MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094974274 · doi:10.1017/asb.2020.37

A MIXED BOND AND EQUITY FUND MODEL FOR THE VALUATION OF VARIABLE ANNUITIES

2020· article· en· W3094974274 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maciej Augustyniak, Frédéric Godin, Emmanuel Hamel

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsActuaUniversité LavalConcordia UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBondEconomicsPortfolioEquity (law)Valuation (finance)Target date fundMutual fundFixed incomeYield curveActuarial scienceEquity riskRisk–return spectrumCapital asset pricing modelFinancial economicsEconometricsFinanceOpen-end fundInstitutional investor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Variable annuity (VA) policies are typically issued on mutual funds invested in both fixed income and equity asset classes. However, due to the lack of specialized models to represent the dynamics of fixed income fund returns, the literature has primarily focused on studying long-term investment guarantees on single-asset equity funds. This article develops a mixed bond and equity fund model in which the fund return is linked to movements of the yield curve. Theoretical motivation for our proposed specification is provided through an analogy with a portfolio of rolling horizon bonds. Moreover, basis risk between the portfolio return and its risk drivers is naturally incorporated into our framework. Numerical results show that the fit of our model to Canadian VA data is adequate. Finally, the valuation of VAs is illustrated and it is found that the prevailing interest rate environment can have a substantial impact on guarantee costs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.059 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207