# Using Neural Networks to Price and Hedge Variable Annuity Guarantees

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

_{1}-n

_{2}-n

_{3}architecture refers to a neural network with n

_{1}inputs, n

_{2}nodes in the hidden layer, and n

_{3}nodes in the output layer. (Note that all neural networks utilized here employ a feedforward architecture with a single, dense hidden layer.) For an introduction to neural networks and their structure, as well as the associated terminology and their use in deep learning problems, see Nielsen (2015) or Bishop (2006).

## 2. Methods and Models

#### 2.1. Assumptions and Data

_{t}is the stock price at time t, σ

_{s}is the volatility of the stock, Z

_{s}(t) is a standard Brownian motion process, and r

_{t}is the short rate at time t, as defined by the Hull-White model (Hull and White 1990):

_{r}is the volatility of the short rate, and Z

_{r}(t) is a standard Brownian motion process. We assumed that the two standard Brownian motion processes Z

_{s}(t) and Z

_{r}(t) are independent.

_{t}and is assumed to follow a similar process to the stock price:

_{s}using the 5-year rolling historical volatility of this index. For interest rates, we used daily Treasury Yield rate curves from 1990 to 1999 (U.S. Department of the Treasury 2018). For the parameters in the Hull-White model, we used values of a = 0.35 and σ

_{r}= 0.02, and the value of θ(t) was determined from that day’s Treasury yield curve.

#### 2.2. VA Guarantee Pricing Using MC Simulations

_{20}(t) is the present value of a 20-year annuity-due that begins payment at time T.

_{n}is the benefit base, ratcheted in proportion to the account value less withdrawals.

#### 2.3. Delta-Rho Hedging

#### 2.4. Neural Network Pricing Methodology

- Time until maturity of the contract;
- Spot rate of the yield curve;
- S&P 500 opening price;
- Price of a zero-coupon bond maturing at the end of the contract;
- Volatility of the S&P 500;
- The first three components of a principal component analysis of the yield curve, which are generally interpreted as the height, slope, and curvature of the yield curve;
- Fee for the guarantee;
- “Moneyness” (M) of the guarantee, defined as M = (G − V)/G, where V is the account value. For the GMWB, G is the amount that the policyholder is allowed to withdraw in a given year. For the other guarantee types, G is the amount guaranteed to the policyholder on their death, survival, or annuitization, respectively. Because this amount ratchets up on policy anniversaries, the guarantee amount represents the highest value seen to date at a policy anniversary.

#### 2.5. Neural Network Hedging Methodology

#### 2.6. Neural Network Training

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Pricing

^{2}, a measure has been used by other researchers to measure neural network accuracy, as in, e.g., Hattab et al. (2013). There are, however, several other options for neural network performance metrics; a few such possibilities include correlation (Chen and Sutcliffe 2012), relative error (Hejazi and Jackson 2016), and mean square prediction error (Garcia and Gençay 2000). We expect that any of these metrics would have yielded substantially the same results. Table 2 gives the R

^{2}values calculated when comparing the neural networks values to the corresponding values calculated by MC simulations.

^{2}measure, we can see that the neural network performs quite well for all four types of guarantees, though the performance for the GMWB is considerably worse than for the other three guarantees; this is primarily due to the presence of a few outliers. A scatterplot of the results for the GMDB is shown in Figure 3; from this figure, we can see a high degree of accuracy and no evidence of systematic biases or patterns. The scatterplots for the other guarantees show similar results.

#### 3.2. Hedging

_{1}from Cotter and Hanly (2006) that uses standard deviation instead of variance:

_{H}is the standard deviation of the portfolio’s returns with hedging and SD

_{U}is the standard deviation of the portfolio’s returns without hedging. Using the standard deviation instead of the variance provides a more conservative metric for the degree to which a hedging strategy reduces the portfolio’s risk. For this metric, a value close to 1 is good because hedging reduces the standard deviation of returns almost completely. A value close to 0 or negative is bad, because that means that hedging either produces similar or worse standard deviations of returns than leaving the portfolio unhedged.

_{i}and L

_{i}are the values of the assets and liabilities on day i, respectively, and D is the total number of days under consideration for the contract. Assets are the stocks and bonds used to hedge a given guarantee and liability is the guarantee itself. Graphs of the total value and the percentage changes of the hedged position produced from this error function for the GMDB are shown in Figure 4 below.

_{1}for different values of k. For values of k equal to 0.01 and 0.02, the network reduces the total level of assets used to hedge the guarantee, while still providing a significant decrease in the standard deviation of returns, as was intended. However, once k increases to 0.03 and 0.04, the network converges to a solution that almost exactly matches the actual account value of the GMDB account, while also using more assets than the previous strategies. For all values of k, the network generalizes well from training to testing and outperforms the delta-rho strategy considerably, in terms of its ability to reduce the standard deviation of returns, while providing a significant time savings. (Note that the delta-rho strategy does not require the data to be split into training and testing sets; the values of HE

_{1}reported for this strategy apply to the entire dataset).

## 4. Conclusions

_{1}metric) and the cost of capital required for the hedging assets. Of course, whether this tradeoff is worthwhile will depend on the cost of capital relative to the benefit of the more efficient calculations, cost of computing resources, and other considerations.

_{1}metric. In all cases, the neural networks exhibited promising results.

_{1}hedging metric we used here seems to be a reasonable method for capturing the performance of the hedge for these guarantees, many other metrics are possible and have been used by various researchers. It would be instructive to repeat this type of study using some of the other measures. In addition, it may be helpful to generalize the results obtained here by applying this methodology to other time periods. The time period used here was chosen arbitrarily in order to demonstrate the methodology, but a deeper look into the relative performance of the neural network over different times periods spanning a broad range of interest rate and stock market conditions would seem to be warranted. Further, while our model accounts for mortality, it does not incorporate elements of policyholder behavior, such as lapses or dynamic withdrawal behavior. As neural networks are very flexible, they could certainly be trained to incorporate these important aspects of variable annuities. Finally, one of the most significant benefits of using the neural network to hedge is the flexibility of choice of hedging assets. While we used only two assets here, namely a stock index and bond, the neural network approach could be used with virtually any number and/or type of assets. There is an opportunity to explore this idea and determine which combinations of asset types are most effective for hedging the various types of VA guarantees.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- American Academy of Actuaries. 2003. Actuarial Guideline XXXIV: Variable Annuity Minimum Guaranteed Death Benefit Reserves. Washington, DC: American Academy of Actuaries. [Google Scholar]
- Armstrong, Michael J. 2001. The Reset Decision for Segregated Fund Maturity Guarantees. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 29: 257–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacinello, Anna Rita, Pietro Millossovich, Annamaria Olivieri, and Ermanno Pitacco. 2011. Variable Annuities: A Unifying Valuation Approach. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 49: 285–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, Daniel, Alexander Kling, and Jochen Russ. 2008. A Universal Pricing Framework for Guaranteed Minimum Benefits in Variable Annuities. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA 38: 621–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bishop, Christopher. 2006. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Boyle, Phelim P., and Mary R. Hardy. 1997. Reserving for Maturity Guarantees: Two Approaches. In Honor of Prof. J. A. Beekman. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 21: 113–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyle, Phelim P., and Eduardo S. Schwartz. 1977. Equilibrium Prices of Guarantees under Equity-Linked Contracts. The Journal of Risk and Insurance 44: 639–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brennan, Michael J., and Eduardo S. Schwartz. 1976. The Pricing of Equity-Linked Life Insurance Policies with an Asset Value Guarantee. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockett, Patrick L., William W. Cooper, Linda L. Golden, and Utai Pitaktong. 1994. A Neural Network Method for Obtaining an Early Warning of Insurer Insolvency. Journal of Risk and Insurance 61: 402–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Fei, and Charles Sutcliffe. 2012. Pricing and Hedging Short Sterling Options Using Neural Networks. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 19: 128–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chollet, François, and Joseph J. Allaire. 2018. Deep Learning with R. Shelter Island: Manning Publications Company. [Google Scholar]
- Cotter, John, and Jim Hanly. 2006. Reevaluating Hedging Performance. Journal of Futures Markets: Futures, Options, and Other Derivative Products 26: 677–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cressie, Noel. 1993. Statistics for Spatial Data, 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Cybenko, George. 1989. Approximation by Superpositions of a Sigmoidal Function. Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems 2: 303–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Runhuan, and Hans W. Volkmer. 2012. Analytical Calculation of Risk Measures for Variable Annuity Guaranteed Benefits. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 51: 636–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Runhuan, and Hans W. Volkmer. 2014. Spectral Methods for the Calculation of Risk Measures for Variable Annuity Guaranteed Benefits. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA 44: 653–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, Guojun. 2013. Application of Data Clustering and Machine Learning in Variable Annuity Valuation. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 53: 795–801. [Google Scholar]
- Gan, Guojun. 2018. Valuation of Large Variable Annuity Portfolios Using Linear Models with Interactions. Risks 6: 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, Guojun, and Sheldon X. Lin. 2015. Valuation of Large Variable Annuity Portfolios under Nested Simulation: A Functional Data Approach. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 62: 138–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, Guojun, and Sheldon X. Lin. 2017. Efficient Greek Calculation of Variable Annuity Portfolios for Dynamic Hedging: A Two-Level Metamodeling Approach. North American Actuarial Journal 21: 161–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, Guojun, and Emiliano A. Valdez. 2016. An Empirical Comparison of Some Experimental Designs for the Valuation of Large Variable Annuity Portfolios. Dependence Modeling 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, Guojun, and Emiliano A. Valdez. 2018. Regression Modeling for the Valuation of Large Variable Annuity Portfolios. North American Actuarial Journal 22: 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, René, and Ramazan Gençay. 2000. Pricing and Hedging Derivative Securities with Neural Networks and a Homogeneity Hint. Journal of Econometrics 94: 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardy, Mary. 2000. Hedging and Reserving for Single-Premium Segregated Fund Contracts. North American Actuarial Journal 4: 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardy, Mary. 2003. Investment Guarantees: Modeling and Risk Management for Equity-Linked Life Insurance. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, vol. 215. [Google Scholar]
- Hattab, Nour, Ridha Hambli, Mikael Motelica-Heino, and Michel Mench. 2013. Neural Network and Monte Carlo Simulation Approach to Investigate Variability of Copper Concentration in Phytoremediated Contaminated Soils. Journal of Environmental Management 129: 134–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hejazi, Seyed Amir, and Kenneth R. Jackson. 2016. A Neural Network Approach to Efficient Valuation of Large Portfolios of Variable Annuities. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 70: 169–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hejazi, Seyed Amir, and Kenneth R. Jackson. 2017. Efficient Valuation of SCR via a Neural Network Approach. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 313: 427–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hejazi, Seyed Amir, Kenneth R. Jackson, and Guojun Gan. 2017. A Spatial Interpolation Framework for Efficient Valuation of Large Portfolios of Variable Annuities. arXiv, arXiv:1701.04134. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Zhexue. 1998. Extensions to the K-Means Algorithm for Clustering Large Data Sets with Categorical Values. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2: 283–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Chin-Sheng, Robert E. Dorsey, and Mary Ann Boose. 1994. Life Insurer Financial Distress Prediction: A Neural Network Model. Journal of Insurance Regulation 13: 131. [Google Scholar]
- Hull, John. 2017. Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives, 10th ed. London: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
- Hull, John, and Alan White. 1990. Pricing Interest-Rate-Derivative Securities. The Review of Financial Studies 3: 573–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Insured Retirement Institute. 2018. Fourth Quarter 2017 Annuity Sales Report. Insured Sales Institute. Available online: http://www.irionline.org/newsroom/newsroom-detail-view/iri-issues-fourth-quarter-2017-annuity-sales-report (accessed on 23 August 2018).
- Ismael, Mohammad Belall. 1999. Prediction of Mortality and In-Hospital Complications for Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Using Artificial Neural Networks. Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Ko, Bangwon, Elias S. W. Shiu, and Li Wei. 2010. Pricing Maturity Guarantee with Dynamic Withdrawal Benefit. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 47: 216–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolkiewicz, Adam, and Yan Liu. 2012. Semi-Static Hedging for GMWB in Variable Annuities. North American Actuarial Journal 16: 112–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, Kevin. 2018. DeepTriangle: A Deep Learning Approach to Loss Reserving. arXiv, arXiv:1804.09253. [Google Scholar]
- Ledlie, M. Colin, Dermot P. Corry, Gary S. Finkelstein, Alan J. Ritchie, Ken Su, and Colin Wilson. 2008. Variable Annuities. British Actuarial Journal 14: 327–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, Michael, and Trevor Hastie. 2015. Learning Interactions via Hierarchical Group-Lasso Regularization. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 24: 627–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LIMRA. 2018. U.S. Individual Annuities Survey. LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute. Available online: https://www.limra.com/Posts/PR/Data_Bank/_PDF/2008-2017-Annuity-Sales-Estimates.aspx (accessed on 23 August 2018).
- Luo, Xiaolin, and Pavel V. Shevchenko. 2015. Valuation of Variable Annuities with Guaranteed Minimum Withdrawal and Death Benefits via Stochastic Control Optimization. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 62: 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, Claymore, Mary Hardy, and David Saunders. 2010. Valuation of a Guaranteed Minimum Income Benefit. North American Actuarial Journal 14: 38–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, Robert. 2012. Derivatives Markets, 3rd ed. London: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
- Milevsky, Moshe A., and Thomas S. Salisbury. 2006. Financial Valuation of Guaranteed Minimum Withdrawal Benefits. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 38: 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Møller, Martin Fodslette. 1993. A Scaled Conjugate Gradient Algorithm for Fast Supervised Learning. Neural Networks 6: 525–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, Andrew Cheuk-Yin, and Johnny Siu-Hang Li. 2013. Pricing and Hedging Variable Annuity Guarantees with Multiasset Stochastic Investment Models. North American Actuarial Journal 17: 41–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, Michael A. 2015. Neural Networks and Deep Learning. Available online: http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com (accessed on 8 February 2018).
- Park, Jeongsun. 1993. Bankruptcy Prediction of Banks and Insurance Companies: An Approach Using Inductive Methods. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Pascariu, Marius D., and Vladimir Canudas-Romo. 2018. MortalityLaws: Parametric Mortality Models, Life Tables and HMD (Version 1.5.0). Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MortalityLaws (accessed on 1 August 2018).
- R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 14 September 2017).
- Riedmiller, Martin. 1994. RPROP: Description and Implementation Details. Technical Report. Karlsruhe: University of Karlsruhe. [Google Scholar]
- Saemundsson, Sigurḥur Rúnar. 1996. Dental Caries Prediction by Clinicians and Neural Networks. Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Shapiro, Arnold F. 2002. The Merging of Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, and Genetic Algorithms. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 31: 115–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, Jack V., and Michael R. Guerriere. 1992. Use of a Neural Network as a Predictive Instrument for Length of Stay in the Intensive Care Unit Following Cardiac Surgery. Paper presented at Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care, Washington, DC, USA, October 30–November 1. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2018. Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates. Available online: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldAll (accessed on 19 January 2018).
- Venables, William N., and Brian D. Ripley. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th ed. New York: Springer, Available online: http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4 (accessed on 17 May 2018).
- Windcliff, Heath, Peter A. Forsyth, and Kenneth R. Vetzal. 2001. Valuation of Segregated Funds: Shout Options with Maturity Extensions. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 29: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windcliff, Heath, Martin Le Roux, Peter Forsyth, and Kenneth Vetzal. 2002. Understanding the Behavior and Hedging of Segregated Funds Offering the Reset Feature. North American Actuarial Journal 6: 107–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yahoo Finance. 2018. ^GSPC Historical Prices|S&P 500 Stock—Yahoo Finance. Available online: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/ (accessed on 19 January 2018).

**Figure 1.**Sample neural network. This neural network is an example of a feedforward neural network with a single hidden layer of fully connected neurons. The architecture of this network can be described as 8-10-3.

**Figure 3.**Scatterplot of the results of using a neural network to approximate the MC pricing methodology for the guaranteed minimum death benefit (GMDB). For this guarantee, the neural network (NN) achieves an R

^{2}better than 0.997.

**Figure 4.**Results for hedging for GMDB using squared error function: (

**a**) The daily position value over the 10-year life of the variable annuities (VA) contract; (

**b**) the daily percentage change in the position over the life of the contract, including both training and testing.

**Figure 5.**Results for hedging for GMDB using k = 0.02 error function: (

**a**) The daily position value over the 10-year life of the VA contract; (

**b**) the daily percentage change in the position over the life of the contract, including both training and testing.

GMDB | GMAB | GMIB | GMWB |
---|---|---|---|

33 | 93 | 2.6 | 95 |

GMDB | GMAB | GMIB | GMWB |
---|---|---|---|

0.9972 | 0.9952 | 0.9986 | 0.9870 |

Hedging | Delta-Rho | k = 0 | k = 0.01 | k = 0.02 | k = 0.03 | k = 0.04 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Training HE_{1} | 0.8805 | 0.9965 | 0.9964 | 0.9958 | 0.9932 | 0.9895 |

Testing HE_{1} | 0.9962 | 0.9961 | 0.9955 | 0.9929 | 0.9891 | |

Time (s) | ~4200 | 178 | 134 | 139 | 63 | 51 |

**Table 4.**Hedging metrics for different hedging strategies and error functions for guaranteed minimum accumulation benefit (GMAB).

Hedging | Delta-Rho | k = 0 | k = 0.0025 | k = 0.005 | k = 0.0075 | k = 0.01 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Training HE_{1} | 0.9956 | 0.9991 | 0.9967 | 0.9961 | 0.9957 | 0.9957 |

Testing HE_{1} | 0.9984 | 0.9945 | 0.9937 | 0.9931 | 0.9930 | |

Time (s) | ~4200 | 207 | 70 | 76 | 65 | 67 |

**Table 5.**Hedging metrics for different hedging strategies and error functions for guaranteed minimum income benefit (GMIB).

Hedging | Delta-Rho | k = 0 | k = 0.001 | k = 0.002 | k = 0.003 | k = 0.004 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Training HE_{1} | 0.9648 | 0.9966 | 0.9938 | 0.9937 | 0.9937 | 0.9937 |

Testing HE_{1} | 0.9981 | 0.9647 | 0.9645 | 0.9645 | 0.9645 | |

Time (s) | ~4200 | 429 | 63 | 27 | 26 | 27 |

**Table 6.**Hedging metrics for different hedging strategies and error functions for guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit (GMWB).

Hedging | Delta-Rho | k = 0 | k = 0.01 | k = 0.02 | k = 0.03 | k = 0.04 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Training HE_{1} | 0.9717 | 0.9991 | 0.9966 | 0.9961 | 0.9960 | 0.9955 |

Testing HE_{1} | 0.9978 | 0.9896 | 0.9869 | 0.9863 | 0.9828 | |

Time (s) | ~4200 | 400 | 55 | 46 | 49 | 47 |

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Doyle, D.; Groendyke, C.
Using Neural Networks to Price and Hedge Variable Annuity Guarantees. *Risks* **2019**, *7*, 1.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks7010001

**AMA Style**

Doyle D, Groendyke C.
Using Neural Networks to Price and Hedge Variable Annuity Guarantees. *Risks*. 2019; 7(1):1.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks7010001

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Doyle, Daniel, and Chris Groendyke.
2019. "Using Neural Networks to Price and Hedge Variable Annuity Guarantees" *Risks* 7, no. 1: 1.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks7010001