Estimating flood catastrophe bond prices using approximation method of the loss aggregate distribution: Evidence from Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Losses experienced by the Indonesian government due to floods are predicted. It is because of the significance of population growth, closure of water catchment areas, and climate change in many regions in Indonesia. The government has tried to reduce the risk but faces insufficient funds. Therefore, new innovative funding sources are essential to overcome these limitations. One way to obtain it is through issuing Flood Catastrophe Bonds (FCB). Unfortunately, Indonesia has had no FCB price estimate until now. On the basis of this problem, this study aims to estimate the FCB price in Indonesia. The primary method used is the approximation method of the aggregate loss distribution. This method can compute the aggregate flood loss cumulative distribution function value faster. The FCB fair price estimation results are cheap because the risk of the instrument is significant. This significant risk is also proportional to the large return. Finally, further analysis shows that in Indonesia, the attachment point of the FCB has a relationship that is in line with the price, while the term of FCB does not. This research is expected to assist the Indonesian government in determining the fair price of FCB in Indonesia. This research can assist the investors in choosing FCB based on expected return, attachment point, and the term they want.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".