An Optimal Investment Strategy for Insurers in Incomplete Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we consider the problem of an insurance company where the wealth of the insurer is described by a Cramér-Lundberg process. The insurer is allowed to invest in a risky asset with stochastic volatility subject to the influence of an economic factor and the remaining surplus in a bank account. The price of the risky asset and the economic factor are modeled by a system of correlated stochastic differential equations. In a finite horizon framework and assuming that the market is incomplete, we study the problem of maximizing the expected utility of terminal wealth. When the insurer’s preferences are exponential, an existence and uniqueness theorem is proven for the non-linear Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation (HJB). The optimal strategy and the value function have been produced in closed form. In addition and in order to show the connection between the insurer’s decision and the correlation coefficient we present two numerical approaches: A Monte-Carlo method based on the stochastic representation of the solution of the insurer problem via Feynman-Kac’s formula, and a mixed Finite Difference Monte-Carlo one. Finally the results are presented in the case of Scott model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".