Life Annuities a continuation of PART I
|
We're following
Milevsky & Robinson and, so far, we have:
Probability that an n-year-old will die before t years have elapsed is
F(n,t) = 1 -
where m and c are constants
|
If F(n,t) gives the probability that an n-year-old will die before t years
has elapsed (when s/he is age n+t), then 1 - F(n,t) is the probability that
s/he will live beyond age n+t. If we sold Life Annuities to these people (when
they were n-year-olds), we'd still be paying these people.
>We stop paying only when they drop dead, right?
Right. So how much should we have charged them for a $1000 per year annuity, way back when
they were n years old?
>Well, they're now age n+t and they're still alive and ... uh ...
Discounting the $1000 at a certain annual rate, say r (where 5% means r = 0.05),
we should have charged them
1000/(1+r)t. That's like the Present Value of $1000, over t years, at the
annual rate r.
However, in order to make the math more tractable, we do the compounding more frequently:
- The discounting for a single period of 1 year is (1+r)-t.
- A rate of r per year means a rate r/12 per month and,
over 12t months, that means the discounting would be (1+r/12)-12t.
- A rate of r per year means a rate r/365 per day and,
over 365t days, that means the discounting would be (1+r/365)-365t.
- A rate of r per year means a rate r/8760 per hour and ...
>Yeah, yeah. I get it. So what?
So an expression like (1+r/M)-Mt is indistinguishable from
e-r t, when M is large.
In fact, for r = 0.05 and t = 10 years
we get (1+0.05/365)-365(10) = 0.606551 whereas
e-(0.05)(10) = e-0.5 = 0.606531 so that means, for
continuous compounding, we can put that discounting factor at e-r t.
But, as years go by, fewer of these n-year-olds will survive so there are fewer $1000
payments so we must consider the sum of all of these payments, for all future years ...
>For the survivors?
Yes, and that means we add together the present value for all these payments for
all future years by integrating like so:
P = e-r t G(n,t) dt
where G(n,t) = 1 - F(n,t) =
Here, G(n,t) gives the n-year-old population which survives for t years.
So, what's the answer?
>Huh?
Suppose we rewrite the expression for G(n,t) so it has the form:
G(n,t) = K e- B ekt
(K and B are some constants)
then
P = K e-r t e- B ekt dt
and we can now substitute x = B ekt so P now takes the form
P = L xa-1 e-x dx
(L and a are some constants)
and we now recognize somebody related to the
Gamma function, eh?
>Huh?
Remember?
Γ(n+1)
=
is called the Gamma function and has the value Γ(n+1) = n!
when n is a positive integer, but the integral allows us to define this
function for non-integer values of n.
Finally, Γ(a,B)
= xa-1 e-x dx
is called the Incomplete Gamma Function ...
>So Γ(a,0)=a!, right?
Close, but no cigar. Actually Γ(a,0)=(a-1)! and although
it would seem reasonable to define Γ(x) so it was x!
the definition is such that Γ(x) = (x-1)! instead and that
gives math-types the opportunity to say:
"Γ(-n) is infinite for n = 0, 1, 2, ..."
because then
Γ(0) = (-1)! and
Γ(-1) = (-2)! etc.
and everybody knows that the factorial of
negative integers is infinite so that ...
>zzzZZZ
|
Figure 1
|
Figure 2
|
Maybe a picture will make things more interesting.
If we can use the above stuff to determine the initial Cost of a Life Annuity that
pays $1.00 per year
(for life) then 1.00/Cost is how much we'd get, per year, for an investment of $1.00
and we can compare with other investment returns.
The chart at the left is such an example,
where we've used r = 0.04 (or 4%) in the earlier formulas
... and get the coloured dots.
Well?
>zzzZZZ
See how it compares with the Excel PMT function (the thin lines)?
For example, if you're male, then PMT(0.016,(91-age)/2,-1) gives the annual payments for a
$1.00 purchase price (using a 1.6% rate) assuming you live another (91-age)/2 years.
|
Good, eh? Of course, those who sell annuities may want a larger purchase price and/or a
smaller annual payout so the percentages in Figure 2 will probably be smaller and ...
>zzzZZZ
See also Life Annuities.
|