IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2303.02061.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The barriers to sustainable risk transfer in the cyber-insurance market

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Skeoch
  • Christos Ioannidis

Abstract

Efficient risk transfer is an important condition for ensuring the sustainability of a market according to the established economics literature. In an inefficient market, significant financial imbalances may develop and potentially jeopardise the solvency of some market participants. The constantly evolving nature of cyber-threats and lack of public data sharing mean that the economic conditions required for quoted cyber-insurance premiums to be considered efficient are highly unlikely to be met. This paper develops Monte Carlo simulations of an artificial cyber-insurance market and compares the efficient and inefficient outcomes based on the informational setup between the market participants. The existence of diverse loss distributions is justified by the dynamic nature of cyber-threats and the absence of any reliable and centralised incident reporting. It is shown that the limited involvement of reinsurers when loss expectations are not shared leads to increased premiums and lower overall capacity. This suggests that the sustainability of the cyber-insurance market requires both better data sharing and external sources of risk tolerant capital.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Skeoch & Christos Ioannidis, 2023. "The barriers to sustainable risk transfer in the cyber-insurance market," Papers 2303.02061, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2303.02061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.02061
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Costis Skiadas, 2013. "Smooth Ambiguity Aversion toward Small Risks and Continuous-Time Recursive Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(4), pages 000.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rhys Bidder & Ian Dew-Becker, 2016. "Long-Run Risk Is the Worst-Case Scenario," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2494-2527, September.
    2. Fahrenwaldt, Matthias Albrecht & Jensen, Ninna Reitzel & Steffensen, Mogens, 2020. "Nonrecursive separation of risk and time preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 95-108.
    3. Albrecht, E & Baum, Günter & Birsa, R & Bradamante, F & Bressan, A & Chapiro, A & Cicuttin, A & Ciliberti, P & Colavita, A & Costa, S & Crespo, M & Cristaudo, P & Dalla Torre, S & Diaz, V & Duic, V &, 2010. "Results from COMPASS RICH-1," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 535, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    4. Constantin Anghelache & Alexandru Manole & Madalina Anghel & Mugurel Popovici & Marius Popovici, 2016. "Significant aspects regarding the analysis of bankruptcy risk," Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 64(9), pages 81-87, September.
    5. Guan, Guohui & Hu, Xiang, 2022. "Equilibrium mean–variance reinsurance and investment strategies for a general insurance company under smooth ambiguity," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Larry G. Epstein & Shaolin Ji, 2022. "Optimal Learning Under Robustness and Time-Consistency," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 70(3), pages 1317-1329, May.
    7. Asano, Takao & Osaki, Yusuke, 2021. "Optimal investment under ambiguous technology shocks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(1), pages 304-311.
    8. Wong, Kit Pong, 2016. "Ambiguity and the multinational firm," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 404-414.
    9. Chabakauri, Georgy, 2015. "Dynamic equilibrium with rare events and heterogeneous epstein-zin investors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62003, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Kit Pong Wong, 2015. "A Smooth Ambiguity Model Of The Competitive Firm," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(S1), pages 97-110, December.
    11. Michael Greinecker & Christoph Kuzmics, 2022. "Limit Orders and Knightian Uncertainty," Papers 2208.10804, arXiv.org.
    12. Chabakauri, Georgy, 2015. "Dynamic equilibrium with rare events and heterogeneous Epstein-Zin investors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60737, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Lars Peter Hansen & Jianjun Miao, 2022. "Asset pricing under smooth ambiguity in continuous time," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(2), pages 335-371, September.
    14. Balter, Anne G. & Mahayni, Antje & Schweizer, Nikolaus, 2021. "Time-consistency of optimal investment under smooth ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 643-657.
    15. Suzuki, Masataka, 2018. "Continuous-time smooth ambiguity preferences," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 30-44.
    16. Nicole Bauerle & Antje Mahayni, 2023. "Optimal investment in ambiguous financial markets with learning," Papers 2303.08521, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    17. Larry G. Epstein & Shaolin Ji, 2017. "Optimal Learning and Ellsberg’s Urns," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2017-010, Boston University - Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2303.02061. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.