MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604581892 · doi:10.1017/s174849951700001x

Demographic risk in deep-deferred annuity valuation

2017· article· en· W2604581892 on OpenAlex
Min Ji, Rui Zhou

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Actuarial Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnnuityActuarial scienceValuation (finance)Life annuityEconomicsPensionFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A deep-deferred annuity is a deferred annuity where payments start very late in life, i.e. well after the normal retirement age. This annuity has received much attention lately as it was made accessible to 401(k) plans in the United States in 2014. By transferring the risk of outliving retirement savings at high ages to annuity providers, deep-deferred annuities provide annuitants with enhanced later-life financial security. However, the valuation of this annuity suffers from high uncertainty because the mortality data at high ages are sparse and possibly unreliable. In this paper, we use risk ratio to measure demographic risk in the valuation. Demographic risk is decomposed into the following four components: (1) mortality tail curve risk, (2) mortality improvement model risk, (3) parameter risk in mortality tail curves, and (4) parameter risk in mortality improvement rate models. Our quantitative analysis aims to provide insights into the development and risk management of deep-deferred annuities.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.309 · 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