Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:55:19.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Realistic reporting of life insurance company policy liabilities and profits: developments in Anglo-American countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2012

M. B. Adams
Affiliation:
Massey University, New Zealand
C. N. W. Scott
Affiliation:
Deputy Superintendent of Insurance, Cayman Islands

Abstract

This paper examines international developments in life insurance generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP) for policy valuation and profit recognition in four major Anglo-American markets—the U.K., Australia, the U.S.A. and Canada. Each valuation method examined has its advantages and disadvantages with respect to the needs of preparers and users of the annual corporate reports of life insurance companies. The paper documents that the statutory basis and U.S. GAAP are considered to have substantive deficiencies. In contrast, the U.K. accruals method, the Australian margin on services method and Canadian GAAP have much to commend them, particularly with regard to their flexibility to accommodate valuation adjustments for unexpected events. Nevertheless, from the preparers' point of view, the systems which would have to be developed to facilitate the U.K. accruals and Australian margin on services methods would be difficult and costly to implement. Profit reporting under Canadian GAAP is also sensitive to changes in actuarial reserving assumptions. The authors conclude that, since national preferences in actuarial and accounting practices are inevitable and because the product-market structures of life insurance markets are so distinctive, international harmonisation of life office GAAP is unlikely to occur for a very long time.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1) Bartlett, W. J. (1992). Accounting for life assurance offices: Australia and elsewhere. Insurance Law Journal, 5, No. 2, 110122.Google Scholar
(2) Anglo-American insurance markets are defined as the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States of America. Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa are relatively small insurance markets. In Ireland and South Africa, life assurance accounting practices are modelled on the United Kingdom, while New Zealand is largely influenced by Australian accounting and reporting practices.Google Scholar
(3) KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock (1990). U.K. principles and presentation: insurance.Google Scholar
(4) Miles, S. P. & Gubbay, K. (1987). Realistic financial reporting. Transactions of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. 2, 704–787.Google Scholar
(5) Although the E.C. Directive requires the financial statements of life offices to exhibit a true and fair view, as currently worded the calculation of liabilities need only be computed in accordance with recognised actuarial principles. Ostensibly, this could mean that the maintenance of hidden reserves will continue to be permitted. As regards assets, the E.C. Directive allows the inclusion of investments in the balance sheet at either current values or historical cost. However, whichever basis is used, the notes to the accounts must also show the alternative valuation basis. Therefore, the inclusion of general rather than specific rules means that considerable flexibility in accounting practice among E.C. insurers is likely to remain.Google Scholar
(6) Keith, D. (1983). Valuation of policy liabilities under GAAP. Paper presented to the General Meeting of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
(7) O'Brien, C. D. (1994). Profit, capital and value in a proprietary life assurance company. This paper describes a proposed alternative to the three recognised methods of policy valuation. This method is referred to as the earned profits method. As this method is not actually in use, it is not discussed in this paper. J.I.A. 121, 285.Google Scholar
(8) Barrow, G. E. & Ferguson, D. G. R. (1984). A review of the law relating to insolvent life assurance companies and proposals for reform. J.I.A., 111, 229257.Google Scholar
(9) Fisher, H. F. & Young, J. (1965). Actuarial practice of life assurance. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(10) Dunsford, G. A. (1988). Life offices—revealing the full financial picture. Transactions of the Institute of Actuaries in Australia, 1, 132244.Google Scholar
(11) Roff, T. A. (1990). Life profit recognition. The Actuary, 1, No. 5, 710.Google Scholar
(12) Jenkins, J. A. (1991). Reflections on a takeover of a United Kingdom insurer. The Actuary, 1, No. 8, 1113.Google Scholar
(13) Whewell, R. (1990). Accounting for life assurance: Truly fair or fairly true. Accountancy, 106, No. 1169, 8287.Google Scholar
(14) Wright, P. W. (1991). Accruals profits. Paper presented to the International Division of Chief Financial Officers' Insurance Conference, London U.K.Google Scholar
(15) KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock (1990). U.K. principles and presentation: insurance. London: Author.Google Scholar
(16) However, as pointed out by the two anonymous reviewers, it is relatively easy, by a suitable choice of assumptions, for the accruals method to sometimes produce larger up-front profits than the embedded value method.Google Scholar
(17) Freeborn, T. (1992). Just like that. Accountancy Age Magazine, November 1992, 1315.Google Scholar
(18) Horton, J., Hoskin, K. & Macve, R. (1993). Changing accounting principles for U.K. life assurance companies: the role of accounting research. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual European Accounting Conference, Turku, Finland. The authors, on page 23, assert that a reason for the actuarial profession's opposition to the proposal is that the accounting profession had a significant input into the drafting of the accruals method. Thus, the opposition of many actuaries to the ABI initiative may at least be partially attributed to their resentment of the accountancy profession's growing influence in life insurance—the traditional preserve of the actuarial profession.Google Scholar
(19) Purchase, D. E. (1991). The accruals debate—Round 2, The Actuary, 2, No. 2, 810.Google Scholar
(20) Bannon, J. (1991). Life profit reporting—what future? The Actuary, 2, No. 1, 810.Google Scholar
(21) Insurance Superannuation Commission Taskforce (1992). Review of the Life Insurance Act: Report to the Deputy Commissioner, Life Insurance, Insurance and Superannuation Commission by the ISC Taskforce on Financial Reporting.Google Scholar
(22) Since 1989, the Australian Accounting Research Foundation (AARF), a body jointly established by the Australian Society of Certified Accountants and The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, has been trying to develop a life insurance accounting standard. It is understood that an Exposure Draft is expected to be issued by the AARF in 1994 and that this document will recommend the use of the margin on services method for valuing policy liabilities. Indeed, New Zealand's Exposure Draft on the life insurance accounting standard specifies the use of the margin on services method for use among life offices in that jurisdiction.Google Scholar
(23) Creedon, S. (1979). U.S. GAAP—a U.K. actuary's perspective. J.S.S., 23, 125180.Google Scholar
(24) Some U.S. mutual life offices state that they comply with U.S. GAAP when they do not, either partially, or in whole. This has created some confusion among financial analysts as to the treatment of accounting items disclosed in the financial reports of U.S. mutual life offices. Accordingly, the FASB has issued its ‘Interpretation Statement No. 40’ to assist preparers and users of mutual life insurers' financial statements.Google Scholar