Richard Baker wrote: >Jim said: >>Not necessarily their economic future, but certainly how long that >>future >>might be. Most actuaries (at least the ones whose companies' >>bottom lines aren't beholden to just a handful of clients) prefer >>conservative assumptions simply because we have to make sure you >>have enough to live on for many years. > >On the other side, what happens if human longevity increases >drastically?
It's always a concern for the responsible actuary. That's why mortality tables are updated reasonably often, moreso in the past ~20 years than earlier as longevity as increased quite a bit in industrialized nations. The most recent tables mandated by the US government for accrued pension liabilities are increasing those liabilities around 5% overall, for example, with some variations depending on the weight of actives versus retirees. Those tables also reflect expected mortality improvements over the next several years. Granted, the possibility always exists that some new medical breakthrough could throw those tables out the window, but there's also the possibility of war or pandemic reducing them to rubble as well. It's just the nature of the business. But generally speaking, "n" is sufficiently large in standard mortality tables to make them pretty reliable. Now property and casualty? That's a lot more volatile. Jim _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
