English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51617377      Online Users : 538
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/138894


    Title: 不同制度下附保證型變額年金之資本要求研究
    Study of Capital Requirement of Guaranteed Minimum Benefit Variable Annuity under Implementation of Different Capital Standard
    Authors: 戴偉軒
    Tai, Wei-Hsuan
    Contributors: 黃泓智
    楊曉文

    Huang, Hong-Chih
    Yang, Sharon S.

    戴偉軒
    Tai, Wei-Hsuan
    Keywords: 附保證型變額年金
    新一代清償能力制度
    ICS 2.0
    AG 43
    VM-21
    Guaranteed minimum benefit variable annuity
    ICS 2.0
    AG 43
    VM-21
    Date: 2021
    Issue Date: 2022-02-10 12:56:12 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 台灣將於2026年採用以ICS2.0(Insurance Capital Standard 2.0)為基礎之新一代清償能力制度以取代過去的風險資本額制度(Risk-Based Capital),而NAIC(National Association of Insurance Commissioners)對於附保證型商品之準則也隨著時間更迭,準備金制度VM21自2020年供保險公司自願性加入,逐漸取代AG43。
    本研究以躉繳最低死亡、提領保證變額年金(Guaranteed minimum death, withdrawal variable annuity)為例探討不同制度對附保證型商品的資本要求影響。準備金方面,研究發現VM21(Valuation Manual 21)準備金普遍較AG43(Actuarial Guideline XLIII)保守,保險公司需提存較高之準備金,且VM21準備金對市場波動的反應也較為劇烈。資本要求方面,相較於風險資本額制度RBC使用係數法計算,以ICS2.0透過壓力法計算之資本要求金額較高,且較能反映市場變化,當市場下跌時ICS2.0之資本要求較能即時反應該商品潛在風險。綜觀而言,ICS2.0制度較過去RBC更能反映市場現況,而VM21制度較AG43制度保守,因此保險公司未來發行附保證型商品時應謹慎估算準備金與資本要求以因應資本市場短時間的大幅波動,建議保險公司應在發行商品前考量風險胃納以利永續經營。
    Taiwan will implement a new capital-adequacy requirement which is based on ICS2.0(Insurance Capital Standard 2.0) in 2026 to replace the Risk-Based Capital standard. Besides, the reserve standard for guaranteed minimum benefit variable annuity has changed from AG43(Actuarial Guideline XLIII) to VM21(Valuation Manual 21) which has been voluntarily adopted by insurance companies since 2020.
    This research studies the impact on the capital requirement of single-payment guaranteed minimum death and withdrawal benefit variable annuity under the different capital standards. For the reserve, the research finds out VM21 is more conservative than AG43, and thus, insurance companies should prepare more reserves under the new standard. Besides, the VM21 reserve is more sensitive to the market, so the reserve amount is more volatile than the AG43 reserve. For the capital requirement, the capital requirement amount calculated by the stress test under ICS2.0 is more than the amount calculated by the factor-based method under RBC, and because ICS2.0 is more sensitive to the market, the capital requirement can better reflect the implied risk of the insurance product in the bear market. In short, ICS2.0 can better reflect the market condition, VM21 is more conservative than AG43, and thus, insurance companies should be more prudently to estimate reserve amount and capital requirement amount to react to the huge fluctuation of the market and to consider the risk capacity before issuing a guaranteed minimum benefit variable annuity to operate sustainably.
    Reference: 中文文獻
    1.徐英豪(2019)。附保證投資型保險商品資產配置之研究。國立政治大學風險管理與保險學系碩士論文。
    2.陳柏仁(2020)。台灣壽險業經驗資料的死亡率模型與死亡風險資本分析。東吳大學財務工程與精算數學系碩士論文。
    3.譚雅蓁(2009)。保險業清償能力制度之探討—以歐盟Solvency II為例。國立政治大學風險管理與保險學系碩士論文。

    英文文獻
    1.American Academy of Actuaries ‘Life Capital Adequacy Subcommittee to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Capital Adequacy Task Force. (2005). Recommended Approach for Setting Regulatory Risk-Based Capital Requirements for Variable Annuities and Similar Products.
    2.American Academy of Actuaries Variable Annuity Practice Note Work Group. (2011). The Application of C-3 Phase II and Actuarial Guideline XLIII.
    3.Cox, J. C., Ingersoll, J. E., & Ross, S. A. (1985). A Theory of The Term Structure of Interest-Rates. Econometrica, 53(2), 385-407. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911242
    4.Cummins, J. D., Grace, M. F., & Phillips, R. D. (1999). Regulatory solvency prediction in property-liability insurance: Risk-based capital, audit ratios, and cash flow simulation. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 66(3), 417-458. https://doi.org/10.2307/253555
    5.Cummins, J. D., Harrington, S. E., & Klein, R. (1995). Insolvency Experience, Risk-Based Capital, and Prompt Corrective Action in Property-Liability Insurance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 19(3-4), 511-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(94)00136-q
    6.Dong, B., Xu, W., Sevic, A., & Sevic, Z. (2020). Efficient willow tree method for variable annuities valuation and risk management. International Review of Financial Analysis, 68, Article 101429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2019.101429
    7.Duan, J. C., & Yu, M. T. (2005). Fair insurance guaranty premia in the presence of risk-based capital regulations, stochastic interest rate and catastrophe risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(10), 2435-2454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004.08.012
    8.Feng, R. H., & Vecer, J. (2017). Risk based capital for guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit. Quantitative Finance, 17(3), 471-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2016.1189087
    9.International Association of Insurance Supervisors. (2020). Instructions for the April 2020 Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) Data Collection Exercise of the Monitoring Period Project.
    10.Jurkonyte, E., & Girdzijauskas, S. A. (2010). The Solvency Requirements in The Project Solvency II: Evaluating The Impact of Insurance Companies` Financial Results. Transformations in Business & Economics, 9(3), 147-157.
    11.National Association of Insurance Commissioners. (2008). Actuarial Guideline XLIII.
    12.National Association of Insurance Commissioners. (2020). Valuation Manual.
    13.Oliver Wyman. (2016). NAIC VA Reserve and Capital Reform Recommended Revisions to AG43 & C3P2.
    14.Wang, J. D., & Xu, W. (2020). Risk-based Capital for Variable Annuity under Stochastic Interest Rate. Astin Bulletin, 50(3), 959-999. https://doi.org/10.1017/asb.2020.20
    15.Zhuo, J.(2006). The Economic Capital and Risk Adjustment Performance for VA with Guarantees with an Example of GMAB. Enterprise Risk Management Symposium, Society of Actuaries.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    風險管理與保險學系
    108358020
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108358020
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202200035
    Appears in Collections:[風險管理與保險學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    802001.pdf2155KbAdobe PDF20View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback