2009 Seminar for the Appointed Actuary Colloque pour l’actuaire désigné 2009
-
Upload
tucker-mcconnell -
Category
Documents
-
view
18 -
download
0
description
Transcript of 2009 Seminar for the Appointed Actuary Colloque pour l’actuaire désigné 2009
2009 Seminar for the Appointed Actuary
Colloque pour l’actuaire désigné 2009
2009 Seminar for the Appointed Actuary
Colloque pour l’actuaire désigné 2009
Canadian Institute
of Actuaries
Canadian Institute
of Actuaries
L’Institut canadien desactuaires
L’Institut canadien desactuaires
Segregated Funds andMarket Volatility Session
“Pricing Living Benefits inSegregated Funds Products”
John Fenton
September 17, 2009
2009
Sem
inar
for
the
App
oint
ed A
ctua
ryC
ollo
que
pour
l’ac
tuai
re d
ésig
né 2
009
2009
Sem
inar
for
the
App
oint
ed A
ctua
ryC
ollo
que
pour
l’ac
tuai
re d
ésig
né 2
009
• This presentation provides an overview of methodology used to price living benefit features on U.S. VA products
• Developed based on our knowledge of the industry and results of recently completed 2009 Towers Perrin GMWB Pricing and Hedging Survey• Survey reflects results for 10 major U.S. VA
writers including U.S. subsidiaries of Canadian companies
Overview20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Pricing methodology believed to be generally applicable on Seg Fund products as well
Overview20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
• The global economic environment has presented major challenges for VA/Seg Fund products over the past 12 months• Equity markets dropped > 50%• Daily realized volatility in S&P index
routinely exceeded 60% on annualized basis during most volatile periods
• Both contributed to very high levels of implied volatility
Economic Environment 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Also, risk free rates fell to very low levels
• Wreaked havoc on in-force VA portfolios• Became significantly ITM (now with some
recovery)• Hedging not as good as advertised
• Cost to hedge new business rose dramatically
Economic Environment 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Required companies to rethink their approach on how to approach new product design/pricing
Economic Environment 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
• The approach to pricing WB features has become more standardized although major issues exist on choice of assumptions
• Pricing of WB riders now routinely makes provision for cost of hedging• Priced using risk neutral scenarios
Pricing WB Features 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Typical approach is to determine cost of rider separately, then incorporate into base product pricing• Often expressed as annual cost via PV
calculation
• Base product generally priced using real world scenarios a few companies moving to risk neutral to support MCEV pricing
Pricing WB Features 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Provision for hedge effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) is typically made by assuming hedging replaces 1 – HE% of real world claims
• Effectively assumes hedging is covering cost of claims as they emerge
Pricing WB Features 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Variations on approach• Attempt to model impact of hedging
directly can be difficult to do and requires stochastic-on-stochastic testing
• Vary timing of hedge payoff move from time of claim to spread over hedging period
Pricing WB Features 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
• A key issue is what to assume for the parameters underlying the risk neutral scenarios
• Two ends of spectrum• Use today’s swap rates and implied
volatility• Use long-term estimates
Risk Neutral Scenarios20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Considerations• Product priced today will not be available
for sale for several months, will then be sold over ensuing 6-12-18-24 months
• Not necessarily locking in hedging costs at time product is issued
• Becomes significant issue when economic conditions move around
Risk Neutral Scenarios20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
Risk Neutral Scenarios20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Swap Rate
Tenor 6/30/06 12/31/07 9/30/08 10/31/08 12/31/08 3/31/09 5/31/09
1 5.69% 4.22% 3.96% 3.17% 1.27% 1.18% .86%
5 5.65 4.18 4.09 3.84 2.10 2.23 2.85
10 5.73 4.67 4.49 4.46 2.49 2.90 3.78
Source: Bloomberg for swap rates, investment banker quotes for implied volatility
S&P Implied Volatility
Tenor 6/30/06 12/31/07 9/30/08 10/31/08 12/31/08 3/31/09 5/31/09
1 15% 22% 27% 41% 35% 37% 29%
5 16 25 28 36 35 35 29
10 19 27 30 36 34 34 30
• We suggest a two-pronged approach to testing is appropriate
• Set assumptions based on “long-term estimates” although these are re-assessed frequently
• Also test (at time of pricing as well as on ongoing basis) at current market condition levels
• Ensure profitability meets minimum threshold requirements
• Some would suggest current environment should meet target profit requirements as well
Approach to Testing20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Depending on relationship between target and minimum threshold profit levels may require companies to set long-term estimates at fairly conservative levels
• Important to run lots of sensitivity tests to understand impact of varying economic conditions
Approach to Testing20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Could also reflect current market conditions grading to ultimate but difficult to capture in one set of scenarios
• Need to develop procedures to deal with sub-par profitability • Accept below threshold for X days• Product actions (i.e., pull product,
increase rider fees bracketed basis)
Approach to Testing20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Industry practice tends to favor current market conditions• 50% assume current market conditions at
time of pricing• 20% use long-term estimates• 30% use other methods generally both
or blend
Approach to Testing20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
• Another key issue is how to derive implied volatility assumptions past last observable period
• We see three approaches being used in the industry• Grade to target ultimate (“mean reversion”)
generally historical realized volatility with margin or average of historical implied volatilities
• Hold level at last observable tenor• Hold level throughout
Implied Volatility Assumptions 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
Implied Volatility Assumptions 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Tenor Target Ultimate Last Observable Level
1 35% 37% 28%
5 33 35 28
10 31 35 28
15 29 35 28
30 27 35 28
• Industry results (mean) as of 3/31/09 for S&P
• Choice of assumptions can/should be tailored to nature of hedging
• Consider both the type of hedging that you currently utilize, as well as the type of hedging that you may want to implement in future• i.e., currently dynamically hedge only (i.e.,
hedging with delta via futures), but may want to add options for vega exposure
Linking Assumptions with Hedging20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Considerations • Realized volatility; if dynamic hedging
only • Implied volatility up to N years, then
realized; if only buying static options up to N years
• Is swap curve locked into?
Linking Assumptions with Hedging20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
• Industry practices on assumed level of hedge effectiveness vary results from GMWB Pricing and Hedging Survey
Hedge Effectiveness 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Hedge Effectiveness Mean Pricing Tail Pricing
< 75% 1 5
75% <= X < 90% 2 2
90% <= X < 100% 3 1
100% 4 2
Total 10 10
Continued . . .
• Suggest that hedge effectiveness for tail calculation should be lower than mean pricing
• Hedge effectiveness would be expected to vary based on extent of basis risk
Hedge Effectiveness 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
• U.S. companies are generally leveraging off C3 Phase II methodology; perhaps blending in internal economic capital as well• Many companies are reconsidering their
approach
Capital and Reserve Levels 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Lots of issues• Multiple of CTE90 level or higher CTE level• Degree of diversification: single cell vs.
total product vs. total VA block• Assumed level of hedge effectiveness
Capital and Reserve Levels 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Ideally, calculation would be done via stochastic-on-stochastic testing (could involve stochastic cubed with hedging)• However, not practical for many
companies, so factor based• Degree of factor sophistication varies
Capital and Reserve Levels 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Reflecting partial withdrawals via a cohort approach is becoming standard industry practice
• Typical cohorts:1. Begin immediately
2. Deferred 5 years
3. Deferred 10-20 years
4. Withdrawals only if policyholder deep ITM (better choice than no withdrawals)
Cohorts 2 and 3 generally set in consideration of specific products (e.g. bonus waiting period age tier)
Partial Withdrawals 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Assumed mix by cohort varies by issue age
• It may also be appropriate to assume withdrawals utilization triggered based on the in-the-moneyness
• Typical to assume full withdrawal• Once started, typical to assume they
last forever
Partial Withdrawals 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
• There are two primary approaches to defining perceived value for in-the-moneyness, used primarily for dynamic lapse• PV of future payments • Benefit base amount
Prevalence in industry is roughly 50%-50%
Defining Value for ITM 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• We favor the benefit base approach• What policyholders see in their statement• PV approach generally requires a 30%+
drop in funds before ITM kicks in we think policyholders would place more value on a benefit they are paying 75-100 bp for
• Emerging experience (still limited) suggests lapse dampening happening at smaller levels of equity market drops
Defining Value for ITM 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
Continued . . .
• Remove additional shock lapse rate component (i.e., excess over ultimate lapse rate) when benefit ITM
• Consider floor lapse rate 2% is not unreasonable
Defining Value for ITM 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9
• Companies have moved to more conservative economic scenarios in their pricing• Have led companies to charge more or “de-
risk” WB riders• More stringent asset allocation• Less rich features
• Issue: when current market conditions become more favorable again, will companies revert back to prior practices?
What is the impact? 20
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
920
09 S
emin
ar f
or t
he A
ppoi
nted
Act
uary
Col
loqu
e po
ur l’
actu
aire
dés
igné
200
9