Thanks for sharing.
I’m wondering what happened to SIDS in 2020?
What happened is I didn’t use the special list of causes of death for infant mortality.
I just used the same list of causes for all the deaths. So, the ICD codes don’t differ, it’s how they group them for the tables/ranking lists, etc.
So for the infant mortality. I have a bunch of stuff that’s grouped under “perinatal” that gets split out for infant mortality in the special infant mortality categories.
2 Likes
Term is actually lapse supported enough to make a material difference? I didn’t know that.
And I’m surprised because my limited experience on the retail side is that people generally keep their term and don’t lapse.
Is this all per million or something?
Can’t tell if serious.
Huh, I think of “perinatal” as stuff that kills the infant within a week or two of delivery, not something like SIDS that happens months later to apparently healthy infants. What else is lumped into “perinatal” that I wouldn’t have expected?
Also, I had no idea that infants die of strokes. That’s a fairly large number.
2 Likes
Yeah, I also think it’s weird that SIDS is lumped in with perinatal.
These are the actual counts.
I’m not doing rates of anything in this post.
Makes sense, at first I wondered if the numbers were really small and then Marcie’s confusion at my reply had me uncertain, thanks for the clarification.
Nice chart! I was wondering what it would look like if you moved all of the excess deaths to COVID. Pretty please?
IMO, 10/15/20 year term is by definition lapse supported, but not materially so. Term lapse rates in the latter half of the initial term are very low during normal times; with the covid threat, experience still can’t go below 0% lapses. 30 year term would have more of an impact from a long term shift to lower lapse rates. On the flip side, there may be more (healthy) people who accept the MUCH higher premium after the term period is over.
I guess that depends on your definition of “material”.
It is competitively priced, but if lapses were lower across the board that would be enough that insurers would have to increase premiums a bit.
Lapse rates are around 10%. And to be clear, all lapses are beneficial to the insurer. The ideal point is probably pretty close to halfway. But any lapse helps. Unless it’s so early that you haven’t recouped the expense of issuing the policy, but those probably don’t even count as lapses for the most part.
10% is enough to have a material impact.
That’s an old study, I’ll see if I can find something more recent amid all of the pages trying to sell me life insurance.
Will there be similar 2019 and 2018 charts on your blog?
Here’s a more recent study. Slightly lower lapse rates during the level period, but still material, IMO.
This study states that the term data has hardly any level term experience past duration 15. The study also includes annual renewable term (ART) in the term section. Lapse rates for level term products (20-year term and longer) are lower in the later durations; much lower than 10%.
I’d heard some states got liberal with their reinstatement periods, which while not below 0% lapses might make for some additional claims.
Not early on with high commissions.
Not just reinstatement periods, but some states prohibited lapsing someone’s coverage for any reason. Definitely extra exposures due to those that would have lapsed.
Um, that’s why I said