REVIEW.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3193, 14 May 1879, Page 1

REVIEW.

'frdffreitive Pdiey i>/ the AuttralMtH Muhial frwident SocietyßeffieKcd.BiUanict A. Buck, F.liil; Jioißiry to the Society. Sydney: George Bobertson. The aboreii the title of trwyintereit. M^^WM.AL^b. F.|4 a and issued under/jtbo naipcei, of the society named." It deals in a Very exhaustive manner tipon all Hfe ifliaraboe matters-, and shows the progress made by many of the leading offlees, but especially the wonderful. success that haa attended the Amttalian Mtitual Pro?ident. The author in his introductionaaja:—• At eTery annual meeting for the lwt flre or six jean the queitipn .as to whetbtr the ex* peniei df ooridiittirii the Iraiineu: of the Society are exeortiTe to hot,' hu been a subject for adreno criticitm. . Some members oemplain that'tne ixA*\ expeniei are so much higher thi^.they were in.»hee»lrlyye»rß of the SociitV) others call attention: to particular items of expenditure; and consider them high, absolutely or relatiTely.as obsopared with former yein; it aridther time it is pointed out that the ratio'ofi the eipensei to the premium.income, for a particaUr year, exceeds thst ( of jwme prefious. year; while .another ,favlrojril«, n^ethodrof critiriimjli to contrast .the expeiaditure with that . of!j«o^|a of,' 'mi'^X^^'^Kun^^^^aifi^ in England, who transact »nly a small amount ,of; <,neW;,, business; as compared i, jfith. ihat been argued f that the expenses inoarrißcl ■ ia procuring new business are" so much deducted fromihe profits of the older members, that it is in fact a waste of the Society's funds to p^aeoiiteithe business for; which the Mutual ProVident was, founded. \ , But the climax of erroneous and ohwarrkntable criticism was .reached wben # at~jffilj(ij*ft annual meeting it w^ boldly asserted "that it was an axiom laid down by all actnries, that anythingin the shapa of expenses ofer 13 ptr cent, was unsafe." ..,;.;„(,•;/, » Si w.;.(l .11.: '■ : : Beliefinft that the question considered irom different: pointa i of >riew requires explanation,; -the r writer proposes to treat the subject under'thsttollo wing head:—

1. How much dp'ch'e assured contribute for expensWtf Management?' ■- - , 2. What have been' the' Mftinriai expressions of opinion on minimum and maximum rates of expenditure?' * ' ' <' > > 3.<Comoaratire 'expenditure between differtßt" societies—what are the causes that '•pevate te>4Uiaereaee «rdecree*? 4. Are the expenses of the Mutual Provident high or low ac oompared with assurance institutions in Bogland, America, and Aus'trau"a?r !i> -" -r : , ■ ■

5. Has the ratio of elpeHses to the premium Income exhibited a contihuonsly increasing or decretsiHg'teathMW^ ? ' ■' > *• ■ 6. Aris' th* j exjjens*s inonrred in acquiring new ' business excessive, or oalbalatsd to diminUh the profit! of fhe Booiety ? 7. W«mM it be to the advantage of the members who have alifißady participated in th« profit*,' ,jf the Society transaoted a less , aatodnt'Of iiew business'annually, <i.e., ad* mitted 1 fewer members to snare the prolte ? The autnor,'in'a moatinirelligibte manner♦ .dealt with his,subject, ; and gives information that mast not only be terjralaable to the member,!* of the Australian Mutual PcovideDt Society, Vut to all persons who take an interesti in,such matters* or others about to take assurances upon.their lires. Xhe book we. received, from,the resident secretary for New Zealand, E. W. Lowe, Esq., of Wellington.