IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Optimal insurance contract and coverage levels under loss aversion utility preference

Listed author(s):
  • Ching-Ping Wang
  • Hung-Hsi Huang
Registered author(s):

    This study develops an optimal insurance contract endogenously and determines the optimal coverage levels with respect to deductible insurance, upper-limit insurance, and proportional coinsurance, and, by assuming that the insured has an S-shaped loss aversion utility, the insured would retain the enormous losses entirely. The representative optimal insurance form is the truncated deductible insurance , where the insured retains all losses once losses exceed a critical level and adopts a particular deductible otherwise. Additionally, the effects of the optimal coverage levels are also examined with respect to benchmark wealth and loss aversion coefficient. Moreover, the efficiencies among various insurances are compared via numerical analysis by assuming that the loss obeys a uniform or log-normal distribution. In addition to optimal insurance, deductible insurance is the most efficient if the benchmark wealth is small and upper-limit insurance if large. In the case of a uniform distribution that has an upper bound, deductible insurance and optimal insurance coincide if benchmark wealth is small. Conversely, deductible insurance is never optimal for an unbounded loss such as a log-normal distribution.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Quantitative Finance.

    Volume (Year): 12 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 10 (October)
    Pages: 1615-1628

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:quantf:v:12:y:2012:i:10:p:1615-1628
    DOI: 10.1080/14697688.2011.564200
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:quantf:v:12:y:2012:i:10:p:1615-1628. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.