  This paper studies a Value-at-Risk (VaR)-regulated optimal portfolio problem
of the equity holders of a participating life insurance contract. In a setting
with unhedgeable mortality risk and complete financial market, the optimal
solution is given explicitly for contracts with mortality risk using a
martingale approach for constrained non-concave optimization problems. We show
that regulatory VaR constraints for participating insurance contracts lead to
more prudent investment than in the case of no regulation. This result is
contrary to the situation where the insurer maximizes the utility of the total
wealth of the company (without distinguishing between contributions of equity
holders and policyholders), in which case a VaR constraint may induce the
insurer to take excessive risks leading to higher losses than in the case of no
regulation. Compared to the unregulated problem, the VaR-constrained strategy
leads to a higher expected utility for the policyholders, highlighting the
potential usefulness of a VaR-regulation in the context of insurance. The
prudent investment behavior is more significant if a VaR-type regulation is
replaced by a portfolio insurance (PI)-type regulation. Furthermore, a stricter
regulation (a smaller allowed default probability in the VaR problem or a
higher minimum guarantee level in the PI problem) enhances the benefit of the
policyholder but deteriorates that of the insurer. For both types of
regulation, the gains in terms of expected utility are greater for higher
participation rates, while being smaller for higher bonus rates. We also extend
our analysis to frameworks where dividend and premature death benefit payments
are made at an intermediate time date.
