Re: [lmi] Question about "Numeric summary" logic

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 22:44:46 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> On 2017-07-29 12:39, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:59:16 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
GC> > 
GC> > GC> ...so let's just follow the regulation:
GC> > GC>   http://www.naic.org/documents/committees_lhatf_582.pdf
GC> > GC> which says, in relevant part (C)(1):
GC> > GC> 
GC> > GC> | This summary shall be shown for at least policy years five (5),
GC> > GC> | ten (10) and twenty (20) and at age 70, if applicable ...
GC> > 
GC> >  Thanks, this is much more clear.
GC> 
GC> When the text of an insurance regulation is clearer than the code, the code
GC> must be poor indeed.

 This is just an anti-programmer sentiment speaking. I say that insurance
regulator didn't do their work well enough, producing something that is so
easy to understand even to a complete layman like me.

GC> > But I can't help noticing that it says
GC> > "at least" and the current code seems to quite intentionally show it for
GC> > the year 30 too (if not lapsed, of course). Should we keep 30 or not?
GC> 
GC> Hmmm...I had never noticed that. Let's drop it.

 OK, will do, even though it's not really more difficult to keep it, as
long as I create this table in C++ code anyhow (as I will do).

[...snipping most of your -- very helpful! -- explanation...]
GC> Thus, for general- and separate- account policies respectively we have
GC> these two sub-bases:
GC>   mce_gen_basis: {"Current", "Guaranteed", "Midpoint"}
GC>   mce_sep_basis: {"Hypothetical", "Zero", "Half of hypothetical"}
GC> each of cardinality three, which combine mystically to form the seven
GC> combinations in 'mce_run_basis', of which five are actually used. Surely
GC> this {2,3,5,7} pattern resulting from interference between federal and
GC> state regulation must appeal to the Pythagorean in you.

 This is very impressive but, even more surprisingly, quite understandable,
thank you! I hope I don't spoil everything by asking a potentially very
stupid question, but is what you called "Hypothetical" above the same thing
as is called "full" in the actual code or did I miss another part of the
pattern?

 Thanks again,
VZ