2008 Annual Meeting ● Assemblée annuelle 2008 Québec

1. Canadian Institute of Actuaries L’Institut canadien des actuaires 2008 Annual Meeting ●Assemblée annuelle 2008 Québec

2. Changes to approximations for Mortality MCCSR – Daniel Mayost – OSFI Morbidity MCCSR – changes suggested by Group Committee to Capital Committee (not yet sent to OSFI) – David Neaven Pricing for a return on capital – Gary Walters Questions 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 PD-11 Group Capital requirements

3. Changes to approximations for Mortality MCCSR – Daniel Mayost – OSFI

4. Requirement before 2005 used simple factors applied to net amount at risk New requirement introduced at year-end 2005, with separate volatility and catastrophe components Volatility component is non-linear, and appropriately gives a company credit for diversification across its whole book of business. Volatility formula requires seriatim death benefit amounts and mortality rates for the upcoming year 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 Mortality Requirement

5. CIA permitted approximations for group (but not individual) basic death and AD&D business when seriatim data is not available Approximation formulas were calibrated to Canadian salary and age data, but do not scale correctly with a group’s own particular mortality rates Led to formation of a small CIA working group in 2006 to study improvements New approximation formulas for the volatility component to be implemented January 1, 2009 “39” approximation will be removed and replaced by three new alternatives 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 Approximations

6. Best approximation: where C is projected death claims, b’s are certificate amounts, F is total face amount Can be used for any set of products (including individual) for which seriatim data is not available, but requires all death benefit amounts 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 Method 1

7. Comparison method: Comparison set must be at least as large as the set being approximated Intended for small blocks of business, and as a replacement for the current AD&D comparison approximation 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 Method 2

8. Worst-case approximations: Intended as a last resort when minimal data is available 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 Method 3

9. Industry-wide factor under discussion with the CIA Constant factor would replace in comparison set method Current estimates lie between 1.5 and 2 May be used only for traditional group business Possible phase-out on January 1, 2012 Companies should ideally collect data on certificate amounts as this is a fundamental driver of volatility 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 Certificate Volatility Approximation

10. Current formula for maximum credit allocates total marginal requirement for group block to particular policies Revised formula will calculate maximum credit based on marginal requirement for the policy Maximum credit will be reduced if company cannot recover 100% of excess losses from the deposit (e.g. risk sharing) 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 Policyholder Deposits

11. Treatment of policyholder deposits and CFRs to be updated to be consistent with treatment in mortality requirement Implies that credit will be based on marginal requirement calculated post-SFF, not pre-SFF as currently New formula for SFF? M = basic morbidity requirement before unregistered reinsurance, policyholder deposits, and CFRs 2008 Annual Meeting Assemblée annuelle 2008 Morbidity Requirement

12. Morbidity MCCSR – (changes suggested by Group Committee to Capital Committee) – David Neaven

13. Morbidity risk relates to risk arising from volatility in claims experience and from events that would lead to increased claims Dental least risky – MCCSR should be lowest EHC more volatile/risky than Dental – MCCSR should be higher than Dental LTD risk greater than Dental or EHC – both incidence and continuing claims risks exist Letter to CIA Risk and Capital Committee on Morbidity Requirements

14. Risk of misestimating inflation Fee guide minimizes this risk Risk of misestimating utilization Limited supply Limited demand Dental morbidity risks

15. Dental morbidity risks Risk of misestimating mean • High frequency of claims • Low variation in claim size • As a result, high credibility of past experience Risk of catastrophe? Very low - Impossible!!

16. Obtain distribution of Dental claims using nearly 500,000 claims records Develop a distribution of potential claims using claims data and Monte Carlo modeling Estimation of risk using claims experience

17. Probability density (low end)

18. Probability density (right tail)

19. Estimation of risk using claims experience • Used 95% CTE as benchmark • Estimated required capital much lower than current formula – about half of existing 12% of gross premium requirement

20. New Claims risk – 12% of gross premium Continuing Claims risk varies by duration of disability and benefit period remaining 8% to 4% of reserve for benefits of greater than 2 years Multiply by statistical fluctuation factor LTD current requirements

21. New claims Gross premium = expense + profit load + expected cost of claims Charging 12% on expense and profit load Continuing claims X% of reserve but reserve includes pfads Larger pfad => larger MCCSR LTD current requirements

22. Continuing claims requirement on a mature block of open claims is about 6% of reserve Pfad on a mature block of open claims assuming a mid range margin is about 6% of reserve 12% total roughly equivalent to 20% to 25% decrease in expected recoveries forever Is this a plausible level? This is just the 100% MCCSR + Pfad LTD current requirements

23. LTD reserves calculated at x% of expected terminations Propose that a Total Balance Sheet approach be used with total requirement calculated at y% of expected terminations y<x<100% LTD concept

24. Pricing for a return on capital – Gary Walters

25. MCCSR Macro solvency Benefits from pooling risks Pricing Allocation of profit by group Charging for risk represented by group Level of CFR needed Pricing Challenges

26. Incremental MCCSR v group’s risk Capital goes up with more groups Capital per unit exposure goes down Group Capital influenced by Individual and vice-versa Future capital requirement isn’t known Pooled v Refund accounting To what extent can capital be shared? Pricing each group

27. More diversification means capital can be shared by more than one policy MCCSR uses square root of sum of squares For example if Group requirement is only 15% of Individual then overall capital is 101% of Individual Incremental group capital just 1% Who gets this benefit? MCCSR Diversification

28. Company has 3 policies needing capital of 100, 200 and 300 respectively Total capital needed is 374 or 38% reduction as a diversification benefit However if Just 100 and 200 then 224 or 25% Just 100 and 300 then 316 or 21% Just 200 and 300 then 361 or 28% So what diversification benefit can we take in setting a price? Group Example

29. Policy 2 has a “stand alone risk” of 200 If allow for existing policy 1 then Incremental capital is 124 Averaged capital is 150 If allow for Individual (component of 2500) Incremental capital is 8 Averaged capital is 179 What to price for (1)?

30. Next renewal of policy 2 takes place after policy 3 has been added If allow for only group then Incremental capital is 58 (124*) Averaged capital is 125 (150*) If allow for Individual (component of 2500) Incremental capital is 7.9 (8*) Averaged capital is 163 (179*) *From previous slide What to price for (2)?

31. CFR Available for poor experience on that group only Money in CFR can offset capital required that is not shared with other policies or lines (incremental amount) Prior example Incremental amount only 8 (allowing for individual) – amount by which MCCSR can be reduced Risk is however 200 (allowing no diversification benefit) What level of CFR should be targeted? What level of CFR?

32. MCCSR formula not helpful for pricing Where should diversification benefit be allocated Cannot know future MCCSR formula very unhelpful for setting CFR Offset is only incremental capital Risk is full capital as no diversification available Conclusion

33. Questions for any of us?