Bowley Insurance with Expected Utility Maximization of the Policyholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies the Bowley solution for a sequential game within the expected utility framework. We assume that the policyholders are expected utility maximizers and there exists a representative policyholder who faces a fixed loss with given probability and no loss otherwise. This policyholder selects the optimal indemnity function in response to the pricing kernel set by the insurer. Knowing the policyholder’s choice of indemnity function, the insurer adjusts the pricing kernel to maximize its expected net profit. This pricing kernel is of our central interest in this article, and in our setting the pricing kernel can be evaluated via the safety loading factor in an expected value premium principle. For a wide class of utility functions, we show that the optimal safety loading factor increases with respect to both the policyholder’s risk aversion level and the probability of zero loss. We also show that the insurance contract corresponding to the Bowley solution is Pareto dominated in the sense that both parties’ interests can be further improved, which shows the inefficiency of the Bowley solution. Some numerical examples are presented to illustrate the main results, and it is shown that both the policyholder and insurer can strictly benefit from the Bowley solution.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".