Understanding Life Insurance: Mortality Charges And Their Impact

A mortality charge is a fee imposed by life insurance companies to cover the cost of expected deaths among their policyholders. Actuaries, who are professionals in evaluating risk, use mortality data to estimate the number of deaths likely to occur within a given period. This data helps them set the charges for insurance policies. The charges are typically made by cancelling the units invested, similar to reduced allocation rates used in pension products.

Mortality charges are based on actuaries' assumptions about mortality and morbidity claims

A mortality charge is a fee that is imposed on unit-linked protection policies, such as life insurance, to cover anticipated claims resulting from the death and illness of the policyholder. Actuaries, who are professionals skilled in assessing risk, are responsible for determining the amount of these charges. They utilise mortality and morbidity data to make assumptions about the likelihood of policyholders submitting claims related to mortality (death) and morbidity (illness).

Actuaries consider various factors when assessing mortality and morbidity claims. They study demographic information, such as age, gender, and geographical location, as these factors influence life expectancy and the likelihood of certain illnesses. Additionally, they analyse industry-specific data, including claim rates and causes of death or illness among policyholders. By examining this data, actuaries can identify trends and make informed assumptions about future claims.

The calculations and assumptions made by actuaries are crucial in determining the financial stability and sustainability of insurance providers. Mortality charges, based on their assessments, help ensure that insurance companies have sufficient funds to pay out claims. However, it is important to note that these charges are not arbitrary and are based on careful analysis and industry data.

Actuaries play a vital role in the insurance industry by providing expert assessments of risk. Their calculations and assumptions about mortality and morbidity claims directly impact the cost of insurance policies for consumers. While mortality charges may vary across different insurance providers, they are ultimately designed to protect policyholders by ensuring that insurance companies can honour their commitments in the event of death or illness.

ABI aims to cap the amount providers can charge for mortality and morbidity

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is looking to cap the amount providers can charge for mortality and morbidity on unit-linked protection policies. This move is part of ABI's Savings and Long-Term Risk (SALTR) project, which aims to raise industry standards and make the charging structure on these policies more transparent.

Actuaries have discretion over the charges they make on unit-linked protection policies to cover the amount of policy claims they expect due to death and illness. The assumptions of the level of claims are based on the actuaries' use of mortality and morbidity data, which measures the susceptibility of people to illness. The proposed cap aims to reduce the potential for life offices to pass charges on to policyholders disguised as covering themselves for assumptions about mortality and morbidity claims.

For example, the cap would prevent a situation where a life office expects £100 worth of claims but charges £200 to unit-linked policyholders. Under the proposals, the charge made would be restricted to £120. The cap is being proposed at 120% of the expected claims. This proposed cap would affect various unit-linked policies, including whole-life plans, long-term care, critical illness, income protection, and term assurance.

However, some industry experts have expressed concerns about the availability and reliability of data on susceptibility to illness, which may impact the implementation of the cap on morbidity charges. The cap on mortality and morbidity charges may also lead to changes in product structures or a shift towards traditional with-profits protection products by providers to avoid the restrictions.

Mortality and morbidity charges are made by cancelling the units invested

A mortality charge in life insurance is a fee imposed by the insurance company to compensate for the cost of providing life protection to the policyholder. This charge is designed to protect the insurer from financial losses resulting from unexpected events, including the untimely death of the policyholder. The mortality charge is calculated based on the likelihood of the insured person's death, with younger people generally having lower charges due to their higher life expectancy.

Unit-Linked Insurance Plans (ULIPs) are a type of life insurance product that combines investment and insurance features. When an individual subscribes to a ULIP, the premium they pay is divided into two parts. One portion covers the life risk, including mortality charges, while the remaining part is invested in market-linked products for wealth creation. The mortality charges are calculated based on the "sum at risk," which is the sum assured on death minus the current fund value. As the fund value increases over time, the mortality charges decrease.

Actuaries play a crucial role in determining the charges for unit-linked protection policies. They have discretion in setting these charges to cover the expected policy claims arising from death and illness. Their assumptions about the level of claims are based on mortality and morbidity data, which helps assess an individual's susceptibility to illness.

In the context of ULIPs, mortality charges are made by cancelling the units invested. This process is similar to the reduced allocation rates used in pension products. The cancellation of units invested allows the insurance company to recoup the cost of providing life protection to the policyholder.

To illustrate the calculation of mortality charges, let's consider an example. Suppose an individual purchases a ULIP with an annual premium of ₹1,00,000, resulting in a sum assured of ₹1 crore. At the beginning of the policy, the fund value is nearly zero, so the sum at risk is ₹1 crore. Using a mortality rate of 0.15 for a 35-year-old, the monthly mortality charge can be calculated as:

Monthly mortality charge = [Mortality rate (for attained age) * Sum at Risk/1000] * 1/12

In this case, the monthly mortality charge would be ₹125, and the annual charge would be ₹1,500. It's important to note that mortality charges vary depending on factors such as age, gender, and the sum assured.

Mortality and morbidity charges can be disguised as covering assumptions about claims

Mortality charges are fees levied by life insurance companies to cover the risk of policyholders dying. These charges are typically based on actuarial calculations that consider factors such as the policyholder's age, gender, and health status. Similarly, morbidity charges are fees imposed to cover the risk of policyholders becoming ill or injured.

Actuaries play a crucial role in determining mortality and morbidity charges for unit-linked protection policies. They use their expertise in probability and statistics to assess the likelihood of policyholders making claims due to death or illness. By analysing mortality and morbidity data, actuaries can estimate the potential number of claims and set charges accordingly.

However, there has been concern that life insurance providers might exploit the discretion they have over these charges. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is seeking to limit the amount that providers can charge for mortality and morbidity on unit-linked protection policies. The proposed cap is set at 120% of the expected claims, aiming to prevent situations where providers charge excessive amounts to policyholders.

This move by the ABI is part of its Savings and Long-Term Risk (SALTR) project, which aims to enhance industry standards and make the charging structure more transparent. By capping the charges, the ABI wants to prevent life insurance offices from disguising high charges as a means of covering themselves for assumptions about mortality and morbidity claims. This ensures that policyholders are not unfairly burdened with excessive costs.

The proposed cap on mortality and morbidity charges has sparked some debate in the industry. While it aims to protect policyholders, there are concerns about the availability and reliability of data on susceptibility to illness. Some argue that the 120% limit might not provide enough flexibility for morbidity factors, as the data used to make actuarial assumptions for morbidity may not be as comprehensive as that for mortality.

A cap on charges could lead to providers pulling out of markets such as income protection

A mortality charge in life insurance is a fee that covers the amount of policy claims expected due to death. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is looking to cap the amount that product providers can charge for mortality and morbidity on unit-linked protection policies. This cap is being proposed to reduce the potential for life offices to pass charges on to policyholders under the guise of covering themselves for assumptions about mortality and morbidity claims.

The ABI's proposal, if approved, would affect unit-linked policies including whole-of-life plans, long-term care, critical illness, income protection, and term assurance. While the move aims to make the charging structure on unit-linked protection policies more transparent, it could also have unintended consequences.

Nick Kirwan, product development manager at Scottish Mutual Pegasus, notes that there may not be enough good data on susceptibility to illness to justify extending the limits to morbidity. He argues that more leeway than the proposed 120% cap may be needed for morbidity factors as the data on which actuarial assumptions are based for morbidity is less complete than for mortality.

The logical conclusion of the proposal, Kirwan warns, could be providers pulling out of markets such as income protection and critical illness. Under the SALTR proposals, brands can only receive accreditation if all products meet its standards. Kirwan suggests that providers may believe that the 120% limit for morbidity charges could expose them to too much risk, leading them to pull out of certain markets to retain a SALTR accreditation on the rest of their product range.

In response to the proposed cap, providers may choose to revamp their product structures and move to traditional with-profits protection products to avoid the SALTR mortality and morbidity charge restrictions. This could result in a reduction in the availability of unit-linked policies and a shift towards more traditional insurance products.

Frequently asked questions