MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770009836 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n12p168

Factors Affecting Derivatives Use for Life Insurance Companies

2017· article· en· W2770009836 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Park Kwang Hee, Woon Kyung Song

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolvencyLife insuranceReinsuranceBusinessSolvency ratioHedgeActuarial scienceCurrencyControl (management)Asset (computer security)Interest rateMarket liquidityEconomicsMonetary economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this article is to investigate what factors affect derivatives use for life insurance companies in Korea. For life insurance companies in Korea, there are some problems to solve. First one is to meet IFRS standard which emphasizes solvency. Second one is to overcome problems from macroeconomic including low economic growth and low interest rate, fluctuating foreign currency exchange rate, and problems from population composition change and longer longevity. One of the possible ways to control the risks that life insurance companies face is using derivatives. Traditionally life insurance companies use reinsurance to hedge their inherent risks. However, hedging by using derivatives provides some different merits from those by reinsurance, such as, effects of controlling risks from macroeconomic change, in some cases less costs to control risks, etc. So using derivatives to control risks for life insurance companies is not only for sustainable management but for growth and becoming more competitive. The study results show that asset size, foreign assets and liabilities, proportion of deposit insurance, liquidity, RBC are significant factors affecting derivatives use.

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)0.001
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 score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207