeah, right.
-----Original Message-----
From: madisoninc@mindspring.com =[SMTP:madisoninc@mindspring.com]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:20 AM
To: Eric.Hornick@CentreSolutions.Com
Cc: studygroup10@lists.casact.org
Subject: = Re: Interest rate risk
Eric,
You may be missing the point. =The purpose of interest rate risk is to
determine the additional capital =required from interest rate changes from
RBC values (risk based capital =requirements). In RBC charges, liabilities
are discounted at a mandatory 5% =rate. Thus, if interest rates shift from
7% to 8%, you want to consider 1) the =change in asset values from 7% to 8%
(since assets can be valued at market =rates in RBC) and 2) the change in
liability values from 5% (the =mandatory value) to 8%, the new value. This
is not a mismatch.
So yes, if market rates went from 20% =to 22%, you do want to consider a 2%
change in assets vs. a 17% change in =liabilities.
Hope this helps.
John Gleba
madisoninc@mindspring.com
706-342-7750
At 09:40 AM 4/30/99 -0400, you =wrote:
>
>
>Ok--I've reached page 30 of =99-10-20B--the last two pages of the last
>Feldblum study note...and I have =a problem I don't understand.
>
>The simplified "Exhibit =3", shows assets at a book value using a 1.05 and a
> shocked value of 1.07 but the =assets go 1.06 to 1.07.
>
>Can anyone explain the logic here =or is this simply an error? It seems like
> you're trying to demonstrate a =100 bp swing (based on the assets) but on
>the liab side you're starting =with the 1.05 value (from RBC I guess). It
>doesn't seem to be a fair =comparison.
>
>If market rates went from 20 to =22%, for example you wouldn't want to
>compare a 2 point change in =assets with a 17 point change in liabs, right?
>
>Am I totally missing the point? =Thanks
>
>
>