MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974645000 · doi:10.1080/10920277.2019.1625789

Hedging Mortality/Longevity Risks for Multiple Years

2019· article· en· W2974645000 on OpenAlexafffund
Tzuling Lin, Cary Chi‐Liang Tsai

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
KeywordsLongevity riskLongevityActuarial scienceEconometricsEconomicsGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we develop strategies of hedging multiyear mortality (longevity) risk for a life insurer (an annuity provider) through purchasing some mortality-linked securities from a financial intermediary. Under the multiyear hedges for a life insurer (an annuity provider) involving two uncertain factors—the mortality rate and the number of life insureds (annuity recipients)—we derive closed-form formulas for the optimal units of purchasing underlying mortality-linked securities. Numerical illustrations show that the downside risk of loss because of mortality (longevity) risk for the life insurer (annuity provider) can be significantly hedged by purchasing the optimal units of mortality-linked securities, and the sample risk can be reduced by increasing the number of life insureds (annuity recipients) at issue. For a financial intermediary, adopting an optimal weight of a portfolio of life and annuity business can reduce extreme losses from the longevity risk but could slightly increase losses from the mortality risk, and the sample risk cannot necessarily be eliminated by increasing the number of life insureds/annuity recipients at issue.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Actuarial JournalSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207