Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T00:20:00.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Option Based Portfolio Insurance Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2011

R. Bouchaib
Affiliation:
ING Group, Corporate Insurance Risk Management, Amstelveenseweg 500, 1081 KL Amsterdam, The Netherlands. P.O. Box 810, 1000 AV Amsterdam., Email: [email protected]

Abstract

In recent years, Constant Proportion Portfolio Insurance (CPPI) has been the most widely recognised form of portfolio insurance among market practitioners, despite a lack of theoretical framework to support it. This paper presents a revised formulation of Option Based Portfolio Insurance (OBPI) and shows, through a case study, how it can be used as a structured product and applied in practice as a dynamic investment strategy for insurance and pensions funds such as with-profits funds. CPPI and the Revised Option Based Portfolio Insurance (ROBPI) technique adopted in this paper are similar in the sense that they rely on dynamic allocation between risky and risk-free assets to provide downside protection. Comparison between the two methods shows that ROPBI is more efficient and forward looking, giving more information about downside risk and producing less volatile asset allocation, which reduces transaction costs and any market impact.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baxter, M. & Rennie, A. (2000). Financial calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bertrand, P. & Prigent, J.-L. (2001). Portfolio insurance strategies: OBPI versus CPPI. GREQAM. Document de Travail n. 02A13.Google Scholar
Black, F. & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchaib, R. (2004). Dynamic asset allocation to hedge cash guarantees using revised option based portfolio insurance. Paper presented at U.K. Institute of Actuaries' Finance and Investment Conference. Brussels, June 2004 [online]. Available at: http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/proceedings/fib2004/Bouchaib.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bouchaib, R. (2006). Risk-averse capital market line (RCML). Paper presented at the 28th International Congress of Actuaries. Paris, June 2006 [online]. Available at: http://www.ica2006.com/Papiers/173/173.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dullaway, D.W. & Needleman, P.D. (2004). Realistic liabilities and risk capital margins for with-profits business. British Actuarial Journal, 10, 185316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbert, A.J. & Turnbull, C.J. (2003). Measuring and managing the economic risks and costs of with-profits business. British Actuarial Journal, 9, 11411154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, J.C. (2000). Options, futures and other derivatives (4th edition). Prentice Hall International, London.Google Scholar
Leland, H.E. & Rubinstein, M. (1976). The evolution of portfolio insurance. In (Luskin, D.L., ed.) Portfolio insurance: a guide to dynamic hedging. John Wiley, 1988.Google Scholar
Margrabe, W. (1978). The value of an option to exchange one asset for another. Journal of Finance, 33, 177186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, M. (1988). Portfolio insurance and the market crash. Financial Analysts Journal, January-February.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, A.D. (1985). Portfolio selection in the presence of fixed liabilities: a comment on the matching of assets to liabilities. Journal of Institute of Actuaries, 112, 229277'.CrossRefGoogle Scholar