Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • December 2021
General Features

Cutting the bias: Modelling the impact of Covid-19

Open-access content Wednesday 1st December 2021
Authors
Stephen Richards

Stephen Richards demonstrates how to model the impact of COVID-19 on portfolio mortality experience

Cutting the bias: Modelling the impact of Covid-19

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has produced two mortality shocks in the UK and other countries. Figure 1 shows daily deaths in the UK mentioning COVID-19 on the death certificate, showing two sharp spikes in 2020 and 2021.

To put these deaths into context, Figure 2 shows the weekly post-retirement age deaths registered in England and Wales between January 2015 and December 2020. A strong and consistent seasonal pattern is evident, as is the first COVID-19 shock of April and May 2020, which increased the death count by around two-thirds beyond what might ordinarily have been expected.

web_p25_Cutting-the-bias_Figure-1.jpg

One lesson we can learn from Figure 1 and Figure 2 is that we sometimes need to model mortality over periods of much shorter than a year. Annual mortality rates cannot do justice to the rich detail exhibited by mortality patterns in time, or come close to capturing the intensity of a mortality shock that lasts a couple of months.

web_p25_Cutting-the-bias_Figure-2.jpg

A challenge for actuaries

Figure 3 shows that the extra mortality of COVID-19 affects annuity portfolios, with the first mortality shock peaking in the first week of April 2020. It uses a simple moving average based on the number of annuities in-force at the start of each day and the number of deaths on that date.

web_p25_Cutting-the-Bias_Figure-3.jpg

However, mortality spikes such as those in Figure 3 create a challenge for actuaries – how do you model a portfolio’s mortality experience when the period covered includes one or more pandemic shocks?

Actuaries analyse recent experience data to set a best-estimate basis (future trends or improvements are usually handled as a separate item). However, the presence of a mortality shock creates a risk of upward bias (unless you want to assume that such mortality shocks will regularly re-occur). This bias is a particular problem when pricing bulk annuities and longevity swaps – unless the (re)insurer allows for the upward bias in the pension scheme’s mortality data, it under-prices the risk and may make less profit than intended.

web_p26_Cutting-the-bias_Figure-4-and-5_Large_1600x1000.jpg

One idea might be to remove all deaths that mention COVID-19 on the death certificate.  However, pension schemes and annuity portfolios rarely record cause of death, so this cannot be a general solution. Another idea might be to ignore the main periods of COVID-19-affected mortality. However, this has two drawbacks. The first is that pension schemes often only have three to five years of experience data, so discarding some of that data is an unaffordable luxury. The second drawback is that the mortality shocks occur at focused points in the year. Since mortality has a pronounced seasonal pattern, as shown in Figure 2, ignoring periods of pandemic mortality would lead to unbalanced seasonal contributions. This would create a new source of bias to replace the bias we were trying to eliminate in the first place.

A flexible model in time

A better solution is to use all available data, but for the mortality model to handle sharp fluctuations in time to avoid biasing other parameters. It is essential that the model doesn’t require any new data fields beyond what is usually available in administration systems. One approach is the following model for the mortality hazard, eqat age x and calendar time y:

Equation 1

screen 

q

is the age-varying mortality hazard, including covariates such as gender, annuity amount and any other risk factors the actuary wishes to include. The right-hand summation term is for the mortality level in time: eqis the jth B-spline evaluated at time y, and qis the coefficient of q . Figure 4 shows an example B-spline basis with a one-year gap between knot points.

However, we obviously need closer knot spacing for modelling shocks that take place over the course of a couple of months. We further note that there is no requirement for knot points to be equally spaced. This means we can add knots only where greater flexibility is needed – for example around the time of a known mortality shock. Figure 5 shows part of an alternative basis of B-splines with a half-year gap between knots (to capture seasonal variation), plus additional knots around the time of the first COVID-19 shock in the UK in April and May 2020.

The model in Equation 1 fits a continuous age-period model, meaning the time component of mortality is independent of age (although the estimates of q are obviously influenced by the age range of the data used to calibrate the model).

One important practical aspect of Equation 1 is that we set qas an identifiability constraint. This does not affect the overall model fit, but we can use alternative identifiability constraints to improve interpretation. Specifically, we can re-normalise the parameters at a point in time when mortality levels were unaffected by COVID-19. One such point would be October 2019 – the midway point between the last summer trough and winter peak before the first COVID-19 shock.

web_p27_Cutting-the-Bias_Figure-6.jpg

Results

Figure 6 shows the results of fitting the model in Equation 1 to a portfolio of UK annuitants, where the purely age-related mortality, q accounts for variation by age, gender and annuity amount. Figure 6 is essentially a smoothed version of Figure 3, but with the advantage of allowing for various other risk factors.

For analytical purposes, we set a reference mortality level of 1 midway between the summer trough of 2019 and the winter peak of January 2020; this doesn’t change the fitted model, but does help with the interpretation of it. Figure 6 shows that the model in Equation 1 can identify a rich variety of mortality patterns in time, including the seasonal variation during the period 2015–2019 and the first COVID-19 mortality shock that took place in April and May 2020.

The most striking aspect we see is the near doubling of the mortality hazard during the mortality shock compared to the reference level. Another feature is the extent of the trough-to-peak seasonal variation, with winter mortality levels that are up to 30% higher than summer mortality dips. A third aspect is the suggestion of an unusually deep summer trough in 2020; this could be a result of the deaths of the frail having been brought forward during the mortality shock (a phenomenon known as ‘harvesting’), or else a result of healthier behaviours of a socially distanced population under lockdown – or, perhaps, both.

Impact

There are strong parallels between Figure 2 and Figure 6: both show pronounced and regular seasonal variation and a dramatic spike in mortality in April and May 2020.  The difference is that Figure 6 is the mortality level after allowing for exact age, gender and annuity-size differentials, and is customised for the portfolio. Since the model can accommodate intense short-term mortality shocks, the remaining parameters will not be biased towards a higher level of mortality.

“Annual mortality rates cannot come close to capturing the intensity of a mortality shock that lasts a couple of months”

The utility of Figure 6 extends further, as the model can also be used to estimate a portfolio-specific rate of mortality improvement for the pre-COVID-19 period. We can compare the mortality levels at any two points, and the most stable periods tend to be the summer troughs (winter peaks are more variable). If we compare the mortality levels of summer 2015 and summer 2019, we find the portfolio has experienced an aggregate annual mortality improvement of 1.2% per annum. This sort of insight is particularly useful for transactions such as bulk annuities and longevity swaps, as it allows the (re)insurer to see if the portfolio has experienced faster or slower improvements and price accordingly.

The usefulness of Figure 6 to the actuary is evident: with a clear picture of mortality levels in continuous time, we can be sure that the other parameters in the model are not biased by mortality shocks or seasonal variation. Setting a best-estimate basis is then a question of deciding what time-point represents a suitable level for the purpose at hand, such as setting a pricing basis for a bulk annuity or a longevity swap. This is a matter of actuarial judgment, but one that will be informed by the detailed insights from Figure 6.

Stephen Richards is managing director of Longevitas.

Image Credit | iStock

ACT Dec21_Full LR.jpg
This article appeared in our December 2021 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
General Features
Topics:
General Insurance
Life insurance
Modelling/software

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Senior Underwriting Risk Manager

London (Central)
£85K-£95K + Benefits
Reference
124386

Reserving Manager (Contract)

London (Central)
£1200 - £1400 per day
Reference
124385

Life Actuary - Contract - IFRS 17 Financial Impact

England, London / England, Bristol / North Yorkshire, England
£900 - £1150 per day
Reference
124384
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2022 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ