Optimal Investment Considerations for a Single Cohort Life Insurance Portfolio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the portfolio optimization problem of an insurance company that issues an annuity, receives the associated premiums as a lump sum, and invests in a financial market. The insurer’s objective is to determine an investment strategy that minimizes the likelihood of defaulting on annuity payments before ceasing operations, where default occurs if the portfolio value, net of the annuity liability, becomes negative. Unlike the previous work, here the mortality intensity is stochastic and follows a Cox–Ingersoll–Ross (CIR) process. Dynamic programming is employed, and the value function is characterized by a Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman (HJB) equation, and the former is linearized through the Legendre transform. Numerical results show that default probability declines with higher initial wealth and mortality intensity, while stochastic mortality volatility has little impact—though slightly higher volatility marginally reduces default risk. Optimal stock investment falls with increasing wealth and mortality intensity, and is nearly constant for low wealth levels. Mortality volatility has minimal influence, but a higher Sharpe ratio raises optimal investment, underscoring the role of risk-adjusted returns.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".