If complexity favors the issuer, then a more complex annuity would be better for the insurance company.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Consider the statement: If complexity favors the issuer, then a more complex annuity would be better for the insurance company.

One way to parse this is as a conditional: A implies B, where A = "complexity favors the issuer" and B = "a more complex annuity would be better for the insurance company." If we accept the premise A as true, then B follows by logical implication, because the premise asserts that increased complexity is advantageous to the issuer, so adopting a more complex product should align with the issuer’s interests.

However, it’s useful to tease apart the underlying ideas to avoid a simplistic leap. First, even if complexity can be advantageous to the issuer in some contexts (e.g., allowing for embedded fees, favorable hedging, or reduced pricing transparency that benefits the issuer), the degree to which a more complex annuity is actually “better” for the issuer depends on a host of factors: regulatory constraints, capital requirements, risk management capabilities, distribution dynamics, and market reception. So while the statement is logically consistent under the given premise, real-world efficacy depends on how the complexity translates into measurable advantages for the issuer.

Option analysis:
- Evaluating the form: The statement is a conditional claim. If the condition (complexity favors the issuer) holds, then the consequence (more complex annuity is better for the issuer) should hold as well. In that sense, the assertion is internally coherent under its premise.
- Potential caveats: It is possible for complexity to fail to yield a net benefit if costs, regulatory hurdles, or consumer pushback erode any advantages. Even if complexity can offer pricing power or hedging flexibility, other factors could offset those gains, making the “better” outcome less clear-cut in practice.

In summary, given the stated premise, the conclusion that a more complex annuity would be better for the issuer follows logically, but the real-world robustness of that conclusion hinges on how complexity interacts with costs, regulation, and market behavior. This nuance helps explain why some learners might hesitate to accept blanket claims about complexity without considering the broader context.

SP2023.B62.FIN.550B.01 Week Five - Quiz Two

If complexity favors the issuer, then a more complex annuity would be better for the insurance company.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which type of annuity has payments that occur at the beginning of the period?

Which of the following best describes the difference between an annuity due and an ordinary annuity?

Which of the following statements is correct?

(4 marks, difficulty level: Easy) Suppose that you invest $28,000 in an account paying 8% interest. You plan to withdraw $2300 at the end of each year for 20 years. How much money will be left in the account after 20 years?

An annuity investment is formed when $500,000 is invested at a rate of interest of 3.1% per annum, compounded monthly.An additional payment of $1500 is made into the account each month. The value of the annuity after 5 years is closest to:

An ordinary annuity is best defined as:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler