arxiv: v1 [q-fin.pr] 31 Jul 2015

Transcription

1 Variable Auity with GMWB: surreder or ot, that is the questio X. Luo a ad P.V. Shevcheko a a CSIRO Risk Aalytics Group, Australia This versio: 31 July, Xiaoli.Luo@csiro.au arxiv: v1 [q-fi.pr] 31 Jul 2015 Abstract: A variable auity cotract with Guarateed Miimum Withdrawal Beefit GMWB) promises to retur the etire iitial ivestmet through cash withdrawals durig the policy life plus the remaiig accout balace at maturity, regardless of the portfolio performace. We assume that market is complete i fiacial risk ad also there is o mortality risk i the evet of policyholder death, the cotract is maitaied by beeficiary), thus the auity price ca be expressed as a appropriate expectatio. Uder the optimal withdrawal strategy of a policyholder, the pricig of variable auities with GMWB is a optimal stochastic cotrol problem. The surreder feature available i marketed products allows termiatio of the cotract before maturity, makig it also a optimal stoppig problem. Although the surreder feature is quite commo i variable auity cotracts, there appears to be o published aalysis ad results for this feature i GMWB uder optimal policyholder behavior - results foud i the literature so far are cosistet with the absece of such a feature. Recetly, Azimzadeh ad Forsyth 2014) prove the existece of a optimal bag-bag cotrol for a Guarateed Lifelog Withdrawal Beefits GLWB) cotract. I particular, they fid that the holder of a GLWB ca maximize a writers losses by oly ever performig owithdrawal, withdrawal at exactly the cotract rate, or full surreder. This dramatically reduces the optimal strategy space. However, they also demostrate that the related GMWB cotract is ot covexity preservig, ad hece does ot satisfy the bag-bag priciple other tha i certai degeerate cases. For GMWB uder optimal withdrawal assumptio, the umerical algorithms developed by Dai et al. 2008), Che ad Forsyth 2008) ad Luo ad Shevcheko 2015a) appear to be the oly oes foud i the literature, but oe of them actually performed calculatios with surreder optio o top of optimal withdrawal strategy. Also, it is of practical iterest to see how the much simpler bag-bag strategy, although ot optimal for GMWB, compares with optimal GMWB strategy with surreder optio. Recetly, i Luo ad Shevcheko 2015a), we have developed a ew efficiet umerical algorithm for pricig GMWB cotracts i the case whe trasitio desity of the uderlyig asset betwee withdrawal dates or its momets are kow. This algorithm relies o computig the expected cotract value through a high order Gauss-Hermite quadrature applied o a cubic splie iterpolatio ad much faster tha the stadard partial differetial equatio methods. I this paper we exted our algorithm to iclude surreder optio i GMWB ad compare prices uder differet policyholder strategies: optimal, static ad bag-bag. Results idicate that followig a simple but sub-optimal bag-bag strategy does ot lead to sigificat reductio i the price or equivaletly i the fee, i compariso with the optimal strategy. We also observed that the extra value added by the surreder optio strogly depeds o volatility ad the pealty charge, amog other factors such as cotractual rate, maturity ad iterest rate etc. At high volatility or at low pealty charge, the surreder feature adds very sigificat value to the GMWB cotract - the required fair fee is more tha doubled i some cases; thus it is critical to accout for surreder feature i pricig of real products. We also performed calculatios for static withdrawal with surreder optio, which is the same as bag-bag mius the o-withdrawal choice. We fid that the fee for such cotract is oly less tha 1% smaller whe compared to the case of bag-bag strategy, meaig that the o-withdrawal optio adds little value to the cotract. Keywords: Variable auity, optimal stochastic cotrol, optimal stoppig time, bag-bag cotrol, Guarateed Miimum Withdrawal Beefit, surreder optio, Gauss-Hermite quadrature, cubic splie.

2 1 INTRODUCTION The world populatio is becomig older fast. As a cosequece the age-related spedig is projected to rise dramatically i the comig decades i all the developed coutries. Icreasigly govermets i the developed world realize they caot afford payig sufficiet public pesios ad are lookig for iovatios i retiremet icome product market. I this paper we cosider a variable auity cotract with Guarateed Miimum Withdrawal Beefit GMWB) with optio to surreder the cotract before maturity. This cotract promises to retur the etire iitial ivestmet through cash withdrawals durig the policy life plus the remaiig accout balace at maturity, regardless of the portfolio performace. Thus eve whe the accout of the policyholder falls to zero before maturity, GMWB feature will cotiue to provide the guarateed cashflows. I additio, we allow the optio to surreder the cotract before the maturity which is a stadard feature of real products o the market. GMWB allows the policyholder to withdraw fuds below or at cotractual rate without pealty ad above the cotractual rate with some pealty. If the policyholder behaves passively ad the withdraw amout at each withdrawal date is predetermied at the begiig of the cotract, the the behavior of the policyholder is called static. I this case the paths of the accout ca be simulated ad a stadard Mote Carlo simulatio method ca be used to price the GMWB. O the other had if the policyholder optimally decide the amout of withdraw at each withdrawal date, the the behavior of the policyholder is called dyamic. Uder the optimal withdrawal strategy of a policyholder, the pricig of variable auities with GMWB becomes a optimal stochastic cotrol problem; ad addig surreder feature makes it also a optimal stoppig problem. The variable auities with GMWB feature uder dyamic ad static withdrawal strategies have bee cosidered i a umber of papers over the last decade, e.g. Milevsky ad Salisbury 2006), Bauer et al. 2008), Dai et al. 2008), Huag ad Forsyth 2012); Huag ad Kwok 2014), Baciello et al. 2011). Recetly, Azimzadeh ad Forsyth 2014) prove the existece of a optimal bag-bag cotrol for a Guarateed Lifelog Withdrawal Beefits GLWB) cotract. I particular, they fid that the holder of a GLWB ca maximize a cotract writer loss by oly ever performig o-withdrawal, withdrawal at exactly the cotract rate, or full surreder. This dramatically reduces the optimal strategy space. However, they also demostrate that the related GMWB cotract is ot covexity preservig, ad hece does ot satisfy the bag-bag priciple other tha i certai degeerate cases. For GMWB uder optimal withdrawal assumptio, the umerical algorithms developed by Dai et al. 2008) ad Che ad Forsyth 2008) appear to be the oly oes foud i the literature, ad both are based o solvig correspodig partial differetial equatio PDE) via fiite differece method. I the case whe trasitio desity of the uderlyig wealth process betwee withdrawal dates or its momets are kow i closed form, ofte it ca be more coveiet ad more efficiet to utilize direct itegratio methods to calculate the required auity value expectatios i backward time-steppig procedure. Such a algorithm was developed i Luo ad Shevcheko 2014, 2015a) for solvig optimal stochastic cotrol problem i pricig GMWB variable auity. This allows to get virtually istat results for typical GMWB auity prices o the stadard desktop PC. I this paper we adopt this algorithm to price variable auities with GMWB with surreder optio uder static, dyamic, ad simplified bag-bag withdrawal strategies. To our best kowledge, there are o publicatios presetig results for GMWB with both optimal withdrawal ad surreder features. I the ext sectio we describe the GMWB product with discrete withdrawals, the uderlyig stochastic model ad the optimizatio problem. Sectio 3 describes umerical algorithm utilized for pricig I Sectio 4, umerical results for the fair fees uder a series GMWB cotract coditios are preseted. Cocludig remarks are give i Sectio 5. 2 MODEL We assume that market is complete i fiacial risk ad also there is o mortality risk i the evet of policyholder death, the cotract is maitaied by beeficiary), thus the auity price ca be expressed as expectatio uder the risk eutral process of uderlyig asset. Let St) deote the value of the referece portfolio of assets mutual fud idex, etc.) uderlyig the variable auity policy at time t that uder o-arbitrage coditio follows the risk eutral stochastic process dst) = rt)st)dt + σt)st)dbt), 1) where Bt) is the stadard Wieer process, rt) is risk free iterest rate ad σt) is volatility. For simplicity hereafter we assume that model parameters are piece-wise costat fuctios of time for time discretizatio 0 = t 0 < t 1 < < t N = T, wheret 0 = 0 is today adt is auity cotract maturity. Deote correspod-

3 ig asset values as St 0 ),...,St N ); ad risk-free iterest rate ad volatility as r 1,...,r N ad σ 1,...,σ N respectively. That is,r 1 is the iterest rate for time teriodt 0,t 1 ];r 2 is fort 1 ;t 2 ], etc ad similar for volatility. The premium paid by policyholder upfrot at t 0 is ivested ito the referece portfolio of risky assets St). Deote the value of this variable auity accout hereafter referred to as wealth accout) at time t as Wt), i.e. the upfrot premium paid by policyholder is W0). GMWB guaratees the retur of the premium via withdrawals γ 0 allowed at times t, = 1,...,N. Let N w deote the umber of withdrawals i a year e.g. N w = 12 for a mothly withdrawal), the the total umber of withdrawals N = N w T. The total of withdrawals caot exceed the guaratee W0) ad withdrawals ca be differet from cotractual guarateed) withdrawalg = W0)t t 1 )/T, with pealties imposed if γ > G. Deote the aual cotractual rate as g = 1/T. Deote the value of the guaratee at time t as At), hereafter referred to as guaratee accout. Obviously, A0) = W0). For clarity of otatio, deote the time immediately before t i.e. before withdrawal) as t, ad immediately afterti.e. after withdrawal) ast +. The the guaratee balace evolves as At + ) = At )γ = At + 1 )γ, = 1,2,...,N 2) with AT + ) = 0, i.e. W0) = A0) γ 1 + +γ N ad At + 1 ) N k= γ k. The accout balace At) remais uchaged withi the itervalt 1, t ), = 1,2,...,N. I the case of referece portfolio process 1), the wealth accoutwt) evolves as Wt ) = Wt+ 1 ) St 1 ) St )e αdt = Wt + 1 )erα1 2 σ 2 )dt+σ dtz, 3) Wt + ) = max Wt )γ,0 ), = 1,2,...,N, 4) where dt = t t 1, z are iid stadard Normal radom variables ad α is the aual fee charged by the isurace compay. If the accout balace becomes zero or egative, the it will stay zero till maturity. The cashflow received by the policyholder at withdrawal time t is give by C γ ) = { γ, if 0 γ G, G +1β)γ G ), if γ > G, 5) whereg is cotractual withdrawal. That is, pealty is applied if withdrawalγ exceedsg, i.e. β [0,1] is the pealty applied to the portio of withdrawal aboveg. If the policyholder decides to surreder at time slice τ 1,..., N 1), the policyholder receives cashflow D τ Wt τ ),At τ )) ad cotract stops. For umerical example we assume that D τ Wt τ ),At τ )) := C τ maxwt τ ),At τ ))); 6) other stadard surreder coditios ca easily be implemeted. Deote the value of variable auity at time t as Wt),At)), i.e. it is determied by values of the wealth ad guaratee accouts Wt) ad At). At maturity, if ot surredered earlier, the policyholder takes the maximum betwee the remaiig guaratee withdrawal et of pealty charge ad the remaiig balace of the persoal accout, i.e. the fial payoff is WT ),AT )) := h N WT ),AT )) = max WT ),C N AT )) ). 7) N Uder the above assumptios/coditios, the fair o-arbitrage value of the auity at timet 0 is 0 Wt 0 ),At 0 )) = max E t0 [B0,τ)D τ Wt τ,γ τ ),At τ ))I {t τ<t} 1,...,γÑ Ñ ] +B0,N)h N WT ),AT ))1I {tτ<t})+ B0,j)C j γ j ), Ñ = miτ,n)1, 8) where B 0, = exp t 0 rτ)dτ) is discoutig factor ad I { } is idicator fuctio. Note that the today s value of the auity policy Q 0 W0),A0)) is a fuctio of policy fee α. Here, τ is stoppig time ad j=1

4 γ 1,...,γ N1 are the cotrol variables chose to maximize the expected value of discouted cashflows, ad expectatio E 0 [ ] is take uder the risk-eutral process coditioal o W 0 ad A 0. The fair fee value of α correspods to Q 0 W0),A0)) = W0). It is importat to ote that cotrol variables ad stoppig time ca be differet for differet realizatios of uderlyig process ad moreover the cotrol variable γ affects the trasitio law of the uderlyig wealth process from t to t +1. Overall, evaluatig GMWB with surreder feature is solvig optimal stochastic cotrol problem with optimal stoppig. Deote the state vector at time t as X = Wt ),At )). Give that X = X 1,...,X N ) is Markov process, it is easy to recogize that the auity valuatio uder the optimal withdrawal strategy 8) is optimal stochastic cotrol problem for Markov process that ca be solved recursively to fid auity value x) at t, = N 1,...,0 via backward iductio x) = max sup C γ X ))+e r+1dt+1 0 γ At ) ) ) +1 x )K t dx x,γ ),D x) startig from fial coditio Q T x) = maxwt ),C N AT ))). Here K t dx x,γ ) is the stochastic kerel represetig probability to reach state i dx at time t +1 if the withdrawal actio) γ is applied i the state x at time t. For a good textbook treatmet of stochastic cotrol problem i fiace, see Bäuerle ad Rieder 2011). Explicitly, this backward recursio ca be solved as follows. The auity price at ay time t for a fixed At) is a fuctio of W oly. Note At + 1 ) = At ) = A is costat i the period t + 1,t ). Thus i a backward time-steppig settig similar to a fiite differece scheme) the auity value at timet = t + 1 ca be evaluated as the followig expectatio + Wt ),A ) = E t1 [e rdt Wt ),A ) ] Wt + 1 ),A. 10) Assumig the coditioal probability distributio desity of Wt ) give Wt+ 1 ) is kow as p wt ) wt 1 )), the the above expectatio ca be evaluated by + Wt ),A ) = + 0 e rdt p w Wt + 1 )) w,a)dw. 11) I the case of wealth process 3) the trasitio desity p wt ) wt 1 )) is kow i closed form ad we will use Gauss-Hermite quadrature for the evaluatio of the above itegratio over a ifiite domai. The required cotiuous fuctio W,A) will be approximated by a cubic splie iterpolatio o a discretized grid i thew space. Ay chage of At) oly occurs at withdrawal dates. After the amout γ is draw at t, the wealth accout reduces from Wt ) to Wt + ) = maxwt ) γ,0), ad the guaratee balace drops from At ) to At + ) = At )γ. Thus the jump coditio of W,A) acrosst is give by Wt ),At )) = max ) max [ + 0 γ At maxwt )γ,0),at )γ )+C γ )],D Wt ),At )). 12) ) For optimal strategy, we chose a value forγ uder the restrictio0 γ At ) to maximize the fuctio value W,A) i 12). Repeatedly applyig 11) ad 12) backwards i time startig from WT ),AT )) = max WT ),C N AT )) ) 13) N gives us auity value att = 0. I additioal to dyamic ad static strategies, i this paper we also cosider bag-bag strategy which is simplified sup-optimal strategy where the policy holder at each t ca either make withdrawal at cotractual rateg, make o withdrawal or surreder. 3 NUMERICAL ALGORITHM A very detailed descriptio of the algorithm that we adapt for pricig GMWB with surreder ca be foud i Luo ad Shevcheko 2015a). Below we outlie the mai steps. We discretize the asset domai[w mi,w max ] 9)

5 by W mi = W 0 < W 1,...,W M = W max, where W mi ad W max are the lower ad upper boudary, respectively. The idea is to fid auity values at all these grid poits at each time step from t to t+ 1 through itegratio 11), startig at maturityt = t N = T. At each time step we evaluate the itegratio 11) for every grid poit by a high accuracy Gauss-Hermite umerical quadrature; it ca also be accomplished by solvig correspodig PDE usig fiite differece method that we implemeted for bechmarkig. At time step t t+ 1, the auity value at t = t is kow oly at grid poits W m, m = 0,1,...,M. I order to approximate the cotiuous fuctio W,A) from the values at the discrete grid poits, we use the cubic splie iterpolatio which is smooth i the first derivative ad cotiuous i the secod derivative. For guaratee accout balace variablea, we itroduce a auxiliary fiite grid 0 = A 1 < < A J = W0) to track the remaiig guaratee balace A, where J is the total umber of odes i the guaratee balace amout coordiate. For each A j, we associate a cotiuous solutio W,A j ). At every jump we let A to be oe of the grid poitsa j, 1 j J. For ay W = W m, m = 0,1,...,M ad A = A j, j = 1,...,J, give that withdrawal amout ca oly take the pre-defied valuesγ = A j A k,k = 1,2,...,j, irrespective of timet ad accout valuew m, the jump coditio 12) takes the followig form for the specific umerical settig ) W m,a j ) = max max [Q 1 k j t + maxw m A j +A k,0),a k )+C A j A k )],D W m,a j ). 14) Overall we have J umerical solutios obtaied through itegratio) to track, correspodig to each of the A j value,1 j J. Steppig backward i time, we fidq 0 W0),A0)) that depeds o the policy fee α. Fially, we calculate fair fee value of α correspodig to Q 0 W0),A0)) = W0) that obviously requires iterative process. 4 NUMERICAL RESULTS Below we preset umerical results for fair fee of GMWB with surreder optio uder optimal ad suboptimal bag-bag withdrawal strategies. For coveiece we deote results for optimal withdrawal strategy without surreder optio as GMWB, ad with surreder optio as GMWB-S. As discussed i Luo ad Shevcheko 2015a), oly very few results for GMWB uder dyamic policyholder behavior ca be foud i the literature, ad these results are for GMWB without the surreder optio. For validatio purposes, perhaps the most accurate results are foud i Che ad Forsyth 2008), which were obtaied with a very fie mesh i a detailed covergece study. As show i Table 1, our GMWB results for fair fee compare very well with those of Che ad Forsyth 2008). The maximum absolute differece i the fair fee rate betwee the two umerical studies is oly0.3 basis poit a basis poit is0.01% of a rate). Table 1 shows some very iterestig compariso amog GMWB, GMWB-S ad bag-bag results. At volatility σ = 0.2, the fair fee for GMWB-S is virtually the same as GMWB, meaig surreder adds little value to the optimal strategy; at high volatility σ = 0.3, fees for GMWB-S are sigificatly higher tha GMWB, up to 50% higher at the half-yearly frequecy. This may suggest that at high volatility it is optimal to surreder at high values of accout balace or guaratee level. I additio, it also shows higher frequecy gives higher extra value to the surreder optio. Comparig bag bag with GMWB-S, the fees are below the optimal strategy as expected, but the values are ot very sigificatly lower at both volatility values - it is oly about 10% lower at most. Figure 1 shows curves of the fee as a fuctio of the cotractual aual withdraw rate, giveσ = 0.2,r = 0.05 ad β = 0.1. It compares four cases: static without surreder), GMWB, GMWB-S ad bag-bag, all at quarterly withdrawal frequecy with 10% pealty charge, i.e. β = 0.1. This compariso also shows GMWB- S ad GMWB have virtually the same fees at σ = 0.2, ad bag-bag is oly slightly below GMWB-S, cofirmig results i Table 1. However, at the same volatility σ = 0.2, ew features emerge if we reduce the pealty charge from β = 0.1 to β = 0.05, as show i Figure 2. Whe the pealty charge is reduced ad all other parameters are uchaged, the surreder optio adds more sigificat value to GMWB - i fact the fees are more tha doubled at low to moderate cotractual withdraw rate or equivaletly log or moderate maturity), i.e. fees for GMWB-S are more tha twice as those for GMWB. With reduced pealty, fees for bag-bag are still close to the optimal strategy with surreder optio, the GMWB-S. We also performed calculatios for static withdrawal with surreder optio, which is the same as bag-bag mius the o-withdrawal choice. We fid the fee for such cotract is oly less tha 1% smaller tha the bag-bag strategy, meaig the o-withdrawal optio adds little value to the cotract. Fially, differet pealty fuctios ca be applied to the surreder i.e. surreder cashflow ca be differet from 6)). For

6 example, istead of pealizig oly the amout exceedig the cotractual withdrawal rate, we ca pealize the etire termiatio amout. I this case we fid both GMWB-S ad bag-bag yield oly slightly lower fees for a giveβ - this is perhaps ot very surprisig sice whe it is optimal to surreder, the amout must be much higher tha the cotractual rate, thus pealizig the etire amout is ot much more severe tha pealizig oly the exceeded part. frequecy volatility Che & Forsyth GMWB GMWB-S Bag Bag yearly half-yearly yearly half-yearly Table 1. Compariso of fair feeαi basis poits a basis poit is 0.01%) betwee results of GMWB, GMWB- S ad bag-bag. Results uder Che & Forsyth are for GMWB. The iput parameters are g = 10%, β = 10%,r = 5% adσ = 0.2. The withdrawal frequecy is quarterly Static Optimal without surreder 170 Optimal with surreder 150 Bag bag g Figure 1. Fair fee α as a fuctio of aual guaratee rate g for static, GMWB, GMWB-S ad bag-bag at a quarterly withdraw rate. The fixed iput parameters are β = 10%, r = 5% ad σ = Optimal without surreder Optimal with surreder Bag bag g Figure 2. Fair fee α as a fuctio of aual guaratee rate g for static, GMWB, GMWB-S ad bag-bag at a quarterly withdraw rate. The fixed iput parameters are β = 5%, r = 5% ad σ = 0.2.

7 5 CONCLUSIONS I this paper we have developed umerical valuatio of variable auities with GMWB ad surreder features uder both static, dyamic optimal) ad bag-bag policyholder strategies. The results idicate that followig a simple bag-bag strategy does ot lead to sigificat reductio i the price or equivaletly i the fee. We also observed that the extra value added by the surreder optio very much depeds o volatility ad the pealty charge, amog other facts such as cotractual rate ad maturity. At high volatility or at low pealty charge, the surreder feature adds very sigificat value to the GMWB cotract - more tha doublig i some cases; highlightig the importace of accoutig for surreder feature i pricig of real products. We have assumed the policyholder will always live beyod the maturity date or there is always someoe there to make optimal withdrawal decisios for the etire duratio of the cotract. It is ot difficult to cosider addig some death beefits o top of GMWB, i.e. combiig GMWB with some kid of life isurace as it is doe i our recet paper Luo ad Shevcheko 2015b) cosiderig both market process ad death process. Further work icludes admittig other stochastic risk factors such as stochastic iterest rate or volatility. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We gratefully ackowledge fiacial support by the CSIRO-Moash Superauatio Research Cluster, a collaboratio amog CSIRO, Moash Uiversity, Griffith Uiversity, the Uiversity of Wester Australia, the Uiversity of Warwick, ad stakeholders of the retiremet system i the iterest of better outcomes for all. REFERENCES Azimzadeh, Y. ad P. A. Forsyth 2014). The existece of optimal bag-bag cotrols for gmxb cotracts. Workig paper of Uiversity of Waterloo. Baciello, A., P. Millossovich, A. Olivieri, ad E. Pitacco 2011). Variable auities: a uifyig valuatio approach. Isurace: Mathematics ad Ecoomics 491), Bauer, D., A. Klig, ad J. Russ 2008). A uiversal pricig framework for guarateed miimum beefits i variable auities. ASTIN Bulleti 382), Bäuerle, N. ad U. Rieder 2011). Markov Decisio Processes with Applicatios to Fiace. Spriger, Berli. Che, Z. ad P. Forsyth 2008). A umerical scheme for the impulse cotrol formulatio for pricig variable auities with a guarateed miimum withdrawal beefit gmwb). Numerische Mathematik 1094), Dai, M., K. Y. Kwok, ad J. Zog 2008). Guarateed miimum withdrawal beefit i variable auities. Mathematical Fiace 184), Huag, Y. ad P. A. Forsyth 2012). Aalysis of a pealty method for pricig a guarateed miimum withdrawal beefit GMWB). Joural of Numerical Aalysis 32, Huag, Y. ad Y. K. Kwok 2014). Aalysis of optimal dyamic withdrawal policies i withdrawal guaratee products. Joural of Ecoomic Dyamics ad Cotrol 45, Luo, X. ad P. V. Shevcheko 2014). Fast ad simple method for pricig exotic optios usig gausshermite quadrature o a cubic splie iterpolatio. Joural of Fiacial Egieerig 14). DOI: /S Luo, X. ad P. V. Shevcheko 2015a). Fast umerical method for pricig of variable auities with guarateed miimum withdrawal beefit uder optimal withdrawal strategy. To appear i Joural of Fiacial Egieerig, preprit is available at Luo, X. ad P. V. Shevcheko 2015b). Valuatio of variable auities with guarateed miimum withdrawal ad death beefits via stochastic cotrol optimizatio. Isurace: Mathematics ad Ecoomics 62, Milevsky, M. A. ad T. S. Salisbury 2006). Fiacial valuatio of guarateed miimum withdrawal beefits. Isurace: Mathematics ad Ecoomics 381),