MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the Behavior and Hedging of Segregated Funds Offering the Reset Feature

2002· article· en· W2039691447 on OpenAlexaffabout
H. Windcliff, M Roux, Peter Forsyth, Kenneth R. Vetzal

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReset (finance)Feature (linguistics)Maturity (psychological)Volatility (finance)Investment (military)Computer scienceLiabilityProduct (mathematics)EconomicsBusinessActuarial scienceFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segregated funds have become an extremely popular Canadian investment vehicle. These instruments provide long-term maturity guarantees and often include complex option features. One controversial aspect is the reset feature, which provides the ability to lock in market gains. Recently, regulators have announced that firms offering these products will be subject to new capital requirements. This paper discusses the effects of volatility, interest rates, investor optimality, and product design on the cost of providing a segregated fund guarantee. For each scenario, the authors provide the appropriate management expense ratio (MER) that should be charged and demonstrate the current liability using a given fixed MER. The paper also investigates intuitive reasons that cause the reset feature to require such a dramatic increase in the hedging costs. Finally, an approximate method for handling the reset feature is presented that can be computed very efficiently, provided the correct proportional fee is charged.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Actuarial JournalSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207