9.4 Simulations for the best estimate over a one-year horizon For each of the 5,000 mortality probability scenarios described in paragraph 9.4 the value of obligations after recalibration can be determined, which will yield a distribution of the value of obligations over a one-year horizon. The results of this are listed in the tables below. Results simulation of technical provision (relative to best estimate) over one year Interest 3% Males OAP Standard deviation Quantile 50% 95% 97,50% 99,5% SP OAP + SP OAP Females SP OAP + SP 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.8% 1.1% 0.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 101.1% 101.3% 100.8% 101.2% 101.7% 100.8% 101.3% 101.5% 100.9% 101.5% 102.2% 101.0% 101.7% 102.0% 101.2% 101.9% 103.1% 101.3% Table 9.3 Results simulation of provisions at 3% interest for model portfolios (males and females average) over a one-year horizon Results simulation of technical provision (relative to best estimate) over one year Interest 1% Males OAP Standard deviation Quantile 50% 95% 97,50% 99,5% SP OAP + SP OAP Females SP OAP + SP 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 1.0% 1.3% 0.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 101.2% 101.6% 101.0% 101.5% 102.1% 101.1% 101.5% 101.9% 101.1% 101.8% 102.6% 101.2% 101.8% 102.4% 101.5% 102.3% 103.9% 101.6% Table 9.4 Results simulation of provisions at 1% interest for model portfolios (males and females average) over a one-year horizon These results show that, as suggested by the results in paragraph 9.3, the spread over a one-year horizon is much lower than in a simulation over all years. The impact of the transition from AG2016 to AG2018 on provisions is listed in table 8.7 in chapter 8. Because the transition from AG2016 to AG2018 adds on two years of new observations, the impact must be split into the impact of the AG2016 to AG2017 and the AG2017 to AG2018 transitions (see table 8.8 in chapter 8) to obtain a clean comparison. Only then can we speak of the impact for a single year. It turns out that in the AG2016 to AG2017 transition the observed impact on old age pensions for women just exceeds the 97.5 percentile. Other benefits remain within the 97.5% confidence interval. In the AG2017 to AG2018 transition the results for all benefits are close to the 50% quantile. We would again point out that the calculated one-year uncertainty only relates to uncertainty in the development of mortality probabilities and does not take into account that the observed mortality frequencies will not exactly match those mortality probabilities. Projection Table AG2018 Applications of the model 35
37 Online Touch Home