Multi-period guarantees are often embedded in life insurance contracts. In this paper we consider the problem of hedging these multi-period guarantees in the presence of transaction costs. We derive the hedging strategies for the cheapest hedge portfolio for a multi-period guarantee that with certainty makes the insurance company able to meet the obligations from the insurance policies it has issued. We find that by imposing transaction costs, the insurance company reduces the rebalancing of the hedge portfolio. The cost of establishing the hedge portfolio also increases as the transaction cost increases. For the multi-period guarantee there is a rather large rebalancing of the hedge portfolio as we go from one period to the next. By introducing transaction costs we find the size of this rebalancing to be reduced. Transaction costs may therefore be one possible explanation for why we do not see the insurance companies performing a large rebalancing of their investment portfolio at the end of each year.

"We propose a framework à la Davis et al. (1993) and Whalley and Wilmott (1997) to study dynamic hedging strategies on portfolios of financial guarantees in the presence of transaction costs. We contrast four dynamic hedging strategies including a utility-based dynamic hedging strategy, in conjunction with using an asset-based index, with the strategy of no hedging. For the proposed utility-based strategy, the portfolio rebalancing is triggered by the tradeoff between transaction costs and utility gains. Overall, using a Froot and Stein (1998) and Perold (2005) type of risk-adjusted performance measurement metric, we find the utility-based strategy to be a good compromise between the delta hedging strategy and the passive stance of doing nothing. This result is even stronger with higher transaction costs. However, if the insured firms assets are not traded or in a high transaction costs environment, the guarantor can use an index-based security as hedging instrument".

We propose a framework a la Davis et al. (1993) and Whalley and Wilmott (1997) to study dynamic hedging strategies on portfolios of financial guarantees in the presence of transaction costs. We contrast four dynamic hedging strategies including a utility-based dynamic hedging strategy, in conjunction with using an asset-based index, with the strategy of no hedging. For the proposed utility-based strategy, the portfolio rebalancing is triggered by the tradeoff between transaction costs and utility gains. Overall, using a Froot and Stein (1998) and Perold (2005) type of risk-adjusted performance measurement metric, we find the utility-based strategy to be a good compromise between the delta hedging strategy and the passive stance of doing nothing. This result is even stronger with higher transaction costs. However, if the insured firms assets are not traded or in a high transaction costs environment, the guarantor can use an index-based security as hedging instrument.

We introduce a new class of strategies for hedging derivative securities taking into account transaction costs, assuming lognormal continuous-time prices for the underlying asset. We do not assume that the payoff is convex as in Leland (J of Finance, 1985), or that the transaction costs are small compared to the price changes between portfolio adjustments, as in Hoggard, Whalley and Wilmott (Adv. in Futures and Options Res., 1993). The Leland number, A, which is proportional to the ratio of the round-trip tansaction cost over the typical price movement during the period between transactions, is a measure of the importance of transaction costs versus hedging risk. If A is greater than or equal to one, standard delta-hedging methods fail unless the payoff of the derivative security is a convex function of the price of the underlying asset. In contrast, our new strategies can be used effectively in the presence of large transaction costs to control simultaneously hedge-slippage as well as hedging costs. These strategies are associated with the solution an quot;obstacle problemquot; for a Black-Scholes diffusion equation with Leland's quot;augmentedquot; volatility, a parameter which depends on the volatility of the underlying asset as well as on A. The new strategies are such that the frequency for rebalancing the portfolio is variable. There are periods in which rehedging takes place often to control gamma-risk and other periods, which can be relatively long, when no transactions are needed. Moreover, instead of replicating exactly the final payoff, the strategies can yield a positive cash flow at expiration, according to the price history of the underlying security. The solution to the quot;obstacle problemquot; is often simple to calculate. There exist closed-form solutions for various securities of practical interest, such as digital options.