Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate equity-linked death benefits for joint alive and last survivor individuals. Utilizing Farlie–Gumbel–Morgenstern (FGM) type dependency modeling framework, we first analyze the joint distribution of the couple (joint alive and last survival density) when marginal distributions follow mixed exponentials and weighted exponentials distributions. Then, we derive the price of the guaranteed minimum death benefit (GMDB) product. In addition, we provide closed analytical expressions of the price of some financial contingent claim contracts (classical and exotic options). Furthermore, we present some numerical results to support our theoretical results. We show in our numerical example that it is important to model the dependency between two lives (couple) since the price changes as the copula parameter changes.
    1. Introduction
Consider the problem of a Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit (GMDB) rider that guarantees the following payment to the customer’s estate when the customer dies, , where  is the time-until-death random variable for a life aged x, and K is the guaranteed amount. Because
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      the problem is equivalent to determining the price for an exotic put option when valuing such a product. Several studies have been conducted on classical European and American options with fixed maturities.
The transformation of the market and the risk appetite of investors and policyholders have made classical life contingency products less attractive to policyholders, requiring providers of insurance and financial contracts to develop more complex products than classical (traditional) products, such as variable annuities and minimum guaranteed benefit. These products combine actuarial and financial principles.
This makes the valuation of these products a complex problem that requires deep knowledge of both actuarial and financial pricing techniques (fair valuation). Examples of a new approach of fair valuation that combines both market-consistent and actuarial methods can be found in  ().
In general, scholars have been working on developing accurate pricing models for these products over the past years. In  (), the authors addressed the Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit pricing issue based on the assumption that the death time is exponential (mixed exponentials) and the expected discounted value of the payment was calculated. Extending further in  (), they derived the call, put, lookback, and barrier options prices based on the upward and downward stock’s movement.
The lookback option pricing problem was previously studied by  (). By using Laplace transform techniques, they derived the expected discounted value of dividend payments based on a standard Brownian motion model of the company’s aggregate net income. As a result, they were able to derive the price of some European lookback call and put options in both fixed and floating strike prices. The authors concluded their work by analysing the possibility of stochastic guaranteed levels. Similarly,  () presented a new way to price lookback options using the Black and Scholes framework. They showed in their analysis that the lookback option is an integrated version of the barrier option. As a result of the work of these researchers, the portfolio present value can be used to price exotic options using an arbitrage-free framework.
Scholars find it challenging to choose a process that can adequately explain the time evolution of the underlying stock process and provide a closed tractable expression of any financial contingent contract. Stochastic process models used by researchers tend to be unrealistic (the Black–Scholes framework). According to  (), the price of a lookback option can be derived in terms of spectral expansion by linking the diffusion maximum and minimum to the hitting times and the spectral decomposition of diffusion hitting times. In addition, he showed that a closed analytical form can be obtained under the constant elasticity variance diffusion framework.  () utilized the exponential Lévy process for modeling the stock price process to analyze the GMDB pricing problem. By using the Fast Fourier Transform, they derived the price of the GMDB and obtained the price for various payoffs. Their numerical results were compared to those computed using B-spline functions of different orders to demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of their proposed algorithm.
With GMDB,  () analyzed the valuation problem of equity-linked annuities with regime-switching jump diffusion models. Their method of Fourier series expansion and Fourier transform has been used to derive closed expressions for some GMDB contracts. Their method’s effectiveness was demonstrated by numerical values that confirmed its efficiency. Accordingly,  () adopted an exponential regime switching Lévy process for the stock and, by using Fourier constant series expansion techniques, they derived explicit expressions for the price of life contingent lookback options embedded in variables GMDB. Unlike  (),  () focused their work on determining the payoff of equity-linked GMDBs and they were able to derive a closed form of the price of such products when the risky index process follows the exponential Lévy process.
The valuation of such an option requires a distribution that reflects the policyholder’s life expectancy or mortality well. Thus,  () assumed stochastic mortality behavior among policyholders. The authors examined the existence of a numerical pricing method via option stochastic control. They developed a method for valuing variable annuities based on Gauss–Hermite quadrature. In their analysis, both incomplete and complete markets were considered. The problem of finding the optimal fund to finance a pensioner of age  was previously analyzed by  (). By assuming a mixed exponential distribution of the lifetime of an individual aged , he derived analytic expressions for the stochastic life annuity distribution.
Most of the insurance and finance research has focused on the death or survival of only one family member. Buying insurance or financial contracts is generally done to protect savings, so it is important to look at the life statuses of both the wife and the husband. As a result, “joint life or last survival” insurance contracts are used in pensions. For a comprehensive overview of annuity for a married couple, we refer the readers to  () and  ().
In this paper, we investigate the valuation problem of GMDBs as in  (). For the time to maturity of the option, we take into account both the joint life and the last survival lifetime, unlike  (). Additionally, we assume that the lifetime random variables in the married couple are interdependent.  () results are reviewed under a specific dependency structure and a hyper and weighted exponential distributions assumption. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to consider married couples when pricing GMDB contracts.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we set up the model and derive the distributions of both joint life and last survival status. Then, we derive the discounted density of Brownian motion in Section 3. We go on to discuss some classical options valuations problems in Section 4 and Section 5 and analyze the impact of the dependency as well as the type of life status under consideration on the price in Section 6. Finally, in Section 7, we conclude the paper with an explanation of the limitations and possible extensions of the work.
2. Model
2.1. Multiple-Life Insurance Model
In this section, we apply the mixed exponential distributions in the context of joint-life insurance modelling. This family of distributions allows us to derive some closed-form expression for many useful actuarial quantities. The survival of the two lives is referred to as the status of interest or simply the status. There are two common types of status: the joint life status and the last survival status.
2.2. Joint Life Status
The joint-life status is one that requires the survival of both lives. Accordingly, the status terminates upon the first death of one of the two lives. The joint-life status of two lives  and  will be denoted by , and the moment of death random variable is given by . If the random variables  and  are dependent and model this dependency via the Farlie–Gumbel–Morgenstern (FGM) copula then, the joint distribution of  is defined as follows:
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
        where  and  is the FGM copula’s parameter.
Hereafter, we denote by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Proposition 1. 
If  and  follow hyper-exponential distributions with density functions,,  for . Then,
      
        
      
      
      
      
    where n and m represent the number of exponential distributions used to construct the hyper-exponential distribution,  and  represent the probability weight of the distribution and satisfy the following constraint .
Proof.  
See Appendix A.    □
2.3. The Last Survivor Status
The other common status is the last-survivor status. The last-survivor status is one that ends upon the death of both lives. That is, the status survives as long as at least one of the component members remains alive. The last-survivor status of two lives  and  will be denoted by (), and the moment of death random variable is given by .
Proposition 2. 
If  and  follow hyper-exponential distributions with density functions,
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Then, the density of  is given by
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Proof.  
See Appendix A.    □
2.4. Special Case of the Weighted Exponential Distribution
The pdf of the weighted exponential (WE) distribution is unimodal (contrary to the pdf of the exponential distribution) and the corresponding hazard rate function (hrf) is increasing for all values of t. It also possesses various likelihood ratio properties. Additionally, all of its moments can be calculated explicitly—it follows that the related mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, coefficient of variation, etc. can be computed easily. The technical details can be found in  () and  (). On the practical side, the WE distribution is suitable for modelling lifetime data when wear-out or ageing is present, providing a real alternative to the exponential distribution for this aim. The success of this weighted version of the exponential distribution has inspired a generation of researchers and practitioners for more in this direction.
The following definitions can be found in  ().
Definition 1 
(Weighted Exponential distribution). 
The random variable  (respectively,  ) is said to have  distribution, with the shape and scale parameters as  and , respectively, if the  of  is
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Respectively,
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
We will denote it as .
Corollary 1. 
If  and  follow hyper-exponential distributions with density functions,
      
        
      
      
      
      
    where
      
        
      
      
      
      
    then
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Proof.  
Replace the distribution of  and  in Proposition 1 with a weighted exponential to complete the proof.    □
Corollary 2. 
If  and  follow hyper-exponential distributions with density functions,
      
        
      
      
      
      
    where
      
        
      
      
      
      
    then
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Proof.  
Replace the distribution of  and  in Proposition 2 with a weighted exponential to complete the proof.    □
3. Exponential Stopping of Brownian Motion
As in  (), let us define
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      where  is a standard Brownian motion (Wiener process), and  and  are constants. Further, let  denote the running maximum of the process. Let , , denote the joint probability density function of  and . Then, the process  is stopped at time  or , an independent random variable with density defined in Propositions (1) and (2). Hereafter, for simplicity of notation we will denote  by  and  by .
For , we define the following functions: 
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Such functions are referred to as discounted density functions, in the case of negative , the adjective inflated might be more appropriate.
Under the conditions of Proposition 1, the joint discounted density of  and  is given by
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      where  are solutions of quadratic equations in Formula (A2) and .
Let us recall the following formulas that can be found in the books of  () and  ():
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Let us prove the first term of the formula in the above result for the discounted joint density. Let ; from Equations (2) and (4) we have
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      where , .
Now consider the quadratic equation,
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      its solution is given by
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Hence,
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
This completes the proof.
It can similarly be proven that the discounted joint density  is given by
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      where  are solutions of quadratic equations in Formula (A3) and .
Integrating over y (respectively over x) yields the discounted densities. Below, are the formulas
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      and
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      where
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Similarly, when we consider the last survival distribution, we have
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      and
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      where
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
- (i)
 - (ii)
 
As we have a closed expression of the discounted density, in both (joint life and last survival) scenarios, we are able to valuate some financial contingent claims and give a closed-analytical expressions. In the following section, we will analyse some basic options and derive some closed-expression of their prices.
4. Valuation of Basic Options
Hereafter,  represents the underlying stock price process defined by
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      where  is the linear Brownian motion defined in Equation (1). As shown in  (), we have
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      where
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
The functions ,  represent the payoff of the financial contingent claim, then, valuing GMDB entails determining
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
For a different type of option payoff, we can find the corresponding function  (see ).
By assumption,  and  or  are independent. So  and  or  are also independent. Thus, Equation (13) becomes
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
For the special case where  we have
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Proof.  
Without loss of generality, we will only prove the first part of Equation (15):
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
        where .    □
If we consider the last survival, we get
      
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Remark 1. 
Hereafter, we denote  and 
4.1. Out-of-Money All-or-Nothing Call Option
The payoff of this type of contract is given by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
        where K is the strike price.
If we consider this type of financial contract, the price of the joint life contract is given by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
This formula is valid if  is less than the smallest non-negative root of Equation (A2).
Similarly, if we consider the last survival case and if  does not exceed the smallest non-negative root of Equation (A3) then, the price of this financial contract becomes
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
4.2. At-the-Money All-or-Nothing Call Option
4.3. Out-of-Money Call Option
The payoff of this type of contract is given by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
As the option is out-of money, . Then applying, Equation (18) yields the following when we consider the joint life contract.
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Similarly, we consider the last survival contract, the price of out-of-money call option is
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
4.4. At-the Money Call Option
4.5. Out-of-Money All-or-Nothing Put Option
For such a financial contingent, the function  is defined by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
        where  and .
By considering the joint live status, one can show that the price of such a contingent claim can be expressed as follows: 
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Proof.  
Without loss of generality, let us show the first part of the formula.
Let , since the contract is a put option, . Hence we have:
          
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
We complete the proof by using the linearity of the integral.    □
Similarly, when the contract is written on the last survival status, we have
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
4.6. Out-of-Money Put Option
For this specific financial contingent contract we have
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Applying Equation (24) for  and  twice, we have for joint life status,
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Similarly, for the last survival status, we have
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Remark 3. 
- (1)
 - (2)
 - The price when the option is in-the-money can be computed by the put-call parity;
 - (3)
 - When and , we obtain the formula for the option price when the individual lifetime follows weighted exponential distribution.
 
5. Valuation of Lookback Options
This section deals with lookback options when the exercise time is the time when the first person in the couple dies or when the last person dies. This exotic option allows the holder to review the stock price over the lifespan. In the following, we derive the price of this exotic call option with a fixed strike price and a put option with a floating strike price.
5.1. Fixed Strike Lookback Call Option
The payoff at time t is given by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
        where  is a positive constant and can be interpreted as the minimum stock price guarantee. In order to valuate this type of option we need to distinguish whether the option is out-of-money or in-the-money.
5.2. Out-of-the-Money Fixed Strike Lookback Call Option
This condition is equivalent to . Under this assumption, the payoff given in Equation (28) becomes
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
The price  and  are respectively given by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
If we consider the joint life status as the lifespan for the option and by Equation (29), the price is given by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Proof.  
Without loss of generality, we show the first part of the formula.
Let , since the contract is an out-of-money lookback call option, . Hence we have:
          
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
We complete the proof by using the linearity of the integral.    □
Similarly, if we consider the last survival status as the lifespan for the option and by Equation (29), the price’s formula becomes: 
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
5.3. Floating Strike Lookback Put Option
The payoff of this exotic option is given by
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Remark 5. 
From Equation (32), we see that the payoff of this particular floating lookback option can be split into the classical fixed lookback call option and the forward option.
6. Numerical Simulation
To illustrate the impact of dependency structure on joint lifespan status and last survival status, we present numerical examples in this section. Gerber’s results are consistent with ours when the copula’s parameters ,  for the joint life status.
For numerical simulation, we parameterized the lifespan distribution as follows: , ;  and ; . This means that the life expectancy of the first person in the couple is approximately  years and the second person is .
From Table 1 and Table 2, one can clearly see the impact of the dependency parameter, as for negative values of , the joint life status has a higher price than last survival, and the reverse is true for positive values of . Moreover, it can be seen from Table 3 that, regardless of the value of , the price of out-of-money lookback options is cheaper for joint life status than last survival. This is because the joint life option is expected to be exercised sooner than the last survival option, and also because the option is out-of-money. Additionally, the price increases as the copula’s parameter increases.
       
    
    Table 1.
    Out-of-money call option for .
  
       
    
    Table 2.
    Out-of-money put option for .
  
       
    
    Table 3.
    Out-of-the-money fixed strike lookback call option for .
  
7. Conclusions and Discussion
This paper analyses the Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit contract when the exercise time is the lifespan for the joint life and last survival status. Under a certain dependency structure, and considering mixed exponential distributions, we derived a closed-analytical expression of the price of exotic options. Furthermore, the impact of the dependency in the married couple on the price as well as the effect of incorporating the joint life and last survival status on the model are shown via numerical illustration.
Our result is consistent with  (, )’s work where the dependency parameter  for the joint life status and where . Hence, this work not only generalises previous works, but incorporates the couple’s lifespan in the analysis of the GMDB contract pricing.
Because the phase-type distribution family is weakly dense in the non-negative real axis of random variable and mixed exponential distributions belonging to that family, our results are therefore more general and extend the existing results in the literature.
Despite this result adding to the literature, it has a downside in that we did not use any real data to check its goodness-of-fit. In addition, the underlying stock price process under consideration does not account for the jump in the stock price; however, there is evidence that, in some scenarios, one can observe jumps in the stock price.
Our results could be reviewed by considering an adequate diffusion process (Lévy process, regime switching model) and by using a copula that can model a more complex dependency.  
Author Contributions
The authors have contributed equally to this work from the Introduction to the Conclusion. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Global Excellence Stature (GES) 4.0 scholarship program and the NRF INCENTIVE GRANT from the University of Johannesburg.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
This section provides the proof of Propositions 1 and 2 and the quadratic equations.
Proof of Proposition 1. 
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
This completes the proof by plugging the above results into Equation (A1).    □
Proof of Proposition 2. 
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
But,
          
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
          and
          
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
Plugging, the analytical expression of  in the above relation completes the proof.    □
For a given , let defined the following quadratic equations.
        
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
        where the superscript  indicates that the root correspond to the first up to the ninth equation.
For the last survival status, we consider the following quadratic equations: 
      
        
      
      
      
      
    
References
- Ai, Meiqiao, and Zhimin Zhang. 2022. Pricing some life-contingent lookback options under regime-switching Lévy models. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 404: 114082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Borodin, Andrei N., and Paavo Salminen. 2002. Handbook of Brownian Motion-Facts and Formulae. Basel, Boston and Berlin: Birkhäuser. [Google Scholar]
 - Brown, Jeffrey R., and James M. Poterba. 1999. Joint Life Annuities and Annuity Demand by Married Couples. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. [Google Scholar]
 - Buchen, Peter, and Otto Konstandatos. 2005. A new method of pricing lookback options. Mathematical Finance: An International Journal of Mathematics, Statistics and Financial Economics 15: 245–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Chesneau, Christophe, Vijay Kumar, Mukti Khetan, and Mohd Arshad. 2022. On a Modified Weighted Exponential Distribution with Applications. Mathematical and Computational Applications 27: 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Das, Suchismita, and Debasis Kundu. 2016. On weighted exponential distribution and its length biased version. Journal of the Indian Society for Probability and Statistics 17: 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Dhaene, Jan, Ben Stassen, Karim Barigou, Daniël Linders, and Ze Chen. 2017. Fair valuation of insurance liabilities: Merging actuarial judgement and market-consistency. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 76: 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Dufresne, Daniel. 2007. Stochastic life annuities. North American Actuarial Journal 11: 136–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Gerber, Hans U., and Elias S. W. Shiu. 2003. Pricing lookback options and dynamic guarantees. North American Actuarial Journal 7: 48–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Gerber, Hans U., Elias S. W. Shiu, and Hailiang Yang. 2012. Valuing equity-linked death benefits and other contingent options: A discounted density approach. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 53: 615–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Gerber, Hans U., Elias S. W. Shiu, and Hailiang Yang. 2013. Valuing equity-linked death benefits in jump diffusion models. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 51: 73–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Gupta, Rameshwar D., and Debasis Kundu. 2001. Generalized exponential distribution: Different method of estimations. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 69: 315–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Jeanblanc, Monique, Marc Yor, and Marc Chesney. 2009. Mathematical Methods for Financial Markets. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar]
 - Kirkby, J. Lars, and Duy Nguyen. 2021. Equity-linked guaranteed minimum death benefits with dollar cost averaging. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 100: 408–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Linetsky, Vadim. 2004. Lookback options and diffusion hitting times: A spectral expansion approach. Finance and Stochastics 8: 373–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Matvejevs, Andrejs, and Aleksandrs Matvejevs. 2001. Insurance models for joint life and last survivor benefits. Informatica 12: 547–58. [Google Scholar]
 - Shevchenko, Pavel V., and Xiaolin Luo. 2016. A unified pricing of variable annuity guarantees under the optimal stochastic control framework. Risks 4: 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Wang, Yayun, Zhimin Zhang, and Wenguang Yu. 2021. Pricing equity-linked death benefits by complex Fourier series expansion in a regime-switching jump diffusion model. Applied Mathematics and Computations 399: 126031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 - Zhang, Zhimin, Yaodi Yong, and Wenguang Yu. 2020. Valuing equity-linked death benefits in general exponential Lévy models. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 365: 112377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.  | 
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).