GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PROFITS.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 15, 18 July 1881, Page 3

GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PROFITS.

* TO THK EDITOR OP THK EVENING POST. Sib — At first sight the intelligence telegraphed by the London firm of actuaries as to tho amonnt of profits may appear gratifying, but to thoße who have devoted their attention to life insurance the result of the investigation is far from patisfao.tory, bearing in view that the transactions, in respect of which the profits have accrued, havo extended over a period of ten yeara, and that for the most of that time a great part of the expenditure was paid out of tho consolidated fond of the colony. As one who has taken an interest in the department from its origin, I (am greatly disappointed with the firat ten years' experience. At the time when the scheme was introduced, I confidently expected that, with efficient management, it would have proved a success unparalleled in the annals of life assurance, so that there would not have been sufficient business left to induce other offices to establish branches in : the colony. I consider that the policy- j holders and tho public are entitled to some explanation of the delay in issuing tho report of tho local Government actuary. Three months is considered a fair time for tho valnation of tho pffairs of a young life office. Mr. Godfrey Knight, assisted by a vaßt army of olorks, has been engaged since June of last year — thirteen months — and hioreport is still a thing of the future. Notwithstanding this, when the firßt telegram Btating the divisible Burplns as £50,000 arrived, Mr, Knight announced that this talliod almost exactly with his valuation. Now that a second message has come, increasing the sum to £60,000, we must conclude that onr actuary's valuation is out to the tone of 20 por cent., and if this be so, what confidence are we to have when another investigation has to be made five years hence ? Until then there can be no actnar ial work in the department, so that there is no reason why we policy-holders should pay £500 a year to support an unnecessary office. I am, &c, T. Johnston. Newtown, 16th July.