Valuing embedded guarantees
Options and guarantees in life and savings products are valued with stochastic scenarios that are consistent with market prices.
GRA · Actuarial and Quantitative Risk
Spatial financeWhere capital meets hazard, exposure and transition
Financial engineering values and structures instruments whose payoffs depend on risk. On this platform it covers valuation of guarantees and options in insurance contracts, asset-liability matching, longevity and catastrophe risk transfer and economic scenario generation.
Financial and risk engineering designs instruments, models and processes to measure, price and transfer risk. It applies quantitative methods to portfolios, insurance and risk-sharing arrangements. In insurance and catastrophe, methods and modelling and capital markets and investment, financial engineering enables physical and operational risks to be priced and transferred to capital markets. It informs the design of instruments that fund prevention and recovery. The canonical description is on the STEM Commons.
Options and guarantees in life and savings products are valued with stochastic scenarios that are consistent with market prices.
Interest rate, equity and credit scenarios are generated for capital and valuation, with calibration targets and validation documented.
Longevity swaps and catastrophe bonds are analysed for how they transfer risk, their basis risk and counterparty exposure.
Night lights, population density and flood water over Japan and Korea, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Activity and exposure, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
Activity and exposure, framed on Japan and Korea.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date. They are indicators, not assessments of any place.
Layers and dates
Datasets and records used by financial and risk engineering on this platform, with the role each plays and the label its values carry. Sources are listed in the source register.
| Data | Role | Label |
|---|---|---|
| Market prices | Calibration | OBSERVED |
| Contract terms | Payoff structures | DECLARED |
| Scenario sets | Valuation inputs | MODELLED |
The loss a portfolio in the footprint can expect per year and at the 1 in 100 and 1 in 250 levels that insurers and lenders price, from the same three blocks every catastrophe model uses. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction. The map on this page shows Japan and Korea; the model itself is not tied to a place.
Controls
Readouts
| Return period (years) | Intensity (intensity index) | Loss (% of value) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.09 | 0.00 |
| 2 | 1.27 | 0.00 |
| 4 | 1.91 | 0.00 |
| 7 | 2.47 | 0.00 |
| 13 | 3.00 | 0.00 |
| 24 | 3.51 | 0.00 |
| 44 | 4.02 | 0.00 |
| 82 | 4.53 | 23.55 |
| 154 | 5.03 | 26.44 |
| 287 | 5.53 | 28.87 |
| 536 | 6.03 | 30.88 |
| 1,000 | 6.53 | 32.53 |
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page’s map can draw:
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
Models are back-tested, benchmarked against alternatives and reviewed by independent validation functions. Stress tests probe behaviour beyond historical data.
| Check | How it is done |
|---|---|
| Market consistency | Scenarios reproduce calibration instrument prices |
| Scenario validation | Generators are tested for realistic behaviour |
| Convergence | Results are checked for stability as scenario counts increase |
Models calibrated to normal markets can underestimate tail losses and correlation shifts. Complex instruments may obscure where risk ultimately sits.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Insurance and reinsurance: the shocks it names, the systems and sectors that carry the loss, the controls that dampen it and the data that observe it. Pick an initiating shock and step through the cascade to see which exposures it reaches and where losses could concentrate. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every weight is a stated assumption. An exercise, not a forecast, a valuation, a rating or investment advice. To model a place of your own choosing, open the full System Builder.
Hazards
Systems and couplings
Controls
NS-0 Constitution and principlesNS-3 Risk record UNIs (grammar, legacy crosswalk, allocation authority)NS-9 Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)NS-10 Policies and clauses (machine-readable obligations: definition, binding, evaluation and enforcement)NS-11 Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NS-14 Conformance and crosswalk to external standardsNRS-F3 Insurance, catastrophe risk and protection gapsNRS-H113 Hazard family: Financial-system fragility (NHS-1 soc.financial-system)NRS-U17 Universe platform profile: Insurance NexusNRS-H71 Hazard family: Deep-time and cosmic catastrophes (NHS-1 planet.deep-time)NRS-H65 Hazard family: Planetary boundary transgressions (NHS-1 planet.boundary)NRS-F8 Parametric and index-based risk transferObservation
Example geography
The exposure, loss, scenario and capital views a risk officer, supervisor or ministry of finance would ask for, with the frameworks they report against. Structures follow supervisory and actuarial practice. Values are illustrative: never prices, ratings or advice.
How losses from financial and risk engineering for actuarial and quantitative risk grow with severity, gross and net of reinsurance, against capital.
| Return period | Annual probability | Gross loss | Net loss | Net, capital = 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 in 10 | 0.10 | 14 | 10 | 10 |
| 1 in 50 | 0.02 | 33 | 21 | 21 |
| 1 in 100 | 0.01 | 46 | 27 | 27 |
| 1 in 250 | 0.004 | 68 | 39 | 39 |
| Average annual loss | 3.1 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
Actuarial and Quantitative Risk stewards financial and risk engineering for the Consortium and reviews how it is applied across platforms.
Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.
This site uses only strictly necessary cookies to work and to remember your privacy choices. Nothing loads from other companies, and we never sell or share your personal information.
This site uses only strictly necessary cookies to work and to remember your privacy choices. Nothing loads from other companies, and we never sell or share your personal information. We run no advertising. You can review your choices at any time through Privacy choices at the foot of every page.