RE: Exam spring 98 #4

Medina, Hernan ( (no email) )
Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:18:10 -0400

A "type 2" universal life policy has an increasing death benefit (Hallman &
Hamilton, p. 168). "Under an increasing death benefit design, the amount at
risk remains constant, so the same amount would always be divided into the
mortality charge amount shown for each year in the illustration" (HH, p.
175).
The question, however, was ambiguous.

If $100,000 is the pure protection amount, the amount at risk is $100,000
and the mortality charge is $0.25 per $1,000 but the total death benefit is
$140,000.

If $100,000 is the total death benefit, the amount at risk is $60,000 and
the mortality charge is $0.42 per $1,000.

The CAS gave credit for both answers.

> ----------
> From: Sherman_Power@ars.aon.com[SMTP:Sherman_Power@ars.aon.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 5:18 PM
> To: studygroup4A@lists.casact.org
> Subject: Exam spring 98 #4
>
> I'd be happy for any insights on this one:
>
> [You are given the following info about a "Type 2" universal life
> insurance
> policy:
>
> Death Benefit: $100,000
> Cash Value: $40,000
> Monthly mortality charge: $25
>
> Using the procedure described by H&H, determine the monthly mortality rate
> per
> $1,000 coverage.]
>
> the answer is given as B : "At least $0.20, but less than $0.30:
>
> Presumably the answer is derived by dividing the mortality charge by the
> "Death
> benefit (000)" = 25/100 =.25
>
> My problem with this is that H&H seems clear that even for a type 2 policy
> the
> "death benefit" is composed of two components: the cash value and the pure
> protection (or amount at risk). So for this type 2 policy the amount at
> risk is
> always $60K which implies an aswer of .42
>
>
>