Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:10:50.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OPTIMAL INSURANCE CONTRACTS UNDER DISTORTION RISK MEASURES WITH AMBIGUITY AVERSION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2020

Wenjun Jiang ,
Marcos Escobar-Anel  and
Jiandong Ren
Wenjun Jiang*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AlbertaT2N 1N4, Canada, E-mail: wenjun.jiang@ucalgary.ca
Marcos Escobar-Anel
Affiliation:
Department of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, OntarioN6A 3K7, Canada
Jiandong Ren
Affiliation:
Department of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, OntarioN6A 3K7, Canada
*
E-mail: wenjun.jiang@ucalgary.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents analytical representations for an optimal insurance contract under distortion risk measure and in the presence of model uncertainty. We incorporate ambiguity aversion and distortion risk measure through the model of Robert and Therond [(2014) ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 44(2), 277–302.] as per the framework of Klibanoff et al. [(2005) A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6), 1849–1892.]. Explicit optimal insurance indemnity functions are derived when the decision maker (DM) applies Value-at-Risk as risk measure and is ambiguous about the loss distribution. Our results show that: (1) under model uncertainty, ambiguity aversion results in a distorted probability distribution over the set of possible models with a bias in favor of the model which yields a larger risk; (2) a more ambiguity-averse DM would demand more insurance coverage; (3) for a given budget, uncertainties about the loss distribution result in higher risk level for the DM.

Keywords

Optimal insurancemodel uncertaintydistortion risk measureambiguity aversionKarush–Kuhn–Tucker multiplierscalculus of variationsuboptimal contract
Type
Research Article
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 619 - 646
Copyright
© Astin Bulletin 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alary, D., Gollier, C. and Treich, N. (2013) The effect of ambiguity aversion on insurance and self-protection. The Economic Journal, 123(573), 1188–1202.10.1111/ecoj.12035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, N. (1963) Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. The American Economic Review, 53(5), 941–973.Google Scholar
Asimit, A.V., Bignozzi, V., Cheung, K.C., Hu, J. and Kim, E.-S. (2017) Robust and pareto optimality of insurance contracts. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 720–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asimit, A.V., Hu, J. and Xie, Y. (2019) Optimal robust insurance with a finite uncertainty set. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 87, 67–81.Google Scholar
Assa, H. (2015) On optimal reinsurance policy with distortion risk measures and premiums. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 61, 70–75.Google Scholar
Birghila, C. and Pflug, G.C. (2019) Optimal XL-insurance under Wasserstein-type ambiguity. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 88, 30–43.Google Scholar
Boonen, T.J. (2016) Optimal reinsurance with heterogeneous reference probabilities. Risks, 4(3), 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonen, T.J. and Ghossoub, M. (2019) On the existence of a representative reinsurer under heterogeneous beliefs. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 88, 209–225.Google Scholar
Boonen, T.J., Tan, K.S. and Zhuang, S.C. (2016) The role of a representative reinsurer in optimal reinsurance. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 70, 196–204.Google Scholar
Borch, K. (1960a) An Attempt to Determine the Optimum Amount of Stop Loss Reinsurance. Transactions of the XVI International Congress of Actuaries, Vol. I, pp. 597–610.Google Scholar
Borch, K. (1960b) Reciprocal reinsurance treaties seen as a two-person co-operative game. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 1960(1–2), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branger, N., Larsen, L.S. and Munk, C. (2013) Robust portfolio choice with ambiguity and learning about return predictability. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(5), 1397–1411.10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.05.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, J., Tan, K.S., Weng, C. and Zhang, Y. (2008) Optimal reinsurance under VaR and CTE risk measures. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 43(1), 185–196.Google Scholar
Cheung, K.C. and Lo, A. (2017) Characterizations of optimal reinsurance treaties: a cost-benefit approach. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2017(1), 1–28.10.1080/03461238.2015.1054303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, W., Yang, J. and Wu, L. (2013) Optimal reinsurance minimizing the distortion risk measure under general reinsurance premium principles. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 53(1), 74–85.Google Scholar
Ellsberg, D. (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 74(4), 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, M., Ferrando, S. and Rubtsov, A. (2015) Robust portfolio choice with derivative trading under stochastic volatility. Journal of Banking & Finance, 61, 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, K. (1953) Minimax theorems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 39(1), 42–47.10.1073/pnas.39.1.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F. and Marinacci, M. (2004) Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory, 118(2), 133–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1989) Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18(2), 141–153.10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C. (2014) Optimal insurance design of ambiguous risks. Economic Theory, 57(3), 555–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, R.M. and Kunreuther, H. (1989) Risk, ambiguity, and insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1), 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M. and Mukerji, S. (2005) A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6), 1849–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M. and Mukerji, S. (2012) On the smooth ambiguity model: A reply. Econometrica, 80(3), 1303–1321.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H., Hogarth, R. and Meszaros, J. (1993) Insurer ambiguity and market failure. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7(1), 71–87.10.1007/BF01065315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunreuther, H., Meszaros, J., Hogarth, R.M. and Spranca, M. (1995) Ambiguity and underwriter decision processes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 26(3), 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, F., Cai, J., Lemieux, C. and Wang, R. (2020) Convex risk functionals: Representation and applications. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 90, 66–79.Google Scholar
Liu, J. and Pan, J. (2003) Dynamic derivative strategies. Journal of Financial Economics, 69(3), 401–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludkovski, M. and Young, V.R. (2009) Optimal risk sharing under distorted probabilities. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 2(2), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, C.Y. and Therond, P.-E. (2014) Distortion risk measures, ambiguity aversion and optimal effort. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 44(2), 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmeidler, D. (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 57(3), 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaari, M.E. (1987) The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(1), 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhuang, S.C., Weng, C., Tan, K.S. and Assa, H. (2016) Marginal indemnification function formulation for optimal reinsurance. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 67, 65–76.Google Scholar