R
razen
Member
Hi everyone
I maybe over-thinking this or just completely missed the point. Economic capital is defined as the capital required by a life company to meet its liabilities over 1 year with 99.5% probability.
In practice, this is done by shocking the asset and liability assumptions and calculating the capital under shocked scenarios. For example, for a lapse shock, the shocked lapse rates are applied to calculate the shocked liabilities.
My question is - if economic capital by definition considers capital required over a 1 year time horizon, why are the lapse rates for all years shocked? Shouldn't we just shock the lapse rate in year 1 but keep all future lapse rates as the best estimate rate?
Thank you for clearing my confusion!
I maybe over-thinking this or just completely missed the point. Economic capital is defined as the capital required by a life company to meet its liabilities over 1 year with 99.5% probability.
In practice, this is done by shocking the asset and liability assumptions and calculating the capital under shocked scenarios. For example, for a lapse shock, the shocked lapse rates are applied to calculate the shocked liabilities.
My question is - if economic capital by definition considers capital required over a 1 year time horizon, why are the lapse rates for all years shocked? Shouldn't we just shock the lapse rate in year 1 but keep all future lapse rates as the best estimate rate?
Thank you for clearing my confusion!