Advertisement

Computational Management Science

, Volume 16, Issue 1–2, pp 217–248 | Cite as

Pricing and hedging GMWB in the Heston and in the Black–Scholes with stochastic interest rate models

  • Ludovic Goudenege
  • Andrea Molent
  • Antonino ZanetteEmail author
Original Paper
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we approach the problem of valuing a particular type of variable annuity called GMWB when advanced stochastic models are considered. As remarked by Yang and Dai (Insur Math Econ 52(2):231–242, 2013), and Dai et al. (Insur Math Econ 64:364–379, 2015), the Black–Scholes framework seems to be inappropriate for such a long maturity products. Also Chen et al. (Insur Math Econ 43(1):165–173, 2008) show that the price of GMWB variable annuities is very sensitive to the interest rate and the volatility parameters. We propose here to use a stochastic volatility model (the Heston model) and a Black–Scholes model with stochastic interest rate (the Black–Scholes Hull–White model). For this purpose, we consider four numerical methods: a hybrid tree-finite difference method, a hybrid tree-Monte Carlo method, an ADI finite difference scheme and a Standard Monte Carlo method. These approaches are employed to determine the no-arbitrage fee for a popular version of the GMWB contract and to calculate the Greeks used in hedging. Both constant withdrawal and dynamic withdrawal strategies are considered. Numerical results are presented, which demonstrate the sensitivity of the no-arbitrage fee to economic and contractual assumptions as well as the different features of the proposed numerical methods.

Keywords

Variable annuities GMWB pricing Stochastic volatility Stochastic interest rate Optimal withdrawal 

References

  1. Alfonsi A (2010) High order discretization schemes for the CIR process: application to affine term structure and Heston models. Math Comput 79(269):209–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacinello AR, Millossovich P, Olivieri A, Pitacco E (2011) Variable annuities: a unifying valuation approach. Insur Math Econ 49(3):285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer D, Kling A, Russ J (2008) A universal pricing framework for guaranteed minimum benefits in variable annuities. ASTIN Bull J IAA 38(2):621–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bélanger AC, Forsyth PA, Labahn G (2009) Valuing the guaranteed minimum death benefit clause with partial withdrawals. Appl Math Finance 16(6):451–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard C, Kwak M (2016) Semi-static hedging of variable annuities. Insur Math Econ 67:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briani M, Caramellino L, Zanette A (2017) A hybrid approach for the implementation of the Heston model. IMA J Manag Math 28(4):467–500Google Scholar
  7. Briani M, Caramellino L, Zanette A (2017) A hybrid tree/finite-difference approach for Heston–Hull–White type models. J Comput Finance 28(4):467–500Google Scholar
  8. Brigo D, Mercurio F (2007) Interest rate models—theory and practice: with smile, inflation and credit. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Z, Forsyth PA (2008) A numerical scheme for the impulse control formulation for pricing variable annuities with a guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit (GMWB). Numer Math 109(4):535–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen Z, Vetzal K, Forsyth PA (2008) The effect of modelling parameters on the value of GMWB guarantees. Insur Math Econ 43(1):165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costabile M (2017) A lattice-based model to evaluate variable annuities with guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits under a regime-switching model. Scand Actuar J 2017(3):231–244Google Scholar
  12. Dai T-S, Yang SS, Liu L-C (2015) Pricing guaranteed minimum/lifetime withdrawal benefits with various provisions under investment, interest rate and mortality risks. Insur Math Econ 64:364–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donnelly RF, Jaimungal S, Rubisov D (2014) Valuing guaranteed withdrawal benefits with stochastic interest rates and volatility. Quant Finance 14(2):369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goudenège L, Molent A, Zanette A (2016) Pricing and hedging GLWB in the Heston and in the Black–Scholes with stochastic interest rate models. Insur Math Econ 70:38–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haentjens T, In’t Hout KJ (2012) Alternating direction implicit finite difference schemes for the Heston–Hull–White partial differential equation. J Comput Finance 16(1):83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heston SL (1993) A closed-form solution for options with stochastic volatility with applications to bond and currency options. Rev Financ Stud 6(2):327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horneff V, Maurer R, Mitchell OS, Rogalla R (2015) Optimal life cycle portfolio choice with variable annuities offering liquidity and investment downside protection. Insur Math Econ 63:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang YT, Kwok YK (2014) Analysis of optimal dynamic withdrawal policies in withdrawal guarantee products. J Econ Dyn Control 45:19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang YT, Kwok YK (2016) Regression-based Monte Carlo methods for stochastic control models: variable annuities with lifelong guarantees. Quant Finance 16(6):905–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang Y, Forsyth PA, Labahn G (2012) Iterative methods for the solution of a singular control formulation of a GMWB pricing problem. Numer Math 122(1):133–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hull JC, White AD (1994) Numerical procedures for implementing term structure models I: single-factor models. J Deriv 2(1):7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ignatieva K, Song A, Ziveyi J (2018) Fourier space time-stepping algorithm for valuing guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits in variable annuities under regime-switching and stochastic mortality. ASTIN Bull J IAA 48(1):139–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin XS, Wu P, Wang X (2016) Move-based hedging of variable annuities: a semi-analytic approach. Insur Math Econ 71:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Longstaff FA, Schwartz ES (2001) Valuing american options by simulation: a simple least-squares approach. Rev Financ Stud 14(1):113–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luo X, Shevchenko PV (2015a) Valuation of variable annuities with guaranteed minimum withdrawal and death benefits via stochastic control optimization. Insur Math Econ 62:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luo X, Shevchenko PV (2015b) Variable annuity with GMWB: surrender or not, that is the question. arXiv:1507.08738
  27. Milevsky MA, Salisbury TS (2006) Financial valuation of guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits. Insur Math Econ 38(1):21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ostrovski V (2013) Efficient and exact simulation of the Hull–White model. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2304848 or  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2304848
  29. Peng J, Leung KS, Kwok YK (2012) Pricing guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits under stochastic interest rates. Quant Finance 12(6):933–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Powell MJD (1981) Approximation theory and methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shevchenko PV, Luo X (2017) Valuation of variable annuities with Guaranteed Minimum Withdrawal Benefit under stochastic interest rate. Insur Math Econ 76:104–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stoer J, Bulirsch R (2013) Introduction to numerical analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang SS, Dai T-S (2013) A flexible tree for evaluating guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits under deferred life annuity contracts with various provisions. Insur Math Econ 52(2):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ludovic Goudenege
    • 1
  • Andrea Molent
    • 2
  • Antonino Zanette
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.CNRS FR3487Fédération de Mathématiques de CentraleSupélecGif-sur-YvetteFrance
  2. 2.Dipartimento di ManagementUniveristà Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e StatisticheUniversità di UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations