ebook img

Read On PDF

556 Pages·2017·3.48 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Read On

Introduction to My Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of ‘Longevity Risk and Portfolio Sustainability’ The following document is primarily intended to act as a scholarly reference source. Over the last fifty years, there has been an accretion of research on this topic from scholars and practitioners in diverse fields: Actuaries are interested in the factors that determine pricing of contracts promising lifetime income; Financial Economists are interested in building models that reflect factors determining the evolution of retirement portfolios under the stress of expenses and withdrawals, and on using models to optimize outcomes expressed in both dollar-wealth and utility terms; Investment Advisors are interested in how best to advise clients on a variety of retirement and intergenerational wealth management issues; Trustees charged with providing lifetime income to current beneficiaries and terminal wealth to remaindermen are interested in how to discharge prudently and impartially their fiduciary duties; and, Investors are interested in how much money they can safely spend or bequeath from their retirement portfolio. Not only is the volume of research vast, but the range of publications reflects pedagogy from academic fields that traditionally have had little overlap in readership. It is both interesting and beneficial to examine, from the perspectives of various professions, what questions are raised, how hypotheses are formulated and tested, and why strategies designed to secure a safe, substantial and sustainable income are in some cases recommended or, in others, rejected. From time-to-time, a seemingly “new” idea pops up in a journal aimed towards one audience when, in fact, the idea has been well developed in a journal written for an entirely different audience. Indeed, in some cases, the “new” idea was anticipated in journals published a decade or more earlier. It is a rare idea that, like Botticelli’s Venus, springs forward fully developed ab initio. Indeed, tracing through the historical scholarship record can be particularly annoying if one encounters individuals with the effrontery to have published our unique and proprietary ideas before us. Furthermore, important papers may suffer neglect simply because they appear in publications that are off the beaten track to many potential readers. Articles on longevity risk management in actuarial journals, for example, are rarely read by attorneys providing opinions on the prudence of trust portfolio administration despite the fact that Grantors may direct trustees to provide lifetime income to a trust’s beneficiary. Also of interest is the chronology of advice, strategies and solutions. Although the annotated bibliography does not rise to a narrative intellectual history—it was never intended to do so— nevertheless, if read from beginning to end, it traces the introduction and development of important ideas and research methods. The bibliography lacks a topical index because it seeks to provide a sense of how ideas and insights from a variety of professions developed, over time, and, perhaps 1 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 independently from each another. Chronological presentation substitutes for a narrative history of ideas. This observation leads straight away to a primary motivation for creating the annotated bibliography. It is both difficult and time consuming to survey the relevant source materials. Research, however, demands that the scholar know the work of those who have preceded him. This bibliography should facilitate what has now become a herculean task of gathering and investigating published studies and commentary. This said, the research and publication vistas are vast, and no representation can be made regarding the completeness of this bibliography except that it is incomplete. One is reminded of the effort needed to survey the relevant literature on, say, Shakespeare or Napoleon—absolute comprehensiveness would require a lifetime and more. It is hoped that this bibliography will assist those with the temerity to put pen to paper to understand the nature and scope of previous inquiry and investigation. Many of the bibliographical entries summarize complex models in which the solution path aims towards maximization of a utility function. Summaries of normative articles, sometimes only slightly less mathematically complex, also appear. These articles provide insights in the areas of asset allocation, spending, and other financial strategies under a variety of assumptions such as complete markets, log- normal probability distributions of financial asset returns, constant relative risk aversion, and so forth. Finally, a generous sampling of practitioner-oriented articles appears. A bird’s-eye look at the literature reveals a plethora of different research methods, modeling assumptions, and portfolio allocation/spending preferencing criteria, all of which may produce significantly different outputs even given the same empirical data. Conclusions are subject to model risk; and, from time-to-time, practitioners may translate the output from academic model building—an exercise designed to explore quantitative relationships among variables of interest—into prescriptive statements for investors. But the mathematical assumptions required for tractable model building often diverge in both their character and form from common investor utility functions or from the process underlying the distribution of empirical asset price evolutions. Conversely, from time-to-time, practitioner-oriented articles may resort to pure empiricism in an attempt to parse historical return evolutions to find patterns which can be turned into rules for safe and sustainable portfolio withdrawals. Of course, taken to an extreme, this is mere data mining. Hence, the final purpose of this bibliography. Conclusions are a function of the research methodology employed by the investigator; and, the intelligent advisor realizes critical distinctions between the investigative/academic outcomes and the needs, goals, circumstances, and purposes of an investor. One benefit of reviewing historical research is to recognize that investors should not be confused with models. Gathering and filing tasks for this project were formidable. I wish to thank Nicole VanderGeest and Emma Gavenda for their invaluable assistance. Patrick Collins 2 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 Longevity Risk and Portfolio Sustainability Chronological Summary of Articles [1965 – 2014] DATE TITLE / AUTHOR(S) THESIS COMMENTS 1965 “Uncertain Lifetime, The article is an early analysis of optimization of discounted expected If the choice of a value for λ in a chance-constrained Life Insurance, and utility under the conditions of an uncertain life span. Investors lacking a programming approach is to be optimized, then the the Theory of the bequest objective will maximize a utility function for consumption only coefficient of success (success = likelihood of Consumer,” (c) where the function has a positive first and negative second derivative: portfolio sustainability throughout the remainder of Menahem E. Yaari life) involves a tradeoff between “safety-first” The Review of V(c) = (maximize safety by putting all assets into a risk-free Economic Studies 𝑇𝑇 investment) and opportunity for future growth of Vol. 32, No.2. pp. ∫0 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑔𝑔[𝑐𝑐(𝑡𝑡)]𝑑𝑑𝑡𝑡 the portfolio above the risk-free rate. Is maximizing Where’ a’ is the subjective discount rate—i.e., the investor’s time 137 – 150. expected utility inconsistent with minimizing the preference rate. risk of ruin? Prudence is something more than selecting the lowest failure rate probability. See For investors with a bequest objective, the function to be maximized is: later articles reconciling shortfall risk metric with traditional utility preferencing metric. For example, U(c) = “Annuities vs. Safe Withdrawal Rates: Comparing 𝑇𝑇 Floor-with-Upside Approaches Michael Kitces ∫0 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑔𝑔[𝑐𝑐(𝑡𝑡)]𝑑𝑑𝑡𝑡+ 𝛽𝛽(𝑇𝑇)𝜑𝜑[𝑆𝑆(𝑇𝑇)] Where Beta is a subjective weighting function for bequest ‘S’ that is itself [2012]. a function of the time of the bequest. Under the penalty function approach, penetration The problem is to find the optimal feasible consumption plan when the of a floor value equal to funding for a minimum planning horizon is uncertain. standard of living may produce disutility approaching infinity. In such cases a shortfall risk Yaari notes that the feasibility problem can be solved either through a metric converges to a utility-based risk metric. “chance-constrained programming” methodology or through a “penalty function” procedure. “The chance-constrained programming approach If an uncertain lifespan results in future cash flows requires that the constraint (in this case the wealth constraint) be met being more heavily discounted, a smoothed with probability λ or more, where λ is some number fixed in advance, say consumption pattern may not be preferred over a .95….This approach is, of course very common in statistics where many front-loaded pattern. Or, a smoothed consumption 3 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 of the standard tests are based on the idea of maximizing some criterion plan (smooth = constant marginal utility of subject to the constraint that the probability of type I error be less than, consumption) may lead to a front-end loaded say .05.” However, Yaari points out that the choice of λ is itself a retirement income stream. This is the “Fisher decision problem: ‘…one might want to choose λ optimally rather than Utility” argument—probability of failure at an arbitrarily.” advanced age is not as onerous as at an early age. Note: the decision problem was articulated by I. Fisher who advanced The case of the irrevocable family trust is akin to a the proposition that income early in retirement had greater utility than case where annuities are available and there exists the equivalent inflation-adjusted income in late retirement. See “The 7 a positive bequest motive. Is it prudent to fund the most important equations for your retirement—Milevsky (2012)]. current beneficiary’s income right with an annuity and the remaindermen’s share with an investment With the penalty function approach the consumer himself guards against portfolio? violating the wealth constraint “…by assuming that a violation of the constraint carries a penalty, i.e., a loss of utility.” Note: The opportunity for an improved future budget constraint may be offset by a higher Yaari considers several economies where annuities may or may not be discount rate for future income. This constitutes available to the investor. A central point is that the optimal utility-of- and important rationale for a portfolio monitoring consumption plan contains a term for survival probability. The program that reflects the preferences of the uncertainty of future survival means that the future is discounted more investor rather than performance relative to an heavily. He demonstrates that absent a bequest objective in a (complete) outside benchmark. This is a variation on the 2-fund market with fair-valued annuities available to the consumer, all wealth [Tobin] trust solution where consumption is will be held in an “actuarial note” that is equivalent to an annuity and financed by an annuity and the remainder interest which pays a rate of return equal to the commercial interest rate plus an by an investment fund. The duty of impartiality is extra factor reflecting the fact that the investor’s estate must forfeit defined in terms of equalizing marginal utility further income at death (Terminal Portfolio value = $0). “…positive between beneficiary classes. assets will always be held in the form of actuarial notes.” [Note: the “extra factor” is the mortality premium offered by annuity contracts] When a bequest motive exists, the investor’s problem is to solve for optimization of two decision values: a feasible consumption plan and a feasible “saving plan.” Assuming no labor income, the consumption plan will be funded entirely with annuities while the saving plan is a function of available investment returns. Ideally, the marginal utility of the consumption plan will exactly equal that of the saving plan. Yaari makes 4 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 the important observation that when annuities are available, “…the consumer can separate the consumption decision from the bequest decision.” In the absence of annuities, such a separation is not possible. 1977 “Savings and The Levhari/Mirman article demonstrates that a (mean-preserving) It is interesting to compare and contrast Levhari and Consumption with change in the “distribution of lifetime uncertainty” may motivate either Mirman’s analysis of spending from their utility an Uncertain a decrease in current consumption in the face of a higher probability of a optimization model reflecting a dynamic Horizon,” David longer life; or, an increase in consumption because sure current programming approach, to prescriptive Levhari and Leonard consumption is preferred over a more uncertain probability for future recommendation such as the 4% spending rule. The J. Mirman, Journal of spending. The effect of uncertainty on an individual investor depends on Levhari & Mirman study emphasizes how utility- Political Economy which motivation is stronger: “…if uncertainty of lifetime is considered optimizing retirement spending decisions are Vol. 85, No. 2 (1977), as part of a Fisherian lifetime optimization problem, with a risk-averse dynamic and reflect information regarding time pp. 265 - 281 consumer, consumption in the form of an uncertain lifetime has the horizon, returns, risk preferences, etc. By contrast, same effect as increasing the rate of discount. This is one of the more many empirical “rules” assume that the myopic important results found in the contribution of Yaari (1965).” The risk- investor selects a “safe” spending level and averse investor, confronted by an uncertain life span, may elect to maintains the level under the assumption that past consume more in the present. results act as a condition precedent for future The article points out that Champernowne [Uncertainty and Estimation periods (economies). in Economics Vol. 3 (Holden-Day), 1969—not included in this A choice among approaches—mathematical bibliography] advances the opposite hypothesis by stressing the modeling approaches include (linear and nonlinear) precautionary savings aspect of optimization in the face of uncertainty in dynamic programming, maximum likelihood, the distribution of mortality: “…’the effect of not knowing when’ the optimum (stochastic) control theory, etc.; consumer ‘will die is to lower the initial value of consumption.’” Hence, empirical/numerical approaches include data as Levhari & Mirman point out: “The desire to provide for a longer life mining of time series, simulation, etc.—often together with the desire for more certainty by consuming now pull in depends on (1) tractability, and (2) the structural opposite directions.” characteristics of the problem—e.g., dimensionality, Levhari and Mirman compare two individuals each having the same and other characteristics of both the ‘problem’ and tastes and attributes except with respect to the distribution of lifetime— the model selected to represent the ‘problem.’ i.e., the survival distribution of one investor is more risky than the other. The 2012 article by Huang, Milevsky and Salisbury Their model assumes constant relative risk aversion: u(x) = x1-γ/(1-γ) with [“Optimal retirement consumption with a stochastic u(x) = log x for γ = 1. Not surprisingly, it suggests that consumption force of mortality” Insurance: Mathematics and decisions depend heavily on the utility function, investment returns, and Economics, Vol 51, pp. 282-291]] extends the work the investor’s subjective discounting (impatience-to-consume). Although of Levhari and Mirman and James Davies the model can incorporate earned income, its primary focus is on the [“Uncertain Lifetime, Consumption, and Dissaving in retirement period beginning at time ‘t.’. Investor wealth [W] at time Retirement,” James B. Davies, Journal of Political 5 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 ‘t+1’ equals (W – C)r where ‘r’ = return on investments and ‘C’ = Economy Vol. 89, No.3 (1981), pp. 561 – 577] by t t t Consumption during period ‘t.’ Each investor’s goal is to maximize a incorporating stochastic morality into the Von-Neumann-Morgenstern expected (additive and separable) utility consumption utility-based model. function with respect to lifetime consumption where consumption during any future period ‘t’ is subject to a discount factor reflective of each investor’s personal impatience to consume. Adding a term for the probability of survival [P], the mathematical expression for maximizing the lifetime stream of expected utility-of-consumption becomes: 𝑇𝑇 𝑡𝑡 𝐸𝐸𝑟𝑟 = �𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑢𝑢(𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡) 𝑡𝑡=0 Using dynamic programming methods, the model indicates that consumption at time 0 is: C (W) = 0 𝑊𝑊 1 𝑇𝑇 𝛾𝛾 1−𝛾𝛾 𝑖𝑖 If ‘r’ is random, the term ‘ar’ in the∑ 𝑖𝑖a=b0o𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖ve(𝑎𝑎 e𝑟𝑟qua)𝛾𝛾tion’s denominator becomes ‘aE(r).’ Holding all else equal, an increase in risk aversion (γ) decreases consumption in the initial period: “In other words, the individual, being more sensitive to the possibility of lower consumption in the future, saves more in the initial period.” However, the primary goal is to consider an investor who faces an uncertain lifetime. In order to isolate the influence of uncertainty (the “riskiness of life”), the model assumes a nonrandom return. The central question is whether consumption is an increasing or decreasing function of uncertainty in life span. It turns out, under very restrictive conditions on available return and subjective discounting, that key factor are the mortality probability distribution [P] and the consumption risk aversion factor 1/γ. When γ > 1, a riskier distribution of life span reduced current consumption; when 0 6 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 < γ < 1 , current consumption increases. Under more realistic conditions, “…a straightforward relationship between riskiness and optimal consumption does not exist….” In some cases, uncertainty elicits greater consumption; in other cases, greater savings. For example, a high return on available savings motivates less current consumption; a high utility discounting factor motivates greater current consumption: “In other words a small rate of return combined with a riskier horizon will increase consumption.” The article concludes by considering an uncertain rate of return. The model preserves the return’s mean but increases its variance while keeping lifetime uncertainty unchanged. The effect on consumption depends on γ. If γ > 1, r1-γ is a convex function of r and hence will reduce consumption. If 0 < γ < 1, then r1-γ is a concave function of r and “…increases the proportion of wealth consumed.” 1977 “Mean-Risk Analysis Fishburn reviews a number of preferencing models in the face of An early and important survey of the mathematical with Risk Associated uncertain outcomes. He contrasts and compares “mean – risk trade off” approaches commonly found in the literature of with Below-Target and “mean-risk dominance” models to a “mean-risk utility” model. investment decision making. Fishburn provides Returns,” Peter C. Although there is a substantial body of research using mean-variance or examples of how the form of the utility function can Fishburn The mean-semivariance models a la Markowitz, Fishburn believes that such reflect both a wide value of risk-aversion American Economic modeling does not always capture the risk attitudes of investors. The parameters—as opposed to the assumption of Review, Vol. 67, No. reason for this belief is two-fold: quadratic risk aversion in Markowitz—and can 2 (March, 1977), pp. accommodate a shortfall risk measure. 116 – 126. 1. Mean-variance analysis “…should not be taken very seriously unless the probability distributions used in the analysis satisfy certain restrictions.”—i.e., distributions should be IID normal; and, 2. Investors “…very frequently associate risk with failure to attain a target return. To the extent that this contention is correct, it casts serious doubt on variance—or, for that matter, on any measure of dispersion taken with respect to a parameter(for example, mean) which changes from distribution to distribution—as a suitable measure of risk.” Thus, Fishburn is interested in developing mathematical expressions for 7 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 a variety of models that are based on either mean/variance, or loss probability/shortfall magnitudes, or expected utility including stochastic dominance models. The specific model of interest is the α-t model where α is a risk aversion parameter and t is an investment target wealth level or rate of return. The Markowitz model is a special case where the exponent α takes on a value of 2 (quadratic utility) and t is the investor’s optimal portfolio location on the efficient frontier. Fishburn asserts that generalized α-t models can accommodate a range of risk aversion parameters and specific target returns or reference levels. Given a cumulative probability distribution function where F(x) specifies the probability of a return not exceeding x (the area under the graph of the function to the left of x), the mathematical form of such a mean-risk dominance model is a probability-weighted function of investment results below the specified target return t: 𝑡𝑡 𝛼𝛼 𝐹𝐹𝛼𝛼(𝑡𝑡) = � (𝑡𝑡−𝑥𝑥) 𝑑𝑑𝐹𝐹(𝑥𝑥) −∞ Such a flexible α-t model, where α can accommodate many attitudes towards risk and t can accommodate the investor’s desire to avoid unacceptable shortfall probabilities and magnitudes, is compatible with both stochastic dominance models and with von Neumann-Morgenstern utility-based models. He observes: “The idea of a mean-risk dominance model in which risk is measured by probability-weighted dispersions below a target seems rather appealing since it recognizes the desire to come out well in the long run while avoiding potentially disastrous setbacks or embarrassing failures to perform up to standard in the short run.” The mean-risk dominance model expresses the investor’s preference criterion as follows: “F dominates G if an only if µ(F) ≥ µ(G) and ρ(F) ≤ ρ(G) with at least one strict inequality. Rho of F is defined by: 𝑡𝑡 𝜌𝜌(𝐹𝐹) = � 𝜑𝜑(𝑡𝑡−𝑥𝑥)𝑑𝑑𝐹𝐹(𝑥𝑥) −∞ 8 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 In which ϕ(y) for y ≥ 0 is a nonnegative nondecreasing function in y with ϕ(0) = 0 that expresses the ‘riskiness’ of getting a return that is y units below the target.” Fishburn develops several theorems including: • P(α, t) is completely determined by expected returns whenever all possible returns in both F and G lie at or above the target t. • If two distributions have the same expected mean and one distribution is sure to provide a return at or above target while the other has a positive probability of generating a below-target return, then a risk-averse investor will prefer the sure thing. Gambling behavior is revealed whenever all returns from both distributions are at or below the target. However, for various values of the risk aversion parameter α, the below-target investor may either become conservative—lest a bad situation becomes worse--or become increasingly risk-seeking. “Depending on context and the circumstances of the decision maker or his firm, t might be formulated as a ruinous return, as the zero profit return, as the return available from an insured safe investment, or as a target which reflects a general attitude towards acceptable performance….” If an investor is primarily concerned about missing the target but the magnitude of the shortfall is not critical, the model will incorporate a smaller value for α than if both the shortfall probability and the magnitude of the shortfall are of importance. The value of α separates risk-seeking from risk-averse behaviors for below- target returns. Fishburn also explores how a mean-risk utility model can express a decision maker’s preferences. Risk is defined as above, and for two distributions F and G, F is preferred to G if and only if: U(µ(F), ρ(F)) > U(µ(G), ρ(G)). 9 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016 This results in the following form for the utility function: U(x) = x for all x ≥ t U(x) = x – k(t-x)α for all x ≤ t. After reviewing a number of empirical surveys of how farmers, businessmen and investors view risk, Fishburn notes: “…most individuals in investment contexts do indeed exhibit a target return—which can be above, at, or below the point of no gain and no loss—at which there is a pronounced change in the shape of their utility functions. A relatively narrow range of utility functions (mostly linear) holds for above-target returns; a more wide range of α values are observed for below target returns. Generally, the α-t model suggests that investors will avoid distributions offering a probability of generating returns below the target even if such distributions have a greater mean. Additionally, “If the α-t utility model—which presumes the existence of a real valued function U in mean and risk which increases in mean, decreases in risk , and reflects the decision maker’s preferences between distributions—is congruent with the von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility model with utility function u, then u can be written as u(x) = x for x ≥ t, u(x) = x – k(t-x)α for x ≤ t, with k > 0.” 1981 “Uncertain Lifetime, Older investors, lacking bequest motives, either continue to save in Yaari’s model draws on the work of Irving Fisher Consumption, and retirement or decumulate at rate slower than predicted under standard [The Theory of Interest] published in 1930. Fisher Dissaving in life-cycle models. Davies argues that lower-than-expected consumption contends that uncertainty in lifespan tends to Retirement,” James is due to uncertainty in life span: “…in the absence of pensions uncertain increase ‘impatience.’ This, in turn, suggests that B. Davies, Journal of lifetime will not only depress consumption at all ages but will also have consumers prefer current consumption Political Economy an increasingly severe proportional impact beyond middle age….On opportunities to future consumption opportunities Vol. 89, No.3 (1981), conservative assumptions, uncertain lifetime may more than halve the simply because they may not be alive at a future pp. 561 – 577. mean rate of decumulation among the retired.” date. Technically, an uncertain lifespan produces a The author cites previous research by Yaari [1965] and Levhari & Mirman higher subjective discount rate—future [1977]. Yaari’s model suggests that consumption, in the absence of consumption is discounted at a rate greater than insurance, under an uncertain lifespan grows more slowly than under the prevailing return on savings. 10 Copyright Patrick J. Collins 2016

Description:
Introduction to My Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of historical scholarship record can be particularly annoying if one encounters individuals
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.