Capital requirements and optimal investment with solvency probability constraints
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it