Analyzing legal regulations in the Norwegian life insurance business using a multistage asset–liability management model
Section snippets
Introduction and motivation
In the literature on insurance economics, there are numerous studies on the reasons for and the impact of regulating insurance companies. According to Klein (1995)1, the primary goal of insurance regulations is to “protect policy holders and society in general against the incidence of insurer
Problem description
The presented model is developed for the Norwegian mutual life insurance company Gjensidige Livsforsikring. This section provides a problem and a model description. It is outside the intentions of this paper to examine life insurance in detail, but a brief explanation of its key elements will explain the modeling choices. Therefore, a short description of the products, the balance sheet and the risks faced by a life insurance company is provided, together with some of the modeling implications.
The model formulation
The applied model framework requires decisions to be made at discrete points in time and discrete probability distributions for the uncertain variables. The framework is illustrated by the scenario tree of which a two period (three stage) example is given in Fig. 1. The arcs in the tree represent realizations of the uncertainties, while the nodes represent decisions. The top node represents the decisions today and the nodes further down the tree represent conditional decisions in later periods.
Numerical results
The model described in Section 3 is solved by formulating the deterministic equivalent4 This section presents the numerical results from testing different legal frameworks. We study a mutual life insurance company5 and assume that the company invests in
Conclusions
A multistage stochastic asset–liability management model is employed to analyze the legal regulations in the Norwegian life insurance market. The most disputed regulation is the annual guaranteed rate of return. The analysis shows that this regulation is not in the insurance holders' best interest. The insurance holders would be better off with a guarantee over a longer period, or with no guarantee at all.
This paper has focused on one particular legal regulation. Future research can analyze
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Gjensidige Forsikring for supporting this research.
References (27)
Risk, return and utility
Management Science
(1995)- Billio, M., Pelizzon, L., 1997. Pricing options with switching volatility. Working paper 97.07, Department of...
- et al.
Formulation of the Russel–Yasuda financial planning model
Operations Research
(1998) - et al.
Concepts, technical issues and uses of the Russel–Yasuda Kasai financial planning model
Operations Research
(1998) - et al.
Planning for liquidity in financial institutions, the chance constrained method
Journal of Finance
(1966) - Chen, Z., Consigli, G., Dempster, M.A.H., Hicks-Pédron, N., 1997. Towards sequential sampling algorithms for dynamic...
- Consigli, G., Dempster, M.A.H., 1996. Dynamic stochastic programming for asset–liability management. Working paper...
- Cummins, J.D., 1989. Risk based premiums for insurance guaranty funds. In: Cummins, J.D. (Ed.), Financial Models of...
- Dert, C., 1995. Asset liability management for pension funds. Ph.D. Dissertation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam,...
- Finsinger, J., Pauly, M.V., 1992. Reserve levels and reserve requirements of profit maximizing insurance firms. In:...