Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T23:25:26.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TARGET VOLATILITY STRATEGIES FOR GROUP SELF-ANNUITY PORTFOLIOS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2022

Annamaria Olivieri ,
Samuel Thirurajah  and
Jonathan Ziveyi Open the ORCID record for Jonathan Ziveyi [Opens in a new window]
Annamaria Olivieri
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Management University of Parma Parma, Italy E-Mail: annamaria.olivieri@unipr.it
Samuel Thirurajah
Affiliation:
TAL, Sydney, Australia E-Mail: harrith97@hotmail.com
Jonathan Ziveyi*
Affiliation:
School of Risk and Actuarial Studies CEPAR, UNSW Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
*
E-Mail: j.ziveyi@unsw.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the current pandemic is causing mortality shocks globally, the management of longevity risk remains a major challenge for both individuals and institutions. It is high time there be private market solutions designed for efficient longevity risk transfer among various stakeholders such as individuals, pension funds and annuity providers. From individuals’ point of view, appealing features of post-retirement solutions include stable and satisfactory benefit levels, flexibility, meeting bequest preferences and low fees. This paper proposes a dynamic target volatility strategy for group self-annuitization (GSA) schemes aimed at enhancing living benefits for pool participants. More specifically, we suggest investing GSA funds in a portfolio consisting of equity and cash, continuously rebalanced to maintain a target volatility level. The performance of a dynamic target volatility strategy is assessed against the static case which does not involve portfolio rebalancing. Benefit profiles are assessed by analysing quantiles and alternative strategies involving varying equity compositions. The case of death benefits is included, and the fund dynamics analysed by assessing resulting investment returns and the mortality credits. Overall, higher living benefit profiles are obtained under a dynamic target volatility strategy. From the analysis performed, a trade-off between the equity proportion and the impact on the lower quantile of the living benefit amount emerges, suggesting an optimal proportion of equity composition.

Keywords

Group self-annuitizationlongevity-linked annuity benefitsinvestment-linked annuity benefitsmortality creditstarget volatility strategyexponentially weighted moving averageHeston stochastic volatility modelG22
Type
Research Article
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 591 - 617
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Actuarial Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, T.G., Benzoni, L. and Lund, J. (2002) An empirical investigation of continuous-time equity return models. The Journal of Finance, 57(3), 1239–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollerslev, T. (1986) Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollerslev, T., Litvinova, J. and Tauchen, G. (2006). Leverage and volatility feedback effects in high-frequency data. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 4(3), 353–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.R. (2009) Understanding the role of annuities in retirement planning. In Overcoming the Savings Slump: How to Increase the Effectiveness of Financial Education and Saving Programs, pp. 178–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, A.J., Blake, D. and Dowd, K. (2008) Modelling and management of mortality risk: A review. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2008(2–3), 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A., Hieber, P. and Klein, J.K. (2019) Tonuity: A novel individual-oriented retirement plan. ASTIN Bulletin, 49(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doan, B., Papageorgiou, N., Reeves, J.J. and Sherris, M. (2018). Portfolio management with targeted constant market volatility. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 83, 134–147.Google Scholar
Donnelly, C. (2015) Actuarial fairness and solidarity in pooled annuity funds. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 45(1), 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, C., Guillén, M. and Nielsen, J.P. (2013) Exchanging uncertain mortality for a cost. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 52(1), 65–76.Google Scholar
Engle, R.F. (1982) Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 987–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feller, W. (1951) Two singular diffusion problems. Annals of Mathematics, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, J., Kirby, C. and Ostdiek, B. (2001). The economic value of volatility timing. The Journal of Finance, 56(1), 329–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heston, S.L. (1993) A closed-form solution for options with stochastic volatility with applications to bond and currency options. The Review of Financial Studies, 6(2), 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, C. and Ostdiek, B. (2012) It’s all in the timing: Simple active portfolio strategies that outperform naïve diversification. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 437–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, R.D. and Carter, L.R. (1992) Modeling and forecasting us mortality. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(419), 659–671.Google Scholar
Li, S., Labit Hardy, H., Sherris, M. and Villegas, A. (2019). A managed volatility investment strategy for pooled annuity products. Available at SSRN 3455806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milevsky, M.A. (2014) Portfolio choice and longevity risk in the late seventeenth century. A re-examination of the first english tontine. Financial History Review, 21(3), 225–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milevsky, M.A. and Salisbury, T.S. (2015). Optimal retirement income tontines. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 64, 91–105.Google Scholar
Modigliani, F. (1986). Life cycle, individual thrift, and the wealth of nations. Science, 234(4777), 704–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, S. and Tadrowski, L. (2013) Guarantees and target volatility funds. Moody’s Analytics, 1–12.Google Scholar
Piggott, J., Valdez, E.A. and Detzel, B. (2005) The simple analytics of a pooled annuity fund. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 72(3), 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitacco, E. (2016) Guarantee structures in life annuities: A comparative analysis. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 41(1), 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiao, C. and Sherris, M. (2013) Managing systematic mortality risk with group self-pooling and annuitization schemes. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 80(4), 949–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S.M. (2014) Introduction to Probability Models. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stamos, M.Z. (2008) Optimal consumption and portfolio choice for pooled annuity funds. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 43(1), 56–68.Google Scholar
Valdez, E.A., Piggott, J. and Wang, L. (2006) Demand and adverse selection in a pooled annuity fund. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 39(2), 251–266.Google Scholar
Weinert, J.-H. and Gründl, H. (2020) The modern tontine. European Actuarial Journal, 1–38.Google Scholar
Yaari, M.E. (1965) Uncertain lifetime, life insurance, and the theory of the consumer. The Review of Economic Studies, 32(2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar