Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Interest Rate Guarantee (interest + rate_guarantee)
Selected AbstractsPaying for Minimum Interest Rate Guarantees: Who Should Compensate Who?EUROPEAN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2001Bjarne Astrup Jensen Defined contribution pension schemes often have a mandatory minimum interest rate guarantee as an integrated part of the contract. The guarantee is an embedded put option issued by the institution to the individual who is forced to invest in the option. As argued in this paper, the individual may in this way face a constraint on the feasible set of portfolio choices. We quantify the effect of the minimum interest rate guarantee constraint and demonstrate that guarantees may induce a significant utility loss. We also consider the effects of the interest rate guarantee in the case of heterogenous investors sharing a common portfolio on a pro rata basis. [source] The Impact of Surplus Distribution on the Risk Exposure of With Profit Life Insurance Policies Including Interest Rate GuaranteesJOURNAL OF RISK AND INSURANCE, Issue 3 2007Alexander Kling This article analyzes the numerical impact of different surplus distribution mechanisms on the risk exposure of a life insurance company selling with profit life insurance policies with a cliquet-style interest rate guarantee. Three representative companies are considered, each using a different type of surplus distribution: a mechanism, where the guaranteed interest rate also applies to surplus that has been credited in the past, a slightly less restrictive type in which a guaranteed rate of interest of 0 percent applies to past surplus, and a third mechanism that allows for the company to use former surplus in order to compensate for underperformance in "bad" years. Although at the outset all contracts offer the same guaranteed benefit at maturity, a distribution mechanism of the third type yields preferable results with respect to the considered risk measure. In particular, throughout the analysis, our representative company 3 faces ceteris paribus a significantly lower shortfall risk than the other two companies. Offering "strong" guarantees puts companies at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to insurers providing only the third type of surplus distribution mechanism. [source] Paying for Minimum Interest Rate Guarantees: Who Should Compensate Who?EUROPEAN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2001Bjarne Astrup Jensen Defined contribution pension schemes often have a mandatory minimum interest rate guarantee as an integrated part of the contract. The guarantee is an embedded put option issued by the institution to the individual who is forced to invest in the option. As argued in this paper, the individual may in this way face a constraint on the feasible set of portfolio choices. We quantify the effect of the minimum interest rate guarantee constraint and demonstrate that guarantees may induce a significant utility loss. We also consider the effects of the interest rate guarantee in the case of heterogenous investors sharing a common portfolio on a pro rata basis. [source] The Impact of Surplus Distribution on the Risk Exposure of With Profit Life Insurance Policies Including Interest Rate GuaranteesJOURNAL OF RISK AND INSURANCE, Issue 3 2007Alexander Kling This article analyzes the numerical impact of different surplus distribution mechanisms on the risk exposure of a life insurance company selling with profit life insurance policies with a cliquet-style interest rate guarantee. Three representative companies are considered, each using a different type of surplus distribution: a mechanism, where the guaranteed interest rate also applies to surplus that has been credited in the past, a slightly less restrictive type in which a guaranteed rate of interest of 0 percent applies to past surplus, and a third mechanism that allows for the company to use former surplus in order to compensate for underperformance in "bad" years. Although at the outset all contracts offer the same guaranteed benefit at maturity, a distribution mechanism of the third type yields preferable results with respect to the considered risk measure. In particular, throughout the analysis, our representative company 3 faces ceteris paribus a significantly lower shortfall risk than the other two companies. Offering "strong" guarantees puts companies at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to insurers providing only the third type of surplus distribution mechanism. [source] | ||||||||||