MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997613370 · doi:10.1017/asb.2019.38

NATURAL HEDGES WITH IMMUNIZATION STRATEGIES OF MORTALITY AND INTEREST RATES

2020· article· en· W2997613370 on OpenAlexaff
Tzuling Lin, Cary Chi‐Liang Tsai

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevity riskHedgeConvexityInterest ratePortfolioEconometricsInterest rate riskLife annuityLife insuranceEconomicsActuarial scienceAnnuityMatching (statistics)Mortality rateMathematicsStatisticsFinancial economicsFinanceDemographyPension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we first derive closed-form formulas for mortality-interest durations and convexities of the prices of life insurance and annuity products with respect to an instantaneously proportional change and an instantaneously parallel movement, respectively, in μ * (the force of mortality-interest), the addition of μ (the force of mortality) and δ (the force of interest). We then build several mortality-interest duration and convexity matching strategies to determine the weights of whole life insurance and deferred whole life annuity products in a portfolio and evaluate the value at risk and the hedge effectiveness of the weighted portfolio surplus at time zero. Numerical illustrations show that using the mortality-interest duration and convexity matching strategies with respect to an instantaneously proportional change in μ * can more effectively hedge the longevity risk and interest rate risk embedded in the deferred whole life annuity products than using the mortality-only duration and convexity matching strategies with respect to an instantaneously proportional shift or an instantaneously constant movement in μ only.

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)0.000
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207