Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136377


Title: 不同監理規範下附保證給付變額年金負債衡量要求對保險公司財報之影響:AG 43、VM-21與IFRS 17之探討
The Impact of the Regulation Requirement of Valuing Variable Annuity Guaranteed Benefits on the Insurer’s Financial Report under AG 43, VM-21 and IFRS 17
Authors: 李友瑄
Lee, Yu-Hsuan
Contributors: 楊曉文
黃泓智

Yang, Sharon S.
Huang, Hong-Chih

李友瑄
Lee, Yu-Hsuan
Keywords: AG 43
VM-21
IFRS 17
GMxB
負債評價
財務影響
AG 43
VM-21
IFRS 17
GMxB
Valuation of Liabilities
Financial Impact
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-08-04 14:55:02 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本研究探討AG 43、VM-21與IFRS 17三種不同負債提存制度對保險公司財務報表及損益之影響。透過建立6年期具GMDB與GMMB之變額年金商品的現金流量模型來進行負債評價與模擬損益結果。資產假設中分離帳戶連結標的是以美元計價的平衡型基金,透過對數常態模型模擬投資報酬率情境,並考慮基金間的相關性,同時於負債假設中納入死亡率與脫退率因子,以此模型結果來分析並比較不同負債提存制度之差異及對公司損益之影響。模擬結果顯示不同制度不會改變商品之獲利性,但IFRS 17之損益型態於三個制度中對保險公司有最大的獲利貢獻。而VM-21相較於AG 43有更嚴格的準備金提存規範,遇到市場狀況不佳時,需要提存更高的保證給付責任準備金。
同時本研究透過對連結標的資產類型、保證費用率與投資報酬率情境進行敏感度分析,探討不同個別因子會如何影響保險公司的財務穩定與商品經營方向。結果顯示如下:
1.連結股票型基金會造成損益波動度較大,但連結債券型商品因投資績效較差,容易產生保證成本。
2.調整保證費用率會影響IFRS 17的CSM與淨利。
3.當發生大量滿期保證時,仍是IFRS 17擁有最大的NBV margin。
This article discusses the impact of insurer’s liabilities on the financial reports and profit and loss under AG 43, VM-21 and IFRS 17. In order to quantify insurer’s liability and P&L results, we build a cash flow model for the 6-year variable annuity with guaranteed minimum death benefit (GMDB) and guaranteed minimum maturity benefit (GMMB). For assets, the underlying item of separate account is mapped to the balanced fund denominated in US dollars. Then we adopt the lognormal model to generate investment return scenarios and consider correlation matrix between funds as well. Moreover, we take mortality rate and lapse rate into consideration in the liability assumptions. The simulations are used to analyze the differences between AG 43, VM-21 and IFRS 17 as well as the impact on the insurer’s P&L. The results demonstrate that different valuation regulation has no impact on the profitability of the variable annuity with guarantee. However, the profit profile of IFRS 17 has the greatest contribution to the profitability of the insurance company among the three valuation regulations. Compared to AG 43, VM-21 has more rigorous regulations for calculating statutory reserve. In adverse economic scenarios, the insurer should hold more reserves to cover severe losses.
Furthermore, to further understand how each factor affect the financial stability of the insurance company and the strategy of the variable annuity product, we perform
the sensitivity test around the factors such as the asset class of the underlying item, cost of guaranteed benefits and investment return scenario. The numerical results are showed as follows.

1. When separate account assets are invested in equity funds, it causes greater volatility in profit and loss. While separate account assets are invested in bond funds, it may cause higher guarantee costs due to poor investment performance.
2. Adjusting expense ratio of guaranteed benefits has an effect on the CSM and net profit of IFRS 17.
3. When the contracts mature, a large number of maturity guarantees are triggered; IFRS 17 still has the greatest NBV margin.
Reference: 中文文獻
1. Deloitte (2018)。保險面面觀—IFRS 17及保險精算實務解析。檢自:
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/tw/Documents/financial-services/tw-fsi-%E4%BF%9D%E9%9A%AA%E9%9D%A2%E9%9D%A2%E8%A7%80_IFRS%2017%E5%8F%8A%E4%BF%9D%E7%B2%BE%E7%AE%97%E5%AF%A6%E5%8B%99%E8%A7%A3%E6%9E%90_Final.pdf

英文文獻
1. Bélanger, A. C., Forsyth, P. A., & Labahn, G. (2009). Valuing the Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit Clause with Partial Withdrawals. Applied Mathematical Finance, 16(6), 451-496.
2. Bacinello, A. R., Millossovich, P., Olivieri, A., & Pitacco, E. (2011). Variable annuities: A unifying valuation approach. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 49(3), 285-297.
3. Bauer, D., Kling, A., & Russ, J. (2008). A Universal Pricing Framework for Guaranteed Minimum Benefits in Variable Annuities. ASTIN Bulletin, 38(2), 621-651.
4. Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637-654.
5. Boyle, P. P., & Schwartz, E. S. (1977). Equilibrium Prices of Guarantees Under Equity-Linked Contracts. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 44(4), 639-660.
6. Brennan, M., & Schwartz, E. S. (1976). The pricing of equity-linked life insurance policies with an asset value guarantee. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(3), 195-213.
7. EIOPA. (2020). Technical documentation of the methodology to derive EIOPA’s risk-free interest rate term structures. Retrieved from https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/tools-and-data/risk-free-interest-rate-term-structures_en
8. Feng, R. (2018). An introduction to computational risk management of equity-linked insurance (1st ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
9. Feng, R., & Huang, H. (2016). Statutory financial reporting for variable annuity guaranteed death benefits: Market practice, mathematical modeling and computation. Insurance Mathematics and Economics, 67, 54-64.
10. Feng, R., & Volkmer, H. W. (2012). Analytical calculation of risk measures for variable annuity guaranteed benefits. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 51(3), 636-648.
11. Gan, G., & Valdez, E. A. (2017). Valuation of large variable annuity portfolios: Monte Carlo simulation and synthetic datasets. Dependence Modeling, 5(1), 354-374.
12. Hannibal, C. (2018). Calculating the IFRS 17 Risk Adjustment. Retrieved from https://www.moodysanalytics.com/articles/2018/calculating-the-IFRS 17-risk-adjustment
13. Hardy, M. R. (2003). Investment Guarantees:Modeling and Risk Management for Equity-Linked Life Insurance. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
14. Knoller, C., Kraut, G., & Schoenmaekers, P. (2016). On the Propensity to Surrender a Variable Annuity Contract: An Empirical Analysis of Dynamic Policyholder Behavior. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(4), 979-1006.
15. Milevsky, M. A., & Posner, S. E. (2001). The Titanic Option: Valuation of the Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit in Variable Annuities and Mutual Funds. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 68(1), 93-128.
16. Milevsky, M. A., & Salisbury, T. S. (2006). Financial valuation of guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 38(1), 21-38.
17. Milliman. (2012). Report on Pricing Using Market Consistent Embedded Value(MCEV). Retrieved from https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/Files/Research/Projects/research-report-pricing-report.pdf
18. Ng, A. C.-Y., & Li, J. S.-H. (2011). Valuing variable annuity guarantees with the multivariate Esscher transform. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 49(3), 393-400.
19. Ng, A. C.-Y., & Li, J. S.-H. (2013). Pricing and Hedging Variable Annuity Guarantees with Multiasset Stochastic Investment Models. North American Actuarial Journal, 17(1), 41-62.
20. Nystrup, P., Hansen, B. W., Larsen, H. O., Madsen, H., & Lindström, E. (2018). Dynamic Allocation or Diversification: A Regime-Based Approach to Multiple Assets. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 44(2), 62-73.
21. Persson, S.-A., & Aase, K. K. (1997). Valuation of the Minimum Guaranteed Return Embedded in Life Insurance Products. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 64(4), 599-617.
22. Vellekoop, M. H., Vd Kamp, A. A., & Post, B. A. (2006). Pricing and hedging guaranteed returns on mix funds. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 38(3), 585-598.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
風險管理與保險學系
108358007
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108358007
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[風險管理與保險學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
800701.pdf3957KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing