IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1802.07009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analytical Validation Formulas for Best Estimate Calculation in Traditional Life Insurance

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Hochgerner
  • Florian Gach

Abstract

Within the context of traditional life insurance, a model-independent relationship about how the market value of assets is attributed to the best estimate, the value of in-force business and tax is established. This relationship holds true for any portfolio under run-off assumptions and can be used for the validation of models set up for Solvency~II best estimate calculation. Furthermore, we derive a lower bound for the value of future discretionary benefits. This lower bound formula is applied to publicly available insurance data to show how it can be used for practical validation purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Hochgerner & Florian Gach, 2018. "Analytical Validation Formulas for Best Estimate Calculation in Traditional Life Insurance," Papers 1802.07009, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2019.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1802.07009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07009
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Manuel Hasenbichler & Wolfgang Muller & Stefan Thonhauser, 2023. "The Mean Field Market Model Revisited," Papers 2402.10215, arXiv.org.
    2. Florian Gach & Simon Hochgerner & Eva Kienbacher & Gabriel Schachinger, 2023. "Mean-field Libor market model and valuation of long term guarantees," Papers 2310.09022, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    3. Sascha Desmettre & Simon Hochgerner & Sanela Omerovic & Stefan Thonhauser, 2021. "A mean-field extension of the LIBOR market model," Papers 2109.10779, arXiv.org.
    4. Florian Gach & Simon Hochgerner, 2021. "Estimation of future discretionary benefits in traditional life insurance," Papers 2101.06077, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1802.07009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.