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.

For insurance companies in Europe, the introduction of Solvency II leads to a tightening of rules for solvency capital provision. In life insurance, this especially affects retirement products that contain a significant portion of longevity risk (e.g., conventional annuities). Insurance companies might react by price increases for those products, and, at the same time, might think of alternatives that shift longevity risk (at least partially) to policyholders. In the extreme case, this leads to so-called tontine products where the insurance company’s role is merely administrative and longevity risk is shared within a pool of policyholders. From the policyholder’s viewpoint, such products are, however, not desirable as they lead to a high uncertainty of retirement income at old ages. In this article, we alternatively suggest a so-called tonuity that combines the appealing features of tontine and conventional annuity. Until some fixed age (the switching time), a tonuity’s payoff is tontine-like, afterwards the policyholder receives a secure payment of a (deferred) annuity. A tonuity is attractive for both the retiree (who benefits from a secure income at old ages) and the insurance company (whose capital requirements are reduced compared to conventional annuities). The tonuity is a possibility to offer tailor-made retirement products: using risk capital charges linked to Solvency II, we show that retirees with very low or very high risk aversion prefer a tontine or conventional annuity, respectively. Retirees with medium risk aversion, however, prefer a tonuity. In a utility-based framework, we therefore determine the optimal tonuity characterized by the critical switching time that maximizes the policyholder’s lifetime utility.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract