IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/astinb/v48y2018i03p995-1024_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linear Versus Nonlinear Allocation Rules In Risk Sharing Under Financial Fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Schumacher, Johannes M.

Abstract

In a risk exchange, participants trade a privately owned risk for a share in a pool. If participants agree on a valuation rule, it can be decided whether or not, according to the given rule, these trades take place at equal value. If equality of values holds for all participants, then the exchange is said to be “financially fair”. It has been shown by Bühlmann and Jewell (1979) that, under mild assumptions, the constraint of financial fairness singles out a unique solution among the set of all Pareto efficient risk exchanges. In this paper, we find that an analogous statement is true if we limit ourselves to linear exchanges. Conditions are provided for existence and uniqueness of linear sharing rules that are both financially fair and Pareto efficient among all linear sharing rules. The performance of the linear rule is compared to that of the general (nonlinear) rule in a number of specific cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Schumacher, Johannes M., 2018. "Linear Versus Nonlinear Allocation Rules In Risk Sharing Under Financial Fairness," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 995-1024, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:astinb:v:48:y:2018:i:03:p:995-1024_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0515036118000259/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, An & Nguyen, Thai & Rach, Manuel, 2021. "Optimal collective investment: The impact of sharing rules, management fees and guarantees," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    2. Denuit, Michel & Robert, Christian Y., 2021. "From risk sharing to pure premium for a large number of heterogeneous losses," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 116-126.
    3. Chen, An & Rach, Manuel, 2023. "Actuarial fairness and social welfare in mixed-cohort tontines," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 214-229.
    4. Nicole Branger & An Chen & Antje Mahayni & Thai Nguyen, 2023. "Optimal collective investment: an analysis of individual welfare," Mathematics and Financial Economics, Springer, volume 17, number 5, February.
    5. Hieber, Peter & Lucas, Nathalie, 2020. "Life-Care Tontines," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2020026, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    6. An Chen & Thai Nguyen & Manuel Rach, 2021. "A collective investment problem in a stochastic volatility environment: The impact of sharing rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 302(1), pages 85-109, July.
    7. Bernard, C. & De Gennaro Aquino, L. & Vanduffel, S., 2023. "Optimal multivariate financial decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(1), pages 468-483.
    8. Denuit, M. & Robert, C.Y., 2020. "From risk sharing to pure premium for a large number of heterogeneous losses," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2020015, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    9. Fallou Niakh, 2023. "A fixed point approach for computing actuarially fair Pareto optimal risk-sharing rules," Papers 2303.05421, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:astinb:v:48:y:2018:i:03:p:995-1024_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/asb .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.