Exhibit 1 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Number of Policies by Type and Business Unit for this Year...

  
 
 

  

 

 

 

 

Transcribed Image Text:

Exhibit 1 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Number of Policies by Type and Business Unit for this Year Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies 10,000 45,000 55.000 8,625 36.200 44.825 1,215 4,700 5.915 19,840 85,900 105,740 Subtotal Life insurance: New policies In-force policies 1,250 5,600 6,850 61.850 3,450 13,500 16.950 61,775 8,100 31,600 39,700 45,615 12,800 50,700 63,500 169,240 Subtotal Total Exhibit 2 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Summary of Product Line and Business-Unit Support Cost Allocations Using the Number of Policies as the Allocation Basis ($13,920,000 + 169,240 policies = $82.25/policy) %3D Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $ 822,500 3,701,250 $4,523,750 $ 709,406 2,977,450 $3,686,856 $ 99,934 386,575 $486,509 $1,631,840 7.065,275 $8,697,115 Life Insurance: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $102,813 460,600 $563.413 $ 283,763 1,110,375 $1,394,138 $ 666,225 2.599,100 $3.265,325 $1,052,801 4,170,075 $5,222.876 Rounding Total support costs 3 $5,087,166 $5,080,997 $3,751,837 $13,920,000 Exhibit 3 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Data Summary for New Allocation Bases Annuities Life Insurance Support Costs New Basis New In-Force New In-Force Policy acquisition Steps Calls 5 Customer service Sales and marketing Corporate overhead 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 Contacts 10 20 AUM $50,0 $50,000 $1,500 $65,000 00 outcome. After some thought and effort, she was able to collapse nearly 50 different corporate cost accounts into these 4 categories. Aggregated Corporate Support Costs for this Year $ 4,375,000 2,426,000 4,552,000 2,567,000 $ 13,920,000 Policy acquisition Customer service Sales and marketing Other corporate support Total Hampton knew that some of those aggregated costs were incurred to support new policies that had been issued during this year, while others supported in-force policies issued in previous years. As she dug further into the effort to issue and service policies, it was clear to her that there were distinct tasks repeated in, and different among, the various products. Those tasks, for example, included items such as underwriting reviews, health screenings/evaluations, billings, collections, records creation/maintenance, and responding to customer queries. It seemed like the sale of a policy spawned a flurry of corporate activity. She wondered if Gibson's processes were as streamlined and efficient as they could be, but she filed that thought away for a later date-the new cost allocation approach was her current imperative. It seemed to Hampton that there were a host of potential allocation bases that could be adopted in lieu of the currently used basis of the number of policies. She decided that there was merit in keeping the new approach simple (as best reflected in an underlying root cause for the cost), and acceptable to the departmental managers and product line managers who would be evaluated, in part, on their financial performance that involved the resulting allocations. Finally, Hampton decided to make her first attempt at using the new allocation bases as noted below. For each of the four new allocation bases, she presented herself with a test, which was to summarize her rationale for the allocation base in a brief, coherent, logical fashion. If she could not do that, then she must interpret that as a signal that she needed to investigate the proposed basis in more detail to settle on an intuitively defensible basis for that one. 1) Policy acquisition costs: New allocation basis: Number of steps involved in moving new policy applications to an in-force status. Rationale for new basis: The administrative staff at Gibson's headquarters processed new policy applications for all three legal entities and for both life insurance and annuity products. From an administrative staff resources perspective, annuities required two major steps to issue a policy: a review of the application data and the electronic imaging of the application. Life insurance policies required the same two steps as annuities, but they also required additional steps for the following administrative tasks pertaining to the underwriting work involved: generate files for reinsurance, review medical information Questions 1) Calculate the unit support cost per policy for new and in-force annuity and life insurance policies using the new allocation bases. In addition, calculate the total support costs to be reported by product for each legal business unit entity. 2) Why would Hampton want to track that information by product even if that level of detail was not required by regulators? 3) Will the new support cost allocation information help Gibson Insurance establish better pricing guidelines for the various annuities and life insurance products sold by each legal business unit entity? Why or why not? 4) Is there room for improvement in the means by which the corporate support costs are allocated under Hampton's new approach? If yes, in what way(s)? If no, why not? Exhibit 1 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Number of Policies by Type and Business Unit for this Year Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies 10,000 45,000 55.000 8,625 36.200 44.825 1,215 4,700 5.915 19,840 85,900 105,740 Subtotal Life insurance: New policies In-force policies 1,250 5,600 6,850 61.850 3,450 13,500 16.950 61,775 8,100 31,600 39,700 45,615 12,800 50,700 63,500 169,240 Subtotal Total Exhibit 2 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Summary of Product Line and Business-Unit Support Cost Allocations Using the Number of Policies as the Allocation Basis ($13,920,000 + 169,240 policies = $82.25/policy) %3D Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $ 822,500 3,701,250 $4,523,750 $ 709,406 2,977,450 $3,686,856 $ 99,934 386,575 $486,509 $1,631,840 7.065,275 $8,697,115 Life Insurance: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $102,813 460,600 $563.413 $ 283,763 1,110,375 $1,394,138 $ 666,225 2.599,100 $3.265,325 $1,052,801 4,170,075 $5,222.876 Rounding Total support costs 3 $5,087,166 $5,080,997 $3,751,837 $13,920,000 Exhibit 3 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Data Summary for New Allocation Bases Annuities Life Insurance Support Costs New Basis New In-Force New In-Force Policy acquisition Steps Calls 5 Customer service Sales and marketing Corporate overhead 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 Contacts 10 20 AUM $50,0 $50,000 $1,500 $65,000 00 outcome. After some thought and effort, she was able to collapse nearly 50 different corporate cost accounts into these 4 categories. Aggregated Corporate Support Costs for this Year $ 4,375,000 2,426,000 4,552,000 2,567,000 $ 13,920,000 Policy acquisition Customer service Sales and marketing Other corporate support Total Hampton knew that some of those aggregated costs were incurred to support new policies that had been issued during this year, while others supported in-force policies issued in previous years. As she dug further into the effort to issue and service policies, it was clear to her that there were distinct tasks repeated in, and different among, the various products. Those tasks, for example, included items such as underwriting reviews, health screenings/evaluations, billings, collections, records creation/maintenance, and responding to customer queries. It seemed like the sale of a policy spawned a flurry of corporate activity. She wondered if Gibson's processes were as streamlined and efficient as they could be, but she filed that thought away for a later date-the new cost allocation approach was her current imperative. It seemed to Hampton that there were a host of potential allocation bases that could be adopted in lieu of the currently used basis of the number of policies. She decided that there was merit in keeping the new approach simple (as best reflected in an underlying root cause for the cost), and acceptable to the departmental managers and product line managers who would be evaluated, in part, on their financial performance that involved the resulting allocations. Finally, Hampton decided to make her first attempt at using the new allocation bases as noted below. For each of the four new allocation bases, she presented herself with a test, which was to summarize her rationale for the allocation base in a brief, coherent, logical fashion. If she could not do that, then she must interpret that as a signal that she needed to investigate the proposed basis in more detail to settle on an intuitively defensible basis for that one. 1) Policy acquisition costs: New allocation basis: Number of steps involved in moving new policy applications to an in-force status. Rationale for new basis: The administrative staff at Gibson's headquarters processed new policy applications for all three legal entities and for both life insurance and annuity products. From an administrative staff resources perspective, annuities required two major steps to issue a policy: a review of the application data and the electronic imaging of the application. Life insurance policies required the same two steps as annuities, but they also required additional steps for the following administrative tasks pertaining to the underwriting work involved: generate files for reinsurance, review medical information Questions 1) Calculate the unit support cost per policy for new and in-force annuity and life insurance policies using the new allocation bases. In addition, calculate the total support costs to be reported by product for each legal business unit entity. 2) Why would Hampton want to track that information by product even if that level of detail was not required by regulators? 3) Will the new support cost allocation information help Gibson Insurance establish better pricing guidelines for the various annuities and life insurance products sold by each legal business unit entity? Why or why not? 4) Is there room for improvement in the means by which the corporate support costs are allocated under Hampton's new approach? If yes, in what way(s)? If no, why not? Exhibit 1 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Number of Policies by Type and Business Unit for this Year Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies 10,000 45,000 55.000 8,625 36.200 44.825 1,215 4,700 5.915 19,840 85,900 105,740 Subtotal Life insurance: New policies In-force policies 1,250 5,600 6,850 61.850 3,450 13,500 16.950 61,775 8,100 31,600 39,700 45,615 12,800 50,700 63,500 169,240 Subtotal Total Exhibit 2 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Summary of Product Line and Business-Unit Support Cost Allocations Using the Number of Policies as the Allocation Basis ($13,920,000 + 169,240 policies = $82.25/policy) %3D Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $ 822,500 3,701,250 $4,523,750 $ 709,406 2,977,450 $3,686,856 $ 99,934 386,575 $486,509 $1,631,840 7.065,275 $8,697,115 Life Insurance: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $102,813 460,600 $563.413 $ 283,763 1,110,375 $1,394,138 $ 666,225 2.599,100 $3.265,325 $1,052,801 4,170,075 $5,222.876 Rounding Total support costs 3 $5,087,166 $5,080,997 $3,751,837 $13,920,000 Exhibit 3 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Data Summary for New Allocation Bases Annuities Life Insurance Support Costs New Basis New In-Force New In-Force Policy acquisition Steps Calls 5 Customer service Sales and marketing Corporate overhead 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 Contacts 10 20 AUM $50,0 $50,000 $1,500 $65,000 00 outcome. After some thought and effort, she was able to collapse nearly 50 different corporate cost accounts into these 4 categories. Aggregated Corporate Support Costs for this Year $ 4,375,000 2,426,000 4,552,000 2,567,000 $ 13,920,000 Policy acquisition Customer service Sales and marketing Other corporate support Total Hampton knew that some of those aggregated costs were incurred to support new policies that had been issued during this year, while others supported in-force policies issued in previous years. As she dug further into the effort to issue and service policies, it was clear to her that there were distinct tasks repeated in, and different among, the various products. Those tasks, for example, included items such as underwriting reviews, health screenings/evaluations, billings, collections, records creation/maintenance, and responding to customer queries. It seemed like the sale of a policy spawned a flurry of corporate activity. She wondered if Gibson's processes were as streamlined and efficient as they could be, but she filed that thought away for a later date-the new cost allocation approach was her current imperative. It seemed to Hampton that there were a host of potential allocation bases that could be adopted in lieu of the currently used basis of the number of policies. She decided that there was merit in keeping the new approach simple (as best reflected in an underlying root cause for the cost), and acceptable to the departmental managers and product line managers who would be evaluated, in part, on their financial performance that involved the resulting allocations. Finally, Hampton decided to make her first attempt at using the new allocation bases as noted below. For each of the four new allocation bases, she presented herself with a test, which was to summarize her rationale for the allocation base in a brief, coherent, logical fashion. If she could not do that, then she must interpret that as a signal that she needed to investigate the proposed basis in more detail to settle on an intuitively defensible basis for that one. 1) Policy acquisition costs: New allocation basis: Number of steps involved in moving new policy applications to an in-force status. Rationale for new basis: The administrative staff at Gibson's headquarters processed new policy applications for all three legal entities and for both life insurance and annuity products. From an administrative staff resources perspective, annuities required two major steps to issue a policy: a review of the application data and the electronic imaging of the application. Life insurance policies required the same two steps as annuities, but they also required additional steps for the following administrative tasks pertaining to the underwriting work involved: generate files for reinsurance, review medical information Questions 1) Calculate the unit support cost per policy for new and in-force annuity and life insurance policies using the new allocation bases. In addition, calculate the total support costs to be reported by product for each legal business unit entity. 2) Why would Hampton want to track that information by product even if that level of detail was not required by regulators? 3) Will the new support cost allocation information help Gibson Insurance establish better pricing guidelines for the various annuities and life insurance products sold by each legal business unit entity? Why or why not? 4) Is there room for improvement in the means by which the corporate support costs are allocated under Hampton's new approach? If yes, in what way(s)? If no, why not? Exhibit 1 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Number of Policies by Type and Business Unit for this Year Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies 10,000 45,000 55.000 8,625 36.200 44.825 1,215 4,700 5.915 19,840 85,900 105,740 Subtotal Life insurance: New policies In-force policies 1,250 5,600 6,850 61.850 3,450 13,500 16.950 61,775 8,100 31,600 39,700 45,615 12,800 50,700 63,500 169,240 Subtotal Total Exhibit 2 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Summary of Product Line and Business-Unit Support Cost Allocations Using the Number of Policies as the Allocation Basis ($13,920,000 + 169,240 policies = $82.25/policy) %3D Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $ 822,500 3,701,250 $4,523,750 $ 709,406 2,977,450 $3,686,856 $ 99,934 386,575 $486,509 $1,631,840 7.065,275 $8,697,115 Life Insurance: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $102,813 460,600 $563.413 $ 283,763 1,110,375 $1,394,138 $ 666,225 2.599,100 $3.265,325 $1,052,801 4,170,075 $5,222.876 Rounding Total support costs 3 $5,087,166 $5,080,997 $3,751,837 $13,920,000 Exhibit 3 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Data Summary for New Allocation Bases Annuities Life Insurance Support Costs New Basis New In-Force New In-Force Policy acquisition Steps Calls 5 Customer service Sales and marketing Corporate overhead 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 Contacts 10 20 AUM $50,0 $50,000 $1,500 $65,000 00 outcome. After some thought and effort, she was able to collapse nearly 50 different corporate cost accounts into these 4 categories. Aggregated Corporate Support Costs for this Year $ 4,375,000 2,426,000 4,552,000 2,567,000 $ 13,920,000 Policy acquisition Customer service Sales and marketing Other corporate support Total Hampton knew that some of those aggregated costs were incurred to support new policies that had been issued during this year, while others supported in-force policies issued in previous years. As she dug further into the effort to issue and service policies, it was clear to her that there were distinct tasks repeated in, and different among, the various products. Those tasks, for example, included items such as underwriting reviews, health screenings/evaluations, billings, collections, records creation/maintenance, and responding to customer queries. It seemed like the sale of a policy spawned a flurry of corporate activity. She wondered if Gibson's processes were as streamlined and efficient as they could be, but she filed that thought away for a later date-the new cost allocation approach was her current imperative. It seemed to Hampton that there were a host of potential allocation bases that could be adopted in lieu of the currently used basis of the number of policies. She decided that there was merit in keeping the new approach simple (as best reflected in an underlying root cause for the cost), and acceptable to the departmental managers and product line managers who would be evaluated, in part, on their financial performance that involved the resulting allocations. Finally, Hampton decided to make her first attempt at using the new allocation bases as noted below. For each of the four new allocation bases, she presented herself with a test, which was to summarize her rationale for the allocation base in a brief, coherent, logical fashion. If she could not do that, then she must interpret that as a signal that she needed to investigate the proposed basis in more detail to settle on an intuitively defensible basis for that one. 1) Policy acquisition costs: New allocation basis: Number of steps involved in moving new policy applications to an in-force status. Rationale for new basis: The administrative staff at Gibson's headquarters processed new policy applications for all three legal entities and for both life insurance and annuity products. From an administrative staff resources perspective, annuities required two major steps to issue a policy: a review of the application data and the electronic imaging of the application. Life insurance policies required the same two steps as annuities, but they also required additional steps for the following administrative tasks pertaining to the underwriting work involved: generate files for reinsurance, review medical information Questions 1) Calculate the unit support cost per policy for new and in-force annuity and life insurance policies using the new allocation bases. In addition, calculate the total support costs to be reported by product for each legal business unit entity. 2) Why would Hampton want to track that information by product even if that level of detail was not required by regulators? 3) Will the new support cost allocation information help Gibson Insurance establish better pricing guidelines for the various annuities and life insurance products sold by each legal business unit entity? Why or why not? 4) Is there room for improvement in the means by which the corporate support costs are allocated under Hampton's new approach? If yes, in what way(s)? If no, why not? Exhibit 1 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Number of Policies by Type and Business Unit for this Year Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies 10,000 45,000 55.000 8,625 36.200 44.825 1,215 4,700 5.915 19,840 85,900 105,740 Subtotal Life insurance: New policies In-force policies 1,250 5,600 6,850 61.850 3,450 13,500 16.950 61,775 8,100 31,600 39,700 45,615 12,800 50,700 63,500 169,240 Subtotal Total Exhibit 2 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Summary of Product Line and Business-Unit Support Cost Allocations Using the Number of Policies as the Allocation Basis ($13,920,000 + 169,240 policies = $82.25/policy) %3D Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $ 822,500 3,701,250 $4,523,750 $ 709,406 2,977,450 $3,686,856 $ 99,934 386,575 $486,509 $1,631,840 7.065,275 $8,697,115 Life Insurance: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $102,813 460,600 $563.413 $ 283,763 1,110,375 $1,394,138 $ 666,225 2.599,100 $3.265,325 $1,052,801 4,170,075 $5,222.876 Rounding Total support costs 3 $5,087,166 $5,080,997 $3,751,837 $13,920,000 Exhibit 3 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Data Summary for New Allocation Bases Annuities Life Insurance Support Costs New Basis New In-Force New In-Force Policy acquisition Steps Calls 5 Customer service Sales and marketing Corporate overhead 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 Contacts 10 20 AUM $50,0 $50,000 $1,500 $65,000 00 outcome. After some thought and effort, she was able to collapse nearly 50 different corporate cost accounts into these 4 categories. Aggregated Corporate Support Costs for this Year $ 4,375,000 2,426,000 4,552,000 2,567,000 $ 13,920,000 Policy acquisition Customer service Sales and marketing Other corporate support Total Hampton knew that some of those aggregated costs were incurred to support new policies that had been issued during this year, while others supported in-force policies issued in previous years. As she dug further into the effort to issue and service policies, it was clear to her that there were distinct tasks repeated in, and different among, the various products. Those tasks, for example, included items such as underwriting reviews, health screenings/evaluations, billings, collections, records creation/maintenance, and responding to customer queries. It seemed like the sale of a policy spawned a flurry of corporate activity. She wondered if Gibson's processes were as streamlined and efficient as they could be, but she filed that thought away for a later date-the new cost allocation approach was her current imperative. It seemed to Hampton that there were a host of potential allocation bases that could be adopted in lieu of the currently used basis of the number of policies. She decided that there was merit in keeping the new approach simple (as best reflected in an underlying root cause for the cost), and acceptable to the departmental managers and product line managers who would be evaluated, in part, on their financial performance that involved the resulting allocations. Finally, Hampton decided to make her first attempt at using the new allocation bases as noted below. For each of the four new allocation bases, she presented herself with a test, which was to summarize her rationale for the allocation base in a brief, coherent, logical fashion. If she could not do that, then she must interpret that as a signal that she needed to investigate the proposed basis in more detail to settle on an intuitively defensible basis for that one. 1) Policy acquisition costs: New allocation basis: Number of steps involved in moving new policy applications to an in-force status. Rationale for new basis: The administrative staff at Gibson's headquarters processed new policy applications for all three legal entities and for both life insurance and annuity products. From an administrative staff resources perspective, annuities required two major steps to issue a policy: a review of the application data and the electronic imaging of the application. Life insurance policies required the same two steps as annuities, but they also required additional steps for the following administrative tasks pertaining to the underwriting work involved: generate files for reinsurance, review medical information Questions 1) Calculate the unit support cost per policy for new and in-force annuity and life insurance policies using the new allocation bases. In addition, calculate the total support costs to be reported by product for each legal business unit entity. 2) Why would Hampton want to track that information by product even if that level of detail was not required by regulators? 3) Will the new support cost allocation information help Gibson Insurance establish better pricing guidelines for the various annuities and life insurance products sold by each legal business unit entity? Why or why not? 4) Is there room for improvement in the means by which the corporate support costs are allocated under Hampton's new approach? If yes, in what way(s)? If no, why not? Exhibit 1 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Number of Policies by Type and Business Unit for this Year Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies 10,000 45,000 55.000 8,625 36.200 44.825 1,215 4,700 5.915 19,840 85,900 105,740 Subtotal Life insurance: New policies In-force policies 1,250 5,600 6,850 61.850 3,450 13,500 16.950 61,775 8,100 31,600 39,700 45,615 12,800 50,700 63,500 169,240 Subtotal Total Exhibit 2 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Summary of Product Line and Business-Unit Support Cost Allocations Using the Number of Policies as the Allocation Basis ($13,920,000 + 169,240 policies = $82.25/policy) %3D Midwest Gibson Compton Total Annuities: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $ 822,500 3,701,250 $4,523,750 $ 709,406 2,977,450 $3,686,856 $ 99,934 386,575 $486,509 $1,631,840 7.065,275 $8,697,115 Life Insurance: New policies In-force policies Subtotal $102,813 460,600 $563.413 $ 283,763 1,110,375 $1,394,138 $ 666,225 2.599,100 $3.265,325 $1,052,801 4,170,075 $5,222.876 Rounding Total support costs 3 $5,087,166 $5,080,997 $3,751,837 $13,920,000 Exhibit 3 GIBSON INSURANCE COMPANY Data Summary for New Allocation Bases Annuities Life Insurance Support Costs New Basis New In-Force New In-Force Policy acquisition Steps Calls 5 Customer service Sales and marketing Corporate overhead 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 Contacts 10 20 AUM $50,0 $50,000 $1,500 $65,000 00 outcome. After some thought and effort, she was able to collapse nearly 50 different corporate cost accounts into these 4 categories. Aggregated Corporate Support Costs for this Year $ 4,375,000 2,426,000 4,552,000 2,567,000 $ 13,920,000 Policy acquisition Customer service Sales and marketing Other corporate support Total Hampton knew that some of those aggregated costs were incurred to support new policies that had been issued during this year, while others supported in-force policies issued in previous years. As she dug further into the effort to issue and service policies, it was clear to her that there were distinct tasks repeated in, and different among, the various products. Those tasks, for example, included items such as underwriting reviews, health screenings/evaluations, billings, collections, records creation/maintenance, and responding to customer queries. It seemed like the sale of a policy spawned a flurry of corporate activity. She wondered if Gibson's processes were as streamlined and efficient as they could be, but she filed that thought away for a later date-the new cost allocation approach was her current imperative. It seemed to Hampton that there were a host of potential allocation bases that could be adopted in lieu of the currently used basis of the number of policies. She decided that there was merit in keeping the new approach simple (as best reflected in an underlying root cause for the cost), and acceptable to the departmental managers and product line managers who would be evaluated, in part, on their financial performance that involved the resulting allocations. Finally, Hampton decided to make her first attempt at using the new allocation bases as noted below. For each of the four new allocation bases, she presented herself with a test, which was to summarize her rationale for the allocation base in a brief, coherent, logical fashion. If she could not do that, then she must interpret that as a signal that she needed to investigate the proposed basis in more detail to settle on an intuitively defensible basis for that one. 1) Policy acquisition costs: New allocation basis: Number of steps involved in moving new policy applications to an in-force status. Rationale for new basis: The administrative staff at Gibson's headquarters processed new policy applications for all three legal entities and for both life insurance and annuity products. From an administrative staff resources perspective, annuities required two major steps to issue a policy: a review of the application data and the electronic imaging of the application. Life insurance policies required the same two steps as annuities, but they also required additional steps for the following administrative tasks pertaining to the underwriting work involved: generate files for reinsurance, review medical information Questions 1) Calculate the unit support cost per policy for new and in-force annuity and life insurance policies using the new allocation bases. In addition, calculate the total support costs to be reported by product for each legal business unit entity. 2) Why would Hampton want to track that information by product even if that level of detail was not required by regulators? 3) Will the new support cost allocation information help Gibson Insurance establish better pricing guidelines for the various annuities and life insurance products sold by each legal business unit entity? Why or why not? 4) Is there room for improvement in the means by which the corporate support costs are allocated under Hampton's new approach? If yes, in what way(s)? If no, why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 2 Better and appropriate allocation approach can help management obtain more accurate insight on p... View the full answer