Principles-Based Reserves, Here We Come
by Christopher H. Hause
April 2006

I have written in these pages and elsewhere that the only logical place for statutory reserving principles to end up would be "natural reserves, plus a margin."

From the most recent drafts, it looks like the direction we are headed is "gross premium reserves with asset considerations plus a margin."

The differences are enough so that I do not consider myself completely and victoriously correct, but the deviation from traditional statutory reserving practices is significant enough to claim partial prescience (apologies to fans of Muad Dib).

I think where I went wrong (about 25 years ago) is that I did not anticipate the folding in of actual asset performance into statutory reserving practices. I reserve the right to judge on this point until this theory is put into practice.

A 10,000-foot look at where we appear to be headed may be in order.

From the model that appears to be emerging, several things are coming to light.

  • The primary driver for this movement is companies who do not want to establish currently required reserves on preferred term products and UL secondary guarantees.
  • A cash value floor for reserves provides little difference for many permanent plan

  • The initial scope of PBR is fully underwritten ordinary life, but there is sufficient likelihood it will apply across all lines of business eventually.
  • A tremendous amount of study and documentation will be necessary
  • Companies that adopt PBR will be able to price more aggressively and will quickly force all companies to use PBR.
  • However, smaller companies will not have resources to take advantage of PBR and will almost certainly not have credibility.
  • As a result, smaller companies will be put at a disadvantage even if they reinsure heavily because of the expense of compliance.


One issue that immediately leaps to mind is the levels of RBC under a PBR system. Clearly, the risk of being under-reserved increases with lower reserves.

An area that is almost sure to cause some spirited discussion is peer-review. How much are the regulators willing to rely on company-appointments and ASOPs?

One regulator has been heard to say "you guys will sign anything" when referring to the various certifications by actuaries.

I have faith in our professionalism and in our integrity. PBR is a logical step, but one that will put a lot of pressure on the diligence and backbone of the profession. If we are up to the challenge, we will solidify our places in the executive offices and board rooms.

Was this information helpful?