Report on the Survey of Conversion Assumptions and Product

Report on the

Survey of

Conversion

Assumptions and

Product Features

for Level

Premium Term

Plans

May 2015

Report on the Survey of Conversion

Assumptions and Product Features for

Level Premium Term Plans

CAVEAT AND DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed and conclusions reached by the authors are their own and do not represent any official

position or opinion of the Society of Actuaries or its members. The Society of Actuaries makes not representation or

warranty to the accuracy of the information.

SPONSORS

Reinsurance Section

Product Development Section

Committee on Life Insurance Research

AUTHORS

Lindsay Meisinger, FSA, MAAA

Donna Megregian, FSA, MAAA

Derek Kueker, FSA, MAAA

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background _________________________________________________________________ 3

Project Overview _____________________________________________________________ 3

Disclaimer of Liability ________________________________________________________ 4

Executive Summary __________________________________________________________ 5

SUMMARY OF KEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 6

COMPANY INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................... 6

BEST ESTIMATE MORTALITY .............................................................................................................. 11

Conversion Program _________________________________________________________ 14

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................... 14

CONVERSIONS FROM OTHER COMPANIES ........................................................................................... 14

PARTIAL CONVERSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 14

CONVERSION CREDITS ........................................................................................................................ 16

JOINT AND MULTIPLE POLICIES........................................................................................................... 18

CONVERSION TO SPECIFIC PRODUCTS ................................................................................................. 19

CONVERSION UNDERWRITING ............................................................................................................. 22

CONVERSION TIMING .......................................................................................................................... 24

CONVERSION RIDERS .......................................................................................................................... 25

Conversion Process __________________________________________________________ 27

ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................................................ 27

ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................ 28

CONVERSION ANNIVERSARY DATES ................................................................................................... 29

AUDITING ............................................................................................................................................ 29

EXPERIENCE STUDIES ......................................................................................................................... 30

Conversion Philosophy _______________________________________________________ 31

Conversion Reinsurance ______________________________________________________ 33

Other Assumptions and Practices ______________________________________________ 35

Appendix A: Survey Questions ________________________________________________ 37

Page 3

Background

The Society of Actuaries (SOA), along with the Product Development Section and Reinsurance Section,

engaged RGA Reinsurance Company (RGA) to undertake a research project on term conversion

experience with a particular focus on conversion rates and mortality experience of converted policies.

Generally, term products in the United States have an option to convert to a permanent policy. Exercising

this option usually does not require additional underwriting. Because this is an option and not a

requirement, an element of anti-selection is present for those that elect to convert rather than go through

full underwriting again for a potentially cheaper product. The experience and survey results from this

study will improve companies’ understanding of the potential mortality impact of conversions while

providing insight into market practices and trends as of September 2014 related to conversion.

Project Overview

This project includes two phases:

 Phase 1 consisted of a survey of the assumptions and product features used by actuaries for

pricing and administering term conversions. This report summarizes the findings from the 21

Phase 1 survey responses received. Survey questions can be found in Appendix A.

 Phase 2 consists of an experience analysis of level term business as it transitions into the

converted policy. Participating companies were asked to supply policy level inforce and

termination records so that experience results can be analyzed at a granular level including, but

not limited to, age, gender, risk class, and policy size. The experience study results and data

request will be completed in a separate report found on the SOA website.

Please note that although the report is written in present tense in a number of sections, the

information provided is purely based on data as of the time of the survey responses (September

2014) or shortly thereafter.

Page 4

Disclaimer of Liability

The analysis presented in this report contains information related to the conversion provision on term

products in U.S. life insurance industry. Assistance should be sought by an actuary with knowledge on

conversion assumptions, options and features available on U.S. term insurance products. The results

and analyses presented are derived from the responses to a survey questionnaire. Although good faith

effort has been made to analyze the reasonableness of each response, the final report is ultimately reliant

on the accuracy of the underlying survey responses.

The results provided herein come from a variety of life insurance companies with unique product

structures, target markets, underwriting philosophies, and distribution methods. As such, these results

should not be deemed directly applicable to any particular company or representative of the life insurance

industry as a whole.

RGA Reinsurance Company (RGA), its directors, officers, and employees, disclaim liability for any loss or

damage arising or resulting from any error or omission in RGA’s analysis and summary of the survey

results or any other information contained herein. The report is to be reviewed and understood as a

complete document.

This report is published by the Society of Actuaries (SOA) and contains information based on input from

companies engaged in the U.S. life insurance industry. The information published in this report was

developed from actual historical information and does not include any projected information.

The opinions expressed and conclusions reached by the authors are their own and do not represent any

official position or opinion of RGA, or the SOA or its members. The SOA makes no representations regarding

the accuracy or completeness of the content of this study. It is for informational purposes only. The SOA

does not recommend, encourage, or endorse any particular use of the information provided in this study.

The study should not be construed as professional or financial advice. The SOA makes no

warranty, express or implied, guarantee, or representation whatsoever and assumes no liability or

responsibility in connection with the use or misuse of this study.

Page 5

Executive Summary

Summary of Key Results

Generally term products in the United States have an option to convert to a permanent product without

underwriting. Twenty-one companies participated in a survey to analyze assumptions and product

features used for pricing and administering converted products.

Company Information: On average, more than half of the survey respondents’ new business in 2013

came from term policies, and approximately one-third of their inforce business is made up of term

policies. Approximately 1.1 percent of respondents’ term policies converted to permanent business each

year.

Conversion Mortality: Most survey respondents used a multiple greater than 100 percent of the point in

scale mortality for conversions. Many of these multiples started out much higher in the early durations to

reflect greater levels of assumed anti-selection in the durations immediately after conversion. The majority

of responses did not decrease the multiple to less than or equal to 100 percent (no additional mortality) at

any point in the first 15 durations after conversion.

Conversion Program: All (21) of the survey respondents allowed partial conversions, and the majority

(14/21) of respondents provided conversion credits to policyholders. Sixteen (16/21) respondents

restricted conversions to certain products. Some companies indicated conversions were further restricted

to specific products after the first five policy years. Generally the underwriting class did not change after

conversion unless a policyholder requested an increased benefit and additional underwriting was

necessary.

Conversion Process: The majority of companies (18/21) indicated they have a specific conversion code in

the administration systems. Converted policies were generally treated as new business in the system.

Respondents commented that areas such as auditing of conversions and matching converted policies

back to the original term product on administration systems could be improved.

Conversion Philosophy: Fifteen (15/21) companies indicated they did or have encouraged policyholders

to convert. More than half (13/21) of the responses monitored conversion experience at least annually.

Conversion Reinsurance: Ten (10/21) respondents indicated that separate rates were paid for

reinsurance on converted policies. Overall, most companies (18/21) reinsured their conversions.

Page 6

Introduction

The Phase 1 survey was sent to the top 75 term writers based on the face amount of 2013 term

insurance sales along with selected other companies (as reported in statutory annual statements

aggregated from www.snl.com). Responses were provided by 21 companies representing more than 52

percent of 2013 term sales.

Company Information

Respondents were asked to provide the amount of term life business, nonterm life business, and

converted term business they sold in 2013 and had inforce at the end of 2013. These measures were

provided by policy size, face amount, and premium. If available, the percentage of policies converting

each year was calculated as the estimate of how much of term business converts each year divided by

the amount of term business inforce as of year-end 2013. The arithmetic averages and totals shown in

chart 1 are based on the number of respondents, rounded to the nearest 1,000.

Chart 1

Average Total

How much term business did you write in 2013?

60,000 1,254,000

How much term business do you have inforce as of

year end 2013?

652,000 13,034,000

How much nonterm life insurance did you write in

2013?

51,000 1,063,000

How much nonterm life insurance do you have inforce

as of year end 2013?

1,473,000 29,460,000

How much converted term business is inforce as

permanent in 2013?

183,000 2,928,000

Please estimate on average how much of your term

business converts each year?

1.1%

How much term business did you write in 2013?

26,866,000$ 564,192,000$

How much term business do you have inforce as of

year end 2013?

250,691,000$ 5,264,503,000$

How much nonterm life insurance did you write in

2013?

9,365,000$ 196,656,000$

How much nonterm life insurance do you have inforce

as of year end 2013?

164,520,000$ 3,454,925,000$

How much converted term business is inforce as

permanent in 2013?

19,729,000$ 315,656,000$

Please estimate on average how much of your term

business converts each year?

0.7%

How much term business did you write in 2013?

57,150,000$ 971,557,000$

How much term business do you have inforce as of

year end 2013?

468,902,000$ 7,033,531,000$

How much nonterm life insurance did you write in

2013?

275,757,000$ 4,687,866,000$

How much nonterm life insurance do you have inforce

as of year end 2013?

1,469,391,000$ 22,040,872,000$

How much converted term business is inforce as

permanent in 2013?

308,158,000$ 3,389,733,000$

Please estimate on average how much of your term

business converts each year?

3.1%

Policy Count

Face Amount (000)

Premium

Page 7

The companies in chart 1 average more than half of their new business policies in 2013 from term, and

about one-third of the inforce is made up of term policies.

Graphs 1 through 6 show the relative distribution of business by term and nonterm sold in 2013. The

graphs on the left (1, 3, and 5) are the companies that provided a percentage of business converting each

year and are ordered from highest to lowest by the percent of business converting. The graphs on the

right (2, 4, and 6) are the remaining companies that did not report a percentage of term business

converting in one or more categories. Therefore, their business mixes are shown separately without a

conversion percentage, ordered highest to lowest by percent of term business.

Large variation is seen in the percentage of business converting each year (shown on the left axis for

graphs 1, 3, and 5).

Graph 1 Graph 2

Graph 3 Graph 4

Graph 5 Graph 6

Ordered by % Converting Each Year

Ordered by % Term Business

Companies Providing % Converting Each Year

Remaining Companies

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

Policies Issued in 2013

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Policies Issued in 2013

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Face Amount Issued in 2013

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Face Amount Issued in 2013

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Premium Issued in 2013

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Premium Issued in 2013

Page 8

Graphs 7, 8, and 9 show a snapshot of inforce business as of year-end 2013 by policy count, face

amount, and premium, respectively. The shaded bars reflect the percentage of term business, nonterm

(nonconverted permanent) business, and permanent business converted from term (converted

permanent). It is ordered highest to lowest by total amount of converted permanent business where all

three data points were provided by a company.

Page 9

Page 10

For those that reported the information, a larger portion of premium appears to be inforce on converted

policies than face amount or policy count. Three companies are shown to have more than 10 percent of

inforce premium being generated from converted policies in 2013.

Page 11

Best Estimate Mortality

Survey respondents were asked to provide the best estimate of the mortality expectation for converted

business as a percentage of nonconverted permanent business issued at the time of the original term

policy. Most companies (12/17) responded with a flat percentage of point in scale mortality, and some

/17) identified various multiples by duration. Four respondents did not answer this question.

The 12 companies that provided mortality assumptions as a constant multiple of point in scale mortality

across all durations ranged from 100 percent (no additional mortality) to 200 percent.

The remaining five (5) companies provided mortality multiples as a percentage of point in scale mortality

that vary by duration since conversion. The mortality multipliers in each consecutive year since

conversion are represented across the x axis of graph 10. As an example, the mortality of a policy that

converted at the end of the eighth duration two years ago (duration since conversion = 2) is a multiple of a

nonconverted permanent policy that is currently in duration 10.

One of the five respondents that provided multiples that varied by duration since conversion also varied responses

based on duration at conversion. The responses were averaged using equal weight and included as one data

submission in graph 10, graph 11 and graph 13.

Page 12

Graph 11 shows the same graded multiple mortality shown in graph 10 but is focused on the mortality

multiplies between 100 and 300 percent. Most assumptions with graded mortality by duration show a

significant drop in mortality estimates by the fourth or fifth duration. In graph 12, the remaining 12

companies using a constant multiple are displayed. All of the constant multiples have a duration 1

mortality estimate equal to or lower than the lowest duration 1 graded mortality multiple estimate.

Page 13

The mortality multiples were averaged both arithmetically and weighted by total inforce business reported

at year-end 2013 to show the overall assumptions for mortality of converted business as a percentage of

nonconverted business in graph 13. Weighted average or not, the key takeaway from graph 13 is that

most companies use a multiple greater than 100 percent of the point in scale mortality for conversions

with higher multiples in early durations to reflect greater assumed anti-selection immediately after

conversion.

Page 14

Conversion Program

Overview

Each question in the Conversion Program section of the survey was asked twice: what the company

practices are today

and what the company practices were five years ago. Most respondents did not vary

their answers between the two time points, indicating that no change has occurred or is known to have

occurred over the past five years. The focus of this report is on responses for today only.

Conversions from Other Companies

Respondents were asked whether or not they accept conversions that originate from another company.

Two out of 21 respondents accept conversions that originate from another company, shown in chart 2.

One of these companies noted that term conversions were allowed only from a block of business

obtained through an acquisition. In this case, the conversion privileges remain as stated in the original

policy contracts.

The remaining company that allows conversions from other companies does not require underwriting.

However, only conversions from an eligible list of companies with limitations on the time frame since issue

and the face amount are accepted.

Partial Conversions

The surveys defined a partial conversion as allowing a portion of the term policy to convert and still keep

the original term policy inforce at the reduced face amount. All of the 21 survey respondents that

answered this question allow partial conversions.

The majority of specific responses (9/15), shown in chart 3 use the same time frame restrictions on partial

conversions as full conversions. However, six (6) companies stated that partial conversions are limited to

the level term period or a specific attained age.

Responses provided for practices today indicate company practices as of 09/22/2014 when survey was distributed.

Page 15

None of the survey respondents limit the number of partial conversions allowed. Four (4) companies

commented that there is no limit on the number of partial conversions as long as the term plan minimum

sizes are not violated.

All 21 companies noted that they have a minimum size required for partial conversions. Out of these 21,

six (6) companies gave the value of the minimum size requirement. This information is shown in graph 14.

Next, the survey asked whether or not a partial conversion is a contractual right. About half (11) of

respondents replied “Yes,” it is a contractual right. This question was intended to complement the

following question: are partial conversions an administrative practice? More than 75 percent (16) of the

respondents replied “Yes” to allowing partial conversions as administrative practice as shown in chart 4.

Consideration may need to be given to administrative practices that may not be treating policyholders

equally.

Page 16

Conversion Credits

A conversion credit is defined as allowing some or all of the paid term premium to be credited to the

permanent policy upon conversion. The majority (14/21) of companies responded that they do provide a

conversion credit or have in the past as shown in graph 15.

Chart 5 displays results from the question “How much is the conversion credit?” which could be answered

with any value. Most of the responses could be grouped into a conversion credit approximately equal to

one year’s worth of term premiums.

Out of the 14 companies that provide or have provided a conversion credit, more than half (8/14)

responded that the credit is not commissionable on the permanent policy, as shown in graph 16.

Chart 5

How much Responses

Previous Year Annualized Term Premium minus Policy Fee and Rider Charges 5

Up to One Year's Term Premium 3

$1 per $1,000 of Face Amount 1

50% of Annualized Base Premium 1

Equal to Unearned Premium 1

Up to One Year's Term Premium capped at $5 per $1,000 of Face Amount 1

Years 1-5: 100% of First Year Term Premium Paid 1

Conversion Credit

Page 17

Graph 17 shows that nine (9) out of the 14 companies responded that the conversion credit is available

for the entire length of the conversion period, with one company indicating that credit is not available until

after policy year two. Out of the five remaining companies, four provided a limiting timeframe for the

conversion credit as five or 10 years.

The survey concluded the conversion credit section by asking about conversion credits being used as

special incentive programs. Half of the companies (7/14) have used conversion credits to incent

conversions.

Page 18

Joint and Multiple Policies

Chart 6 shows that only seven companies indicated they allow separate single life policies to convert into

one joint life policy.

Out of the seven companies that allow separate single policies to convert to joint life policies, none of the

companies require the original term policies to be underwritten at the same time. This would imply that

duration from issue for each applicant could vary, and true point in scale mortality is not possible on the

joint policy.

If the original term policies are not in the same duration, companies were asked how they establish the

age and duration of the new policy. This question would apply to all seven companies that answered

“Yes” to the previous question. All companies (7/7) responded that the policies would have a duration = 1,

and six out of the seven noted that a new select period is started.

Next, the survey addressed the conversion of more than one policy on a single life. Most companies

(19/21) responded that they allow more than one term policy on the same insured to convert to one

permanent policy, shown in graph 18.

Only one of the respondents from graph 18 indicated that they require the two or more term policies to

have the same issue date to convert to a permanent policy. One respondent did not indicate whether or

not this was necessary.

Page 19

Out of the remaining 17 companies that do not require the same issue dates, the survey asked how the

duration of the permanent policy is calculated. Only 10 of the respondents answered this question; the

others did not respond or said that it was not applicable. All of these 10 companies use attained age for

cost of insurance (COI). Four (4) out of these 10 companies commented that the mortality used is newly

select with a duration of 1.

A unique product that offers conversion is joint-life term. Four (4) out of the 21 companies addressed this

question in the survey. Most of the companies (3/4) do not allow conversion from a joint term policy into

two single life permanent policies. One company does allow conversion from a joint life to two single life

policies, as shown in graph 19.

Conversion to Specific Products

The conversion products section highlights how companies may be restricting conversions or allowing

conversions into any available product in its portfolio. Graph 20 shows that the majority (16/21) of survey

respondents indicated that they restrict conversions to certain products.

Page 20

Some of the companies commented that certain products are restricted for conversion; for example,

products with certain riders such as long-term care benefits are not allowed. Two of the companies

responded that restrictions are made after the fifth policy year.

Although most companies restrict conversions to certain products, chart 7 shows that only three

companies indicated they have specific products for conversions.

Of the three companies in chart 7, two companies limit conversions to whole life products. The other

company limits conversions to only whole life products after the fifth policy year.

More than half (11/17) of companies shown in graph 21 allow conversion to universal life with secondary

guarantees (ULSGs). Two companies allow conversions to ULSGs only within the first five policy years.

One respondent commented that any product choice is available except for ULSGs.

Page 21

Most respondents (8/13) shown in chart 8 indicated that they did not allow a simplified issue product to

convert to a fully underwritten product. One of the companies that answered “Yes” commented that the

underwriting class would be changed.

Out of the survey respondents, three companies allowed term to term conversions. These three

companies allow smaller term products or a children’s term product to convert to other level premium term

products or a return of premium term product.

The survey also questioned whether or not companies allow term products to convert to existing

permanent policies by adding the face amount from the term policy to the existing permanent policy.

Chart 9 shows that 12 out of 21 companies do allow conversion to an existing permanent policy; however,

seven of the respondents commented that the permanent product had to be universal life.

Page 22

Out of the 12 companies that allow products to convert to an existing permanent product, half (6) require

the permanent product to have been originally underwritten and not have originated from a conversion.

The survey questioned the rate structure that would be charged if a term product converted to an existing

permanent policy. Most companies that allow this conversion (11/12) charge newly select rates at the

attained age rather than point in scale rates from the original issue age.

Conversion Underwriting

Most companies keep the underwriting class the same before and after conversion. However, if an

exactly comparable underwriting class is not available, the closest class is chosen for the permanent

policies. Graph 22 shows that eight (8) companies noted this to be the case when asked if the

underwriting class stays the same before and after conversion.

Survey respondents were asked whether or not the underwriting class could improve after conversion.

Graph 23 shows that eight (8) of the respondents said “Yes” it could improve, but four (4) of those eight

(8) commented that this would be done with additional underwriting.

Page 23

Conversely, respondents were asked if underwriting class could be degraded after conversion. Chart 10

shows that only five companies responded “Yes” to a downgrade and one of those includes a company

that notes that the downgrade happens only if the conversion happens after the fifth policy year.

The survey questioned if companies ever underwrite a conversion. This question brought many

comments from companies that contractual conversions by definition cannot be underwritten. Many

companies commented that they would underwrite if the policy owner requests a better underwriting class

or if they are requesting additional coverage, but the majority responded “No.”

Some of the companies that responded “No” to the underwriting question also responded to the next

question: When do you underwrite? Chart 11 shows that the most common answer was for increases or

additions to the policy. Another reason for underwriting was other policy changes such as underwriting a

new life if the policy is a new joint life policy.

Page 24

Out of the 12 companies that responded that underwriting was done, graph 24 shows that only five

companies described what was underwritten.

If underwriting is done at the time of conversion, companies were asked to respond what underwriting

was required. All companies that answered this question responded that they required the same

underwriting that would be done if issuing a new policy. No response indicated an abbreviated

underwriting process.

Conversion Timing

Conversions are allowed for most companies within the first year as shown in chart 12. One company

noted that if this happens the agents will receive net commissions, not full commissions. One company

allows this to happen only as an exception.

Chart 13 shows that the only minimum timeframe for two companies for limiting conversions was one

year.

Page 25

Conversion Riders

Companies were asked to answer whether or not they allowed riders to be added upon conversion. All

but one company shown in graph 25 said that this is allowed. Some respondents commented that this

includes riders that are added where additional underwriting would be necessary.

Out of the 20 companies that responded “Yes” in graph 25, the majority of companies required

underwriting for riders, and many noted that this was the case because the rider is added coverage (chart

14). Only one company did not require underwriting for riders; however, it is only for the first five years.

Page 26

Companies were asked to list the riders that could be added. The three riders that were mentioned the

most were Waiver of Premium, Children’s Insurance Rider, and Accidental Death Benefit Rider. One

company listed that any riders offered would be available, and another company indicated that all riders

except for Chronic Illness could be added. The complete list is shown below:

 Accelerated Death Benefit

 Accidental Death Benefit

 Additional Purchase Benefit

 Children’s Insurance

 Covered Insurance

 Disability Waiver

 Indexed Protection Benefit

 Long-Term Care (only within first year of original term policy)

 Overloan Protection

 Terminal Illness

 Waiver of Monthly Deduction

 Waiver of Premium

Riders that generally were not added on conversion that are typically available on new products are

shown below:

 Accelerated Death Benefit

 Chronic Illness Accelerated Death Benefit

 Death Benefit Plus

 Extended Care

 Guaranteed Insurability

 Life Options

 Long-Term Care

 Protected Insurability

 Term

The survey questioned whether or not companies require any riders to lapse upon conversion. The

answers were split: 11 “Yes” and 10 “No.”

The most common answers for riders that were forced to lapse upon conversion were Waiver of Premium

and Accidental Death. Three (3) companies answered any riders that were unavailable on the new policy

would be forced to lapse.

Page 27

Conversion Process

This section focuses on topics related to administration, auditing, and experience studies.

Administration

Companies were asked how conversions are coded in their systems, as a lapse or surrender, or do they

have their own code. The majority of respondents in graph 26 (18/21) said that they have their own code

to identify conversions.

Once the policy is converted to a permanent plan it can be coded as inforce or new business. Almost all

respondents that answered this question (18/19) treat the permanent plan as new business (graph 27).

Page 28

Once the conversion has occurred, systems may or may not be able to tie back to the original term policy.

Every survey respondent answered this question. Chart 15 shows that almost half (9/21) of respondents

are able to identify the conversion on the permanent plan and link it back to the original term policy. Only

two respondents were unable to identify conversions on the term or permanent plan. Many companies

commented in this section that this is a process they are looking to improve in the future.

Companies were asked to describe any changes that they have made to the conversion process over the

past five years. Most companies responded that they had not made any changes. The others commented

on both improving the process of tying the policy to the original term policy and restricting policy

conversions after the fifth policy year.

Administration Systems

Every respondent indicated that their conversions are not administered on a different system than their

permanent policies (graph 28). The majority of respondents said conversions and term policies are not

administered on separate systems. For those not on the same system, the term and conversion policies

would be administered on a different system depending on what type of product the policy converted to.

Graph 28

Conversions Administered on Same

System

As Permanent

Policies

As Term

Policies

Page 29

Conversion Anniversary Dates

Off-anniversary conversions are allowed by most companies (20/21). When they are allowed, two of the

companies indicated that it would have to be on a monthaversary and another that the conversion would

have to happen modally.

About half of companies in chart 16 (9/17) allow some type of exception to conversion parameters. A few

companies indicated that this requires management or underwriting approval and does not happen often.

Auditing

Survey respondents indicated in the comments section that auditing is a process that they would like to

improve. Currently 10 out of 21 companies in graph 29 have the ability to audit conversion policies.

Out of the 10 companies in chart 17 that responded above that they have the ability to audit, only three

companies audit the conversion process regularly

Chart 16

Allow Exceptions Responses

Yes 9

No 8

Don't Know 4

Conversion Process

Page 30

Based on the findings of a conversion audit, two companies responded that they have enacted changes.

These companies did not provide any details on the changes made.

Experience Studies

Survey respondents were questioned about conversion mortality studies. Graph 30 shows that 16

companies are able to look at conversions separately from other data. Six (6) of these companies

commented that they can review their mortality studies with and without conversions.

Graph 31 shows the 13 of the 16 companies from graph 30 that perform separate conversion mortality

studies.

Page 31

Conversion Philosophy

Most companies encourage conversions to policyholders (chart 18). It is most common to encourage

every insured either at any time or at certain times. Most of the companies indicated that they have had

some type of conversion campaign to promote conversions.

Predictive modeling to target conversions is not done by any of the surveyed companies; however, two

companies commented that they have either begun to investigate this as a possibility or potentially will in

the future.

Two-thirds (14/21) of companies responded that they know how conversions are impacting their

business. One company commented that they track conversions to measure the mortality impact. Three

(3) of the 21 surveyed responded “No,” they do not know how conversions are impacting the business.

More than half of the surveyed companies monitor conversions at least annually as shown in graph 32.

The companies that answered that they know the impact of conversions on their business do not directly

match up with the companies that responded they monitor conversions regularly.

Page 32

Most companies have products priced so that the conversion is built into the term policy either explicitly or

implicitly as shown in chart 19.

Chart 19

Cost of Conversions Responses

Implicitly built into the term policy 5

Explicitly built into the term policy 7

Implicitly built into the permanent policy 5

Explicitly built into the permanent policy 2

Not built into either term or permanent policy 1

Conversion has no cost 1

Conversion Philosophy

Page 33

Conversion Reinsurance

The final section of the survey analyzed conversion reinsurance practices. A large number of survey

respondents indicated that they reinsure conversions (18/20).

Out of the companies that reinsure, two (2) of them typically recapture the conversion policies and cede

them to the permanent pool, and 15 of them stay with the original reinsurance pool regardless of

participation in the permanent pool.

The majority of reinsurance agreements of the surveyed companies shown in chart 20 are structured to

pay separate rates for conversions regardless of permanent pool participants.

Companies expressed an interest through comments in being able to audit reinsured policies, but only 13

have this capability, as shown in graph 33.

Page 34

Out of those companies with the capability to audit reinsured policies, graph 34 shows that 10 do audit

the policies or have plans to do so.

Eight (8) out of the nine companies that responded that they have audited reinsurance for converted

policies also provided how often they audit reinsured policies in chart 21. One company rarely audits

policies, and three of the remaining seven respondents audit at least annually.

Page 35

Other Assumptions and Practices

At the end of the survey companies were asked if they had any other comments or insights related to

their conversion experience and process that was not included in the survey. Only three (3) companies

responded to this question. Two (2) of the comments discussed additional anti-selective mortality, which

will be investigated further in Phase 2 of this research project.

Page 36

Special Thanks

The authors would again like to extend our thanks to all participating companies for making this project a

success. Without their support, such research projects would not be possible.

The authors would also like to thank the SOA and the following members of the Project Oversight Group

and SOA staff for their guidance and support on this research project. Their comments, feedback, and

direction have greatly improved the value of this project:

Tom Edwalds (Chair)

Christine Chui

James Filmore

Jean-Marc Fix

Sebastian Kleber

Vera Ljucovic

Dave Moran

Michael Palace

Tony Phipps

Yana Shergina

SOA Staff

Jack Luff

Jan Schuh

Ronora Stryker

Page 37

Appendix A: Survey Questions

Survey Questions

Please provide information related to your Company. Policy Count Face amount Premium

1 How much term business did you write 2013?

2 How much term business do you have inforce as of year end 2013?

3 How much non-term life insurance did you write in 2013?

4 How much non-term life insurance do you have inforce as of year end 2013?

5 How much converted term business is inforce as permanent in 2013?

Which of the following are part of your conversion program?

Most popular term

written today

Most popular term

written 5 years ago

9 Do you accept conversion of term that originated from another company?

Is there a limited time frame/max years from issue that conversions are allowed

from other companies? If yes, please specify in comments.

Is there a maximum face amount that you allow to convert from another

company? If yes, please specify the maximum.

Do you require any underwriting when a conversion from another company is

requested?

Do you accept term conversions from more than one company? If yes, please

specify in comments.

Can you track these policies separately from other conversions?

10 Do you allow partial conversion (partial conversion defined in definition tab)?

Do you limit the time frame during which partial conversions are allowed? If yes,

please specify in comments.

Do you limit the number of partial conversions allowed? If yes, please specify

limit in comments.

Do you have a minimum size required for a partial conversion? If yes, please

specify in comments the minimum size.

Is partial conversion a contractual right?

Is partial conversion an administrative practice?

11 Do you give conversion credit?

How much is the conversion credit (Ex. Unearned premium or annualized

premium for prior year)? (please comment)

Is conversion credit commissionable on the permanent policy?

Is conversion credit available through the entire conversion period?

If conversion credit is not available for entire conversion period, how long is it

available? (please comment)

Have you ever offered conversion credit as a special program to incent

conversion?

12 Do you allow two separate single policies to convert to a joint life policy?

Do you require the original term policies to have been issued at same time?

If the original term policies are not in the same duration, how do you establish

the age/duration in the new joint policy? (please comment)

Are the term policies required to have the same issue date?

If you do not require the polices to have the same issue dates, how do you

determine the duration of the permanent policy for the COI?

14 Do you allow a joint term policy to convert to two single life policies?

15 Do you allow a joint term policy to convert to a joint permanent policy?

16 Do you allow simplified issue product to convert to a fully underwritten product?

17 Do you restrict conversions to certain products?

a Do you have specific product(s) for conversions?

b Do you allow conversions to whole life only?

c Do you allow conversions to secondary guarantee UL products?

d Other (please specify in comments section)

18 Is the underwriting class the same after as before conversion?

19 Can the underwriting class improve upon conversion?

20 Can the underwriting class be degraded upon conversion?

21 Do you allow conversions in the first year?

Is there a minimum time frame that the term needs to be inforce before

converting?

22 Do you ever underwrite a conversion?

a When do you underwrite? (please comment)

b Why do you underwrite? (please comment)

c What do you underwrite? (please comment)

What do you require when underwriting is done at conversion? (please

comment)

23 Do you allow any rider(s) to be added upon conversion?

a Do you require underwriting on the rider(s)?

b What rider(s) can be added? (please specify in comments section)

What riders cannot be added that are typically available on new products?

(please specify in comments section)

24 Do you require any rider(s) to lapse upon conversion?

a Which rider(s) are forced to lapse upon conversion? (please comment)

25 Do you allow term to term conversions?

a What type of term product is being converting from? (please comments)

b What type of term product is being converted to?(please comments)

26 Do you allow term products to convert to an existing permanent policy?

a Does the existing permanent policy have to have been originally underwritten?

Do you charge newly select rates (new issue) at the attained age?

Do you charge point-in-scale rates from the original issue age?

Do you allow two or more term policies on the same insured to convert into one

permanent policy?

Please estimate on average how much of your term business converts each year?

Please provide your best estimate of the mortality expectation for converted

business of a percentage of non-converted business

Please provide details of your conversion privilege by plan code on the 'conversion

privilege by plan tab' to help tie to the study

See "conversion privilege by plan" tab

Page 38

Please provide information related to your conversion process.

29 Can you identify conversions and link the term and permanent policies?

30 Are you able to audit your conversion process?

If so, how often do you audit the conversion process?

If you do audit, have you enacted any changes resulting from the audit?

Please elaborate on any issues discovered from your audits in the comments.

32 Do you exclude conversions from your mortality studies?

33 Do you perform your own conversion mortality studies?

When processing an off-anniversary conversion, what age/duration is the

permanent policy issued?

37 Do you allow exceptions to your conversion parameters?

Which of the following describes your conversion philosophy?

Most popular term

written today

Most popular term

written 5 years ago

38 We encourage conversions…(see drop down)

39 Do you use predictive modeling to target conversions?

40 Do you know how conversions are impacting your business?

41 Conversions are monitored…(see drop down)

42 The cost of conversion is…(see drop down)

Most popular term

written today

Most popular term

written 5 years ago

43 Conversions are reinsured

44 Conversions are recaptured and ceded to the permanent pool

How often do you audit reinsurance of converted policies?

Conversions stay with the original reinsurance pool regardless of participation in the

permanent pool

Do you allow off-anniversary conversions?

Do you have any other comments/insights related to your conversion experience

and process that is not part of the above that you would like to add?

Are your converted policies administered on a system different from your term

policies?

Are your conversions administered on a system different from your permanent

policies?

Can you audit your reinsurance on converted policies?

Have you audited your reinsurance for converted policies?

Are conversions treated/coded as a lapse, surrender, or have their own code in your

systems?

Are conversions treated as inforce or new business (accounted for as a new policy)

on the permanent plan?

Please describe how (if any) you changed the way you process conversions in the

last 5 years? (please comment)

How do you structure the reinsurance premiums on converted policies today?

Please describe your reinsurance administration of conversion & variations by term

plan.