- EU
- expected utility
Mean-Variance Optimization for Participating Life Insurance Contracts111Declarations of interest: none
Abstract
This paper studies the equity holders’ mean-variance optimal portfolio choice problem for (non-)protected participating life insurance contracts. We derive explicit formulas for the optimal terminal wealth and the optimal strategy in the multi-dimensional Black-Scholes model, showing the existence of all necessary parameters. In incomplete markets, we state Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations for the value function. Moreover, we provide a numerical analysis of the Black-Scholes market. The equity holders on average increase their investment into the risky asset in bad economic states and decrease their investment over time.
Keywords: optimal portfolio, portfolio insurance, mean-variance optimization, participating life insurance, non-concave utility maximization
JEL: C61, G11, G22
1 Introduction
This paper investigates a mean-variance optimization from the perspective of the equity holders of an insurance company for the two standard designs of participating life insurance contracts, i.e., with a protected or non-protected guarantee. In a participating life insurance contract, the policyholder gets a (possibly protected) guarantee and participates proportionally at maturity from the portfolio value exceeding a pre-defined threshold higher than the guarantee. The policyholders receive at least the guarantee value at maturity if the guarantee is protected. If the guarantee is not protected, then the policyholders get, at most, the portfolio value where, initially, the insurance company gives additional equity to the premium for the investment, i.e., the equity has only limited liability.
The portfolio theory research goes back to the 1950s with the pioneering work of Markowitz [17, 18], who used variance to measure the riskiness of stock returns in a one-period setting. Mean-variance was later also analyzed in dynamic settings, see for instance Hakansson [11], Samuelson [27] or Merton [19, 20], and has been extended in various directions. For a more detailed overview of mean-variance portfolio optimizations, see the literature review from Zhang et al. [29]. In these works, the management is typically assumed to maximize the mean-variance of the entire portfolio, and no distinction between equity holders and debt holders or policyholders is made.
This paper aims to provide an explicit formula for the optimal terminal wealth (from the perspective of the equity holders of an insurance company), show that the optimal solution exists (which is non-trivial since the solution includes an additional parameter), and prove an analytical formula for the optimal strategy. Moreover, we derive a Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation for incomplete markets and discuss the characteristics of the terminal wealth and the optimal strategy in a numerical analysis.
While the optimal investment problem for participating life insurance contracts was solved for expected utility (EU), an analysis for mean-variance is lacking, which is the contribution of our paper. This analysis is relevant as mean-variance is widely spread in the industry, and most finance papers and textbooks use it as the benchmark to measure risk; see, for instance, Cochrane [5]. The reason is that mean-variance provides a straightforward interpretation of risk vs. reward, admits tractable statistical properties, and also, due to historical contingencies, has become the leading standard taught in business schools, making it easier for a risk manager to justify its use compared to specifying a utility function. Finally, due to the nonlinearity of variance, the mathematical analysis differs from EU. In particular, one needs to specify an equivalent problem which, contrary to EU-maximization, adds an additional parameter to the model. The existence of such a is not apparent, and we are only able to derive its existence and compute it in a semi-explicit way in the case of the Black-Scholes model.
As discussed in the beginning, the insurance company offering a participating life insurance contract pays back a surplus to the policyholder in good economic states. Insurance policies with profit participation play an essential role in the life insurance sector. According to the European Insurance Overview 2023 [9], issued by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), policyholders spent 2022 around a quarter of their gross premiums on profit participation insurance policies in the life sector (includes life, health, and pension insurance). In Croatia, Italy, and Belgium, these policies have a market share of over 50 % in the life sector. Several publications are concerned with the valuation and hedging of such insurance policies, e.g., Bryis and de Varenne [3], Bacinello and Persson [1], Gatzert and Kling [10], Schmeiser and Wagner [28] or Mirza and Wagner [22]. In recent years, the study of optimal investments for participating life insurance contracts in continuous time started. Lin et al. [16] analyzed 2017 the optimal investment for an EU-problem for a specific S-shaped utility function. Afterwards, Nguyen and Stadje [23] examined a similar setting for more general S-shaped utility functions under a Value at Risk constraint and mortality risk. He et al. [12] made another generalization by considering a weighted utility function between the insurer and the policyholders. Moreover, Dong et al. [8] added to the EU-problem a Value at Risk and a portfolio insurance constraint. Chen et al. [4] considered Value at Risk, expected shortfall, and Average Value at Risk constraints. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to consider participating insurance contracts in continuous time under mean-variance optimization.
A significant factor of an optimal policy design is the payoff structure: For a participating life insurance contract, the payoff has at least one point where it is non-differentiable, e.g., at the threshold where the proportional surplus participation starts. (The payoff of the non-protected product also has a second point of non-differentiability at the guarantee value.) At these points, the payoff changes its slope, resulting in a payoff that is generally neither convex nor concave (see Figure 2 for an illustration of the insurer’s payoff). In such situations, one often uses concavification techniques; see, for instance, Larsen [14] or Reichlin [26]. Liang et al. [15] used a generalization of this method. For alternative approaches in non-concave portfolio optimization, see, for instance, Kraft and Steffensen [13], Dai et al. [7], or Qian and Yang [25]. In this work, we use the specific structure of a payoff in a complete market to carefully compare different solution candidates and show that the optimal terminal wealth actually has a closed and, up to the implicit parameters whose existence proof and computation in our setting is delicate, simple form. We also use a standard Lagrangian approach to get the optimal terminal wealth and use the price density process to give the analytic formula for the optimal strategy. This method was used to solve several other optimization problems in complete markets; see, for instance, Basak and Shapiro [2], Cuoco et al. [6], Chen et al. [4], Nguyen and Stadje [23], or Mi et al. [21]. To use this approach for variance, we start to give an equivalent problem in the spirit of Zhou and Li [30]. The ansatz described above then leads to having two multipliers instead of only one Lagrangian multiplier. We obtain a system of non-linear equations with several variables yielding implicit functions whose properties, through various intermediate results, then entail the existence of a solution. Although mean-variance does not respect first-order stochastic dominance, we do get similar results compared to EU-optimization regarding the general form of the optimal solution, but with the terminal wealth having a simpler structure. In particular, in a complete market, the optimal terminal wealth is piecewise linear in the price density. On the other hand, in an incomplete market, the optimal solution itself can only be characterized implicitly as the (viscosity) solution of a certain PDE. Finally, our numerical results show a somewhat different investment behavior compared to EU-maximization. Specifically, we observe that the investment gets more conservative with shorter maturities, and the equity holders on average increase their investment into the risky asset in bad economic states. Moreover, the insurer invests more riskily when offering a non-protected participation life insurance product than when offering a protected one due to a reduced downside potential. Since variance is the most widely used risk measure in industry and the cornerstone of most modern portfolio theory and the finance literature, these results might be potentially relevant from a descriptive point of view.
Section 2 describes participating life insurance contracts and briefly introduces the functional to optimize. In Section 3, we explicitly show the optimal terminal wealth, the optimal strategy, and the existence of the necessary parameters in the Black-Scholes model. In Section 4, we give the SDEs for possibly incomplete markets, and Section 5 analyzes some numerical results for the Black-Scholes model. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.
2 Model Setup
2.1 Participating life insurance contracts
Participating insurance contracts or, in general, insurance contracts with some profit participation play a crucial role in the life sector. Figure 1 shows that, on average, around a quarter of the gross premiums 2022 in the life sector are spent on policies with profit participation. In some countries, like Croatia, Belgium, or Italy, even more than 50 % of the gross premiums are invested in such policies.
This paper focuses on two standard designs of participating life insurance contracts. Both products offer a guarantee value and a proportional surplus participation rate when the portfolio value exceeds a threshold, which we denote by . Note that is always higher or equal to . The difference between the two designs is that the first product offers a non-protected guarantee, whereas the second provides a protected one. Protected means, in this case, that the policyholders get at least their guarantee value, independent of the economic situation at maturity. In contrast, in the non-protected case, the insurance company declares bankruptcy if the portfolio value is below . In this case, the policyholders only get the portfolio value. For the portfolio, it is essential to note that the initial portfolio value is the sum of the premiums from the policyholders plus some initial capital from the insurer (i.e., the equity holders). There is no rule on how to set the guarantee value. One possible example of setting is to take the sum of the premiums in addition to a guaranteed interest rate below the risk-free interest rate. Moreover, product designers often set the threshold as the sum of the premiums divided by the share of the policyholders in the portfolio.
Hence, we conclude the following payoffs for the policyholders (pol) and the insurer (ins) for the contracts with non-protected (non) resp. protected (pro) guarantees and terminal portfolio value :555For simplicity, we assume that the management or the regulator does not allow the total wealth to become negative. However, if either we extend the following definitions also for , or let the insurer cover in both cases all losses stemming from a negative terminal portfolio value, all our results hold (see also Remark 3.3c).
Note that solely can attain negative values. For a more detailed explanation of participating insurance, we refer to Nguyen and Stadje [23].
2.2 Optimization Functional
Before defining the optimization functional, let us introduce the basic financial market, which in Section 3 and 5 will become the Black-Scholes model.
Let be a filtered probability space with time horizon . The filtration is generated by the -dimensional Brownian Motion satisfying the usual conditions. We consider an arbitrage-free market with a risk-free asset and a deterministic interest rate following the price process , and risky assets , with adapted price processes. Let the dynamic strategy represent the fraction of wealth invested in the corresponding risky asset, while the remaining money is invested in the risk-free asset with the corresponding wealth process and initial value . We denote by the set of all admissible strategies given by all , which are progressively measurable and induce an integrable .
Next, we introduce a general functional to optimize, the previously defined participating life insurance products being special cases. We look for the optimal strategy such that
(2.1) |
where the value functional is defined as
with the risk aversion parameter . Hence, we are looking for the mean-variance optimal strategy for the (continuous) function , which we define for as
where , with , with . Note that holds. We also write instead of when the trading strategy is clear (for instance, for the optimal terminal wealth ), suppressing the initial value.
Now, one can observe that if , , and , the function reduces to the payoff of the insurer for the non-protected participating life insurance contract . If , , and , reduces to the payoff of the insurer for the protected product . In the following Figure 2, we show the payoff of the insurer for these two variants of participating life insurance contracts.
3 Optimization in a Black-Scholes market
This section assumes that the underlying financial market follows the Black-Scholes model, i.e., the market is complete. Then, the price dynamics for the risky assets , are given by
where is the Brownian Motion generating the filtration , is the deterministic drift of the ’th asset and is the deterministic volatility between the ’th and the ’th asset. We assume that is bounded, bounded away from zero and invertible. Then, there exists a unique price density process with the wealth process and the price density process admitting the following dynamics
(3.1) | ||||
(3.2) |
with and , where is the Sharpe ratio process and denotes the transpose of a vector. The term , , can be interpreted as the Arrow-Debreu value per probability unit in state at time . Note that can be written as a decreasing function of the stock price, and therefore attains high values in times of a bad economy and low values in times of a good economy. We assume that the processes and are integrable and the processes and are square-integrable over to ensure that the previous SDEs and all of the following integrals are well-defined.
3.1 Derivation of the optimal terminal wealth
The mean-variance optimization (2.1) is challenging to solve directly due to the term in the decomposition formula . Hence, we show in the following Lemma 3.1 that if an optimal strategy exists, we can alternatively look for the optimal strategy considering the value functional which we define as:
(3.3) |
with where is the optimal strategy.
Lemma 3.1.
If is an optimal strategy for , it is also an optimal strategy for .
Consequently, the optimal terminal wealth also coincides for the two problems maximizing resp. . This result is a slight generalization of Theorem 3.1 in Zhou and Li [30], who showed this lemma in the case of being the identity. We will include the proof in Appendix A for the reader’s convenience.
Since we have a complete market, we optimize with the following three steps. First, we use a Lagrangian approach to find the optimal terminal wealth (using the alternative problem). Second, we derive the optimal strategy, and third, we determine the and the Lagrangian multiplier since the optimal terminal wealth and strategy depend on these values initially. In the following, we suppress the dependence on and for the sake of simplicity in the notation unless stated otherwise in some proofs, and we use the convention that and if .
Theorem 3.2.
The optimal terminal wealth is given by:
(3.4) |
where is the Lagrangian multiplier which solves , , and
In particular, such exist. Moreover, let be defined by:
Then, it holds that and for and for .
Remark 3.3.
-
(a)
The terminal wealth denotes the wealth before distributing the wealth to the insurer and the policyholders. The terminal wealth of the insurer is given by . In particular, in the case of a protected participating life insurance contract, i.e., , , the insurer makes a loss if . In the case of a non-protected participating life insurance contract, the insurer cannot make a loss by construction.
-
(b)
If resp. , the surplus over is fully distributed to the policyholders. In this case, it holds that and , i.e., the result is similar with the exception that the first case, , does not need to be considered. The proofs are similar, but we exclude this case for the ease of exposition.
-
(c)
We can generalize the result for when we extend the function to as . Then, the optimal terminal wealth has the same structure as before, but with the additional case that if . Hence, the restriction to is not crucial for the structure of the solution. Note that , and that for the function is linearly decreasing in . Again, the proofs are similar to before, but we nevertheless restrict to to avoid too technical proofs.
-
(d)
Note that the representation of also holds in a general complete market (without necessarily using a Black-Scholes market model) if we assume the existence of the variables and . However, that these variables exist is then not clear.
-
(e)
The way how to compute the parameters and is given in the proof of Proposition A.1.
From the definition formula of , we can derive the following two propositions, which are proven in Appendix A:
Proposition 3.4.
It holds that with these constants defined in Theorem 3.2, i.e., the three intervals of the terminal wealth are connected.
Proposition 3.5.
It holds that as a function of is continuous and non-increasing in with as in Theorem 3.2. If , then is always discontinuous at .
Therefore, as a function of is non-increasing, taking the value for and one possible discontinuity point. See the black lines in Figure 3 for a visualization.
-
Proof of Theorem 3.2.
We use the Lagrangian multiplier method to prove this theorem. Therefore, choose and as in Proposition A.1 in the appendix and we define the Lagrangian function for as
(3.5) where we suppress the , write instead of , instead of , and use as the multiplier.
The following paragraph considers as a function of . Obviously, is not smooth in and , but continuous in . Hence, we optimize in the regions , , and separately and compare afterwards the minimal points. Now, for the individual optimization, we get:Hence, it follows that we get the following possible maximal points (if they are in the respective interval): , , and . To have and in the correct interval, we get the following conditions (since ):
(3.6) (3.7) Moreover, for the maximum of , we must consider the different boundary values of the corresponding intervals. The first boundary value is always dominated by due to being non-increasing in . The second boundary value is dominated by or by if is in one of the intervals from (3.6) or (3.7). If , then is non-increasing in since then for all and hence is dominated by . If , then has a local maximum in since for and for . Hence, we add
(3.8) to the list of potential maximum points. We note that the intervals of for , , and are disjoint except the lower (resp. upper) boundary points of (resp. ) with the upper (resp. lower) boundary point of . However, in this case (resp. ) coincides with . It is remarkable that due to the disjointness of the related intervals for , , and , we do not have to compare these values themselves with each other (for the potential maximum of ). Thus, we replace the closed intervals for by left-open, right-closed intervals and denote by the combined solution of , , and with for , i.e.,
Note that takes the same values as in (3.4), but the intervals are not truncated. Moreover, we observe that is continuous in on . Therefore, we only have to compare , fixed, with . Thus, we compare these values in the following separately for the three cases, i.e., depending on , which value out of attains. Note that we consider, from now on, as a function of . To emphasize this, we write .
Case 1: , i.e., :
Then, we get:(3.9) Then if or with
We notice that and where is defined as in Theorem 3.2. If , is not in the necessary interval which entails that . Otherwise, it holds that by which we get (3.4) for this case, i.e., the interval for being in the interval for the optimal wealth .
Case 2: , i.e., :
Then it holds:(3.10) Note that . First we assume that the discriminant, i.e., the term under the square root in the following equation, is non-negative. Then, we have if or with
Again, we notice that and if the discriminant is non-negative, we get where we can ignore this case if due to the assumption that has to be in the interval . Now, if the discriminant is negative, then for all and . Hence, is optimal for all and it holds that which implies (3.4) for this case.
We deduce from Theorem 3.2:
Corollary 3.6.
Proof. This proof follows immediately by simple calculations when we plug (3.4) into the function . ∎
In the following Figure 3, we derive the shape of the optimal value and the corresponding wealth of the insurance company as a function of .
3.2 Derivation of the optimal strategy
Next, we derive the optimal strategy for our problem where the proof is somewhat technical and therefore given in Appendix A.
Theorem 3.7.
The optimal solution is non-negative and given by:
where
with
where denotes the cdf and the density of a standard normal distributed random variable. The values , , , and are defined as in Theorem 3.2.
4 Optimization in a possibly incomplete market
In this subsection, we consider a financial market without the completeness assumption such that we can write the wealth process as:
where is again the -dimensional Brownian Motion generating the filtration , and and are measurable functions which satisfy a uniform Lipschitz condition.
First, Lemma 3.1 also holds in incomplete markets since we do not use completeness in its proof. Now, for this optimization, we denote for the optimal value functional by :
where denotes the subset of with processes starting at and . Remember that , i.e., depends on the optimal strategy .
Theorem 4.1.
If , then for every the optimal value functional is the solution of the following SDE for all :
where the operator is defined as
where tr denotes the trace of a matrix.
Proof. Obviously, satisfies a quadratic growth condition. Then, the result follows from Chapter 3 in Pham [24]. ∎
The regularity assumption of is typically challenging to prove. Therefore, we also give the result for viscosity solutions where this assumption is not needed:
Theorem 4.2.
Let the control space be compact and the Hamiltonian be defined as usual, i.e.:
If is locally bounded on , then for every , is a viscosity solution of the following HJB equation for :
Proof. The result follows from Chapter 4 in Pham [24]. ∎
Note that it is possible to relax the assumption of being compact, leading to a possible singularity in the Hamiltonian. This leads to a complicated structure of the HJB equation and the terminal value condition.
5 Numerical Results
In the following section, we discuss the numerical results for the Black-Scholes model with a given calibration of the parameters with a setting as in Section 3. The first two figures show the impact of different values for the risk aversion resp. the participation rate and of different optimization strategies (EU instead of mean-variance) on the optimal terminal wealth as a function of . The remaining four figures show simulation outcomes for the optimal terminal wealth and the optimal strategy. We analyze the results for the non-protected resp. the protected participation life insurance product, and compare those (a) to each other, (b) to a product with no surplus participation, and (c) to the results with an EU-optimization.
For the participating life insurance contract, we use the parameters , , , , and for the non-protected insurance product. We change the values of and , i.e., and , to get the protected product. The initial wealth, i.e., the sum of the premiums and the initial capital from the insurance company, is given by , the time horizon by , and the risk aversion by . We assume a constant risk-free interest rate of for the financial market and consider one risky asset with constant mean and volatility . In particular, the Sharpe ratio is also constant and given by . For the implementation, we used a time step of , i.e., we have 1000 intermediate points. Moreover, we simulate 1000 realizations of the Brownian Motion.
In Figure 4, we present the optimal terminal wealth as a function of for different values of risk aversion parameter . (Note that the risk aversion parameters are not comparable for the different optimization strategies.) For both the non-protected and the protected case, we compare the optimal terminal wealth stemming from our mean-variance optimization with the EU-optimization for participating life insurance contracts from Lin et al. [16]. To measure the utility, we use, as Lin et al., the following S-shaped utility function: with and different values for (Lin et al. [16] used in their numerical analysis). Moreover, we added the case that there is no additional surplus participation of the policyholders, i.e., , , and . Both participating optimizations share that the optimal wealth function has three points of significant behavioral change, i.e., at , and as in Theorem 3.2. This theorem shows that the optimal wealth decreases before and between and , and that the optimal wealth is constant elsewhere. The main difference in the shape of the functions is that we have a piecewise linearity in the mean-variance case but a total non-linearity in the EU case. This effect is already apparent from the respective formulas. Noticeably, the distance between the second and third point of behavioral change is much higher in the EU-optimization than in the mean-variance one. Moreover, the figure shows a moral hazard of the insurance companies offering a non-protected participating life insurance contract since the insurance companies favor a portfolio value of over a portfolio value at the guarantee value level. We can observe this effect for both the mean-variance and the EU-optimization in the figure due to the drop-down of the optimal terminal wealth to zero. Protected products have no such effect when optimizing mean-variance since the insurance company always profits from higher portfolio values. While this effect also occurs when optimizing EU, the probability is smaller since the drop-down is at a far higher value (compared to the non-protected product).
In Figure 5, we show the influence of the participation rate on the optimal terminal wealth as a function of . We can see that a higher rate leads to a more extended plateau at . This effect is not surprising when checking the formula (3.4) of the optimal terminal wealth since a higher leads to a smaller . Thus, the intermediate interval gets bigger since for our parametrization, it always holds that . Moreover, we can observe that (defined in Theorem 3.2 as the point where in the non-protected case the optimal terminal wealth drops down to ) is increasing for an increasing participation rate . This effect stems from the different values of the variables and when changing the participation rate. Additionally, the figure shows that for minimal values of , the optimal terminal wealth is higher for large participation rates, which we can derive directly from the formula of in (3.4). For the economic interpretation, we infer that a higher participation rate of the policyholders leads to a higher portfolio value in bad economic states, because for a higher , the upside potential of the insurer is reduced. Hence, the optimal strategy should be less risky, which implies a higher portfolio value. For good economic states, the opposite effect happens. A somewhat surprising result is that in very good economic states (happening with an extremely low probability), the optimal terminal wealth is higher for higher participation rates, which occurs due to changes in the Lagrange multiplier of the budget constraint.
In Figure 6, we show the optimal wealth process and the optimal share into the risky asset over time for the non-protected participating life insurance product. In both figures, the red line shows the average of the 1000 realizations, and each of the ten black lines shows a single realization. Note that for the optimal strategy, we used a weighted average with the weight given by the absolute investment amount (which also holds for all other averages in this section). Furthermore, we get and . The average optimal wealth process develops from to approximately , where the increase is slightly larger in the beginning than in the end. A terminal wealth of about corresponds to a terminal wealth for the insurer of and a wealth of for the policyholder. Note that this is higher than the guarantee value, which is . When exercising the optimal strategy, we start with high investment into the risky asset (approximately of our wealth), which decreases relatively constant over time. The final optimal investment share into the risky asset is around . When analyzing the strategies in more detail, one observes that the most risky investments are taken when the economy has poorly evolved until then, i.e., when is high, while the least risky investments are taken in cases where the economy has developed well. These results are reasonable since when the wealth is below the guarantee, the insurer has nothing to lose anymore, while the wealth is already over the second threshold (i.e., the policyholder also participates in the surplus over ), the upside potential of the insurer is reduced, whereas the downside potential is not (or only slightly).
In Figure 7, we show the optimal wealth process and the optimal share into the risky asset over time for the protected participating life insurance product. Again, the red line shows the average of the 1000 realizations, and each of the ten black lines shows a single realization. Moreover, the variables and are given by and . In this case, the optimal value evolves only to around , corresponding to a terminal wealth of the insurance company of since we are below , i.e., there is no surplus participation of the policyholder. The optimal strategy starts risky but not as risky as in the non-protected case, with around of the wealth invested into the risky asset. It also decreases over time, but the reduction is smaller, and the final optimal investment percentage is at around of the wealth. As in the non-protected case, the realizations in the best economic states correspond with the least risky investments and vice versa. One of the shown strategies is rather inconspicuous over most of the time but has a major change close to the final time point , i.e., a drop-down from to . Such an effect (also in the other way, i.e., an upward move) happens for several realizations when their wealth for time points , which are close to the maturity , is close to the second threshold since the optimal terminal wealth as a function of has a small plateau at , i.e., if . Hence, for (resp. ) for close to , the upside (resp. downside) potential is reduced and the optimal strategy is to invest safely (resp. risky).
In Figure 8, we compare the optimal wealth before splitting it between the policyholders and the insurance company and the optimal strategy of our two participating life insurance products with mean-variance to a non-participating investment, i.e., we set , , and . Moreover, we set the initial wealth such that the mean of is approximately equal to . Therefore, we get the following initial values: The lines show again an average of realizations each. The figure shows that the investor makes the riskiest investment when offering a non-protected insurance product and approximately identical investments when offering one of the other two products. When offering the protected product compared to the non-participation product, it is remarkable that the investor invests slightly safer in the beginning and somewhat riskier close to maturity. This investment behavior leads to the highest wealth gain for the non-protected product since, on average, the risky asset performs better than the risk-less asset (due to ). For the other two products, the wealth gain is approximately equal. The protected life insurance investment strategy is relatively close to the non-participating strategy since a fixed-guarantee payment only minimally influences the optimal strategy. Then, the only remaining difference in the payoff shape is when the wealth is above , which happens in our chosen parametrization either relatively late or not at all (see Figure 7). The payoff structure for the non-protected insurance product differs highly in the values due to the reduced downside potential below .
In Figure 9, we compare the optimal wealth and strategy for the non-protected and the protected life insurance contract when considering mean-variance resp. EU-optimization. We take the result for optimizing EU from Lin et al. [16] as in Figure 4 with parameter values and . As in the other figures, the lines show the average of realizations, and we state the total wealth (before splitting it between the policyholders and the insurance company). As in the previous figure, we again choose the initial value such that the terminal wealth is approximately equal for all products, i.e., we take for the mean-variance optimization and for the EU-optimization. Both optimizations have in common that the insurance company offering a non-protected product invests riskier than the insurance company offering the protected product due to the reduced downside potential. When comparing the strategies, we observe that the strategies optimizing EU become riskier over time (except for the final time points). In contrast, the strategies optimizing mean-variance get less risky over time, as already discussed. Since we chose the two (not comparable) risk aversion factors such that the initial investments in the risky asset are similar, the wealth gain of the EU-optimization is higher. The decreasing portion invested into the risky asset is typical for a pre-commitment mean-variance optimization strategy (this can be seen by implementing the optimal mean-variance strategy by Zhou and Li [30] when using typical ranges for the parameters), which is structurally different from EU-optimization strategies.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we derived explicit analytic formulas for general contracts, including participating life insurance contracts, when optimizing mean-variance in the multi-dimensional Black-Scholes market. Moreover, by showing the existence of all arising parameters, we showed the existence of the optimal solution. We also gave the HJB equation for the value functional if the market is possibly incomplete. A numerical analysis shows that the mean-variance optimal strategy compared to the EU optimal strategy becomes more conservative the shorter the maturity is and is increased in particular in bad economic states. Future research directions include possibly generalizing this approach to other stock market models.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix
Appendix A Proofs
-
Proof of Lemma 3.1.
We show this lemma by contradiction. In particular, we assume that a exists, which is an optimal solution for , but not for . Consequently, there exists a strategy which is better than for , i.e.,
(A.1) The next step is to define the function . We observe that is a convex function, and it holds that
We note that and . Then, the convexity of implies
(A.2) where we used (Proof of Lemma 3.1.) and . Hence, (Proof of Lemma 3.1.) implies that , i.e., is not optimal, which is a contradiction and implies the lemma. ∎
-
Proof of Proposition 3.4.
We prove this proposition by showing the following two statements from which the claim follows directly: (i) If , then it holds that , and (ii) if , then it holds that .
We start with the proof of (i). Therefore, we reformulate the condition to get a condition for . When plugging in the formulas as defined in Theorem 3.2, it holds that if and only if
(A.3) Hence, it follows that and which is again equivalent to . Thus, we get that holds if and only if or since . Before showing the implication (i), let us also reformulate the equality . First, if and only if which is equivalent to:
Since (otherwise (A.3) would be wrong), this is equivalent to:
This again is equivalent to:
Now, if and if the inequality is fulfilled since . Thus, statement (i) follows.
Second, we prove (ii). As in the proof of (i), we start by reformulating the first condition. We note that if and only if which is equivalent to:
From this inequality, it follows that and
Since , this is equivalent to:
As before, we also reformulate the equality . This is indeed true if . If the term under the square root in the definition of (see Theorem 3.2) is , then is fulfilled since . Now, if this term is positive, is equivalent to:
Then, since , this is equivalent to:
which is again equivalent to:
Now, we get that since . Hence, the inequality is fulfilled if which implies statement (ii) and finishes the proof. ∎
-
Proof of Proposition 3.5.
Using the two properties proven in the proof of Proposition 3.4, we only have to check the boundary values and for continuity. However, this follows immediately by plugging in the values. Now, if , we see that if . If , then we note that
Hence, if and . From the proof of Proposition A.3, we see that with . Thus, if . ∎
-
Proof of Theorem 3.7.
From (3.1) and (3.2), we conclude using Itô’s formula that is a martingale. Hence, we get using Theorem 3.2:
(A.4) Now, the claim for follows from the formula for the conditional expectation of log-normal distributions (see (B.1)) using that it holds conditionally on :
where denotes a log-normal distribution.
The next step is to calculate the volatility process of , i.e., the term before the in its SDE, denoted by using (3.2). There, we get , where we used that . Now, we get the optimal strategy by comparing the volatility processes from which is . Hence, the claim follows. ∎
A.1 Proposition A.1
Since the equation depends on and depends on , we have to solve these two equations together. We show that these variables always exist in the following Proposition A.1.
Proposition A.1.
There always exists a solution for and and an equation system that can be numerically solved to determine them.
We split this proof into two lemmas. In the first Lemma A.2, we give the equation system to solve for the two parameters and , where we added and as a superscript to help the reader follow the interdependence. In the second Lemma A.3, we show that these parameters exist:
Lemma A.2.
Proof. The first formula follows from the definition and (Proof of Theorem 3.7.) for . The second formula follows from the definition and the following properties for arbitrary :
(A.5) | ||||
(A.6) |
Moreover, we conclude from (3.4) (combined with Proposition 3.5) that , , and .
Indeed, we get:
where we used the above-discussed results in the second and (3.4) in the third equation. The claim follows with (A.5) and (A.6). ∎
Lemma A.3.
The equation system from Lemma A.2 admits a solution.
Proof. For this existence proof, we make the following two definitions by writing the two equations as functions depending on and :
(A.7) | ||||
Note that we suppress again the dependence of and , , on and . By definition, the equation system from Lemma A.2 is solved if there exist , such that .
To show this, we define
and an arbitrary continuous function with if resp. if , and . Then, we make the following four statements, which are shown at the end of this proof:
(A.8) | ||||
(A.9) | ||||
(A.10) | ||||
(A.11) |
Due to the continuity of and , there exists for each a and for all functions a such that and . If there exists more than one solution, then we take as the smallest one of those (well-defined due to being bounded from below and the continuity of and ). Moreover, we have the following four statements, which are also shown at the end of this proof:
(A.12) | ||||
(A.13) | ||||
(A.14) | ||||
(A.15) |
Now, if we consider as a function of , it fulfills the assumptions of . Hence, there exists a such that . On the other hand, by the definition of , we have that , which implies the claim.
To finalize the proof, we show the remaining eight statements afterwards. But first, we note that it holds by definition (see Theorem 3.2):
(A.16) |
-
Proof of (A.8).
First of all, we claim that
(A.17) (A.18) which we will show directly after the proof of (A.8). So for now assume that (A.17) and (A.18) hold, and let .
By (A.17), if . Moreover, it follows directly from the definition that(A.19) Thus, if then it holds that (i) . On the other hand, if , then it holds that (ii) as (A.18) entails that . Now, if , it holds that (iii) for . Furthermore, if , we deduce that (iv) for and, if , it follows directly that (v) for . Finally, if , then it holds that and (vi) for . Note that (see (A.16)) and hence (vii) shows the same limiting behavior as for . Summarizing these results, we conclude for :
-
(a)
Properties (ii), (v), and (vi) imply:
-
(b)
One can see directly that .
-
(c)
It holds that due to (vii).
-
(d)
Properties (i), (iii), and (iv) imply:
-
(e)
One can see directly that .
Thus, the claim follows. ∎
-
(a)
-
Proof of (A.17).
We show this equation by considering the three different cases of :
Case 1: , i.e., :
Let , i.e., there exists an such that . First, we notice that if . Now, it holds if we plug in :Since and , we get that if and only if , which is equivalent to . Thus, the claim, i.e., for .
Case 2: , i.e., :
Let , i.e., there exists an such that . As in the first case, we get that if (defined as in Case 1). Then, we get after plugging in :Since and , we get that if and only if
Since , this is equivalent to:
Now, the claim, i.e., for , follows.
Case 3: , i.e., :
Then, we get immediately that for . Hence, it holds that due to (see (A.16)). ∎
-
Proof of (A.18).
First, let , i.e., there exists an such that . We note that for this which implies that if and only if . Now, if the term under the square root in the maximum in the formula of (for the definition, see Theorem 3.2) is negative, the claim follows immediately. Hence, we assume that the term is non-negative. If we plug in into , we get:
Since and , it holds that if and only if
This is equivalent to:
Now, we notice with that
Then, it follows with as above since :
Hence, . Second, we note that (and thus also ) for by definition. Hence, the claim if and only if follows. ∎
-
Proof of (A.10).
Recall that is a continuous function from with some limiting properties at and , and we plug this function into with . To start, we give a small overview of the following proof: To show (A.10), we must find the limiting behavior of , , , , and when . However, this behavior heavily depends on , i.e., the different values of and the limiting properties of . Hence, we have to distinguish several cases. First, we differentiate between the different limiting properties for depending if is true. If this is true, we first analyze the limit of . After that, we have to separate the cases depending if is bigger, smaller, or equal to . For the equality case, we even have to separate along the limiting behavior of to derive the limiting behavior for and . If is not true, we only have to separate along the possible limiting values of .
Case 1: , i.e., :
Since and , it holds that (i) for , i.e., . Indeed, it holds: If , we get that and hence since . Now, (A.16) implies that . If , it holds that since by assumption and we get that:When calculating the limit for for , it holds that
Now, we see that if and only if which is true by assumption. Thus, since , i.e., (i) is proven.
Next, if , we get that ((ii).1) due to (A.18) and and thus also ((ii).2) due to (A.16). If , we get that ((iii).1) due to (A.19) and which can be factored out. Hence, also ((iii).2) due to (A.16). The remaining case that needs a closer look. First, we note that then and hence by the assumption of Case 1. There, we have to distinguish three more cases for the limiting behavior of , , , and depending on the behavior of . Note that can have multiple accumulation points for (all in [0,]) despite being continuous in . Now, let be a sequence converging to the , i.e., . Note that from above. We show (A.10) then for each accumulation point separately by possibly switching to subsequences, i.e., we can assume without loss of generality that exists (in [0,]) and have to consider the following cases:Case 1.1: :
Then, it follows immediately that (iv) due to (A.16).Case 1.2: :
Here, we first note that when applying the same argument as in the proof of (A.18) (with ) to the second term in the definition of , this second term is non-negative for , i.e., when taking the limit . Then, we obtain ((v).1) . In particular, we get ((v).2) due to (A.16).Case 1.3: :
First, since , we get by plugging in into that . The reason is that and the nominator in converges to a positive number, i.e.:Hence, ((vi).1) . Second, we note that for by the same argument as in Case 1.2. Thus, ((vi).2) .
Summarizing, we get in all subcases of Case 1, that since due to (i) and due to either (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), or (vi) depending on . Hence, it holds that since and from above. In particular, we get that since and from above. Thus, the claim follows.
Case 2: , i.e., and :
For this case, we have to distinguish two more subcases depending on the possible limit of . However, can have multiple accumulation points. As before, we consider each accumulation point separately, denote by a sequence converging to the , and assume, without loss of generality by possibly switching to a subsequence, that from above and exists (in ). This gives us the following cases:Case 2.1: :
Then, we get that since for which implies that using (A.16). Thus, it holds that using that for .Case 2.2: :
Here, we first rewrite into:where we used that . Now, the claim follows, i.e., since , from above, , and being non-decreasing. ∎
-
Proof of (A.11).
For this proof, we have to consider three cases depending on the limiting behavior of for . As in the proof of (A.10), we have here possibly multiple accumulation points that we treat separately and denote by the sequence converging to the . Note that in this case. Hence, we can assume, without loss of generality by possibly switching to a subsequence, that exists (in ) and consider the three cases that , , and :
Case 1: :
It holds that using and the assumption. Therefore, we also get that due to (A.16). Thus, the claim follows using for .Case 2: :
In this case, it holds by assumption that , and . Moreover, it holds that by (A.16) and since for any affine function . Next, we note that for all and . In total, we get that and . Thus, the claim follows since .Case 3: :
In this case, we get that as for any affine function . Hence, it holds that due to (A.16). Thus, we get the claim using , , and for . ∎
-
Proof of (A.12).
To show this, it is sufficient to show that (i) is strictly increasing, (ii) is non-increasing and (iii) is jointly continuous on . Indeed, let with . Due to the existence of the zero root (see the main part of the proof) and the uniqueness of the zero root (since is strictly increasing), there exist then unique such that . Then, we have to show that . Due to being non-increasing and , it holds that (maximum and minimum exist due to the convergence of to ). Then, there exist a subsequence and a such that . Moreover, we know that due to the joint continuity of . Now, the uniqueness of the zero root implies that . Hence, all subsequences converge to and thus also the sequence itself. Therefore, (A.12) would follow provided we can show (i), (ii), and (iii) from the beginning:
First, the joint continuity (i.e., property (iii)) follows directly from the definition of .
Second, we derive property (i), i.e., the strict monotonicity in , from the formula of (see Theorem 3.2), which gives us the claim. Note that we add in the following paragraph a superscript to , , , and when we take these values for a certain fixed .
Indeed, if for all , we can show that with a strict inequality for a set with positive probability for all , then also since and . Therefore, let : Due to (A.17) and Proposition 3.4, we conclude that for all (and hence for and ) , i.e., for small enough. The formula of (see Theorem 3.2) implies that for fixed the slope remains unchanged in each interval , , resp. when changing , but the interval boundaries change. Note that the slope (as a function of ) is strictly negative in and , and constant otherwise. Therefore, due to being non-increasing and a non-increasing function getting larger when being shifted to the right, it is sufficient to show that all interval boundaries do not decrease when increases and at least one boundary value strictly increases when increases:
It follows directly from the definition of that . Hence, due to having the same slope and the continuity of (resp. ) in on (resp. ), we conclude that since , i.e., the interval is strictly increasing in . Next, we observe immediately from its definition that . For and , we show this property by proving that their derivatives with respect to are non-negative. Let be defined as in Theorem 3.2 and with as in Theorem 3.2. Then, we get:where denotes the left side derivative with respect to . Summarizing, strictly increases and and non-decrease in . Thus, property (i) follows.
Third, we prove property (ii), i.e., that is non-increasing in . Let be a function of as in Theorem 3.2. It follows directly from the definitions of , , , and that they are non-increasing in for fixed . Now, let and arbitrary. Then, the claim follows if . If is in the same interval for both values and , the claim is obvious due to (A.7). Since , , , and are non-increasing in and is non-increasing in (check Remark 3.3(c)), the claim also follows if is in different intervals for and . ∎
-
Proof of (A.13).
For the proof of this equation, we have to consider the two cases and . Note that if , we get that . Moreover, notice that by assumption.
Case 1: , i.e., :
For , it holds that for small enough and hence also due to (A.16). However, it holds with (A.17) that . Note that for . Thus, reduces for all small enough to(A.20) Now, if , it follows that (since for all ) which is a contradiction to (A.8). Thus, the claim follows, i.e., , when taking the limit of (and hence ) on both sides, since . Note that for every , the existence of a solution of (Proof of (A.13).) was already ensured in the main part of the proof.
Case 2: , i.e., :
For , it holds that:where we used that , , and in the first inequality. Moreover, we used (A.16) and for all in the second inequality. Hence, the claim follows, i.e., by the same argument as in Case 1. Note that the existence of a solution was already ensured in the main part of the proof. ∎
-
Proof of (A.14).
There is nothing to show since we already have that . ∎
-
Proof of (A.15).
We prove this by contradiction. Therefore, we assume that there exists an such that . Under this assumption, it holds that since for all affine functions and being bounded. Then (A.16) implies that and we know that . However, then for all which is a contradiction to being the zero root of . ∎
Since all statements are proved, we have shown the lemma. ∎
Appendix B Additional lemma
The following lemma restates a well-known result for log-normal distributions, which is used, e.g., in deriving the pricing formula of a put or call in a Black-Scholes model. The proof is just a straightforward calculation. However, we will give it for the sake of completeness.
Lemma B.1.
Let and , where denotes a log-normal distribution. Then, it holds that:
(B.1) |
where denotes the cdf of a standard normal distribution with and . The formula remains unchanged when we replace the interval by , , or .
Proof. It holds with and :
∎
References
- [1] Anna Rita Bacinello and Svein-Arne Persson. Design and pricing of equity-linked life insurance under stochastic interest rates. The Journal of Risk Finance, 3(2):6–21, 2002.
- [2] Suleyman Basak and Alexander Shapiro. Value-at-risk-based risk management: optimal policies and asset prices. The review of financial studies, 14(2):371–405, 2001.
- [3] Eric Briys and François De Varenne. On the risk of insurance liabilities: debunking some common pitfalls. Journal of Risk and Insurance, pages 673–694, 1997.
- [4] An Chen, Thai Nguyen, and Mitja Stadje. Optimal investment under var-regulation and minimum insurance. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 79:194–209, 2018.
- [5] John Cochrane. Asset pricing: Revised edition. Princeton university press, 2009.
- [6] Domenico Cuoco, Hua He, and Sergei Isaenko. Optimal dynamic trading strategies with risk limits. Operations Research, 56(2):358–368, 2008.
- [7] Min Dai, Steven Kou, Shuaijie Qian, and Xiangwei Wan. Non-concave utility maximization without the concavification principle. Available at SSRN 3422276, 2019.
- [8] Yinghui Dong, Sang Wu, Wenxin Lv, and Guojing Wang. Optimal asset allocation for participating contracts under the var and pi constraint. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2020(2):84–109, 2020.
- [9] EIOPA. European insurance overview 2023. Technical report, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), 2023.
- [10] Nadine Gatzert and Alexander Kling. Analysis of participating life insurance contracts: A unification approach. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 74(3):547–570, 2007.
- [11] Nils H Hakansson. Capital growth and the mean-variance approach to portfolio selection. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 6(1):517–557, 1971.
- [12] Lin He, Zongxia Liang, Yang Liu, and Ming Ma. Weighted utility optimization of the participating endowment contract. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2020(7):577–613, 2020.
- [13] Holger Kraft and Mogens Steffensen. A dynamic programming approach to constrained portfolios. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(2):453–461, 2013.
- [14] Kasper Larsen. Optimal portfolio delegation when parties have different coefficients of risk aversion. Quantitative Finance, 5(5):503–512, 2005.
- [15] Zongxia Liang, Yang Liu, Ming Ma, et al. A unified formula of the optimal portfolio for piecewise hara utilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06460, 2021.
- [16] Hongcan Lin, David Saunders, and Chengguo Weng. Optimal investment strategies for participating contracts. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 73:137–155, 2017.
- [17] Harry Markowitz. Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1):77–91, March 1952.
- [18] Harry M. Markowitz. Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments. Yale University Press, 1959.
- [19] Robert C Merton. An analytic derivation of the efficient portfolio frontier. Journal of financial and quantitative analysis, 7(4):1851–1872, 1972.
- [20] Robert C Merton. Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. In Stochastic optimization models in finance, pages 621–661. Elsevier, 1975.
- [21] Hui Mi, Zuo Quan Xu, and Dongfang Yang. Optimal management of dc pension plan with inflation risk and tail var constraint. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01936, 2023.
- [22] Charbel Mirza and Joël Wagner. Policy characteristics and stakeholder returns in participating life insurance: which contracts can lead to a win-win? European Actuarial Journal, 8:291–320, 2018.
- [23] Thai Nguyen and Mitja Stadje. Nonconcave optimal investment with value-at-risk constraint: An application to life insurance contracts. SIAM journal on control and optimization, 58(2):895–936, 2020.
- [24] Huyên Pham. Continuous-time stochastic control and optimization with financial applications, volume 61. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.
- [25] Shuaijie Qian and Chen Yang. Non-concave utility maximization with transaction costs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02178, 2023.
- [26] Christian Reichlin. Utility maximization with a given pricing measure when the utility is not necessarily concave. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 7(4):531–556, 2013.
- [27] Paul A Samuelson. Lifetime portfolio selection by dynamic stochastic programming. Stochastic optimization models in finance, pages 517–524, 1975.
- [28] Hato Schmeiser and Joël Wagner. A proposal on how the regulator should set minimum interest rate guarantees in participating life insurance contracts. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 82(3):659–686, 2015.
- [29] Yuanyuan Zhang, Xiang Li, and Sini Guo. Portfolio selection problems with markowitz’s mean–variance framework: a review of literature. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 17:125–158, 2018.
- [30] Xun Yu Zhou and Duan Li. Continuous-time mean-variance portfolio selection: A stochastic lq framework. Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 42:19–33, 2000.