A CPT-Based Comparison of Retirement Products

A. Chen, Manuel Rach
{"title":"A CPT-Based Comparison of Retirement Products","authors":"A. Chen, Manuel Rach","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3878236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We compare a variety of retirement products under cumulative prospect theory (CPT), including both well-known (variable) annuity products and some innovative, tontine-like retirement products, in which longevity risks are shared between insurers and policyholders. Following Hu and Scott (2007), an agent determines the overall CPT value by evaluating the total discounted payoffs over time compared to the initial investment made. Regarding the mortality-linked products, we find that tontines are widely preferred to annuities, tontines with guarantees and portfolios of annuities and tontines. Only in a few special cases, annuities deliver the highest CPT value. The reasons for the relative superiority of tontines is the presence of safety loadings or subjective mortality beliefs. Including financial market risk, variable annuities are found to be the most attractive source of retirement income under the majority of parameters considered. In some exceptional cases with safety loadings and some guarantee constraints, tontines with minimum guarantees can outperform variable annuities. Our results suggest that agents with CPT preferences prefer risk-carrying products with potentially higher returns to guaranteed annuities, providing alternatives to agents who are not fond of purchasing annuities.","PeriodicalId":8731,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral & Experimental Finance eJournal","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral & Experimental Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3878236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

We compare a variety of retirement products under cumulative prospect theory (CPT), including both well-known (variable) annuity products and some innovative, tontine-like retirement products, in which longevity risks are shared between insurers and policyholders. Following Hu and Scott (2007), an agent determines the overall CPT value by evaluating the total discounted payoffs over time compared to the initial investment made. Regarding the mortality-linked products, we find that tontines are widely preferred to annuities, tontines with guarantees and portfolios of annuities and tontines. Only in a few special cases, annuities deliver the highest CPT value. The reasons for the relative superiority of tontines is the presence of safety loadings or subjective mortality beliefs. Including financial market risk, variable annuities are found to be the most attractive source of retirement income under the majority of parameters considered. In some exceptional cases with safety loadings and some guarantee constraints, tontines with minimum guarantees can outperform variable annuities. Our results suggest that agents with CPT preferences prefer risk-carrying products with potentially higher returns to guaranteed annuities, providing alternatives to agents who are not fond of purchasing annuities.
基于cpt的退休产品比较
我们在累积前景理论(CPT)下比较了各种退休产品,包括知名的(可变)年金产品和一些创新的、类似tontiny的退休产品,其中长寿风险由保险公司和投保人共同承担。继Hu和Scott(2007)之后,代理人通过评估与初始投资相比的总贴现收益来确定总体CPT值。在与死亡相关的产品中,我们发现,与年金、有担保的年金以及年金和年金的组合相比,年金更受青睐。只有在少数特殊情况下,年金才能提供最高的CPT值。tontines相对优越的原因是安全负荷或主观死亡率信念的存在。包括金融市场风险在内,在考虑的大多数参数下,可变年金被发现是最具吸引力的退休收入来源。在一些特殊情况下,由于安全负荷和一些保证约束,最低保证的吨位可以优于可变年金。我们的研究结果表明,具有CPT偏好的代理人更倾向于具有潜在更高回报的风险承担产品,而不是保证年金,这为不喜欢购买年金的代理人提供了选择。
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