Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:26:02.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISAPPOINTMENT AVERSION PREMIUM PRINCIPLE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2015

Ka Chun Cheung ,
Wing Fung Chong ,
Robert Elliott  and
Sheung Chi Phillip Yam
Ka Chun Cheung
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong E-Mail: [email protected]
Wing Fung Chong
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong E-Mail: [email protected]
Robert Elliott
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Centre for Applied Finance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia E-Mail: [email protected]
Sheung Chi Phillip Yam
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong E-Mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, the determination of premium principle under various non-expected utility frameworks has become popular, such as the pioneer works by Tsanakas and Desli (2003) and Kaluszka and Krzeszowiec (2012). We here revisit the problem under another prevalent behavioral economic theory, namely the Disappointment Aversion (DA) Theory proposed by Gul (1991). In this article, we define and study the properties of the DA premium principle, which builds on the equivalent utility premium principle. We derive various properties of this premium principle, such as non-negative and no unjustified risk loading, translation invariance, monotonicity, convexity, positive (non-)homogeneity, independent (non-)additivity, comonotonic (non-)additivity and monotonicity with respect to the extent of disappointment. A generalized Arrow–Pratt approximation is also established. Explicit representations of the premium principle are obtained for linear and exponential utilities, and they reveal that the premium principle proposed echoes the capital reserve regulatory requirement in practice.

Keywords

Disappointment aversion theoryequivalent utility premium principlegeneralized Arrow–Pratt approximationexplicit representationscapital reserve regulatory requirement
Type
Research Article
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 679 - 702
Copyright
Copyright © Astin Bulletin 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allais, M. (1953) Le comportement de l'homme rationel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axioms de l'ecole americaine. Econometrica, 21 (4), 503–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ang, A., Bekaert, G. and Liu, J. (2005) Why stocks may disappoint. Journal of Financial Economics, 76 (3), 471–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D.E. (1985) Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 33 (1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühlmann, H. (1970) Mathematical Methods in Risk Theory. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Carmona, R. (2009) Indifference Pricing: Theory and Applications. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cheung, K.C., Chong, W.F. and Yam, S.C.P. (2015) The optimal insurance under disappointment theories. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 64, 77–90.Google Scholar
Denuit, M., Dhaene, J., Goovaerts, M., Kaas, R. and Laeven, R. (2006) Risk measurement with equivalent utility principles. Statistics & Decisions, 24 (1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Elliott, R.J. and Siu, T.K. (2010) Risk-based indifference pricing under a stochastic volatility model. Communications on Stochastic Analysis, 4 (1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, R.J. and Siu, T.K. (2011) Utility-based indifference pricing in regime-switching models. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 74 (17), 6302–6313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, R.J. and Van Der Hoek, J. (2004) Pricing claims on non tradable assets. Contemporary Mathematics, 351, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Föllmer, H. and Schied, A. (2011) Stochastic Finance: An Introduction in Discrete Time. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, H.U. (1979) An Introduction to Mathematical Risk Theory. S. S. Huebner Foundation, Homeward Illinois: R. D. Irwin Inc.Google Scholar
Gollier, C. and Muermann, A. (2010) Optimal choice and beliefs with ex ante savoring and ex post disappointment. Management Science, 56 (8), 1272–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goovaerts, M.J., de Vylder, F. and Haezendonck, J. (1984) Insurance Premiums: Theory and Applications. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Gul, F. (1991) A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica, 59 (3), 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilpern, S. (2003) A rank-dependent generalization of zero utility principle. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 33 (1), 67–73.Google Scholar
Henderson, V. and Hobson, D. (2009) Utility indifference pricing-an overview. In Indifference Pricing: Theory and Applications (ed. Carmona, R.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jouini, E., Schachermayer, W. and Touzi, N. (2006) Law invariant risk measures have the Fatou property. Advances in Mathematical Economics, 9, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5 (4), 297–323.Google Scholar
Kaluszka, M. and Krzeszowiec, M. (2012) Mean-value principle under cumulative prospect theory. ASTIN Bulletin, 42 (1), 103–122.Google Scholar
Laeven, R.J. and Goovaerts, M.J. (2008) Premium calculation and insurance pricing. In Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment (eds. Melnick, E.L. and Everitt, B.S.), Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1302–1313.Google Scholar
Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1986) Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 53 (2), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
vonNeumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (2007) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, J. (1993) Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltari, E. and Travaglini, G. (2010) Behavioral portfolio choice and disappointment aversion: An analytical solution with “small'' risks. In Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics, Finance and the Social Sciences (eds. Bischi, G.I., Chiarella, C. and Gardini, L.), pp. 295–311. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsanakas, A. (2008) Risk measures and economic capital for (re)insurers. In Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment (eds. Melnick, E.L. and Everitt, B.S.), pp. 1556–1565. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tsanakas, A. and Desli, E. (2003) Risk measures and theories of choice. British Actuarial Journal, 9 (4), 959–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsanakas, A. and Desli, E. (2005) Measurement and pricing of risk in insurance markets. Risk Analysis, 25 (6), 1653–1668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, S.S., Young, V.R. and Panjer, H.H. (1997) Axiomatic characterization of insurance prices. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 21 (2), 173–183.Google Scholar
Yaari, M.E. (1987) The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55 (1), 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, V.R. (2004) Premium principles. In Encyclopedia of Actuarial Science (eds. Teugels, J.L. and Sundt, B.), pp. 1322–1330. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar