IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/sactxx/v2009y2009i3p219-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Nash bargaining solution vs. equilibrium in a reinsurance syndicate

Author

Listed:
  • Knut Aase

Abstract

We compare the Nash bargaining solution in a reinsurance syndicate to the competitive equilibrium allocation, focusing on uncertainty and risk aversion. Restricting attention to proportional reinsurance treaties, we find that, although these solution concepts are very different, one may just appear as a first order Taylor series approximation of the other, in certain cases. This may be good news for the Nash solution, or for the equilibrium allocation, all depending upon one's point of view. Our model also allows us to readily identify some properties of the equilibrium allocation not be shared by the bargaining solution, and vice versa, related to both risk aversions and correlations.

Suggested Citation

  • Knut Aase, 2009. "The Nash bargaining solution vs. equilibrium in a reinsurance syndicate," Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2009(3), pages 219-238.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:sactxx:v:2009:y:2009:i:3:p:219-238
    DOI: 10.1080/03461230802425834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03461230802425834
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03461230802425834?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    2. Roth, Alvin E., 1977. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives, and solutions to Nash's bargaining problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 247-251, December.
    3. Kannai, Yakar, 1977. "Concavifiability and constructions of concave utility functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-56, March.
    4. Baton, Bernard & Lemaire, Jean, 1981. "The Bargaining Set of a Reinsurance Market," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 101-114, December.
    5. Roth, Alvin E & Rothblum, Uriel G, 1982. "Risk Aversion and Nash's Solution for Bargaining Games with Risky Outcomes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 639-647, May.
    6. Borch, Karl, 1960. "Reciprocal Reinsurance Treaties," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(4), pages 170-191, December.
    7. Aase, Knut K., 1993. "Equilibrium in a Reinsurance Syndicate; Existence, Uniqueness and Characterization," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 185-211, November.
    8. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    9. Baton, Bernard & Lemaire, Jean, 1981. "The Core of a Reinsurance Market," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 57-71, June.
    10. John Pratt, 2007. "Fair (and not so fair) division," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 203-236, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Yanhong & Cheung, Ka Chun & Zhang, Yiying, 2024. "Bowley solution under the reinsurer's default risk," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 36-61.
    2. Liyuan Lin & Fangda Liu & Jingzhen Liu abd Luyang Yu, 2023. "The optimal reinsurance strategy with price-competition between two reinsurers," Papers 2305.00509, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    2. Rausser, Gordon C. & Simon, Leo K., 2016. "Nash bargaining and risk aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 1-9.
    3. Borglin, Anders & Flåm, Sjur Didrik, 2007. "Risk exchange as a market or production game," Working Papers in Economics 09/07, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    4. Jiang, Wenjun & Ren, Jiandong & Yang, Chen & Hong, Hanping, 2019. "On optimal reinsurance treaties in cooperative game under heterogeneous beliefs," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 173-184.
    5. Gomez, Juan Camilo, 2006. "Achieving efficiency with manipulative bargainers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 254-263, November.
    6. Claus-Jochen Haake & Cheng-Zhong Qin, 2018. "On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem," Working Papers CIE 113, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    7. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    8. Hom M Pant, 1996. "Endogenous Behaviour of the Tariff Rate in a Political Economy," International Trade 9609001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Oct 1996.
    9. Kobberling, Veronika & Peters, Hans, 2003. "The effect of decision weights in bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 154-175, May.
    10. Sanxi Li & Hailin Sun & Jianye Yan & Xundong Yin, 2015. "Risk aversion in the Nash bargaining problem with uncertainty," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 257-274, July.
    11. Volij, Oscar & Winter, Eyal, 2002. "On risk aversion and bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 120-140, October.
    12. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    13. Driesen, Bram & Lombardi, Michele & Peters, Hans, 2016. "Feasible sets, comparative risk aversion, and comparative uncertainty aversion in bargaining," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 162-170.
    14. Ehud Kalai, 1983. "Solutions to the Bargaining Problem," Discussion Papers 556, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    15. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 560-596, December.
    16. Aase, Knut K., 2006. "Optimal Risk-Sharing and Deductables in Insurance," Discussion Papers 2006/24, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    17. Jiang, Wenjun & Hong, Hanping & Ren, Jiandong, 2021. "Pareto-optimal reinsurance policies with maximal synergy," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 185-198.
    18. Zhang, Xian & Chan, K.W. & Wang, Huaizhi & Hu, Jiefeng & Zhou, Bin & Zhang, Yan & Qiu, Jing, 2019. "Game-theoretic planning for integrated energy system with independent participants considering ancillary services of power-to-gas stations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 249-264.
    19. Naeve-Steinweg, E., 2004. "The averaging mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 410-424, February.
    20. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G22 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies

    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:taf:sactxx:v:2009:y:2009:i:3:p:219-238. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/sact .

    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.