Initial Page>Help>FAQ


Evaluate this page:
 [54 evaluations]
Thank you for your evaluation.

Why do the technical provision variation expenses of Bradesco Previdência, present a disproportional growth vis-à-vis premium revenues comparing 1Q07 to 2Q07?

In our management report (page 31) we mention the necessity of benefits and redemptions deducted production to compare with technical provision variation, in accordance to the accounting principles of SUSEP. Hence the disproportion becomes lower. The technical provision variation also involves constitutions and reversals of provision to adequate the actuarial risk volatility represented by longevity growth, e.g.: the adoption of the AT2000 table of mortality replacing the AT83, or, the AT2000 with improvement (technique utilized to update the mortality table considering the future overlive expected raise of participants and by the difference between the mortality table 2000 and the current days). These constitutions and reversions do not keep direct relation with premiums revenues / insurance contributions.

Why have you improved provision on PGBL / VGBL considering that there is no actuaries risk? Future effects?

The VGBL / PGBL contract defines to the beneficiary all the technical base to be inputted on either the retirement amount or the insurance, including the inflation index adjustment, real interest rate and mortality table (implying in additional improvements due to the 7 years dephasement on the AT 2000).
The effects of future periods tend not to be significant, since, the provision is complete contending only in monthly constitutions by production growth and variable adjustments, such as, the persistence (Participants index permanence up to the retirement) vis-à-vis the variation of participants' quantity in plans.


This page has not been commented.