Life Settlement Funds: Current Valuation Practices and Areas for Improvement

Abstract

We analyze the prevailing valuation practices in the life settlement industry based on a sample of 11 funds that cover a large portion of the current market. The most striking result is that a majority of asset managers seem to substantially overvalue their portfolios relative to the prices of comparable transactions that have recently been closed. Drawing on market‐consistent estimates with regard to medical underwriting, it is possible to trace back the observed discrepancies to inadequately low model inputs for life expectancies and discount rates. The main consequences are a dissimilar treatment of investor groups in open‐end funds structures as well as an unduly high compensation for managers and third parties. To address this predicament, we suggest defining life settlements as level 2 assets in the fair value hierarchy of IFRS 13, improving transparency and disclosure requirements, and developing new incentive‐compatible fee schedules.

Life settlements: descriptive analysis and quantitative aspects

“…Las razones del sesgo en las estimaciones de las EV de los MUs son variadas. Así, Braun et al (2016) sostienen que tanto proveedores como brókeres ejercen presión para inflar los precios de los LSs, lo que facilita la realización de los acuerdos y la obtención de mayores comisiones. Por otra parte, Ruß et al (2018) sostienen la existencia de selección adversa y riesgo moral, dado que el mejor conocedor del estado de salud es el propio asegurado.…”

Pricing industry loss warranties in a Lévy–Frailty framework

“…While our focus is on nonlife ILS, this also holds for traded life insurance risks (see, e.g.,Braun et al, 2012Braun et al, , 2016.2 Hence, a cat bond can be essentially decomposed into a default-free bond and a catastrophe swap.…”