IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Actuarial fairness and solidarity in pooled annuity funds


  • Catherine Donnelly


Various types of structures that enable a group of individuals to pool their mortality risk have been proposed in the literature. Collectively, the structures are called pooled annuity funds. Since the pooled annuity funds propose different methods of pooling mortality risk, we investigate the connections between them and find that they are genuinely different for a finite heterogeneous membership profile. We discuss the importance of actuarial fairness, defined as the expected benefits equalling the contributions for each member, in the context of pooling mortality risk and comment on whether actuarial unfairness can be seen as solidarity between members. We show that, with a finite number of members in the fund, the group self-annuitization scheme is not actuarially fair: some members subsidize the other members. The implication is that the members who are subsidizing the others may obtain a higher expected benefit by joining a fund with a more favourable membership profile. However, we find that the subsidies are financially significant only for very small or highly heterogeneous membership profiles.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Donnelly, 2013. "Actuarial fairness and solidarity in pooled annuity funds," Papers 1311.5120,, revised Jul 2014.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1311.5120

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. John Piggott & Emiliano A. Valdez & Bettina Detzel, 2005. "The Simple Analytics of a Pooled Annuity Fund," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 72(3), pages 497-520.
    2. Hanewald, Katja & Piggott, John & Sherris, Michael, 2013. "Individual post-retirement longevity risk management under systematic mortality risk," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 87-97.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1311.5120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (arXiv administrators). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.