MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Valuation and Hedging of the Ruin‐Contingent Life Annuity (RCLA)

2013· article· en· W2158607454 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Risk & Insurance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife annuityActuarial scienceLife insuranceEconomicsAnnuityValuation (finance)Liberian dollarStochastic gameArbitrageTreasuryFinancial economicsFinanceMicroeconomicsPension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We analyze an insurance instrument called a ruin‐contingent life annuity (RCLA), which is a stand‐alone version of the option embedded inside a variable annuity (VA) but without the buyer having to transfer investments to the insurance company. The annuitant's payoff from an RCLA is a dollar of income per year for life, deferred until a certain wealth process hits zero. We derive the partial differential equation (PDE) satisfied by the RCLA value assuming no arbitrage, describe efficient numerical techniques, and provide estimates for RCLA values. The practical motivation is twofold. First, numerous insurance companies are now offering similar contingent deferred annuities (CDAs). Second, the U.S. Treasury and Department of Labor have encouraged DC plans to offer longevity insurance to participants and the RCLA might be the ideal product.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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