4.2 Article

VALUATION OF HYBRID FINANCIAL AND ACTUARIAL PRODUCTS IN LIFE INSURANCE BY A NOVEL THREE-STEP METHOD

Journal

ASTIN BULLETIN
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages 709-742

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/asb.2020.25

Keywords

Financial risk; actuarial valuation; contract valuation; incomplete markets; risk decomposition; hedging

Funding

  1. FNRS cross-university grant PDR Risk management and Pricing in Finance and Insurance
  2. PRIME program of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
  3. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Financial products are priced using risk-neutral expectations justified by hedging portfolios that (as accurate as possible) match the product's payoff. In insurance, premium calculations are based on a real-world best-estimate value plus a risk premium. The insurance risk premium is typically reduced by pooling of (in the best case) independent contracts. As hybrid life insurance contracts depend on both financial and insurance risks, their valuation requires a hybrid valuation principle that combines the two concepts of financial and actuarial valuation. The aim of this paper is to present a novel three-step projection algorithm to valuate hybrid contracts by decomposing their payoff in three parts: a financial, hedgeable part, a diversifiable actuarial part, and a residual part that is neither hedgeable nor diversifiable. The first two parts of the resulting premium are directly linked to their corresponding hedging and diversification strategies, respectively. The method allows for a separate treatment of unsystematic, diversifiable mortality risk and systematic, aggregate mortality risk related to, for example, epidemics or population-wide improvements in life expectancy. We illustrate our method in the case of CAT bonds and a pure endowment insurance contract with profit and compare the three-step method to alternative valuation operators suggested in the literature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available