Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-zc66z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-11T17:08:14.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic tonuity: Adapting retirement benefits to a changing environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2025

An Chen ,
Yusha Chen Open the ORCID record for Yusha Chen [Opens in a new window]  and
Manuel Rach Open the ORCID record for Manuel Rach [Opens in a new window]
An Chen
Affiliation:
Institute of Insurance Science Ulm University 89081 Ulm, Germany
Yusha Chen*
Affiliation:
School of Finance Southwestern University of Finance and Economics 611130 Chengdu, China
Manuel Rach
Affiliation:
Institute of Insurance Economics University of St. Gallen 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland
*
Corresponding author: Yusha Chen; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The tonuity, proposed by Chen et al. ((2019) ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 49(1), 530.), is a combination of an immediate tontine and a deferred annuity. However, its switching time from tontine to annuity is fixed at the moment the contract is closed, possibly becoming sub-optimal if mortality changes over time. This article introduces an alternative tonuity product, wherein a dynamic switching condition is pivotal, relying on the observable mortality trends within a reference population. The switching from tontine to annuity then occurs automatically once the condition is satisfied. Using data from the Human Mortality Database and UK Continuous Mortality Investigation, we demonstrate that, in a changing environment, where an unforeseen mortality or longevity shock leads to an unexpected increase or decrease in mortality rates, the proposed dynamic tonuity contract can be preferable to the regular tonuity contract.

Keywords

Retirement plantonuitydynamic switching timetwo-population stochastic mortalityG22G52J32
Type
Research Article
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , First View , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Actuarial Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, S.M. and Duffy, J. (2012) Differences in risk aversion between young and older adults. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics, 1, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bank of England (2024) Official bank rate history data from 1694. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/the-interest-rate-bank-rate [Aug 24, 2024].Google Scholar
Barsky, R.B., Juster, F.T., Kimball, M.S. and Shapiro, M.D. (1997) Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 537–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, D., Börger, M. and Ruß, J. (2010) On the pricing of longevity-linked securities. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 46(1), 139–149.Google Scholar
Blake, D., Cairns, A.J. and Dowd, K. (2003) Pensionmetrics 2: Stochastic pension plan design during the distribution phase. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 33(1), 29–47.Google Scholar
Brown, J.R., Kapteyn, A., Luttmer, E.F., Mitchell, O.S. and Samek, A. (2021) Behavioral impediments to valuing annuities: Complexity and choice bracketing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 103(3), 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.R., Kling, J.R., Mullainathan, S. and Wrobel, M.V. (2008) Why don’t people insure late-life consumption? A framing explanation of the under-annuitization puzzle. American Economic Review, 98(2), 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A., Daskal, S. and Rach, M. (2024) On the ethics of mortality risk sharing. Available at SSRN 4855584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A., Hieber, P. and Klein, J.K. (2019) Tonuity: A novel individual-oriented retirement plan. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 49(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A., Hieber, P. and Rach, M. (2021) Optimal retirement products under subjective mortality beliefs. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 101, 55–69.Google Scholar
Chen, A., Nguyen, T. and Sehner, T. (2022) Unit-linked tontine: Utility-based design, pricing and performance. Risks, 10(4), 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A. and Rach, M. (2019) Options on tontines: An innovative way of combining annuities and tontines. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 89, 182–192.Google Scholar
Chen, A. and Rach, M. (2022) Bequest-embedded annuities and tontines. Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, 16(1), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A. and Rach, M. (2023) Who chooses which retirement income? A CPT-based analysis. Review of Behavioral Economics, 10(3), 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A., Rach, M. and Sehner, T. (2020) On the optimal combination of annuities and tontines. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 50(1), 95–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocco, J.F. and Gomes, F.J. (2012) Longevity risk, retirement savings, and financial innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(3), 507–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, I.D. (2006) Smoothing and forecasting mortality rates with p-splines. Paper given at the Institute of Actuaries. https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/documents/pdf/currie.pdf.Google Scholar
Donnelly, C. and Young, J. (2017) Product options for enhanced retirement income. British Actuarial Journal, 22(3), 636–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2014) REGULATION (EU) No 1286/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 November 2014 on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R1286 [May 21, 2024].Google Scholar
European Commission (2017) COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/653 of 8 March 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) by laying down regulatory technical standards with regard to the presentation, content, review and revision of key information documents and the conditions for fulfilling the requirement to provide such documents. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017R0653 [May 21, 2024].Google Scholar
Fullmer, R.K. and Sabin, M.J. (2019) Individual tontine accounts. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 19(8), 31–61.Google Scholar
Gemmo, I., Rogalla, R. and Weinert, J.H. (2020) Optimal portfolio choice with tontines under systematic longevity risk. Annals of Actuarial Science, 14(2), 302–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, F.J., Kotlikoff, L.J. and Viceira, L.M. (2008) Optimal life-cycle investing with flexible labor supply: A welfare analysis of life-cycle funds. American Economic Review, 98(2), 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halek, M. and Eisenhauer, J.G. (2001) Demography of risk aversion. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 68(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horneff, V., Maurer, R. and Mitchell, O.S. (2023) Fixed and variable longevity income annuities in defined contribution plans: Optimal retirement portfolios taking social security into account. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 90(4), 831–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H.H., Maurer, R. and Mitchell, O.S. (2016) Time is money: Rational life cycle inertia and the delegation of investment management. Journal of Financial Economics, 121(2), 427–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambregts, T.R. and Schut, F.T. (2020) Displaced, disliked and misunderstood: A systematic review of the reasons for low uptake of long-term care insurance and life annuities. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 17, 100236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milevsky, M.A. and Salisbury, T.S. (2015) Optimal retirement income tontines. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 64, 91–105.Google Scholar
Moenig, T. and Zhu, N. (2024) Adverse selection in tontines. The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, R.A. and Suárez, Á.F. (1983) Risk aversion revisited. Journal of Finance, 38, 1201–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newfield, P. (2014) The tontine: An improvement on the conventional annuity? The Journal of Retirement, 1(3), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, J., Valdez, E.A. and Detzel, B. (2005) The simple analytics of a pooled annuity fund. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 72(3), 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiao, C. and Sherris, M. (2013) Managing systematic mortality risk with group self-pooling and annuitization schemes. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 80(4), 949–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, A. and Weber, F. (2011) Mortality-indexed annuities managing longevity risk via product design. North American Actuarial Journal, 15(2), 212–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabin, M.J. (2010) Fair tontine annuity. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1579932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarcz, D. (2013) Transparency opaque: Understanding the lack of transparency in insurance consumer protection. UCLA Law Review, 61, 394.Google Scholar
Steinorth, P. and Mitchell, O.S. (2015) Valuing variable annuities with guaranteed minimum lifetime withdrawal benefits. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 64, 246–258.Google Scholar
Vidal-Meliá, C. and Lejárraga-Garca, A. (2006) Demand for life annuities from married couples with a bequest motive. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 5(2), 197–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinert, J.H. and Gründl, H. (2021) The modern tontine: An innovative instrument for longevity risk management in an aging society. European Actuarial Journal, 11(1), 49–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaari, M.E. (1965) Uncertain lifetime, life insurance, and the theory of the consumer. The Review of Economic Studies, 32(2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanez, N.D., Weiss, N.S., Romand, J.-A. and Treggiari, M.M. (2020) Covid-19 mortality risk for older men and women. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Chen et al. supplementary material

Chen et al. supplementary material
Download Chen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 293.3 KB