Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2310.06274

Life cycle insurance, bequest motives and annuity loads

Aleksandar Arandjelović·Geoffrey Kingston·Pavel V. Shevchenko
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We investigate insurance purchases when bequest motives are age-varying and life insurance and life annuities both carry loads. The existing life cycle literature assumes bequests are normal goods without being either necessities or luxuries. Much of the literature also assumes implicitly that life annuity loads are negative. A key finding of the literature is that the demand for life insurance and the demand for life annuities are symmetrical. It is optimal to buy life-contingent insurance throughout life, even under loads. A life annuity phase backs directly onto a life insurance phase. We find that realistic examples with positive loads on both products reveal up to two distinct periods of non-participation, one in midlife and the other adjoining the maximum age. We highlight examples with necessity bequests during child-rearing years and luxury bequests thereafter. This set of assumptions explains why a substantial demand for life insurance during child-rearing years can co-exist with negligible demand for life annuities later on. A realistic 18% load on both products generates this outcome.

Explore related subjects

econ.GNmath.OCq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aleksandar Arandjelović, Geoffrey Kingston, Pavel V. Shevchenko. 2023-10-10. Life cycle insurance, bequest motives and annuity loads. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2023.104759

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Computing Endogenous Transformations in Processing Networks: A Dynamic Calibration Approach

Understanding how supply chains endogenously transform requires a parametric model of processing networks with non-neutral substitution elasticities. While the Cascaded CES production function provides a rigorous framework, dynamically calibrating its structural parameters from time-series data constitutes a highly non-convex inverse optimization problem. Since enforcing strict microeconomic concavity renders standard monolithic approaches computationally intractable, we propose a novel structure-exploiting algorithm to bypass this limitation. By leveraging the physical upstreamness topology of the network, our hybrid heuristic effectively breaks the curse of dimensionality inherent in economywide processing networks. Applying this framework to U.S. time-series data, we provide a scalable computational engine to fully endogenize complex supply-chain transformations, ultimately uncovering the elastic origins of asymmetric macroeconomic tail risks.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Screening Out the Needy: The Effects of SNAP Work Requirements

We examine the effectiveness of work requirements as a screening device in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Work requirements for "able-bodied adults without dependents" were suspended after the Great Recession and gradually reinstated across counties and states in the 2010s. Using linked administrative SNAP and employment data from five states and a triple-differences design, we find that work requirements reduce SNAP participation by seven percent without increasing labor supply and disproportionately screen out low-income individuals. We develop a welfare framework to interpret these results and find that the social costs of work requirements exceed budget savings.

econ.GN↗