MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2476023678 · doi:10.7434/mser.v1i1.16203

Quantile hedging of equity-linked life insurance contracts: stochastic interest rate environment

2011· article· en· W2476023678 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Melnikov, Shuo Tong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife insuranceJump diffusionInterest rateEconomicsActuarial scienceValuation (finance)Equity (law)Rendleman–Bartter modelQuantileEconometricsJumpFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the problem of pricing equity-linked life insurance contracts, and also focuses on the valuation of insurance contracts with stochastic guarantee. The contracts under consideration are based on two risky assets that satisfy a two-factor jump-diffusion model: one asset is responsible for future gains, and the other one is a stochastic guarantee. As most life insurance products are long-term contracts, it is more practical to consider the problem in a stochastic interest rate environment. In our setting, the stochastic interest rate behaviour is also described by a jump-diffusion model. In addition, quantile hedging technique is developed and exploited to price such finance/insurance contracts with initial capital constraints. Explicit formulas for both the price of the contracts and the survival probability are obtained. Our results are illustrated by numerical example based on financial indexes Russell 2000 and S&P 500.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStochastic processes and financial applications→French-language works237,207→