Actuarial Outpost
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Life
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

View Poll Results: Should SoA update the 1952 Disability Table now?
Yes, it's obsolete 9 56.25%
No, it's old, but OK for reserves 4 25.00%
No, it's bad, but immaterial 3 18.75%
42 is better 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-29-2003, 10:42 AM
JMO Fan's Avatar
JMO Fan JMO Fan is offline
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: out in the woods
Favorite beer: Frostop Root
Posts: 5,686
Default Disabled Life Reserves for Waiver of Premium

From the Desert (waiver is usually regulated as life insurance, so I post it here rather than the health-disability thread)

We are currently using the 1952 Disability Study - Period 2 for our disabled life (waiver of premium) reserves. Is this still the statutory standard, or is there a more up-to-date table? Can anyone comment on the table, as to whether the rates are too high, low, whatever?

Reply From: David Hippen

The 1952 Disability Study - Period 2 for disabled life (waiver of premium) reserves is still the common statutory standard, as far as I know. Most states probably accept 1980 CSO as the accompanying mortality assumption, although 1958 CSO might still be the minimum in the law.
Any comments?
I thought this WAS a real job
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2003, 12:53 PM
Double High C's Avatar
Double High C Double High C is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: atop the 5th line above the staff
Posts: 11,465


1. When he talks about 1958/1980 CSO being used, he must mean for Active Life reserves, as the mortality rate for the disableds is embedded in the double decrement termination rates (the other decrement being recovery, of course). As for Active Lives, I don't see why you cannot use 1980 CSO; in fact, I believe that there are published SOA "monetary tables" with these; I believe that it is clear, whether implicitly or explicitly, that you can in fact use (reserves consistent with) these tables (and hence, 1980 CSO).

2. The termination rates are likely too low, because the life expectancy upon disability for a given insured has almost certainly increased; IIRC, disability insurance valuation assumptions/tables have also increased, e.g. from 1964 CGT? to the 1985? 1987? table. (Having said that, it is not clear that the active lives reserves are not overly conservative, as the probabilities of becoming disabled may have decreased significantly, though I am not aware of a study on this.)
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2003, 09:27 PM
Posts: n/a

Whether or not it should be updated is the wrong question. The correct question is "Should the SOA conduct a study to determine whether or not the table is still appropriate, and if not then proceed to update the values?" And the answer would be absolutely. I've asked the question about why we're still using a '52 table a number of times and the response is "the rates wouldn't have changed much". That's nice to postulate, but it should still be looked into once every, oh, fifty years or so.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2014, 01:19 PM
Horatio Dimwitty's Avatar
Horatio Dimwitty Horatio Dimwitty is offline
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 297

Thanks for these responses (way back when)!

Are people still using 1952 Disability? What mortality should be used?
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 06:46 PM
kazh's Avatar
kazh kazh is offline
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a long nap
Favorite beer: A & W Root
Posts: 5,703

1952 Disability Tables are old enough to retire.
awake again
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.36732 seconds with 12 queries