MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059204883 · doi:10.1017/asb.2013.28

OPTIMAL REINSURANCE WITH LIMITED CEDED RISK: A STOCHASTIC DOMINANCE APPROACH

2013· article· en· W2059204883 on OpenAlexafffund
Yichun Chi, X. Sheldon Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsReinsuranceStochastic dominanceActuarial scienceEconomicsEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An optimal reinsurance problem from the perspective of an insurer is studied in this paper, where an upper limit is imposed on a reinsurer's expected loss over a prescribed level. In order to reduce the moral hazard, we assume that both the insurer and the reinsurer are obligated to pay more as the amount of loss increases in a typical reinsurance treaty. We further assume that the optimization criterion preserves the convex order. Such a criterion is very general as most of the criteria for optimal reinsurance problems in the literature preserve the convex order. When the reinsurance premium is calculated as a function of the actuarial value of coverage, we show via a stochastic dominance approach that any admissible reinsurance policy is dominated by a stop-loss reinsurance or a two-layer reinsurance, depending upon the amount of the reinsurance premium. Moreover, we obtain a similar result to Mossin's Theorem and find that it is optimal for the insurer to cede a loss as much as possible under the net premium principle. To further examine the reinsurance premium for the optimal piecewise linear reinsurance policy, we assume the expected value premium principle and derive the optimal reinsurance explicitly under (1) the criterion of minimizing the variance of the insurer's risk exposure, and (2) the criterion of minimizing the risk-adjusted value of the insurer's liability where the liability valuation is carried out using the cost-of-capital approach based on the conditional value at risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207