IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wri/journl/v38y2015i1p72-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Risk-Based Mechanism Always Better? The Risk-Shifting Behavior of Insurers under Different Guarantee Schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Ming (Ivy) Dong
  • Helmut Gruendl
  • Sebastian Schluetter

Abstract

Insurance guarantee schemes (IGSs) aim to protect policyholders from thecosts of insurer insolvencies. However, IGSs can also reduce the incentives of insurersto conduct appropriate risk management. We investigate the risk-taking behavior of astock insurer under insurance guarantee schemes with two different financing alter-natives: a flat-rate premium assessment versus a risk-based premium assessment.Previous studies indicate that the flat-rate premium assessment can induce insurers totake more risks, a problem that can be resolved under the risk-based premiumassessment. Our results show that the risk-taking incentive of the insurer can also occurunder the risk-based IGS. The risk-based mechanism is superior to the flat-rate oneonly if an appropriate premium loading is included. Furthermore, we identify whichIGS leads to higher policyholders’ welfare, measured by their expected utility. We findthat the risk-based IGS can be more advantageous in improving the policyholders’welfare due to the limited risk of the insurer, compared to the flat-rate IGS.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming (Ivy) Dong & Helmut Gruendl & Sebastian Schluetter, 2015. "Is the Risk-Based Mechanism Always Better? The Risk-Shifting Behavior of Insurers under Different Guarantee Schemes," Journal of Insurance Issues, Western Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 38(1), pages 72-95.
    • Handle: RePEc:wri:journl:v:38:y:2015:i:1:p:72-95
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.insuranceissues.org/PDFs/381DGS.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:wri:journl:v:38:y:2015:i:1:p:72-95. 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: James Barrese (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.