English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 60696/93562 (65%)
Visitors : 1046402      Online Users : 32
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/24555

    Title: Reserving, pricing and hedging for policies with guaranteed annuity options
    Authors: Wilkie, A. D.;Waters, H. R.;楊曉文;Yang, Sheau-wen
    Contributors: 淡江大學保險學系
    Keywords: Guaranteed Annuity Options;Contingency Reserves;Quantile Reserves;Conditional Tail Expectations;Charging for Contingency Reserves;Mortality Improvements;Quanto Options;Option Prices;Hedging Proportions;Dynamic Hedging;Empirical Hedging;Hedging Errors;Transaction Costs;Practicability of Hedging;Fat-tailed Innovations;Stochastic Mortality Models;Stochastic Hypermodels;Stochastic Bridges;Brownian Bridges;Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Bridges
    Date: 2003-01-01
    Issue Date: 2009-11-30 18:26:57 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: Faculty of Actuaries and Institute of Actuaries
    Abstract: In this paper we consider reserving and pricing methodologies for a pensions-type contract with a simple form of guaranteed annuity option. We consider only unit-linked contracts, but our methodologies and, to some extent, our numerical results would apply also to with-profits contracts.
    The Report of the Annuity Guarantees Working Party (Bolton et al., 1997), presented the
    results of a very interesting survey, as at the end of 1996, of life assurance companies offering guaranteed annuity options. There was no consensus at that time among the companies on how to reserve for such options. The Report discussed several approaches to reserving, but concluded
    that it was unable to recommend a single approach. This paper is an attempt to fill that gap. We investigate two approaches to reserving and pricing. In the first sections of the paper we consider quantile, and conditional tail expectation, reserves. The methodology we adopt here is very close to that proposed by the Maturity Guarantees Working Party in its Report to the
    profession (Ford et al., 1980). We show how these policies could have been reserved for in 1985, and what would have been the outcome of using the proposed method.
    In a later section we consider the feasibility of using option pricing methodology to dynamically hedge a guaranteed annuity option. It is shown that this is possible within the context of the model we propose, but we submit that, in practical terms, dynamic hedging is not
    a complete solution to the problem since suitable tradeable assets do not in practice exist.
    Finally, we describe several enhancements to our models and methodology, which would
    make them even more realistic, though generally they would have the effect of increasing the required contingency reserves
    Relation: British Actuarial Journal 9(2), pp.263-391
    DOI: 10.1017/S1357321700004219
    Appears in Collections:[Graduate Institute & Department of Insurance Insurance] Journal Article

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback