MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923417146 · doi:10.1515/apjri-2018-0013

Actuarial Modeling and Analysis of the Hong Kong Life Annuity Scheme

2019· article· en· W2923417146 on OpenAlexaff
Koon-Shing Kwong, Wai‐Sum Chan, Johnny Siu‐Hang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth Sciences
KeywordsLife annuityAnnuityActuarial scienceCash flowLump sumBusinessEconomicsPaymentFinancePension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation (HKMC) Limited, which was established in March 1997 and is wholly owned by the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, has a major mission to develop and provide different financial retirement instruments to Hong Kong residents to help address the income poverty of retirees. In June 2017, HKMC Annuity Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the HKMC was incorporated to implement a new life annuity scheme which would be launched by mid-2018 to cater for the needs of cash-rich Hong Kong old age residents. The objective of the scheme is to provide an additional financial retirement planning option with minimum credit risk and a certain level of liquidity to the elderly by turning lump-sum premiums into lifetime streams of monthly income at a reasonable and stable return rate. In this paper, we establish an actuarial framework to model this life annuity scheme. The framework enables us to estimate the monthly annuity payments one might receive for a certain amount of investment. It also allows us to analyze the risk entailed in the product, thus shedding light on how the underlying risk can be managed through product design. Our findings will help potential subscribers to understand the scheme and decide whether this scheme should be included in their retirement investment portfolios when it is launched in 2018.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Risk and InsuranceSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207