MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224303238 · doi:10.3390/risks10040078

Unit-Linked Tontine: Utility-Based Design, Pricing and Performance

2022· article· en· W4224303238 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRisks · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalActua
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnit (ring theory)AttractivenessEconomicsStochastic gameTransferable utilityPaymentUnit of accountMicroeconomicsUnit priceActuarial scienceComputer scienceFinanceGame theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the low demand for conventional annuities, alternative retirement products are sought. Quite recently, tontines have been frequently brought up as a promising option in this respect. Inspired by unit-linked life insurance and retirement products, we introduce unit-linked tontines in this article, where the tontine payoffs are directly linked to the development of the underlying financial market. More specifically, we consider two different tontine payoff structures differing in the (non-)inclusion of guaranteed payments. We first price the unit-linked tontines by using the risk-neutral pricing approach. Consequently, we study the attractiveness of these products for a utility-maximizing policyholder and compare them with non-unit-linked tontines. Our numerical analysis sheds light on the design challenges and gives explanations why similar products might not be widely adopted already.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.242 · 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