This paper reviews the market structure of the U.K. with-profits life insurance market and the potential effect on how life insurers operate. We consider the competitiveness of the market, quantifying the increase in the degree of concentration since 2000, and establishing that inherited estates may offer some protection from competition for incumbent firms. However, there is a significant degree of mobility in market positions of leading firms. Analysis of costs indicates some large differences between firms, with larger firms experiencing lower cost ratios, indicative of economies of scale. There are some marked differences in insurers' prices, the data showing that charges tend to be lower on unit-linked than on with-profits policies. The paper suggests that while there are potential concerns about how the market operates for consumers, the impact is limited by the dramatic reduction in new with-profits business.

This presidential address looks at the current state of affairs, the opportunities and threats to our traditional areas of interest and the importance of developing in wider fields. It pays tribute to all the volunteers who help make it the organisation that it is whilst highlighting the need for all Fellows and students to be engaged with its future.

This paper reviews the developments in reporting of traditional embedded value and summarises some of the reasons why this is now undergoing change. It considers the purpose of an embedded value calculation and the effect of differing attitudes to risk. It comments on the recently developed European Embedded Value Principles and sets out the main areas where scope remains to apply judgement.

The paper proposes the market-consistent embedded value framework as a way forward to help provide guidance in some of these areas, in particular on the choice of discount rate and on calibration of stochastic techniques used to value embedded options and guarantees. The paper recognises that market-consistent embedded values are in relative infancy and sets out areas for possible future development.

This Presidential Address is a call for a debate about change, to meet the demands of the 21st century. Change in how actuaries are educated to encourage wider thinking and more flexible careers. Change in how the profession is governed, to introduce more external input, to encourage more challenge of accepted practices and standards and to encourage a greater readiness to embrace change itself. To boost our public image and our influence on public policy. Change in the United Kingdom's social security and pensions systems, the better to achieve a secure retirement for tomorrow's pensioners. Change in how insurers are regulated, ensuring that consumer protection is not diminished in the process. The importance of research is emphasised, as are our relationships with other professions. These are areas where the Faculty is particularly well placed to play its part in taking the U.K. profession forward.

Presidential Addresses are an opportunity to survey the actuarial landscape, and this one is no exception. The pace of change and scope of work undertaken by actuaries since the President qualified is commented upon. Many of the current and future issues are also aired, from bonus rates and pensions mis-selling to stakeholder pensions and long-term care. Regulation, in a number of areas, is also reviewed. The regular topics of education, examinations and continuous professional development also feature.

Concern that advances in predictive genetic testing might result in increased numbers of individuals being denied access to life assurance has led many countries to restrict insurers’ historic ‘right to underwrite’. Critics of the insurance industry present genetic discrimination as a threat to the social values of equality and inclusion. However, by unpacking the foundational principles of private insurance, and adopting a more critical approach to genetic information, discrimination, fairness and inclusion, this article suggests that the normative values underpinning life assurance in Britain are unlikely to engender widespread exclusion in an age of increased genetic knowledge, but over-regulation of industry might itself create unacceptable inequity within the market. This suggests that we ought to link the legitimacy of regulatory constraint to the type of social good particular forms of insurance exemplify, and instead of focusing narrowly on genetic information consider the broader implications of risk assessment for the privatization of welfare.