ArticlePloS one2024
Guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits with high-water mark fee structure.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Guaranteed Minimum Withdrawal Benefit (GMWB), an adjunct incorporated within variable annuities, commits to reimbursing the entire initial investment regardless of the performance of the underlying funds. While extensive research exists in financial and actuarial literature regarding the modeling and valuation techniques of GMWBs, much of it is founded on a static fee structure. Our study introduces an innovative fee structure based on the high-water mark (HWM) principle and a regime-switch jump-diffusion model for the pricing of GMWBs, employing numerical solutions through the Monte Carlo method for solving the stochastic differential equation (SDE). Furthermore, a companion piece of research addresses the risk management of GMWBs within the same analytical framework as the pricing component, an aspect that has received limited attention in the existing literature. In assessing the necessary capital reserves for unforeseen losses, our methodology involves the computation of two risk metrics associated with the tail distribution of net liability from the insurer's perspective, Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Conditional-Tail-Expectation (CTE). Comprehensive numerical results and sensitivity analyses are also provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.