Contract Structure and Risk Aversion in Longevity Risk Transfers

David Landriault, Bin Li, Hong Li, Yuanyuan Zhang
{"title":"Contract Structure and Risk Aversion in Longevity Risk Transfers","authors":"David Landriault, Bin Li, Hong Li, Yuanyuan Zhang","doi":"arxiv-2409.08914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper introduces an economic framework to assess optimal longevity risk\ntransfers between institutions, focusing on the interactions between a buyer\nexposed to long-term longevity risk and a seller offering longevity protection.\nWhile most longevity risk transfers have occurred in the reinsurance sector,\nwhere global reinsurers provide long-term protections, the capital market for\nlongevity risk transfer has struggled to gain traction, resulting in only a few\nshort-term instruments. We investigate how differences in risk aversion between\nthe two parties affect the equilibrium structure of longevity risk transfer\ncontracts, contrasting `static' contracts that offer long-term protection with\n`dynamic' contracts that provide short-term, variable coverage. Our analysis\nshows that static contracts are preferred by more risk-averse buyers, while\ndynamic contracts are favored by more risk-averse sellers who are reluctant to\ncommit to long-term agreements. When incorporating information asymmetry\nthrough ambiguity, we find that ambiguity can cause more risk-averse sellers to\nstop offering long-term contracts. With the assumption that global reinsurers,\nacting as sellers in the reinsurance sector and buyers in the capital market,\nare generally less risk-averse than other participants, our findings provide\ntheoretical explanations for current market dynamics and suggest that\nshort-term instruments offer valuable initial steps toward developing an\nefficient and active capital market for longevity risk transfer.","PeriodicalId":501273,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - ECON - General Economics","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - ECON - General Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.08914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper introduces an economic framework to assess optimal longevity risk transfers between institutions, focusing on the interactions between a buyer exposed to long-term longevity risk and a seller offering longevity protection. While most longevity risk transfers have occurred in the reinsurance sector, where global reinsurers provide long-term protections, the capital market for longevity risk transfer has struggled to gain traction, resulting in only a few short-term instruments. We investigate how differences in risk aversion between the two parties affect the equilibrium structure of longevity risk transfer contracts, contrasting `static' contracts that offer long-term protection with `dynamic' contracts that provide short-term, variable coverage. Our analysis shows that static contracts are preferred by more risk-averse buyers, while dynamic contracts are favored by more risk-averse sellers who are reluctant to commit to long-term agreements. When incorporating information asymmetry through ambiguity, we find that ambiguity can cause more risk-averse sellers to stop offering long-term contracts. With the assumption that global reinsurers, acting as sellers in the reinsurance sector and buyers in the capital market, are generally less risk-averse than other participants, our findings provide theoretical explanations for current market dynamics and suggest that short-term instruments offer valuable initial steps toward developing an efficient and active capital market for longevity risk transfer.
长寿风险转移中的合同结构与风险规避
虽然大多数长寿风险转移都发生在再保险行业,全球再保险公司都提供长期保护,但长寿风险转移的资本市场一直难以获得牵引力,只产生了少数短期工具。我们将提供长期保障的 "静态 "合同与提供短期、可变保障的 "动态 "合同进行对比,研究双方在风险规避方面的差异如何影响长寿风险转移合同的均衡结构。我们的分析表明,静态合约更受规避风险的买方青睐,而动态合约则更受规避风险、不愿承诺长期协议的卖方青睐。当通过模糊性纳入信息不对称时,我们发现模糊性会导致更多规避风险的卖方停止提供长期合约。假设全球再保险人作为再保险行业的卖方和资本市场的买方,通常比其他参与者规避更少的风险,我们的研究结果为当前的市场动态提供了理论解释,并表明短期工具为发展高效、活跃的长寿风险转移资本市场提供了宝贵的初始步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信