Contract Structure and Risk Aversion in Longevity Risk Transfers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces an economic framework to assess optimal longevity risk transfers between institutions, focusing on the interactions between a buyer exposed to long-term longevity risk and a seller offering longevity protection. While most longevity risk transfers have occurred in the reinsurance sector, where global reinsurers provide long-term protections, the capital market for longevity risk transfer has struggled to gain traction, resulting in only a few short-term instruments. We investigate how differences in risk aversion between the two parties affect the equilibrium structure of longevity risk transfer contracts, contrasting `static' contracts that offer long-term protection with `dynamic' contracts that provide short-term, variable coverage. Our analysis shows that static contracts are preferred by more risk-averse buyers, while dynamic contracts are favored by more risk-averse sellers who are reluctant to commit to long-term agreements. When incorporating information asymmetry through ambiguity, we find that ambiguity can cause more risk-averse sellers to stop offering long-term contracts. With the assumption that global reinsurers, acting as sellers in the reinsurance sector and buyers in the capital market, are generally less risk-averse than other participants, our findings provide theoretical explanations for current market dynamics and suggest that short-term instruments offer valuable initial steps toward developing an efficient and active capital market for longevity risk transfer.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".