UI はローカライズ済みです。スキルの紹介と説明文書は選択した言語へ AI が自動翻訳し、コード・コマンド・パス・専門用語は原文のままです。原作者の文書が優先されます。
スキルを探す
データ・研究 · SKILL.md

analyzing-life-insurance-products

analyzing-life-insurance-products

Evaluates life insurance product structures with cash value analysis, cost comparisons, and suitability assessment. Use when analyzing life products, comparing insurance costs, or assessing product suitability.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

スキルの説明

GitHub

name: analyzing-life-insurance-products language: en description: Evaluates life insurance product structures with cash value analysis, cost comparisons, and suitability assessment. Use when analyzing life products, comparing insurance costs, or assessing product suitability. tags:

  • analysis
  • insurance metadata: author: casemark practice_areas:
    • Insurance
    • Actuarial Science
    • Reinsurance document_types:
    • Analysis Report skill_modes:
    • Analysis

Analyzing Life Insurance Products

Evaluates life insurance product structures including term, whole life, universal life (UL), indexed UL, and variable UL, with cash value projections, cost-of-insurance analysis, and suitability assessment relative to client objectives.

When To Use

  • Comparing product structures across carriers or product types for a specific client profile
  • Evaluating in-force policy performance against original illustrations
  • Assessing cash value accumulation efficiency and cost-of-insurance trends
  • Reviewing product suitability for estate planning, income replacement, or wealth transfer
  • Analyzing policy replacement proposals (1035 exchange scenarios)
  • Auditing illustration assumptions (credited rates, persistency, lapse risk)

Inputs To Gather

  • Policy documents: Illustration ledgers, in-force summaries, policy contracts, riders
  • Client profile: Age, health classification (preferred/standard/rated), gender, tobacco status, state of issue
  • Objective: Death benefit need, cash accumulation target, premium budget, planning horizon
  • Existing coverage: Current policies, surrender values, outstanding loans, cost basis
  • Carrier data: Financial strength ratings (AM Best, S&P, Moody's), general account allocation, crediting rate history
  • Benchmarks: Comparable products or industry cost indices (e.g., Belth method, surrender cost index, net payment cost index)

Workflow

  1. Classify the product type — Identify whether term, whole life, UL, IUL, VUL, or hybrid (e.g., life/LTC combo). Note guaranteed vs. non-guaranteed elements and the general account vs. separate account structure.

  2. Extract cost-of-insurance (COI) charges — Pull COI rates from the contract or illustration. Compare current COI charges against guaranteed maximums. Flag products where current rates are close to guaranteed ceilings. [VERIFY] COI rate schedules vary by carrier and may be subject to periodic adjustment.

  3. Analyze cash value projections — Run or review illustrations at multiple crediting rate assumptions:

    • Guaranteed minimum rate
    • Current declared/credited rate
    • Midpoint scenario
    • For IUL: floor, cap, participation rate, and historical back-tested returns
    • Identify the crossover year where cash value exceeds cumulative premiums
  4. Evaluate premium structure — Determine whether the product is funded at target, minimum, or maximum non-MEC levels. Assess MEC risk under IRC §7702A. Calculate the spread between minimum premium to maintain coverage and the planned premium.

  5. Compare costs across products — Use standardized cost indices:

    • Surrender cost index: Net cost per $1,000 of coverage if policy is surrendered at benchmark durations (10, 20, 30 years)
    • Net payment cost index: Net cost per $1,000 if held to death at benchmark durations
    • Belth yearly rate of return method: Isolates the implied cost of insurance per year
    • Normalize for differences in death benefit design (level vs. increasing)
  6. Assess suitability — Match product features against client needs:

    • Income replacement → level term or guaranteed UL with secondary guarantees
    • Estate liquidity → survivorship (second-to-die) whole life or guaranteed UL
    • Cash accumulation → overfunded IUL or VUL (assess cap/floor trade-offs)
    • Business succession → key person term or whole life with split-dollar arrangement
    • [VERIFY] State-specific suitability requirements and replacement regulations (e.g., NAIC Model Replacement Regulation)
  7. Review carrier financial strength — Confirm AM Best rating (A or better typical threshold), surplus growth, RBC ratio, and general account investment quality. For products with long-duration guarantees, carrier stability is critical.

  8. Flag risks and assumptions — Document sensitivity to interest rate changes, COI increases, policy loan arbitrage assumptions, and lapse-supported pricing. Identify any illustration assumptions that diverge from historical norms.

Output

Structure the analysis report with:

  • Executive summary: Product recommendation or comparison verdict in 2-3 sentences
  • Product comparison table: Side-by-side matrix of premiums, death benefits, cash values at years 10/20/30, cost indices, and carrier ratings
  • Cash value projection chart: Guaranteed vs. current vs. midpoint scenarios over the planning horizon
  • COI analysis: Current vs. guaranteed rate trajectory with breakeven assessment
  • Suitability finding: How each product aligns with stated client objectives
  • Risk factors: Interest rate sensitivity, carrier risk, lapse risk, MEC risk
  • Recommendation: Preferred product with rationale, or conditions under which each option is superior

Quality Checks

  • Verify all illustration ledger values tie to the carrier-provided documents — do not interpolate missing years
  • Confirm premium mode (annual/semi/quarterly/monthly) is consistent across comparisons
  • Ensure cost indices use the same benchmark durations and discount rates
  • Validate that non-guaranteed elements are clearly labeled and separated from guarantees
  • Check that MEC status is correctly determined under IRC §7702A seven-pay test
  • Confirm carrier ratings are current (ratings change; mark with [VERIFY] if older than 12 months)
  • Flag any illustration that assumes crediting rates materially above the carrier's 10-year historical average
  • Note all state-specific regulatory requirements that may affect replacement or suitability determinations [VERIFY]
保存したスキル