Datos financieros históricos

9.30 Chart 9.1, below, shows the projected fund solvency ratios (FSRs) for the traditional par example product and the par element of the UWP example product, on the three investment return scenarios we have considered. These are at the policy level, so where the FSR is below the target level for the fund (for example 180%), the additional capital required to meet the target would need to come from any surplus in the par-fund, and, in the absence of surplus, from the shareholder. 9.31 Under our assumptions of how UWP would fit into the Singapore capital framework, it is significantly less capital intensive

than the traditional product example, particularly in the early years. Under the central assumption, the UWP product reaches a FSR of 180% by the end of year three, but the traditional product does not reach this level until the end of year 41. The lower capital requirements for the UWP product reflect the much lower guaranteed benefits on the UWP product (from the par element) in the earlier years of the policy. For both product types, however, the low investment return scenario would have a very detrimental impact on the FSR. The projected FSR for the traditional par product is negative in the initial years as the MCL in this particular example exceeds the asset share and hence support will be required from either the par fund estate or from shareholders to fund for both reserving as well as capital requirements.

CHART 9.1: PROJECTED FSR FOR THE UWP AND TRADITIONAL PAR EXAMPLE PRODUCTS, ON EACH OF THE THREE INVESTMENT RETURN ASSUMPTIONS

Par-fund FSR for products on different investment return scenarios

Projection year UWP +2% UWP Central UWP -2% Trad +2% Trad Central Trad -2% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 500% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% -100% -200% -300% -400%

9.32 FSRs for both products in the low investment return scenario are low, but for the UWP product the par element of the policy effectively lapses once the account value is exhausted (in year 50), with the non-par fund supporting the policy beyond this point. The FSR for traditional product in this scenario starts to become exponentially negative as the death benefits being paid out are far in excess of the asset-share of the policy and has to eat into capital provided by the rest of the par fund. This effect also happens for the UWP product, but only on the guaranteed fund value for the UWP account, with the shareholder picking up the much higher cost of meeting the guaranteed death benefits.

Conclusions

9.33 The example products that have been looked at here have shown that UWP could be a viable addition to the existing product range in the Singapore market:

ƒ From the policyholders’ perspective, UWP offers greater transparency and less need for capital support from existing policyholders, at the cost of possibly slightly lower returns.

ƒ For the shareholder, the charging structure on UWP gives more control on the level and timing of profits compared to the traditional par product. As the majority of the capital support for the UWP product is provided by the par fund, the cost of capital to the shareholder is much lower than for the capital intensive universal life product. Within the par fund, the capital support required for the UWP product is significantly lower than that required for traditional par products. 9.34 Further investigation into the potential for UWP is required, including a consideration of what benefits and guarantees

are most important to customers, and the potential risks associated with offering these. The example products that have been considered were chosen to be reasonably comparable, but actual products in the market do differ. For example, we believe the mortality spreads assumed on universal life products are typically greater than the 20% we have assumed in our example, but changing this would clearly then affect the benefits offered to the policyholder and therefore the marketability of the product. With a more specific product to compare against, the advantages and disadvantages of a specific UWP alternative could be better identified.

9.35 Additionally, further work would be required to fully understand and analyse the risks associated with a specific product. As already mentioned, whilst the simple investment return stresses we have looked at give a flavour of the sensitivity to the investment return assumption, a full analysis would require stochastic modelling to understand the costs of any guarantees offered. Similarly, other risks need to be tested in detail, including the sensitivity of the various assumptions. The sensitivity of the lapse and mortality assumptions is likely to be significant, with surrender and mortality profits being important to the profitability of all of the products we have looked at (and bonus sustainability for the traditional par product). The cost of the no-lapse guarantees on the UWP and universal life products could also be a significant factor.

9.36 The introduction of any new product type would require approval from the governing regulatory body, and how it is treated within the territory’s valuation and solvency framework will impact its viability. However, from the results of this research, there does seem to be potential for UWP in the future of par business in Asia.

9.37 The results presented in this section are based on the existing regulatory framework and do not take into consideration any changes proposed by MAS in respect to RBC 2. Any revisions to the current regulatory framework could have a different impact on the results presented.

9.38 In conclusion, the initial analysis performed in this report indicates that UWP could have substantial appeal in the Singapore market, with the next steps being to develop and test more specific example products, as well as gaining the regulator’s view on how it might fit into the current solvency framework.

10. APPENDIX A: SINGAPORE PRODUCT EXAMPLES – ASSUMPTIONS AND

PRODUCT FEATURES