Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:25:42.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dividing Friendly Societies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. M. Moore
Affiliation:
Pearl Assurance Company, Ltd.

Extract

Section 28 of the Friendly Societies Act 1896 provides for the assets and liabilities of every registered friendly society to be valued at least once in every five years but gives the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies the power to grant exemption from valuation in suitable cases. Until 1933 this power to grant exemption from valuation was normally exercised in the case of a dividing friendly society or of the dividing section of a society with more than one section. The Chief Registrar, in his Report for the year 1933, indicated his intention of giving individual consideration, as each certificate of exemption expired, to the alternative of requiring the society to be valued. Since then many dividing societies have been refused exemption from valuation and what was formerly little more than a theoretical problem, namely, whether or not the liabilities of a dividing friendly society are susceptible to actuarial valuation, has become a practical problem to which has been added the difficulty of giving suitable advice and of explaining a technical subject in a manner which will assist the members to understand the true financial condition of the society.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 247 note * No attempt has been made in this paper to deal with the problem of apportioning reserves in these unusual cases. The existence of substantial but inadequate reserves presents special problems not only of valuation method, but also of fairness as between members at different ages and different durations of membership in any scheme of reconstruction. Each case seems to require individual consideration on its merits.