MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384821089 · doi:10.1080/10920277.2023.2213295

Bowley Insurance with Expected Utility Maximization of the Policyholders

2023· article· en· W4384821089 on OpenAlexafffund
Tim J. Boonen, Wenjun Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsIndemnityExpected utility hypothesisPareto principleUnderwritingEconomicsActuarial scienceDeductibleInefficiencyMicroeconomicsMathematical economicsOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Actuarial JournalSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207