H.—l.

The following table shows how far the experience of lodges valued in the two years 1907 and 1908 agreed with that expected by the valuation tables :—

Sickness and Mortality Experience for the Five Years preceding Valuation (Societies valued in 1907 and 1908, exclusive of Auckland A.O.F. and Nelson A.O.F.).

Upon an examination of the above table it is seen that the actual sickness was somewhat in excess of the tables at ages under forty, and this applies to each of the three subdivisions of sickness. From forty to sixty the reverse was the case. At ages over sixty the experience was very close to the tables on the whole, the acute sickness being a little lower and the protracted a little higher than the tables. The actual cost of sickness (all ages) was £101,404, as against £103,532 expected by the tables, ' the difference being about 2 per cent. The mortality was, on the whole, lower than the tables at ages under sixty and higher at ages over sixty. Remarks on the Valuations. In making the valuations I have been struck by the number of instances in which financial soundness, or, at any rate, a nearer approach thereto, could be assured to individual lodges by a very simple means — namely, by properly investing their funds. Large numbers of lodges attend to this point so well that nothing but praise can be accorded to them ; but there are others whose funds are left idle. The attainment of a good interest return is not a mere luxury ; it is a necessity, and the more so when contributions are ordinarily inadequate. It behoves district bodies to use all their influence to educate the more backward lodges up to this fact. As a practical instance of the importance of the matter, I may mention that I recently had occasion to contrast the management of two lodges whose funds some twenty years ago were nearly identical, and whose balance of income over expenditure since then (apart from interest) has also been fairly equal. These lodges should now have Sick Funds of similar magnitude, but instead of this we find that one has £2,443 (including a surplus appropriated out of the fund) and the other £488 only. In the twenty years one lodge, by loans on mortgage, earned over £1,500 in interest, whilst the net result of the investments of the other was a direct loss of some £300 through a bad investment in a hall. It may seem incredible that a small fund should increase to the extent of over £1,500 in twenty years by the operation of interest, but it is a fact, and it shows clearly what a great loss is sustained in cases where the funds are left uninvested through neglect. The constitution of the District Funeral Funds is so often found to be on an inequitable basis that a few remarks in this connection should not be out of place. These funds exist ostensibly for the purpose of spreading the death risk over a group of lodges, but the methods of contribution are usually such that they could be more correctly described as schemes to provide for the payment by young lodges of the extra risks of old lodges. It is safe to say that in the majority of cases the rules are designed so that the Funeral Funds cannot possibly have anything but a bad effect financially. These Funeral Funds are a curious growth on the friendly society system. They exist for no actuarial reason —the reverse, in fact—and their real value lies in the manner in which they facilitate the government of lodges in groups. - When properly constituted they do a great deal of good from the governmental point of view. When badly constituted, in addition to working much harm financially, they render difficult or even impossible the task of correctly stating the financial position of lodges. Some of the signs by which very bad Funeral Funds may be known are as follows : (1.) Little or no fund is accumulated, the levies on the lodges being only struck as required. (2.) The maximum amount of the fund is fixed at £1,000, or some other figure, without regard to the liabilities. (3.) The levies on lodges are made according to the number of members, without regard to age. Any of these

8

Age. Years of Life at Rielf Sickness First Six Months. Sickness Second Six Months. Sickness after Twelve Months. Total Sickness. Years of Life at Risk Mortalit> Actual. Expected -3 o> Sickness. Actual. Expected Actual. Expected Actual. Expecte' Under 20.. 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 2,552 12,577 15,499 13,245 9,619 Weeks. 2,081 10,445 11,321 9,943 6,984 Weeks. 1,796 8,811 10,094 8,870 7,028 Weeks. 59 744 1,079 900 808 Weeks. 94 627 773 664 568 Weeks. 17 7(14 1,768 2,494 2,145 Weeks. 160 878 1,084 1,592 1,350 Weeks. 2,157 11,953 14,168 13,337 9,937 Weeks. Weeks. 2,157 2,050 2,835 11,953 10,316 14,274 14,168 11,951 17,661 13,337 11,126 15,411 9,937 8,946 11,317 14 54 76 69 43 11-95 61-52 79-65 73-99 55-58 Total under 40 .. 53,492 40,774 36,599 3,590 2,726 7,188 5,064 51,552 51,552 44,389 61,498 256 282-69 45-50 50-55 55-60 7,198 5,966 4,427 3,295 5,769 5,587 4,544 4,489 6,272 6,674 5,756 5,172 679 ! 808 669 i 1,026 719 846 1,196 1,124 1,775 2,223 2,723 5,466 2,152 3,459 4,249 5,830 8,223 8,018 7,936 10,981 8,223 9,143 8,506 8,(118 10,979 7,047 7,936 11,201 5,201 10,981 12,126 4,10!) 56 (il 52 70 46-99 62-79 70-71 75-30 Total 40-60 20,886 20,389 23,874 3,182 3,885 12,187 15,690 35,758 35,758 43,449 24,863 239 255-79 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85 and upwards .. Total over 60 .. 2,835 1,729 790 270 91 11 4,829 3,412 1,876 690 213 26 5,482 4,081 2,891 1,016 283 16 1,367 1,329 890 360 127 26 1,402 1,040 1,059 437 134 7 10,987 11,712 8,451 4,693 2,361 289 8,729 12,035 7,721 4,203 2,203 411 17,183 16,453 11,217 5,743 2,701 341 17,183 15,613 3,446 16,453 17,156 1,964 11,217 11,671 863 5,743 5,656 286 2,701 2,620 97 341 434 13 98 79 58 29 13 5 85-94 77-87 54-58 28-33 1412 2-68 5,726 11,046 13,769 4,099 4,079 38,493 35,302 53,638 53,638 53,150 6,669 282 263-52 Grand total 80,104 72,209 74,242 10,871 10,690 57,868 56,056 140,948 40,948 140,988 93,030 777 80200