Capital requirements and optimal investment with solvency probability constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying economic capital and optimally allocating it into portfolios of financial instruments are two key topics in the asset–liability management of an insurance company. In general, these problems are studied in the literature by minimizing standard risk measures such as the value at risk and the conditional VaR. Motivated by Solvency II regulations, we introduce a novel optimization problem to solve for the optimal required capital and the portfolio structure simultaneously, when the ruin probability is used as an insurance solvency constraint. Besides the generic optimal required capital and portfolio problem formulation, we propose a two-model hierarchy of optimization models, where both models admit the so-called second-order conic reformulation, in turn making them particularly well suited for numerics. The first model, albeit naively asserting the normality of the returns on assets and liabilities, under minor further simplifications admits a closed-form solution—a set of formulas, which may be used as simple decision-making guidelines in the analysis of more complex scenarios. A potentially more realistic second model aims to represent the ‘heavy-tailed’ nature of an insurer's liabilities more accurately, while also allowing arbitrary distributions of asset returns via a semi-parametric approach. Extensive numerical simulations illustrate the sensitivity and robustness of the proposed approach relative to the model's parameters. In addition, we explore the potential of insurance risk diversification and discuss if combining several liabilities into a single insurance portfolio may always be beneficial for the insurer. Finally, we propose an extension of the model with an expected return on capital constraint added.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".