Product Specification

Status: Draft, 2026-08-29; citations re-verified against the primary documents 2026-08-30.

Scope note. This is a standardized composite specification assembled for reference liability cash-flow modeling of a German fondsgebundene Rentenversicherung (FRV) — the unit-linked deferred private annuity in which the accumulating capital is a holding of Anteileinheiten (units) in Investmentfonds chosen by the policyholder, so that the insurer guarantees the number of units and not their value, and whose single hard financial guarantee is the Rentenfaktor applied at Rentenbeginn to whatever the fund is then worth. It does not describe any single insurer’s product. [S#] tags are primary product documents (Allgemeine Versicherungsbedingungen, Produktinformationsblatt, Basisinformationsblatt, Verbraucherinformation) and [R#] product-specific regulatory and actuarial references, both numbered per _research/fondsgebundene_rentenversicherung.md and resolved in sources.md (same directory; numbering frozen, never renumbered); [REG-R#] tags the cross-product reference library references/regulatory-and-actuarial-references.md, whose R-numbering is distinct. std marks a standardization introduced for the reference implementation, each with a rationale and, where the research recorded one, the argued range across the German market; unverified marks a claim no retrieved document or search result confirmed.

Read this before relying on a citation, because the conditions changed after it was written. delib was drafted under an organisation network policy that blocked all HTTP egress from the build environment, and on this product the shared WebSearch budget was exhausted before its research began, so the first draft rested on the authoring model’s own knowledge of German insurance law and practice, disciplined by the std and unverified tags; the few facts corroborated at one remove came from searches run for sibling delib products and are attributed to them. That policy has since been lifted and the citations re-verified against the primary documents on 2026-08-30. For this product, eighteen of the forty-four entries in sources.md now say Retrieved: yes — 41 % — two more say partly, and twenty-four still say no; across delib as a whole 501 of 805 entries (62 %) are retrieved, and this product sits below that because of its carrier sweep, not its statutory core. What came in carries most of what changed here: one complete German unit-linked Bedingungswerk read end to end, DEVK’s 195-page Kundeninformation with its Tarifbestimmungen, its Rechnungsgrundlagen and sixteen Basisinformationsblätter [S2] [S15]; the statutory core as canonical XML from gesetze-im-internet.de with each instrument’s amendment status (Stand) recorded — the VVG, the DeckRV, the MindZV, the VAG and the EStG R1 R12 R14 R15 R20, the VVG-InfoV in HTML beside them R7; and BaFin’s Merkblatt and cost survey R10 R11 with the DAV’s PRIIPs Ergebnisbericht R18. What did not come in is the rest of the carrier sweep: for ten named carriers no address for a Bedingungswerk was ever established, the one HDI address tried is a soft 404, the DAV tables are not public, and the PRIIPs Regulation, the LVRG, the rating studies, the GDV statistics and the BGH line were never opened. Where an entry says Retrieved: yes, treat the claim it carries as sound; where it does not, the citation is still a pointer, not a certificate — it names the instrument a claim should be checked against, not one anybody checked. Re-verification was not a formality: it contradicted the death table this document names, reversed the PRIIPs category, and put a real guaranteed Rentenfaktor below the one modelled, each correction marked where it stands. The mechanics below are common ground in German practice, several of them now read in a real wording, and are written without hedging; the levels are almost entirely std still, because outside the one carrier that could be read not one Abschlusskostenquote, not one Verwaltungskostensatz, not one Stückkosten amount, not one Effektivkostenquote and not one Rentenfaktor was established at any carrier.

Out of scope: hybrid and guarantee designs (statische and dynamische Hybride, Zwei- und Drei-Topf-Hybride, i-CPPI, Wertsicherungsfonds), discussed but deliberately not specified (see Riders and options); indexgebundene Rentenversicherung (delib indexpolice); the fondsgebundene Basisrente and Riester-Rente (delib basisrente, riester_rente); the payout phase (delib sofortrente); and bAV in all its forms.

---

Product overview and market role

A fondsgebundene Rentenversicherung is a deferred private annuity whose accumulating value is a holding of units in investment funds chosen by the policyholder. The insurer administers the contract, bears the biometric risk and gives one financial guarantee — the Rentenfaktor — but does not guarantee the value of the fund holding at any point before Rentenbeginn [S1]. The defining sentence, which every German wording expresses in some form, is that the insurer guarantees the number of Anteileinheiten, not their value, and everything else follows from it: no Rechnungszins in the accumulation phase, no Deckungskapital in the general-account sense, no Zinsüberschuss, no Bewertungsreserven worth speaking of, and no investment mismatch between the insurer’s assets and its unit liability, because the VAG requires a separate Anlagestock — a ring-fenced section of the Sicherungsvermögen — for each Anlageart backing unit-linked benefits R15 REG-R7.

Four consequences distinguish the German chassis from its French, British and American siblings, and each changes the shape of the projected cash flows:

1. The charge stack is the product. A contract with no Rechnungszins has nowhere to hide its charges, and PRIIPs and the VVG-Informationspflichtenverordnung force them onto one page: the einkalkulierte Abschlusskosten must be disclosed in euro and as a single total amount, the other costs separately as a share of the annual premium, and the Effektivkosten — the statute’s own term, defined in § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 9 VVG-InfoV as “die Minderung der Wertentwicklung durch Kosten in Prozentpunkten … bis zum Beginn der Auszahlungsphase” and computed under Abs. 6 “wie der Gesamtkostenindikator nach Anhang VI der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2017/653” — must be given before conclusion R7 REG-R31. That last cross-reference is what makes the fund’s own costs part of the disclosed figure, and BaFin says so in terms: “Die Fondsmanagementgebühren … gehören zwar zu den Effektivkosten”, though not to the einkalkulierte Abschlusskosten R11. The requirement is understood to date from 1 January 2015 with the LVRG [unverified] — the date is not in the regulation’s text. The first-order economics are fund return minus charges.

2. The acquisition charge has a statutory cap, and a shape the market takes from the statute rather than one the statute imposes here. § 4 Abs. 1 Satz 2 DeckRV caps the acquisition cost financed against future premiums: “Der Zillmersatz darf 25 Promille der Summe aller Prämien nicht überschreiten” — 2,5 % of what this document calls the Beitragssumme, cut from 40 ‰ by the LVRG 2014 [unverified] R12 R13 REG-R16 REG-R20. The even spreading over the first five contract years is § 169 Abs. 3 VVG, and Abs. 3 governs the Deckungskapital branch; it reaches a pure unit-linked contract only through Abs. 4’s closing words “im Übrigen gilt Absatz 3”, that is, to the extent a benefit is guaranteed R1 REG-R28. German tariffs nonetheless implement the five-year shape, and one does so in terms [S2]. What that same wording shows is that the shape is not a cliff. DEVK splits its acquisition cost in two: “einen Teil … in gleichmäßigen Beträgen über einen Zeitraum von fünf Jahren” and “[d]en anderen Teil … als Prozentsatz während der gesamten Beitragszahlungsdauer”. This document’s composite carries one five-year instalment and calls the whole-term percentage beitragsbezogene Verwaltungskosten; the arithmetic of the premium deduction is the same, the label is not, and a reader comparing a delib run with a real Kostenverrechnung clause should expect the split to be drawn in a different place.

3. The surrender value is the fund, and nothing else. § 169 Abs. 4 VVG sends fondsgebundene Versicherungen to a Zeitwert rather than a Deckungskapital R1 REG-R28, and for a pure unit-linked contract the Zeitwert is the Fondsguthaben: no discounting, no mortality basis, no Rechnungszins, no Zillmerung residue, no second-basis Mindestrückkaufswert. A real wording states it as flatly as the statute does — “Der Rückkaufswert ist das zum Kündigungstermin vorhandene Fondsguthaben” [S2].

4. The only guarantee is about the conversion terms, not about the pension. On a classic contract both the capital and the annuity factor are guaranteed, so the annuity is guaranteed. Here only the factor is — the capital it multiplies is the market’s. Any product document implying otherwise is wrong, and this is the sentence a specification has to carry R22.

Market role. This is the dominant German new-business savings form, and the supervisor says so: BaFin’s Risiken im Fokus 2026 describes “die im Neugeschäft dominierenden fondsgebundenen Produkte” and sizes the family at about 59 million kapitalbildende contracts in force in 2024, of which 2,4 million were written that year R11. The [unverified] tag that stood on that claim is withdrawn. No GDV split by Versicherungsart was obtained, so no market-share percentage appears anywhere in this document R25 REG-R53.

The Höchstrechnungszins is a large part of the reason. § 2 Abs. 1 DeckRV is written for “Versicherungsverträgen mit Zinsgarantie” and sets the rate at 1 Prozent R12 REG-R14 REG-R15 — it was 0,25 % through the low-interest decade and is understood to have been raised with effect from 1 January 2025 [unverified], the commencement date being in the amending Verordnung and not in the DeckRV text. Because the section is confined to guaranteed-interest contracts, it has no purchase at all on the accumulation phase of a pure fondsgebundene contract, there being no Zinsgarantie to cap. It reaches this product only through the Rentenfaktor and through hybrid designs whose guaranteed pot sits in the general account — and even there an insurer may use less than the maximum: DEVK calculates its guaranteed Rentenfaktoren at 0,0 % and its other guaranteed obligations at 0,25 % [S2]. That asymmetry is what let unit-linked new business grow while classic new business collapsed, and it is corroborated at the level of market structure by Debeka, Germany’s largest life mutual by policy count, discontinuing its classic annuity tariff [S14].

The supervisor is watching the charge level, and there are now numbers. BaFin’s Merkblatt 01/2023 (VA) of 8 May 2023 requires kapitalbildende Lebensversicherungsprodukte to offer an angemessener Kundennutzen; requires the manufacturer to formulate a Renditeziel and to show with “geeigneten stochastischen Analysen” that it is met “mit hinreichender Wahrscheinlichkeit”, targeting for a retirement product a return above a justified inflation expectation — “realer Anlageerfolg”; and warns that a large Stückkosten charge expressed as an absolute euro amount makes the Effektivkosten vary sharply with premium size R10 REG-R35. The finding that Effektivkosten differ considerably between providers and products belongs not to the Merkblatt but to the supervisor’s cost surveys R11, and those surveys supply what this document previously said did not exist:

• for an entry age of 37 and a 30-year term — this document’s own anchor cell — the most-sold fondsgebundene products showed Effektivkosten of 1,90 % weighted mean, with quartiles at 1,30 % / 1,64 % / 2,35 % (2022 survey, first-half-2021 new business);

• Effektivkosten rise as the term shortens, and lie “signifikant über den Werten der klassischen Lebensversicherung”;

• at every age-and-term combination there were insurers above 4 %;

• a repeat survey in 2025 found them falling since 2021, by more than 0,4 percentage points in the upper quartile at the long, high-volume terms.

The charge stack below is therefore a supervised parameter presented as a design decision — but it is no longer a design decision without a benchmark, and where it is compared with one the comparison is made explicitly rather than avoided.

---

Representative specification

The representative design is a pure fondsgebundene Rentenversicherung with no Beitragsgarantie: single life, Schicht 3 (unsubsidised private provision), monthly Beitrag, one fund, an Aufschubzeit ending at a contractually fixed Rentenbeginn, a Beitragsrückgewähr death benefit, a guaranteed Rentenfaktor applied as the higher of the guaranteed and the current factor, a Rückkaufswert equal to the Fondsguthaben with no Stornoabzug, and Fondswechsel, Zuzahlung, Teilentnahme, Ablaufmanagement and Beitragsfreistellung as switchable options.

Why that design and not another, in four arguments — arguments rather than observations, because no carrier-level observation was available:

1. No guarantee, because the guarantee technologies of the German market cannot be demonstrated honestly in a deterministic projection (see Riders and options), and because the guarantee-free form is a real and growing market form rather than a simplification of the only form sold [S7] [S8] [S9].

2. Beitragsrückgewähr death benefit, because it is the only death-benefit shape with corroboration anywhere in the delib corpus [S2] and the shape that makes the Risikobeitrag mechanic non-trivial without making it dominant: the net amount at risk is positive early and vanishes later, so the model must recompute it every month rather than once.

3. Acquisition charge at the statutory cap, spread over five years, because the cap R12 REG-R16 and the spreading R1 REG-R28 are the two acquisition-cost facts with any corroboration, and a reference implementation should demonstrate the binding constraint rather than an unsourced interior point.

4. A derived rather than a quoted Rentenfaktor, because no market level exists anywhere in this corpus and a quoted one would be an invention; the derivation below, from a 0 % Rechnungszins [S10] and a generational annuitant table R16 REG-R49, is checkable arithmetic labelled std at every appearance.

Product identity and issue rules

Parameter	Representative value	Basis
Design type	Fondsgebundene Rentenversicherung, deferred, single life, Schicht 3; no Beitragsgarantie; unit-linked accumulation converted at Rentenbeginn	[S1] [S2] [S3]; design std (1)
Versicherungssparte	Fondsgebundene Lebensversicherung, Nr. 21 of Anlage 1 VAG, a Sparte in its own right, with a segregated Anlagestock — a division of the Sicherungsvermögen under § 125 Abs. 5 VAG	R15 REG-R5 REG-R7
Legal wrapper	Individual contract on the applicant’s own life; the Versicherungsnehmer and the versicherte Person coincide	[S1]
Premium form (model-point parameter)	(i) laufend — level recurring Beitrag, the dominant form; (ii) einmal — Einmalbeitrag	(i) [S1] [S2]; (ii) std (2)
Payment frequency	Monthly, quarterly, half-yearly or annual; monthly by SEPA-Lastschrift is the dominant mode	[S1]; dominance [unverified]
Entry ages	18 to 60	envelope std (3)
Rentenbeginn age	67; the contract may fix any age from 62 to 85	62 to 85 confirmed at one carrier [S2]; tax floor 62 R20 REG-R45; choice std (4)
Minimum Aufschubzeit	12 years, so the contract can reach the § 20 EStG twelve-year threshold	R20 REG-R45; level std (4) — a real tariff’s own minimum is 10 years [S2]
Minimum premium	25,00 EUR per month, or 5,000.00 EUR as an Einmalbeitrag	monthly minimum confirmed at 25 € [S2]; single-premium minimum std and higher than the 1 500 € observed there (3)
Age basis	Age last birthday at inception, stepping at each policy anniversary	std (5)
Fund range	One fund in the reference implementation	one fund std (6). The “50–300 funds” range this document previously asserted is [unverified] and is not what the one readable tariff offers: nine funds from a single house, at least 10 % each, at most five per contract [S2]. Large carriers do offer wide menus including ETFs [S3]
Anteilspreis and Bewertungsstichtag	Units bought and cancelled at the fund’s Rücknahmepreis (redemption price), the Ausgabeaufschlag waived in full, at the month boundary — on a monthly grid the dealing-lag convention disappears	both limbs confirmed [S2]: units bought at “der zum Stichtag … des Monats der Beitragsfälligkeit festgestellte Rücknahmepreis”, and “Ausgabeaufschläge und Depotkosten fallen nicht an”. Grid std (7)
Anchor model cell	Entry age 37, Rentenbeginn 67, monthly Beitrag 200,00 €, premium term 30 years, Beitragsrückgewähr, no options	std (8)

Footnotes to std rows:

1. One German fondsgebundene Bedingungswerk has now been read in full, with its Basisinformationsblätter — DEVK’s Kundeninformation 03101/07/2024 for tariff L/N FR1, “DEVK-Fondsrente vario” [S2] [S15]. Its identity row reads “Fondsgebundene Rentenversicherung mit aufgeschobener Rentenzahlung, Beitragsrückgewähr im Todesfall und Kapitaloption”, which is this composite’s design almost word for word. The identity row below still states the product class, not that carrier’s tariff: nothing here is DEVK’s, and where a DEVK level is quoted it is labelled as an observation at one carrier rather than adopted. That a market-standard clause inventory exists — the GDV publishes Musterbedingungen from which member insurers derive their AVB — remains the reason wordings are structurally interchangeable and remains [unverified], since only one wording was read [S1] R23 REG-R37.

2. The Einmalbeitrag form isolates the acquisition-charge mechanic: with no future premiums there is nothing to zillmer against, the five-year spread has no work to do, and the whole charge falls at inception, at the Zuzahlungskosten rate std.

3. One envelope is now established, at one carrier. DEVK’s Tarifbestimmungen give a minimum premium of 25 € monthly, 300 € annual, 1 500 € single and a Mindestrente of 50 € a month below which the contract pays a Kapitalabfindung instead [S2]. The composite’s 25 € monthly minimum matches; its 5 000 € single-premium minimum is std and more than three times the observed one. No entry-age envelope was established anywhere — entry ages of roughly 15/18 to the low 60s remain [unverified], and the composite’s 18–60 takes the wide end, with a model point at entry age 60 and a two-year deferment exercising the boundary.

4. Rentenbeginn at 67 matches the Regelaltersgrenze, and the 62-to-85 window is confirmed: DEVK’s tariff gives “Rentenbeginn frühester 62 Jahre, spätester 85 Jahre” [S2]. 62 is a tax floor rather than a product floor: EStG § 20 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 Satz 2 as enacted names the 60th year of life, and § 52 Abs. 28 raises it — “Absatz 1 Nummer 6 Satz 2 ist für Vertragsabschlüsse nach dem 31. Dezember 2011 mit der Maßgabe anzuwenden, dass die Versicherungsleistung nach Vollendung des 62. Lebensjahres des Steuerpflichtigen ausgezahlt wird” — together with a term of at least twelve years R20 REG-R45. A model point whose configuration could not satisfy that test would not be representative of a real sold contract, which is why the minimum deferment is set at twelve years; a real tariff’s own minimum is ten [S2], so the composite is the stricter of the two and for a stated reason.

5. No age basis was established for any carrier. Age last birthday is the convention the shipped mortality proxy is indexed on; on a monthly grid the difference from age next birthday is a twelve-month shift of one lookup, quantified in the technical notes.

6. Real Fondsauswahl menus vary far more widely than this document once claimed. A large carrier offers a “TopFonds-Universum” of managed strategies, single funds and ETFs [S3]; the one tariff whose conditions could be read offers nine funds from a single house, with a minimum holding of 10 % per fund and at most five funds per contract at application [S2]. With a deterministic return a multi-fund split is arithmetically identical to one composite fund at the weighted return, so the composite carries one fund and represents Fondswechsel and Ablaufmanagement as changes to the assumed return rather than as reallocations. The consequence — the model cannot show dispersion between funds — is a listed model risk.

7. Both conventions are now confirmed at one carrier. Units are bought at the Rücknahmepreis — § 14 Abs. 1 AVB — and the Verbraucherinformation says outright “Ausgabeaufschläge und Depotkosten fallen nicht an” [S2]. The Bewertungsstichtag convention is more elaborate than the composite’s single month boundary: DEVK uses the last published price of the preceding month at Rentenbeginn, the last published price of the month of request on surrender or partial withdrawal, the third published price after notification of a death, the third after a Fondsshift, the fifth of the month for everything else, and Xetra closing prices for ETFs. On a monthly grid those distinctions are immaterial; on a daily one none of them is.

8. Entry age 37 with a 30-year deferment and a 200,00 € monthly Beitrag makes the Beitragssumme exactly 72 000,00 €, the acquisition charge at the statutory cap exactly 1 800,00 €, and the five-year instalment exactly 30,00 € per month — 15 % of each of the first 60 premiums. The shape of the product is then legible in round numbers and the cliff at month 60 is exact.

Premiums

Parameter	Representative value	Basis
Beitrag	200,00 EUR per month, level, payable for 30 years to Rentenbeginn	std (8)
Beitragssumme	Beitrag × (12 / prem_mode_months) × premium term = 72,000.00 EUR — the sum of all premiums payable, not paid	definition R12 REG-R16
Premium timing	In advance, at the start of each payment period	std (9)
Ratenzahlungszuschlag	A loading for paying more often than annually; the composite reads the instalment stated in the policy and does not re-apply a loading	mechanic [S1]; level [unverified]; treatment std (9)
Premium-paying term	Equal to the Aufschubzeit in the base case; a shorter term is permitted and shortens the acquisition-charge spread	std (10)
Beitragsdynamik	Optional annual increase of the Beitrag; individual increases may normally be declined	mechanic [S1] [S6]; a real menu is a fixed whole percentage between 3 % and 10 % of the previous year’s premium [S2]; base run 0 % std (11)
Zuzahlung	Additional single premium into an existing contract, minimum 500,00 EUR, subject to its own acquisition charge; raises the Beitragssumme	mechanic [S6]; the 500,00 € minimum is confirmed [S2], the maximum there being set by the board; charge rate std (12)
Premium cessation	On death, on Storno, on Beitragsfreistellung and at Rentenbeginn	[S1] R3 REG-R28
Non-payment path	Mahnung and, on continued default, conversion to a beitragsfreie Versicherung rather than termination, because the contract has a positive value from the first month	R3 REG-R28; treatment std (13)

9. Premiums in advance is the German norm and the only convention under which the Beitragsverrechnung below makes sense: the deductions are taken from a premium that has arrived. The Ratenzahlungszuschlag is real — German tariffs price an annual premium below twelve monthly ones — but no level was established at any carrier, the plausible band being 0–5 % of the annualised premium. Rather than invent one, the composite treats the model point’s premium as the instalment the policy states, which already contains whatever loading the tariff applied. Applying a further loading to it is a listed pitfall.

10. A premium term shorter than the deferment exposes an edge in the statutory spreading rule: where it is shorter than five years there are fewer than sixty premiums to spread the acquisition charge over. The composite spreads it over min(60, premium term in months) instalments std, so the charge is fully taken and no instalment is charged against a premium that is not paid.

11. Real tariffs re-zillmer each accepted increment over its own sixty months, because an increment is optional and cannot be assumed at inception. The composite therefore fixes the Beitragssumme and the acquisition charge on the initial premium level; the direction of the bias — the acquisition charge on a dynamic contract is understated — is stated in the technical notes.

12. The 500,00 € Zuzahlung minimum is confirmed at one carrier, where the maximum is fixed by the board and Zuzahlungen are barred inside the Abrufphase [S2]. The 2,5 % charge is still std, though its shape is confirmed: on a Zuzahlung, as on an Einmalbeitrag, “entnehmen wir alle Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten sofort dem Beitrag oder der Zuzahlung”.

13. § 165 Abs. 1 VVG gives the right to demand a prämienfreie Versicherung “jederzeit für den Schluss der laufenden Versicherungsperiode … sofern die dafür vereinbarte Mindestversicherungsleistung erreicht wird”, and where it is not, “hat der Versicherer den auf die Versicherung entfallenden Rückkaufswert … nach § 169 zu zahlen” R3 REG-R28. On a unit-linked contract the conversion is trivial — nothing is recomputed, the units stay — so the composite routes non-payment to Beitragsfreistellung rather than to surrender, which is both the statutory default and the economically correct one. The minimum is statutory in kind and contractual in level, disclosed under § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 VVG-InfoV R7; at one carrier it is a minimum Fondsguthaben of 2 500 €, below which the contract is surrendered instead [S2]. The composite carries none, which understates the decay of small paid-up policies by keeping alive contracts a real insurer would close.

Benefit provisions

Parameter	Representative value	Basis
Benefit at Rentenbeginn	A lifelong monthly annuity, Fondsguthaben / 10 000 × Rentenfaktor	R22; the definition confirmed at a carrier [S2]; factor level std (14)
Rentenfaktor rule	max(garantierter Rentenfaktor, aktueller Rentenfaktor am Rentenbeginn) — a guarantee with upside	read verbatim in a fondsgebundene AVB [S2]: “Der tatsächliche Rentenfaktor ist der höhere Wert aus dem zu Rentenbeginn aktuellen Rentenfaktor und dem zu Vertragsbeginn garantierten Rentenfaktor.” Also [S4] R22
Garantierter Rentenfaktor	25,00 EUR per month per 10 000 EUR of Fondsguthaben at age 67	std, derived — and now checkable: a real tariff’s guaranteed factor at Rentenbeginn 67 is 25,22 / 24,12 / 22,91 / 21,83 € at deferments of 12 / 20 / 30 / 40 years [S15] (14)
Conversion basis	A recognised mortality table — DAV 2004 R, generational, unisex — at an underlying interest rate of 0 % p.a.	established for a fondsgebundene tariff [S2]: “bei der Kalkulation der zu Vertragsbeginn garantierten Rentenfaktoren … einen Zinssatz von 0,0 Prozent”, on “Sterbetafel DAV 2004 R”. Also [S10] R16 REG-R49
Rentengarantiezeit	10 years, not priced as a separate option in the composite	mechanic [S1]; a real menu runs 5 to 25 years with a maximum end age of 87 [S2]; the 0/5/10/15 menu this document previously gave is withdrawn; choice std
Kapitalwahlrecht	The Fondsguthaben may be taken as a lump sum at Rentenbeginn instead of the annuity, on notice	mechanic [S1] R20; notice period six months before the first annuity due date, with partial payments of up to 30 % available up to Rentenbeginn [S2]; take-up std (15)
Todesfallleistung before Rentenbeginn	max(Fondsguthaben, Summe der gezahlten Beiträge) — the Beitragsrückgewähr form	read verbatim [S2] § 2 Abs. 7. That clause adds a rule the composite does not carry: a Teilentnahme reduces the Beitragsrückgewähr floor by the amount withdrawn
Alternative death-benefit shapes	(i) Fondsguthaben alone; (ii) 100/105/110 % of the Fondsguthaben; (iii) a garantierte Mindesttodesfallleistung fixed at issue	(i)–(iii) mechanic [S1]; percentages [unverified]; all four carried as a model-point parameter. The one wording read offers only the Beitragsrückgewähr form before Rentenbeginn and puts its menu in the payout phase instead — Rentengarantiezeit, Kapitalrückgewähr im Rentenbezug, or none [S2]
Risikobeitrag	Levied monthly by cancelling units, on the riskiertes Kapital = max(Todesfallleistung − Fondsguthaben, 0), priced on a death table	mechanic confirmed [S2] § 14 Abs. 1: the Risikobeiträge are taken from the Fondsguthaben at the start of each month, “nach den anerkannten Regeln der Versicherungsmathematik berechnet”. Basis DAV 2008 T R17 REG-R48 — but see footnote 17: the one carrier that could be checked uses 65 % of DAV 1994 T; level std
Überschussbeteiligung	Arises from the Risikoergebnis and the übrige Ergebnis only; credited as additional units, as a charge reduction or as a Schlussüberschuss	R5 R14 REG-R9 REG-R18; not projected (16)

14. This is the single most consequential std in the document. It was derived rather than guessed, and it can now be marked. The derivation: at a Rechnungszins of 0 % a monthly annuity of R per 10 000 € payable for an expected T years has a present value of 12 × T × R per 10 000 €, so the pre-cost factor is 10 000 / (12 × T). On a generational annuitant table R16 REG-R49 a 67-year-old of a cohort now in mid-career has an expected annuity duration materially longer than a period table implies; T of 25 to 28 years gives a pre-cost factor between 29,8 and 33,3. Deducting the payout-phase administration charge and a margin for the Sicherheitsabschlag and the Rentengarantiezeit brings the guaranteed factor below that, and the composite takes 25,00 €. The 0 % Rechnungszins is now established for a fondsgebundene tariff rather than transferred from a classic one: DEVK states it in its Versicherungsmathematische Hinweise, on DAV 2004 R, and calculates its other guaranteed obligations at 0,25 % instead [S2]. And the answer is now available. For the same configuration as this document’s anchor cell — a 37-year-old, 30 annual instalments, Rentenbeginn at 67 — that carrier’s guaranteed Rentenfaktor is 22,91 € per 10 000 €, against the composite’s 25,00 € [S15]. The composite is therefore about 9 % generous at the anchor cell. It is close at short deferments and generous at long ones, because the carrier’s factor falls with the deferment — 25,22 / 24,12 / 22,91 / 21,83 € at 12 / 20 / 30 / 40 years, all at Rentenbeginn 67 — which is the generational table showing through: a later birth cohort lives longer at 67. The composite’s factor varies with the Rentenbeginn age only, not with the deferment, so it reproduces the level roughly and the gradient not at all. That is a model fact and it is not changed here: rentenfaktor_table.csv, the worked example and the golden tests move together or not at all, and moving them is a decision to take deliberately. Read the other way, 25,00 at a 0 % Rechnungszins prices the guarantee as though the insurer will hold the capital for 33⅓ years and earn nothing on it — and the market’s own answer at the same cell is 36⅜ years. Consumer sources use 25 illustratively R22; that coincidence was luck, and it should no longer be offered as support.

15. No Kapitalwahlrecht take-up rate was established anywhere, and it is the largest behavioural unknown in the product, because the two tax regimes genuinely differ. The base run takes the annuity with a take-up of 0 % std, so that the Rentenfaktor — the only guarantee the contract carries — is the thing the worked example demonstrates. It is not an estimate of behaviour and must not be read as one.

16. The investment result belongs to the policyholder by construction, so it never enters the insurer’s Rohüberschuss — and the MindZV says so in its own definition, computing the creditable investment income “ohne die der Lebensversicherung für Rechnung und Risiko der Versicherungsnehmer zuzuordnenden Erträge und Aufwendungen” (§ 3 Abs. 1) R14 REG-R18. The Bewertungsreserven limb of § 153 VVG has nothing to attach to before Rentenbeginn, and a real wording states it flatly: “Vor Rentenbeginn entstehen bei der Fondsgebundenen Rentenversicherung keine Bewertungsreserven” [S2] R5 REG-R9. The MindZV percentages are now established and the tag is removed: 90 % of the Risikoergebnis (§ 7), 50 % of the übriges Ergebnis (§ 8). And a crediting mechanism is now confirmed at a carrier, which this footnote previously said was not: DEVK pays a premium-paying contract a Grundüberschussanteil “in Prozent des überschussberechtigten Beitrags”, converted into units and added to the Fondsguthaben, while “[b]eitragsfreie Versicherungen und Versicherungen gegen Einmalbeitrag sind vor Rentenbeginn nicht überschussberechtigt” [S2]. No declared rate was established. Two facts justify continuing to omit the credit rather than guessing it: a paid-up contract — model point 7 — would receive nothing anyway, and BaFin found in 2025 that “mehr als die Hälfte der Lebensversicherer … keine Risikoüberschussbeteiligung deklariert hat” R11. The composite omits the credit and records the bias: omitting it understates the projected Fondsguthaben, the honest direction for a charge demonstration.

Underwriting and rating

Parameter	Representative value	Basis
Medical evidence	None on the representative design. A Beitragsrückgewähr death benefit puts almost no capital at risk, so a Gesundheitsprüfung is not normally required	mechanic [S1]; std (17)
When underwriting appears	Where the death benefit is a garantierte Mindesttodesfallleistung or a percentage of the fund materially above 100 %, the excess is death cover and is underwritten	mechanic [S1]; thresholds [unverified]
Rating factors	Attained age (through the Risikobeitrag) and the Rentenbeginn age (through the Rentenfaktor). Sex may not be one	REG-R34; R16 R17
Occupation, smoker	Not rating factors on a savings tariff	std
Mortality basis for the death charge	A death table, first order, unisex — not the annuity table. DAV 2008 T is the modern one; the one tariff that could be read prices the Risikobeitrag on 65 % of DAV 1994 T instead	R17 REG-R48; [S2] for the observed basis (17)
Mortality basis for the Rentenfaktor	DAV 2004 R, generational, first order, unisex	confirmed for a fondsgebundene tariff [S2]; R16 [S10] REG-R49 (17)
Best-estimate basis	The second-order versions of the same tables; the wedge between first and second order is the Risikoergebnis	REG-R47; levels std (18)

17. A German FRV carries two mortality bases at once, and this is where they meet. The direction of prudence forks — a death cover is loaded by assuming mortality higher than expected, an annuity by assuming it lower and improving faster REG-R47 — so a model that uses one table for both misprices one of them. This is no longer an inference: an AVB confirming it has now been read. DEVK’s Versicherungsmathematische Hinweise name “für die Rentenleistungen der Fondsgebundenen Rentenversicherung Sterbetafel DAV 2004 R” and, separately, price the Risikobeiträge on “einer mit 65 Prozent gewichteten geschlechtsunabhängigen Ausscheideordnung auf Basis der Sterbetafel DAV 1994 T” [S2]. But the death table this document names is contradicted there. DEVK reserves DAV 2008 T for its underwritten Risiko-Zusatzversicherung and uses a scaled-down DAV 1994 T for the savings contract’s own risk charge. Two lessons the specification should carry: on a Beitragsrückgewähr cover with no underwriting, “first order” can mean an old heavy table scaled down rather than a modern table loaded up; and the tariff basis is unisex, which is REG-R34 showing in a real Rechnungsgrundlage. mort_table.csv is unaffected — it is a proxy for a first-order death basis, whichever table a given carrier starts from.

18. DAV tables are the property of the Deutsche Aktuarvereinigung, are not public and are not redistributed by this library. They are cited by name; the reference implementation ships std proxies with their anchors stated, and the technical notes say what a replacement must preserve — for DAV 2008 T an insured-lives death basis with selection and no projected improvement, for DAV 2004 R a generational basis with safety in both level and trend REG-R47 REG-R48 REG-R49.

Charges

This is the most important table in the specification, and every level in it is still std. The structure is German market practice and is now read in a real wording rather than asserted [S2]. The levels are a design decision — but for the first time they can be set beside observed ones, and the honest thing is to print the comparison rather than to keep saying nothing exists.

What one real tariff charges. The Basisinformationsblätter for DEVK’s L FR1 give, for a 1 000 € annual premium [S15]: Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten 2,50 % der kumulierten Anlage; Verwaltungskosten 0,42 % des Werts Ihrer Anlage pro Jahr, 6,90 % der jeweils eingezahlten Anlage, and 18 EUR pro Jahr; plus Transaktionskosten of 0,01 %–0,32 % p.a. and the funds’ own costs. Against that, the composite’s std_gross carries 2,50 % / 0,30 % p.a. / 4,00 % / 3,00 € per month. The composite’s acquisition rate is the observed one exactly; its ongoing charges are lighter across the board — a fund charge about three-quarters of the observed one, a premium charge under three-fifths, and a policy fee of 36 € a year against 18 €, the one line where the composite is dearer. Every one of the observed levels falls inside the argued range in the last column, which is the range doing the work it was built for.

What the market charges in aggregate. BaFin’s survey puts the Effektivkosten of the most-sold fondsgebundene products at 1,90 % weighted mean at entry age 37 over 30 years — this document’s anchor cell — with quartiles at 1,30 / 1,64 / 2,35 % and insurers above 4 % at every age-and-term combination R11. The DEVK sheet for the same 30-year cell reports a reduction in yield of 1,4 %–3,4 % p.a. depending on the chosen fund [S15]. The composite’s stack implies roughly 1 % p.a., which is below the observed lower quartile: std_gross is a cheap German unit-linked contract, not an average one, and any statement drawn from it should say so. Nine of the ten remaining named carriers still supply no charge level of any kind [S3]–[S14] [S16] [S18] R23 R24.

Charge	German name	Base	Timing and mechanism	Composite level	Argued range
Acquisition	Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten (Alpha-Kosten)	Beitragssumme	withheld from the premium, spread evenly over the first 60 months	2.50 % of the Beitragssumme — 1,800.00 EUR, i.e. 30.00 EUR per month	0 % (Nettotarif) to 2.5 % (the statutory cap)
Premium admin	beitragsbezogene Verwaltungskosten (Beta-Kosten)	each gross Beitrag	withheld from the premium, whole premium-paying term	4.00 % of each premium	2 % to 10 %
Fund admin	kapitalbezogene Verwaltungskosten (Gamma-Kosten)	Fondsguthaben	monthly, by cancelling units	0.30 % p.a., taken as 0.025 % per month	0.10 % to 1.20 % p.a.
Policy fee	Stückkosten	per policy	monthly, by cancelling units	3.00 EUR per month	0 to 5 EUR per month
Risk charge	Risikobeitrag	riskiertes Kapital	monthly, by cancelling units	q_tariff(x)/12 × riskiertes Kapital, DAV 2008 T proxy	a priced risk, not a load
Fund cost	TER (Gesamtkostenquote)	fund assets	continuously, inside the unit price	0.45 % p.a., netted off the assumed gross return	0.15 % (ETF) to 2.00 % p.a. (active)
Trail rebate	Kickback / Bestandsprovision	fund assets	credited to the Fondsguthaben, to the RfB, or retained, where credited at all	0.00 % p.a.	0 % to over 1.20 % p.a. observed; weighted mean just over 0.30 % p.a. of the Fondsguthaben on the third of new business that carries one R11
Top-up	Zuzahlungskosten	each Zuzahlung	withheld on receipt	2.50 % of the Zuzahlung	0 % to 4 %
Fund switch	Fondswechselgebühr	per switch beyond a free allowance	on election	0.00 EUR (allowance not exhausted)	0 to 25 EUR
Surrender	Stornoabzug	Fondsguthaben	on Kündigung	0.00 %	must be vereinbart, beziffert and angemessen. A real one is a flat euro amount, not a percentage: 150 € on Kündigung, on full Beitragsfreistellung and on an early Rentenbeginn, waived in the Abrufphase and on an already paid-up contract [S2]
Annuity admin	Rentenbezugskosten	each annuity payment	in payment — out of scope, delib sofortrente	1.5 % of each payment	0 % to 3 %

The acquisition charge is the one charge whose level has a real anchor, the composite takes the cap, and the market appears to take it too. § 4 Abs. 1 Satz 2 DeckRV: “Der Zillmersatz darf 25 Promille der Summe aller Prämien nicht überschreiten”, and Abs. 4 fixes the rate used at conclusion for the whole term R12 REG-R16; the cut from 40 ‰ and its 1 January 2015 commencement are [unverified] and are not in the regulation’s text R13 REG-R20. The composite takes the cap as the level because a reference implementation should demonstrate the binding constraint rather than a guessed interior point — and the one tariff whose figure can now be read charges exactly 2,50 % der kumulierten Anlage [S15], so the choice turns out to describe the market rather than merely to bound it. A Nettotarif — the same contract with the Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten removed and the adviser paid a fee under a separate Vergütungsvereinbarung [S18] — is carried as a charge variant on the same chassis, not as a separate product, and it brackets the range from below. One caution BaFin supplies: on a Nettoprodukt the client’s separate fee is a cost that “nicht in die Effektivkosten einfließen” R10, so a net-versus-gross comparison of the published figure overstates the saving. delib’s own std_netto-to-std_gross gap does not have that defect, because both are computed on the same measure.

The two Verwaltungskosten are named by their base, and the difference is load-bearing. Beitragsbezogene charges are a percentage of each gross premium and stop when premiums stop. Kapitalbezogene charges are a percentage per annum of the Fondsguthaben, taken monthly by cancelling units, and continue after premiums stop — they make a paid-up policy decay, and in a long contract they dominate the Effektivkosten because they compound against the whole accumulated fund.

The fund’s own TER is inside the unit price and is not a policy charge. It never appears in the policy ledger: a model that charges it explicitly double-counts, one that ignores it overstates the policyholder’s return, and the composite nets it off the assumed gross return, which is exactly what it is. It does, however, enter the disclosed figure — “Die Fondsmanagementgebühren … gehören zwar zu den Effektivkosten”, though not to the einkalkulierte Abschlusskosten R11 — which is why a real Basisinformationsblatt prints the insurer’s charges and the fund’s costs in one column [S15].

The Kickback is set to zero on a passive fund, and that is now a modelling choice rather than a way round an open question. Both questions this document listed as unresolved have answers. BaFin’s Merkblatt establishes that insurers do receive Rückvergütungen out of the fund’s Verwaltungsvergütung, that they must test whether the arrangement creates a Fehlanreiz to steer clients into the funds that pay them most, and that they must consider passing the rebate back — by reducing the calculated costs, by an RfB allocation above the MindZV minimum, by a Kostenüberschussanteil, or by “einen besonderen Überschussanteil zur Erstattung von Rückvergütungen” R10 R15 REG-R33. One carrier’s answer is in its AVB: “Rückvergütungen, die wir von den Kapitalanlagegesellschaften erhalten, verwenden wir zur Deckung etwaiger Verwaltungskostenverluste. Nicht benötigte Teile führen wir unter Beachtung der Mindestzuführungsverordnung der Rückstellung für Beitragsrückerstattung zu” [S2]. And the market picture is quantified: rebates on about a third of new business, weighted mean just over 0,30 % p.a. of the Fondsguthaben and up to over 1,20 %, of which about 52 % is returned on average through a special Überschussanteil, with a further 19 % of business carrying rebates paid straight to the intermediary at about 0,50 % R11. The composite’s zero is therefore not neutral — it models the cheap end of a real and material flow, and how a credited rebate enters the PRIIPs cost calculation is the one limb still unresolved R7 R8 REG-R32.

Commission is an expense, not a charge, and the composite sets it equal to the charge: acquisition commission of 2.50 % of the Beitragssumme at inception — exactly the acquisition charge it will recover over sixty months — plus a 200,00 € issue expense and renewal commission of 1.5 % of each premium std. No German commission scale was established at any carrier. The equality is deliberate: it makes the model demonstrate, in one number, the financing problem the Höchstzillmersatz and the five-year spread exist to regulate.

Termination and values

Parameter	Representative value	Basis
Rückkaufswert	The Zeitwert under § 169 Abs. 4 VVG, which on a pure unit-linked contract is the Fondsguthaben	R1 REG-R28; and read in an AVB [S2]: “Der Rückkaufswert ist das zum Kündigungstermin vorhandene Fondsguthaben.”
Stornoabzug	0.00 %. Permissible under § 169 Abs. 5 only if vereinbart, beziffert and angemessen; “[d]ie Vereinbarung eines Abzugs für noch nicht getilgte Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten ist unwirksam”	R1 REG-R28; level std (19)
Kündigung	At any time for the end of the current Versicherungsperiode under § 168 Abs. 1 — on a monthly-premium contract, a short notice period rather than an annual one; a real tariff allows it “jederzeit zum Schluss eines Monats” [S2]. The right extends to single-premium contracts (Abs. 2) and is excluded only for pension-purpose contracts under Abs. 3, which this product is not	R2 REG-R28
Early values	Poor, and not because of a deduction: at the composite’s levels a contract surrendered in year 3 has had 15 % of every premium taken for acquisition plus the ongoing charges, so the Rückkaufswert is well below premiums paid even in a flat market	arithmetic on the std stack (20)
Protection for the policyholder	Sits earlier, in the Beitragsverrechnung: because the acquisition charge may only be taken over the first five years, units are bought from the first month and the value is positive from the start	R1 REG-R28 (20)
Beitragsfreistellung	Premiums stop, units stay, premium-based charges stop with the premium, fund-based charges and the Risikobeitrag continue by unit cancellation — so the contract decays	R3 REG-R28
Widerruf	30 days — § 152 Abs. 1 VVG, “[a]bweichend von § 8 Absatz 1 Satz 1 beträgt die Widerrufsfrist 30 Tage”. The amount repayable is the Rückkaufswert under § 169 plus the unearned premium (Abs. 2); where the policyholder was not told cover had begun, it is that or the first year’s premiums if more favourable (Abs. 3) — so it is not simply the unit value at cancellation, and after a market fall it can exceed it	R6 REG-R23; not projected
Teilentnahme	A partial withdrawal during the Aufschubzeit, subject to a minimum and to a minimum remaining Fondsguthaben	mechanic and levels confirmed at one carrier [S2]: minimum 500 €, remaining fund at least 1 000 € (premium-paying) or 2 500 € (paid-up), a 40 € fee waived in the Abrufphase, and the Beitragsrückgewähr floor reduced by the amount withdrawn. delib’s levels std; the reduction of the death-benefit floor is not modelled

19. The claim that many unit-linked tariffs have no Stornoabzug at all is [unverified] and the one tariff that could be read does have one. § 169 Abs. 5 VVG makes a deduction for unamortised acquisition costs ineffective, but it does not forbid a deduction as such, and the burden of proof it is often credited with is contractual rather than statutory — DEVK’s own clause supplies it: “Der Stornoabzug ist zulässig, wenn er vereinbart, beziffert und angemessen ist. Die Angemessenheit ist im Zweifel von uns nachzuweisen”, justified by the change in the risk profile of the remaining portfolio, by collectively provided risk capital and by administration cost — never by unrecovered acquisition cost [S2] R1 REG-R28. The shape matters as much as the level: DEVK’s is a flat 150 €, not a percentage of the fund, so it bites hardest on small contracts, exactly the pattern BaFin flags for absolute-euro charges R10. The composite’s stornoabzug_pp(t) is a percentage and stays so; that is a model fact, not corrected here. No BGH decision on Rückkaufswert, Kostenverrechnung or Stornoabzug is cited anywhere in this document R26 REG-R36.

20. The relation between the Zeitwert branch and the five-year floor is now readable in the statute, and it favours the second of the two readings this footnote offered. § 169 Abs. 3 carries the “gleichmäßige[n] Verteilung der angesetzten Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten auf die ersten fünf Vertragsjahre” as a minimum on the Deckungskapital branch; Abs. 4 sends a fondsgebundene contract to the Zeitwert “soweit nicht der Versicherer eine bestimmte Leistung garantiert; im Übrigen gilt Absatz 3”. On a contract with no guarantee there is therefore no statutory floor to reach, and the protection operates through the tariff: the Kostenverrechnung clause limits what may be withheld, so the units are bought from the first month and never have to be given back. That is what the market implements [S2] § 18 Abs. 2 and what the composite models. Both readings still produce the same numbers on this design; what has changed is that the reading is no longer a guess.

---

Contractual mechanics

The Beitragsverrechnung — the operative rule of the accumulation phase

The rule is what is taken out of each gross premium, in what order, before the remainder buys units. The German market order, which the reference implementation follows [S1]: the gross Beitrag B arrives at the start of the payment period; the Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten instalment α(t) is withheld, non-zero only in the first sixty months; the beitragsbezogene Verwaltungskosten β × B are withheld, for the whole premium-paying term; the remainder is the Anlagebeitrag, and it buys units at the Anteilspreis. Separately, and by cancelling units rather than by withholding premium, the kapitalbezogenen Verwaltungskosten γ are taken on the Fondsguthaben, together with the Stückkosten and the Risikobeitrag on the net amount at risk.

That rule is no longer asserted from practice; it is read in a wording. § 14 Abs. 1 of the DEVK AVB [S2]: “Wir führen Ihre Beiträge und Zuzahlungen, soweit sie nicht zur Deckung unserer Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten und beitragsbezogenen Verwaltungskosten vorgesehen sind (Sparbeiträge), dem Fondsguthaben zu und rechnen sie … in entsprechende Anteileinheiten um. Bei dieser Umrechnung wird je gewähltem Fonds der zum Stichtag … des Monats der Beitragsfälligkeit festgestellte Rücknahmepreis einer Anteileinheit zugrunde gelegt. … Die zur Deckung des Todesfallrisikos bestimmten, nach den anerkannten Regeln der Versicherungsmathematik berechneten Risikobeiträge, die fixen Verwaltungskosten (Stückkosten) und die vom Fondsguthaben abhängigen Verwaltungskosten entnehmen wir dem Fondsguthaben zu Beginn eines jeden Monats.” Both halves of the split, the Sparbeitrag as the residual, the Rücknahmepreis, the monthly timing — and, below, the composite’s contested choice on the Stückkosten.

One qualification the same wording forces on α(t). DEVK’s § 18 Abs. 2 spreads only “einen Teil” of the acquisition cost over five years and takes “[d]en anderen Teil … als Prozentsatz während der gesamten Beitragszahlungsdauer”. So in a real tariff part of the acquisition cost sits inside what this document calls β, and the deduction from each premium does not step down at month 61 by the whole of α. The composite’s arithmetic is a legitimate parameterisation of the same total; its labels are cleaner than the market’s, and the cliff it displays is sharper than a real one.

That distinction is the easiest thing on this product to get wrong. Premium-based charges are withheld before units exist; fund-based charges cancel units that already exist. A paid-up contract loses the first group entirely and keeps the second in full — which is why it decays. A model that nets the fund-based charge out of the premium instead of cancelling units produces the right answer while premiums are paid and the wrong answer the moment they stop.

The composite takes the Stückkosten by cancellation, and the argument for it — that cancellation is the only rule that behaves identically at every payment frequency and identically before and after Beitragsfreistellung, so the fixed fee cannot silently stop when premiums do — is now backed by a wording that does the same thing: DEVK takes “die fixen Verwaltungskosten (Stückkosten) … dem Fondsguthaben zu Beginn eines jeden Monats” [S2]. That the German market also takes it by withholding is [unverified]. The alternative gives the same total and a marginally different unit count, quantified in the technical notes.

The unit / non-unit split, and what the insurer’s cash flow actually is

The policy’s value is the Fondsguthaben: the number of Anteileinheiten held in each fund, multiplied by that fund’s Anteilspreis at the Bewertungsstichtag [S17]. Units are the state variable and euro are derived; every operation on the contract is a purchase or a cancellation of units at a price on a date.

Everything that is not the unit holding is a cash flow in the insurer’s own accounts: the charges it withholds or cancels, the Risikobeitrag it collects, the excess of a death benefit over the fund it releases, its expenses and its commission. The reference model projects the non-unit cash flows and carries the unit fund only as the base on which they are computed — the right emphasis for a liability model, because the unit fund is the policyholder’s money passing through. Every benefit — the death benefit up to the fund, the Rückkaufswert, the Teilentnahme, the capital converted at Rentenbeginn — is funded by cancelling the policyholder’s own units, so a gross presentation would count the same money twice, and the insurer’s non-unit cost on a death is exactly the riskiertes Kapital. The VAG makes this structural rather than a modelling convenience: § 124 Abs. 2 Satz 2 Nr. 1 requires the technical provisions for unit-linked benefits to be represented “so genau wie möglich durch die betreffenden Anteile”, and § 125 Abs. 5 requires “eine Abteilung des Sicherungsvermögens (Anlagestock)” per Anlageart to hold them — a ring-fenced division within the Sicherungsvermögen, not a pool outside it R15 REG-R7. So a unit-linked projection has no investment-mismatch term. A real wording says the same thing from the policyholder’s side: “Der Anlagestock besteht aus Anteilen von Fonds, an die die Leistungen aus Ihrem Vertrag gebunden sind, und wird gesondert von unserem sonstigen Vermögen angelegt” [S2] — which also shows that a carrier may call the unit holding a “fondsgebundenes Deckungskapital” even though nothing about it resembles a general-account Deckungskapital.

Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten — the cap, the spread and the cliff

Two independent rules combine and a specification has to keep them apart. § 4 DeckRV governs what an insurer may reserve: the Zillmersatz may not exceed 25 ‰ of the sum of all premiums, and the rate used at conclusion applies for the whole term R12 REG-R16. § 169 Abs. 3 VVG governs what it must pay on a Deckungskapital contract: at least the reserve that results when the angesetzte Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten are spread evenly over the first five contract years R1 REG-R28. On a pure unit-linked contract the second does not apply directly — Abs. 4 sends it to the Zeitwert and holds Abs. 3 in reserve only “soweit … der Versicherer eine bestimmte Leistung garantiert”. What happens instead is that the tariff implements the same shape inside the Beitragsverrechnung: only a fraction of the total may be withheld in each of the first five years, so units are bought from the first month rather than not at all, and one carrier says so in its Kostenverrechnung clause [S2]. The protection is real; its source is the tariff, backed by the reserving cap, rather than § 169 Abs. 3 operating on this contract.

The arithmetic on the anchor cell, because it is the shape the model reproduces: Beitragssumme = 200 × 12 × 30 = 72 000,00 €; acquisition charge at the 2,5 % cap = 1 800,00 €; spread over 60 months = 30,00 € per month, which is 15 % of each of the first 60 premiums and nothing thereafter. The step at month 61 — the Anlagebeitrag jumping from 162,00 € to 192,00 € on an unchanged premium — is the single most legible fact in the projection.

Two derived rules follow. On an in-force contract past month 60 the composite’s α is zero, and so is any acquisition expense: the money was spent, and charging it again is a listed pitfall. (In a real tariff a whole-term slice of acquisition cost continues; see the Beitragsverrechnung section above.) On an Einmalbeitrag there are no future premiums to zillmer against, so the whole charge falls at inception at the Zuzahlungskosten rate — and that is what a real wording does: “Bei Verträgen gegen Einmalbeitrag und bei Zuzahlungen entnehmen wir alle Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten sofort dem Beitrag oder der Zuzahlung” [S2].

Todesfallleistung and the Risikobeitrag

Four shapes are used in the German market, in ascending order of the risk they impose on the insurer: the Fondsguthaben alone, with no net amount at risk and no Risikobeitrag; Beitragsrückgewähr, max(Fondsguthaben, Summe der gezahlten Beiträge); a percentage of the Fondsguthaben, commonly 100, 105 or 110 % [unverified]; and a garantierte Mindesttodesfallleistung, a stated sum chosen at issue and independent of the fund [S1].

The composite adopts Beitragsrückgewähr, and the shape is now read verbatim rather than corroborated at second hand — “Die Todesfallleistung ist das zum Stichtag bei Tod vorhandene Fondsguthaben, mindestens aber die Summe der gezahlten Beiträge (Beitragsrückgewähr)” [S2] § 2 Abs. 7. It is also the shape that makes the mechanic interesting: the net amount at risk is max(Summe der gezahlten Beiträge − Fondsguthaben, 0), positive early, and after a market fall, and vanishing once the fund overtakes the premiums paid. Cumulative premiums paid is therefore a state variable of this product, not a reporting convenience — and it is the premiums paid, gross, not the premiums invested. § 155 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 VVG makes the same quantity a mandatory item of the annual statement for contracts written from 1 July 2018 REG-R25, so it is a reported figure as well as a modelled one. One refinement the composite does not carry: the same clause continues “Etwaige vorherige Kapitalentnahmen aus dem Fondsguthaben vermindern die Beitragsrückgewähr entsprechend”, so on a real contract a Teilentnahme reduces the floor as well as the fund. The composite reduces the fund only, which overstates the death benefit and the net amount at risk on the Teilentnahme model point. The charge is recomputed every month, because both the benefit and the fund move:

riskiertes Kapital(t) = max( Todesfallleistung(t) − Fondsguthaben(t), 0 )
Risikobeitrag(t)      = q_tariff(x) / 12 × riskiertes Kapital(t)
units cancelled       = Risikobeitrag(t) / Anteilspreis(t)

q_tariff is a first-order death table carrying explicit safety margins, while the projection’s own decrement is the second-order best estimate REG-R47. The difference between them is the Risikoergebnis, and it is the source of the Überschussbeteiligung the composite declines to project. A model that uses one table for both makes the risk result identically zero and loses the mechanic. Which first-order table is a matter of tariff, not of law: DAV 2008 T is the modern death basis R17 REG-R48, but the one fondsgebundene tariff whose bases could be read prices its Risikobeiträge on “einer mit 65 Prozent gewichteten geschlechtsunabhängigen Ausscheideordnung auf Basis der Sterbetafel DAV 1994 T” and keeps DAV 2008 T for its underwritten Risiko-Zusatzversicherung [S2]. On an unwritten Beitragsrückgewähr cover, “first order” can be an old heavy table scaled down as easily as a modern one loaded up.

The Rentenfaktor — the product’s only financial guarantee

monatliche Rente = Fondsguthaben(Rentenbeginn) / 10 000 × Rentenfaktor

100 000 € at a factor of 25 yields 250 € per month — a teaching example, not a market level; the consumer literature illustrates with 25, and also with 30 against 20 R22. Real guaranteed factors are now available, from one carrier’s Basisinformationsblätter: at Rentenbeginn 67, 25,22 / 24,12 / 22,91 / 21,83 € per 10 000 € for deferments of 12 / 20 / 30 / 40 years, with the sister company’s a few cents lower [S15]. The garantierter Rentenfaktor is fixed in the contract documents at conclusion and rests on the Rechnungsgrundlagen then in force: DAV 2004 R and a Rechnungszins of 0,0 % p.a., both now established for a fondsgebundene tariff rather than transferred from a classic one [S2] [S10] R16 REG-R49. It also depends on the payment frequency, the chosen death benefit and the age at Rentenbeginn [S2]. The Sicherheitsabschlag is why the guaranteed factor is lower than the factor the same insurer would quote for an immediate annuity today — consumer sources put many guaranteed factors at 50–70 % of the current one [unverified] R22.

The rule at Rentenbeginn is a maximum of two factors, and it is a guarantee with upside:

Rentenfaktor_angewendet = max( Rentenfaktor_garantiert, Rentenfaktor_aktuell )

This is read in a fondsgebundene AVB, not inferred from a conventional one: “Der tatsächliche Rentenfaktor ist der höhere Wert aus dem zu Rentenbeginn aktuellen Rentenfaktor und dem zu Vertragsbeginn garantierten Rentenfaktor”, with the current factor computed “auf Basis der Rechnungsgrundlagen eines zu dem Zeitpunkt im Neugeschäft offenen sofortbeginnenden Rententarifs” and, if the company has none open, on recognised actuarial principles checked by an independent Treuhänder [S2] § 2 Abs. 2–3. The same clause guarantees the resulting annuity for its whole duration. Zurich [S4] and the market leader [S3] R22 are consistent with it. A model that applies only the guaranteed factor understates the benefit whenever the current tariff is richer, and one model point in the shipped table is configured so that the max() actually bites.

Reduction of a guaranteed factor. Insurers could previously change guaranteed Rentenfaktoren under a Treuhänderklausel, with an independent external Treuhänder’s approval, on two triggers: an unexpectedly strong increase in life expectancy, and a sustainable reduction in capital-market returns. That route is now closed wherever the clause is drafted asymmetrically. In BGH, Urteil vom 10. Dezember 2025 — IV ZR 34/25 a clause in the AVB of a fondsgebundene Rentenversicherung letting the insurer reduce the Rentenfaktor named in the Versicherungsschein — the monthly annuity per 10 000 € of Vertragsguthaben — without a corresponding duty to restore it if circumstances improve was held void under § 308 Nr. 4 BGB and § 307 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB, on principles reported to reach all comparable clauses REG-R36. The rule is therefore not that the guaranteed factor is “changeable only under § 163 VVG”: it is that a garantierter Rentenfaktor is a hard guarantee unless the AVB confers a symmetric adjustment right, with § 163 VVG the residual statutory route, on its own much narrower conditions, where the tariff’s calculation bases themselves fail R4 R22 REG-R27. How narrow that route is, is now readable. § 163 Abs. 1 requires a change in the Leistungsbedarf that is “nicht nur vorübergehend und nicht voraussehbar”, a re-set that is “angemessen und erforderlich” to secure permanent fulfilment, and an independent Treuhänder’s confirmation — and it is primarily a power over the premium. Abs. 2 Satz 1 gives the policyholder the choice of a benefit reduction instead of a premium increase; the insurer’s own power to reduce the benefit, under Abs. 2 Satz 2, arises only “[b]ei einer prämienfreien Versicherung”. On a premium-paying contract § 163 is therefore a narrower route to a lower Rentenfaktor than it is usually described as being. Below that line, Landgericht Köln, Urteil vom 8. Februar 2023, Az. 26 O 12/22, against Zurich and reported as rechtskräftig, had already held that the low-interest phase is not a sufficient ground, being entrepreneurial risk that cannot be passed to policyholders — the docket this document previously said could not be established R22 [S4]. The same reporting gives AG Reinbek, 10. Juli 2024, Az. 14 C 473/23 against Allianz, and records the reductions the case law is about: Allianz in 2017 for about 700 000 contracts written between July 2001 and December 2011, and again in 2021 by 9 % across the Invest, InvestGarantie, Invest alpha-Balance, IndexSelect and index and portfolio tariffs; AXA in 2017 for about 100 000 contracts; R+V in 2017 for about 4 000; also VHV and Zurich. Trade press of 4 February 2021 reports the market leader’s position that customers could not successfully object to an adjustment, placing a live commercial dispute at the largest German life insurer inside the window in which the current in-force unit-linked book was written R22. The composite treats the guaranteed factor as fixed for the life of the contract, and after IV ZR 34/25 that is the legally correct default rather than a modelling simplification REG-R36. What remains a model risk is the narrow residue: a § 163 VVG adjustment, and an AVB that does confer a symmetric right.

Rückkaufswert — the Zeitwert branch, and what it removes

§ 169 Abs. 4 VVG is the Zeitwert branch, and it reads: “Bei fondsgebundenen Versicherungen und anderen Versicherungen, die Leistungen der in § 124 Absatz 2 Satz 2 des Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetzes bezeichneten Art vorsehen, ist der Rückkaufswert nach anerkannten Regeln der Versicherungsmathematik als Zeitwert der Versicherung zu berechnen, soweit nicht der Versicherer eine bestimmte Leistung garantiert; im Übrigen gilt Absatz 3. Die Grundsätze der Berechnung sind im Vertrag anzugeben.” R1 REG-R28. For a pure unit-linked contract with no insurer-given benefit guarantee the Zeitwert is the value of the units held, and a real wording says exactly that — “Der Rückkaufswert ist das zum Kündigungstermin vorhandene Fondsguthaben” [S2] § 17 Abs. 3:

Rückkaufswert(t) = Fondsguthaben(t) − Stornoabzug(t)

What that removes is the whole conventional apparatus: no discounting, no Rechnungszins, no mortality basis, no Zillmerung residue, no Mindestrückkaufswert computation on a second basis. It is the largest single modelling simplification in the delib library. The subsection designation is now given — Abs. 4 for the Zeitwert, Abs. 3 for the five-year floor, Abs. 5 for the Stornoabzug, Abs. 6 for the temporary reduction power — and the [unverified] tag that stood on it is withdrawn.

Beitragsfreistellung — why a paid-up unit-linked policy decays

§ 165 VVG lets the policyholder demand conversion to a prämienfreie Versicherung for the end of the current Versicherungsperiode R3 REG-R28. On a fondsgebundene contract nothing is converted: the units stay where they are, premium payment stops, the premium-based charges stop with it because there are no more premiums to charge them on, and the kapitalbezogenen Verwaltungskosten, the Stückkosten and the Risikobeitrag continue to be taken by cancelling units. The paid-up contract therefore decays at the fund-based charge rate less the fund’s return, and where the death benefit is a garantierte Mindesttodesfallleistung the Risikobeitrag accelerates the decay as the fund falls and the net amount at risk rises — a feedback the model reproduces automatically and a real product risk. The decay is stated in the AVB itself: on single-premium and paid-up contracts the monthly deductions can mean “dass das gesamte Fondsguthaben vor Rentenbeginn aufgebraucht ist und der Versicherungsschutz damit erlischt” [S2] § 14 Abs. 2. Insurers accordingly set a minimum Fondsguthaben below which Beitragsfreistellung is refused and the contract is surrendered instead — § 165 Abs. 1 VVG routes a below-minimum request to the Rückkaufswert, the minimum is a disclosure item under § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 VVG-InfoV, and at one carrier it is 2 500 € [S2] R3 R7. The composite carries none, which keeps small paid-up contracts alive longer than a real insurer would.

Beitragsfreistellung and Storno are two decrements, not one — different triggers, different cash flows, different subsequent projections. Conflating them is a listed pitfall.

Fondswechsel and Ablaufmanagement

Fondswechsel covers two distinct operations, and German wordings use the English words Shift and Switch for them: reallocating the existing Fondsguthaben, where units are cancelled in the old fund and bought in the new one at the same Bewertungsstichtag; and redirecting future premiums, leaving the existing holding where it is. One carrier’s mapping is now on record — “Umschichtung des vorhandenen Fondsguthabens (Fondsshift)” against “Neuaufteilung der zukünftigen Sparbeiträge (Fondsswitch)”, with the shift priced at the third published price after the request and the switch effective three working days into the next Versicherungsperiode [S2] § 19. Whether that mapping is general across German insurers is [unverified], and this document still asserts none: each AVB defines its own terms, and the reference implementation names the operations, not the labels. On fees, two carriers are consistent and the composite’s zero matches both: DEVK states “[d]iese Umschichtungen sind für Sie kostenfrei” for shift, switch and Ablaufmanagement alike, and Allianz advertises unlimited free switching [S2] [S3]. Whether any German tariff charges for a switch is [unverified].

Ablaufmanagement is automatic phased de-risking in the run-up to Rentenbeginn: the Fondsguthaben is moved in tranches out of equity funds into money-market or Wertsicherungs funds, or into the insurer’s Sicherungsvermögen. The questions this document listed as unanswered are answered at two carriers, and they answer them differently — which is why the parameter is switchable. DEVK runs it as a default the policyholder may object out of, over the last five years, in monthly tranches on an explicit 1/60, 1/59, 1/58 … schedule, into “einen risikoarmen Zielfonds”, free of charge, with fund switching suspended while it runs [S2] § 2 Abs. 11 and § 19 Abs. 4. Allianz offers it as an option, over the last three years [S3]. With one fund and a deterministic return a reallocation and a change of assumed return are arithmetically the same thing, so the composite implements it as a deterministic glide of the assumed gross return to a money-market assumption over the last 60 months, switchable off — which matches the observed default at one carrier and is twice the ramp at the other.

Zuzahlung, Teilentnahme and the Abrufphase

A Zuzahlung is an additional single premium into an existing contract; it buys units at the Anteilspreis on the following Bewertungsstichtag, raises the Beitragssumme and carries its own acquisition charge, taken in full on receipt [S2] § 18 Abs. 2. A Teilentnahme is a partial withdrawal during the Aufschubzeit, modelled as a unit cancellation; it is a partial surrender with a partial surrender’s tax consequences — the carrier’s own tax notes confirm that the half-income treatment “gilt gleichfalls bei Teilkapitalentnahmen während der Aufschubzeit” [S2] R20 REG-R45 — and it is an owner election, not a claim. Minima are now established at one carrier: Zuzahlung at least 500 € with the maximum set by the board and none permitted in the Abrufphase; Teilauszahlung at least 500 €, leaving at least 1 000 € (premium-paying) or 2 500 € (paid-up) in the fund, at a 40 € fee waived in the Abrufphase [S2]. A Zuzahlung also restarts the twelve-year tax clock for the increment, which the composite does not model.

The Abrufphase is a window inside which the conversion may be brought forward or deferred, and both limbs are now measured at one carrier: Rentenbeginn may be brought forward by up to seven years subject to the minimum deferment and the Mindestrente, at a 150 € Stornoabzug, on six months’ notice; and deferred by up to five years, one year at a time, but only if the Abruftarif was agreed [S2] § 2 Abs. 5–6. Deferring changes the Rentenfaktor, because the factor is age-dependent — and the question this document could not answer has a consumer-source answer: the guaranteed factor “gilt nämlich nur für das in Deinem Vertrag ursprünglich festgelegte Ablaufdatum”, so it too may be restated on deferral [unverified] as to how general that is R22. Bringing the annuity forward, by contrast, uses guaranteed factors already printed in the Versicherungsschein [S2]. The composite fixes the Rentenbeginn and records the Abrufphase as an unmodelled option.

Effektivkosten — the metric that ties the stack together

The statutory term is Effektivkosten, and § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 9 VVG-InfoV defines them as “die Minderung der Wertentwicklung durch Kosten in Prozentpunkten … bis zum Beginn der Auszahlungsphase”, owed before conclusion under § 7 VVG R7 [S16] REG-R31; the duty is understood to date from 1 January 2015 with the LVRG [unverified], the date not being in the regulation. Abs. 6 settles the fund-cost question: they are computed “wie der Gesamtkostenindikator nach Anhang VI der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2017/653” with the contract’s own parameters, so the fund’s costs enter through Annex VI — which is what makes the TER a policy parameter rather than a fund parameter, and BaFin confirms it in terms R11.

The PRIIPs form of the figure appears in the Basisinformationsblatt, and a real one has now been read [S15]. It confirms the three time points — one year, half the recommended holding period and the end of it, which on the 30-year sheet are years 1, 15 and 30 — exactly what this document predicted. It also corrects two things. The sheet does not print the four graded scenarios R9 describes: for a product with a fund menu, the generic sheet gives ranges and refers the reader to the option-specific documents, which is the multi-option treatment under the RTS. And a German Schicht-3 unit-linked annuity is, on the profession’s own view, a PRIIP Kategorie 4 product rather than a Category 2 one, because cost deductions and biometric components make its pots inseparable R18 R8.

A third correction, and it removes a duty this document asserted. § 154 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VVG disapplies the Modellrechnung to “Verträge, die Leistungen der in § 124 Absatz 2 Satz 2 des Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetzes bezeichneten Art vorsehen” — the same formula § 169 Abs. 4 uses for unit-linked business. A fondsgebundene Rentenversicherung owes no three-rate Modellrechnung REG-R25; the Basisinformationsblatt is what the prospective policyholder gets in its place. (Where a Modellrechnung is owed, § 2 Abs. 3 VVG-InfoV now gives the rates exactly: the Höchstrechnungszinssatz × 1,67, that rate + 1 pp and that rate − 1 pp.)

Two warnings the specification must still carry, one of them sharper than before. The reference implementation does not implement Annex VI and does not specify a recommended holding period, so the reduction in yield it publishes is a delib-defined measure on the contract’s own path and is not the statutory Effektivkosten. And although a market level is now available — a weighted mean of 1,90 % p.a. with quartiles at 1,30 / 1,64 / 2,35 % at entry age 37 over 30 years, and a real tariff at 1,4–3,4 % over the same term R11 [S15] — any figure the technical notes produce is still arithmetic on delib’s own std stack and must never be quoted as a market figure. The two may now be printed side by side, which makes it more important, not less, to say which is which.

---

Riders and options

In scope and parameterized. The death-benefit shape db_form, carried as a model-point parameter across all four market shapes, with the Beitragsrückgewähr form as the base [S2]; Beitragsfreistellung, as a stated month at which premiums cease and the fund-based charges continue R3; Zuzahlung and Teilentnahme, as a stated month and amount; Ablaufmanagement, as the return glide described above; Beitragsdynamik, as an annual premium increase with the acquisition charge fixed on the initial level; the Kapitalwahlrecht, as an election at Rentenbeginn that changes the tax treatment and not the amount released; the Rentenfaktor rule, with both the guaranteed and the current factor as inputs so the max() is exercised; and the Stornoabzug, present at zero and switchable.

Described and deliberately not implemented — the guarantee technologies. German insurers wrap three distinct guarantee designs around this same unit-linked chassis. A statisches Hybrid (Zwei-Topf-Hybrid) splits the premium once, at inception, between the Sicherungsvermögen — where a guaranteed pot accretes at the Rechnungszins to exactly the guaranteed amount at Rentenbeginn — and free funds; simple, transparent, and at a low Rechnungszins it consumes almost the whole premium for the guarantee. A dynamisches Hybrid recomputes the split periodically, normally monthly, and its three-pot form inserts a Wertsicherungsfonds — a fund with a contractual limit on its loss over a defined period — between the Sicherungsvermögen and the free funds, so money can move out of equities in two steps rather than one [S7] [S8]. i-CPPI sets the exposure to the risky fund per policy and continuously, as a multiplier times the cushion between the policy value and the present value of the guarantee: the most efficient of the three and the most path-dependent [S9]. The prudential handle on all three is § 124 Abs. 2 Satz 2 Nr. 3 VAG: where the benefits include “eine Garantie in Bezug auf das Anlageergebnis”, the ordinary mixing and spreading rules come back for the assets covering the additional technical provisions R15 REG-R7 — which is why a hybrid’s guaranteed pot behaves like general-account money and the free-fund pot does not.

Why none is implemented. Each is a rule for reallocating between a guaranteed pot and a risky pot along a path, and its entire content is what it does when the risky pot falls. A deterministic projection has one path and it is a smooth one, so a guarantee mechanism modelled inside it either never triggers — dead code presented as a feature — or triggers on a hand-chosen shock, which asserts a scenario the model has no basis for. What would have to be added is a stochastic or at least multi-scenario asset model, a monthly reallocation rule, a guaranteed pot accreting at a Rechnungszins, and a Wertsicherungsfonds return model. That is a different model, and an honest reference implementation says so rather than gesturing at it. No reallocation rule, CPPI multiplier, Wertsicherungsfonds loss limit or guarantee-pot accretion rule was established [S7] [S8] [S9]. One carrier guarantee menu now is: Allianz InvestFlex offers a Garantieniveau chosen at conclusion in 10-percentage-point steps from 10 % to 90 % of premiums paid, adjustable later under conditions, with 10–60 % on the Basisrente and a statutory 100 % on the Riester-Rente [S3]. That replaces the 0/60/80/90/100 % menu this document previously guessed. It also confirms the premise the composite rests on — that the same carrier sells the same chassis with and without a guarantee, so a guarantee-free model point is a real product and not an abstraction. What the composite keeps from the hybrid world is the Ablaufmanagement glide — de-risking without a guarantee, and representable deterministically.

Out of scope entirely. Attached biometric riders (Berufsunfähigkeits-Zusatzversicherung, Unfall-Zusatzversicherung, Hinterbliebenenrente, Pflegeoption), which are separate delib products or separate covers on their own bases; the payout phase (delib sofortrente); and the Abrufphase.

---

Variations across insurers

Read this first. One carrier is now observed in full and the other ten are not. DEVK’s complete Bedingungswerk, Tarifbestimmungen, calculation bases and sixteen Basisinformationsblätter have been read [S2] [S15], and Allianz’s product page for InvestFlex [S3]; for every other carrier named below, no AVB, no Produktinformationsblatt, no Basisinformationsblatt and no rate card was retrieved. So the first table below is now partly a table of observations and mostly still a table of absences, and it says which is which. The second table records the dimensions along which German carriers differ, with the range argued from the mechanics and the statutory bounds — and, where a level has been observed, marked as observed at one carrier rather than as a market range.

What is established, carrier by carrier

Carrier	Established here	Source
DEVK	Read in full. Tariff L/N FR1, “DEVK-Fondsrente vario”, Kundeninformation 03101/07/2024. Death benefit max(Fondsguthaben, Summe der gezahlten Beiträge); Rentenfaktor = max(guaranteed, current) with the current one on an open immediate-annuity tariff; guaranteed factors 25,22 / 24,12 / 22,91 / 21,83 € per 10 000 € at deferments of 12 / 20 / 30 / 40 years to Rentenbeginn 67; bases DAV 2004 R at 0,0 % and Risikobeiträge on 65 % of DAV 1994 T; charges 2,50 % acquisition, 6,90 % of premium, 0,42 % p.a. of fund, 18 €/yr; Stornoabzug 150 € flat; reduction in yield 1,4–3,4 % p.a. over 30 years; nine Monega funds; five-year opt-out Ablaufmanagement	[S2] [S15], retrieved
Allianz Leben	Product page read. “InvestFlex” is a real Vorsorgekonzept, sold in a pure fund-linked and a guarantee variant on one chassis; Garantieniveau 10 %–90 % of premiums in 10-pp steps; free unlimited fund and strategy switching; optional three-year Ablaufmanagement. The AVB host refuses; no clause text. Treuhänderklausel position publicly defended in February 2021, and the clause held void in IV ZR 34/25	[S3] R22 REG-R36
Zurich Deutscher Herold	The Verbraucherinformation series is titled “für Konventionelle Versicherungen”, implying a fondsgebundene companion; at Rentenbeginn the higher of two factors applies. Defendant in LG Köln 8.2.2023 — 26 O 12/22 on the Rentenfaktor	[S4] R22, via a sibling delib file
CosmosDirekt (Cosmos Leben)	Inception annuity factor computed on DAV 2004 R at an interest rate of currently 0 % p.a. — stated for the classic tariff. Corroborates DEVK’s 0 % rather than carrying it	[S10], via a sibling delib file
Debeka	Discontinued its classic annuity tariff — the market-structure mechanism behind unit-linked dominance	[S14], via a sibling delib file
NÜRNBERGER	Publishes per-tariff AVB with codes in an NIR/N series	[S11], via a sibling delib file
AXA, R+V, VHV, LPV	Reduced Rentenfaktoren under a Treuhänderklausel — AXA about 100 000 contracts in 2017, R+V about 4 000 in 2017; AXA and LPV warned by a consumer body in January 2024. Named only for the case-law context; no product document	R22
Alte Leipziger, LV 1871, Continentale, HDI, Volkswohl Bund, Stuttgarter, WWK, myLife	Nothing. Named as real carriers of the right product, with [unverified] product names. The HDI address tried on 2026-08-30 returned the site’s 404 page	[S5]–[S9] [S12] [S13] [S18]

The dimensions of variation, and the argued range on each

Parameter	Argued range across the German market	Where the composite sits	Tag
Death-benefit shape	Fondsguthaben / Beitragsrückgewähr / 100–110 % of fund / guaranteed sum	Beitragsrückgewähr	shape read [S2]; the four-way range [unverified] — the one wording read offers only the Beitragsrückgewähr form
Acquisition charge	0 % (Nettotarif) to 2.5 % of Beitragssumme (the cap)	2.5 %, the cap	cap R12 REG-R16; 2,50 % observed at one carrier [S15]; interior std
Acquisition spreading	a five-year instalment plus a whole-term percentage	60 months, then zero	R1 REG-R28 for the statutory shape; the two-part split observed [S2]
Premium-based admin	2 % to 10 % of each premium	4.0 %	std; 6,90 % observed [S15]
Fund-based admin	0.10 % to 1.20 % p.a. of Fondsguthaben	0.30 % p.a.	std; 0,42 % p.a. observed [S15]
Stückkosten	0 to 5 EUR per month	3.00 EUR	std; 18 EUR per year — 1,50 €/month — observed [S15]
Fund TER	0.15 % (ETF) to 2.00 % p.a. (active)	0.45 %	std; observed sheets report the funds’ costs inside a combined band
Kickback crediting	none, partial or full; special Überschussanteil, RfB allocation, or cost reduction	none (passive fund)	std; mechanisms R10, one carrier’s rule [S2], market levels R11
Effektivkosten	1,90 % weighted mean at entry age 37 over 30 years; quartiles 1,30 / 1,64 / 2,35 %; insurers above 4 % at every age-and-term combination	approx. 1 % p.a. implied by the stack — below the observed lower quartile	R11; delib level std
Guaranteed Rentenfaktor	25,22 / 24,12 / 22,91 / 21,83 € per 10 000 € at deferments of 12 / 20 / 30 / 40 years to age 67, at one carrier	25.00 EUR per 10,000 EUR at age 67, flat in deferment	std, derived; observed values [S15]
Factor rule at Rentenbeginn	max(guaranteed, current) — appears uniform	max(guaranteed, current)	read verbatim [S2]; also [S4] R22
Rentengarantiezeit	5 to 25 years at one carrier, maximum end age 87	10 years, not priced separately	[S2]; choice std
Beitragsgarantie	10 % to 90 % of premiums in 10-pp steps at one carrier; 0 % on a guarantee-free tariff	0 % — no guarantee	[S3] for the menu, [S2] for a guarantee-free tariff; choice std
Guarantee technology	none / static hybrid / dynamic 2- or 3-pot / i-CPPI	none	argued above
Ablaufmanagement	opt-out default over 5 years at one carrier, optional over 3 years at another	5-year monthly glide, switchable	[S2] [S3]
Free fund switches	free and unlimited at both carriers observed	unlimited within modelled behaviour	[S2] [S3]; that any carrier charges is [unverified]
Stornoabzug	must be vereinbart, beziffert, angemessen; a flat 150 EUR at one carrier	zero	R1 REG-R28; observed [S2]; level std
Minimum monthly premium	25 to 50 EUR	25 EUR	25 EUR observed [S2]; the upper end [unverified]
Entry ages	roughly 15/18 to the low 60s	18 to 60	[unverified]; std
Rentenbeginn age	62 to 85 at one carrier; 62 is the tax floor	67	[S2]; tax floor R20 REG-R45; choice std
Distribution model	commission tariff, direct writer, Nettotarif / Honorartarif	commission tariff, with a Nettotarif charge variant on the same chassis	[S10] [S13] [S18]

The one dimension worth isolating. A Nettotarif is the same unit-linked contract with the Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten removed from the tariff, the adviser being paid a fee under a separate Vergütungsvereinbarung [S18]. It matters for one modelling reason: the difference between a gross tariff’s reduction in yield and the same chassis’s net reduction in yield is the acquisition-cost load — the single parameter this specification most needs and that no document in the corpus supplies. No net-tariff or gross-tariff figure is established; the observation that the gap exists is structural, not numeric. It is carried as a charge variant in the shipped tables so that a reader can read the difference off the model instead of looking for it in a document that was not retrieved.

---

Regulatory context

Contract law — the VVG. Six provisions do the work, and every paragraph number below was read in the canonical text on 2026-08-30 (Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156); the [unverified] tags they carried are withdrawn. § 169 Abs. 4 makes the Rückkaufswert of a fondsgebundene contract the Zeitwert “soweit nicht der Versicherer eine bestimmte Leistung garantiert; im Übrigen gilt Absatz 3”; Abs. 3 carries the even five-year spreading of the angesetzte Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten as a minimum on the Deckungskapital branch; Abs. 5 permits a Stornoabzug only where it is vereinbart, beziffert and angemessen and makes a deduction for “noch nicht getilgte Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten” ineffective — the burden of proof on the insurer is contractual, not statutory, and a real AVB supplies it [S2]; Abs. 6 permits a temporary reduction to protect the fund R1 REG-R28. § 168 Abs. 1 lets the policyholder terminate “jederzeit für den Schluss der laufenden Versicherungsperiode”, Abs. 2 extends the right to single-premium contracts, and Abs. 3 withholds it only from pension-purpose contracts this product is not — paired with § 169 it makes Storno a near-frictionless exit at fund value, which is why unit-linked lapse experience differs from conventional lapse experience R2 REG-R28. § 165 Abs. 1 gives the right to a prämienfreie Versicherung subject to the agreed Mindestversicherungsleistung, and routes a below-minimum request to the Rückkaufswert R3 REG-R28. § 163 is the residual statutory route to a reduced Rentenfaktor, on three cumulative conditions and an independent trustee’s confirmation — and it is primarily a power over the premium, the insurer’s direct power to cut the benefit arising under Abs. 2 Satz 2 only on a paid-up contract R4 R22 REG-R27. § 153 Abs. 1 entitles the policyholder to a share of the surplus and of the Bewertungsreserven unless excluded by express agreement, and “die Überschussbeteiligung kann nur insgesamt ausgeschlossen werden”; Abs. 4 makes the end of the accumulation phase the allocation point for the Bewertungsreserven on an annuity; here the share can only come from the risk and cost results R5 REG-R9 REG-R24. § 7 and § 152 govern pre-contractual information and the Widerruf, whose period is 30 days R6 REG-R23 REG-R31. § 155 sets the annual statement’s contents, including the sum of premiums paid for contracts written from 1 July 2018 — and § 154 Abs. 1 Satz 2 excludes this product from the Modellrechnung altogether REG-R25.

Prudential — the VAG and the reserving regulations. Anlage 1 Nr. 21 to the VAG names the Sparte “Fondsgebundene Lebensversicherung” — not “fonds- und indexgebundene Lebensversicherung”, as this document previously said; index-linked business has no separate line. That separate Sparte is why German statistics and insurers’ accounts report it apart R15 REG-R5. § 125 Abs. 5 VAG requires “eine Abteilung des Sicherungsvermögens (Anlagestock)” per Anlageart where benefits are provided in units of an open fund — a division within the Sicherungsvermögen — and § 124 Abs. 2 Satz 2 Nr. 1 requires the technical provisions to be represented “so genau wie möglich durch die betreffenden Anteile”, so unit assets and unit liability move together exactly R15 REG-R7. § 138 VAG requires premiums to be calculated on prudent assumptions and, in Abs. 2, benefits and premiums to be set on the same principles for like risks REG-R8. The DeckRV supplies the two numbers that matter: the Höchstzillmersatz of 25 ‰ of the sum of all premiums (§ 4 Abs. 1), which binds; and the Höchstrechnungszins of 1 % (§ 2 Abs. 1), which does not — the section applies only “[b]ei Versicherungsverträgen mit Zinsgarantie” R12 REG-R14 REG-R15 REG-R16. The MindZV fixes the minimum share of each surplus source credited to policyholders, and the percentages are now established: 90 % of the Kapitalanlageergebnis (§ 6), 90 % of the Risikoergebnis (§ 7), 50 % of the übriges Ergebnis (§ 8). For this product only the last two can bite, because § 3 Abs. 1 computes the creditable investment income “ohne die der Lebensversicherung für Rechnung und Risiko der Versicherungsnehmer zuzuordnenden Erträge und Aufwendungen” R14 REG-R18. Above it sits Solvency II through the VAG: a best estimate plus a risk margin REG-R1 REG-R2 REG-R6, with EIOPA publishing the curves REG-R4 and Directive (EU) 2025/2 first applying on 30 January 2027 REG-R3. Nothing in this library implements a 2027 basis.

Disclosure and conduct. The PRIIPs Regulation — Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1286/2014, with the RTS in Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2017/653 as amended by (EU) 2019/1866 and (EU) 2021/2268 — requires a Basisinformationsblatt for every packaged retail and insurance-based investment product, and a fondsgebundene Rentenversicherung is the paradigm German IBIP R8 REG-R32. Sixteen actual sheets for this product class have now been read [S15], and they settle what the document contains: a summary risk indicator — this product is graded “Risikoklasse 2 bis 5” on the 1–7 scale, a range because the class follows the chosen fund; a statement that the product carries no protection against market falls; the costs the investor bears, split into Einstiegskosten, laufende Kosten and Transaktionskosten; and the reduction in yield at three time points — one year, half the recommended holding period and the end of it, which on the 30-year sheet are years 1, 15 and 30, as this document predicted. Two points must be corrected. The four graded scenarios Stress / pessimistisch / moderat / optimistisch do not appear: on a generic sheet for a fund-menu product the Performance-Szenarien heading refers the reader to the option-specific documents instead, which is the multi-option treatment under the RTS, and the source that described the four-scenario table is itself no longer retrievable R9. And the categorisation is now known and is not the one this document assumed: on the profession’s own standard a German Schicht-3 unit-linked annuity is a PRIIP Kategorie 4 product, because cost deductions and biometric components make its pots inseparable — decomposition “ist bei Versicherungsanlageprodukten im Regelfall nicht möglich” R18. Which is why two documents for economically similar products can show very different scenario returns, and why this specification cites no scenario return. Alongside PRIIPs, § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 VVG-InfoV with Abs. 2 requires the einkalkulierte Abschlusskosten to be disclosed in euro as a single total, the other costs separately as a share of the annual premium, and Nr. 7 adds a fondsgebundene-specific duty to describe the underlying funds and their asset types; Nr. 9 with Abs. 6 defines the Effektivkosten on the Annex VI method R7 REG-R31. The Modellrechnung does not apply to this product — § 154 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VVG excludes contracts of the § 124 Abs. 2 Satz 2 VAG kind — though where it does apply § 2 Abs. 3 VVG-InfoV prescribes three rates exactly: the Höchstrechnungszinssatz × 1,67, that rate + 1 pp, and that rate − 1 pp REG-R25. The IDD-derived Zuwendungen rules govern whether a Kickback may be retained, and BaFin’s Merkblatt 01/2023 (VA) now supplies the substantive answer as well as the Value for Money regime described in the overview R10 R15 REG-R33 REG-R35.

Taxation, and why it drives behaviour. Three regimes meet on this contract, and the differences between them are the product’s commercial argument and its strongest behavioural driver. In the accumulation phase nothing is taxed — no annual taxation of fund income inside the wrapper, no Vorabpauschale, and no taxable disposal on a Fondswechsel R20 R21 REG-R45 — while a direct fund holding is taxed on both, which is why a cost comparison against a Depot is not like-for-like. On the annuity only the Ertragsanteil is taxable, at a statutory percentage set once by the annuitant’s completed age at Rentenbeginn and never changed, so every later increase is taxed at the same light rate. The table in § 22 Nr. 1 Satz 3 Buchst. a Doppelbuchst. bb EStG has been read: 18 % at 65–66 — a carrier’s own tax notes give the worked figure, a 10 000 € annuity first paid at 65 being taxable as 1 800 € [S2] — and 17 % at 67, which is this document’s own Rentenbeginn and therefore the rate any tax gloss on the anchor cell should use. The table runs from 59 % at age 0–1 to 1 % from 97 and is not reproduced here; the [unverified] tag on the other ages is withdrawn R19 REG-R41. On a lump sum, § 20 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 Satz 1 EStG taxes “der Unterschiedsbetrag zwischen der Versicherungsleistung und der Summe der auf sie entrichteten Beiträge (Erträge) im Erlebensfall oder bei Rückkauf des Vertrags”, and Satz 2 halves it where the contract has run at least twelve years and payment falls after completion of the 62nd year of life — the enacted text says the 60th, and § 52 Abs. 28 raises it to 62 “für Vertragsabschlüsse nach dem 31. Dezember 2011”, so 12/62 is right for anything modelled here and 12/60 for older contracts. § 32d Abs. 2 Nr. 2 EStG puts that half into the personal marginal rate rather than the flat Abgeltungsteuer R20 REG-R45. The Teilfreistellung is in the same provision, not in the InvStG, and it is exact — Satz 9: “Bei fondsgebundenen Lebensversicherungen sind 15 Prozent des Unterschiedsbetrages steuerfrei oder dürfen nicht bei der Ermittlung der Einkünfte abgezogen werden, soweit der Unterschiedsbetrag aus Investmenterträgen stammt”; a carrier’s own tax notes add the transitional limb, that the investment income must have arisen after 31 December 2017 [S2] R20 R21 REG-R45. The [unverified] tags on the sentence, the percentage and the conditions are withdrawn. Two further points from the same wording: the half-income treatment also reaches Teilkapitalentnahmen during the Aufschubzeit and a partial Kapitalabfindung at Rentenbeginn; and a Zuzahlung or a premium increase restarts the twelve-year clock for the increment, which the composite does not model. Death benefits before Rentenbeginn are income-tax free.

The behavioural consequence, and the reason this is not merely context. The twelve-year and age-62 conditions create a double threshold that policyholders wait for: surrenders are suppressed as it approaches and spike once both limbs are met, and the annuitise-or-commute election at Rentenbeginn is a tax election, not a preference. A German Schicht-3 lapse assumption that is flat in duration has ignored the strongest single driver of German surrender behaviour REG-R45. The reference implementation models it as a duration-and-age-dependent lapse shape with the threshold named and the level std — the treatment frlib gives the eight-year threshold in French assurance vie. And the 50 % Mindesttodesfallschutz rule for contracts concluded from 1 April 2009 is a model-point design constraint rather than a footnote: how it applies to a Rentenversicherung with and without a Kapitalwahlrecht was not established [unverified] REG-R45, and the composite’s death benefit is not designed to satisfy it.

Accounting and professional standards. German statutory reporting runs under HGB §§ 341–341o and the RechVersV, where unit-linked business is reported separately from the general account REG-R54. Under IFRS 17 a fondsgebundene contract is the archetypal direct-participating contract and would be measured under the variable fee approach; the VFA mechanics were not read and are [unverified] REG-R55. Actuarial work sits under the DAV’s Fachgrundsätze and the responsible actuary’s certifications under §§ 141–143 VAG REG-R11 REG-R56.

Living texts. VVG, VVG-InfoV, DeckRV, MindZV, VAG, EStG and InvStG all change; the PRIIPs RTS has been amended at least twice, by (EU) 2019/1866 and (EU) 2021/2268, and the reworking with effect from 1 January 2023 is [unverified]; the Höchstrechnungszins stands at 1 % under a regulation amended on 19 July 2024, and its 1 January 2025 commencement is [unverified] because it lies in the amending instrument rather than in the DeckRV; BaFin’s focus-risk agenda is annual. The paragraph numbers in this document are no longer [unverified]: the VVG, VAG, DeckRV, MindZV and EStG sections cited above were read in the canonical text on 2026-08-30, with the VVG at Stand 26 May 2026, the DeckRV at 19 July 2024 and the MindZV at 7 July 2020. Dates are a different matter — several of the ones this document gives are legislative-history facts that do not appear in the consolidated texts, and they still carry their tags. Every citation should still be re-checked against the instrument before anything here is relied on, but it can now be checked against a text this library has opened rather than against one it has only named.