The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-06-09

some with much paid-up business ard others
with comparatively little; some with much busi-
ness on high-premium plans, others with much
on the low-premium plans, does not afford the
slightest indication as to the value of any kind
OF business because it does not give even hint
as to the actual mortality per cent. in any COM
pany We can judge the quality OF any
kind OF business only by comparing
the actual losses under all kinds, first,
with the table of expected losses, and then with
each other Let Mr.. Hyde tell us what per cent.
of the mortality table the death losses in the
Tontinc class are. and what they are IN the non
Tontine risks, and we shall begin to know
something about 1t. But his present figures
grossly msrepfesent the whole matter If his
comparison were true demonstration" then
the average mortality of Tontine insurers is a
good deal less than one half that expected by the
American table. Is that the case, Mr.. Hydcl
Give us facts which mean something, not figures
which have no relation to the matter. Tontine
policy holders would probably live as long in
sured under non Tont:ne policies.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MORTALITY LOSSES IN
THE EQUITABLE.
The natural inference from Dir. Hyde'S state
ment that chief reason of large Tontine profits
lis the smaller death rate experienced among
the holders of these policies than among those
insured on the ordinary plan. is that his policy
holders on the ordinary plan have to bear their
own greater mortality by themselves, and the
Tontine men get the whole benefit Of their
smaller mortality; and that the mortality of the
company as whole is not made to bear on all
IN equal proportion, according to age, by which
the premiums are graded. Is that the easel
ToNTINE RESULTS.
Mr.. Hyde's fourth point is the results of a
fifteen-year Tontine in the Equitable compared
with policy in the Connecticut Mutual
Here, again, Mr. Hydes figures do not repre-
sent like conditions, nor make allowance for the
differences. In the Connecticut Mutual policy
Mr. ---- had given notes for part of his pre-
miums, on which he paid interest, which Mr..
Hyde includes in his statement of premiums
paid. If he wishes to include part of the in
terest we have received with the premium, let
us include it all in both cases. let us reduce both
policies to like conditions: take the full payments
to the Connecticut Mutual, and, compromising
them at per cent, they would have amounted
to s., 923 Is; compromising his payments to the
Equitable, at the same rate, they would amount
to a. 005. So. During all the time we stood ready
to give his family the paid-up insurance that
what we had in hand would buy. if he lapsed.
Had he lapsed in the Equitable, all would have
gone, his family would have got nothing. He
would have paid to the Equitable 81, 08243 more
the cash value 50, 765. 49, which the Equitable
now offers him, and it leaves $1,GS2.92 as the
sum with which the Connecticut Mutuals set
Element ought to be compared The reserve in
that company on this policy at that time was
81, 32l %: the surplus for that year was $48 35;
total 81 ,3G9.57 or $685. less than the Equit
ables Tontine settlement, equivalent
basis. That 1913. 80 came out of the lapses and
forfeitures of other peoples insurance,
and good deal more than that had to be
got out of other peoples insurance for this
man; for the Equitable has not earned per
cent. interest for the last fifteen years. and its
expenses have been good deal above those of
the Connecticut Mutual But. whatever ad
vantage it can show in its Tontine settlements
comes out of other peoples losses. That is the
point And, in order to get this 1913 80, or
more, this man has been, for fifteen years, risk
ing every dollar he has paid. The Connecticut
Mutual's settlements represent simply the full,
proper results from each mans own payments,
not what other men have been made to lose for
his benefit