MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123288161 · doi:10.2143/ast.42.2.2182808

Are Flexible Premium Variable Annuities Under-Priced?

2012· article· en· W3123288161 on OpenAlexafffund
Yichun Chi, X. Sheldon Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsAnnuityValuation (finance)Variable (mathematics)EconomicsActuarial scienceLife annuityMutual fundEconometricsMathematical economicsFinanceMathematicsPension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variable annuity (VA) is a deferred annuity that allows an annuitant to invest his/her contributions into a range of mutual funds. A separate account termed as sub-account is set up for the investment. Unlike a mutual fund, a VA offers a guaranteed minimum death benefit or GMDB and often offers a guaranteed minimum living benefit or GMLB during the accumulation phase of the VA contract. Almost all the research to date has focused on single premium variable annuities (SPVAs), i.e. it is assumed that an annuitant makes a single lump-sum contribution at the time of issue. In this paper, we study flexible premium variable annuities (FPVAs) that allow contributions during the accumulation phase. We derive a valuation formula for guarantees embedded in FPVAs and show that the delta hedging strategy for an FPVA is substantially different from that for an SPVA. The numerical examples illustrate that the cost in the form of mortality and expense (M&E) fee for an FPVA in many situations is significantly higher than the cost for a similar SPVA. This finding suggests that the current pricing practice by most VA providers that charges the same M&E fee for both should be re-examined.

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)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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