IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2608.09859.html

Nash Peer-to-Peer Insurance Bargaining under Price Fairness and Coalitional Stability

Author

Listed:
  • Tim J. Boonen
  • Wing Fung Chong
  • Kenneth Tsz Hin Ng
  • Tak Wa Ng

Abstract

We study peer-to-peer (P2P) insurance contracting between a risk-averse P2P reinsurer and multiple risk-averse peers in an asymmetric Nash-bargaining framework, where all agents seek to improve expected utility relative to their disagreement points. Consistent with the expected value premium principle, we impose a price-fairness condition requiring each peer's expected contribution to be based on a common loading applied to the peer's expected loss. To justify the bargaining formulation relative to a standard fixed-weight weighted-sum optimization problem, we provide an axiomatic characterization showing that the Nash bargaining solution satisfies properties well suited to voluntary P2P insurance contracting in small pools. We establish the existence and uniqueness of the optimal contract and derive first-order characterizations for the full-, partial-, and zero-reinsurance regimes. To address subgroup formation, we develop computationally tractable sufficient conditions that rule out viable coalitional deviations, both with and without price fairness. Our numerical study investigates the impact of price fairness and pool size on the optimal contract and agents' welfare. Price fairness reduces dispersion in risk allocations and certainty-equivalent loadings among peers. Regarding pool size, welfare need not increase monotonically, highlighting that risk-pool expansion depends not only on diversification but also on the evolution of bargaining power.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim J. Boonen & Wing Fung Chong & Kenneth Tsz Hin Ng & Tak Wa Ng, 2026. "Nash Peer-to-Peer Insurance Bargaining under Price Fairness and Coalitional Stability," Papers 2608.09859, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.09859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.09859
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Denuit, Michel & Robert, Christian Y., 2021. "Risk sharing under the dominant peer-to-peer property and casualty insurance business models," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2021001, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    2. Hans Peters & Eric Van Damme, 1991. "Characterizing the Nash and Raiffa Bargaining Solutions by Disagreement Point Axioms," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 447-461, August.
    3. Ng, Tak Wa & Nguyen, Thai, 2025. "Pareto efficiency and financial fairness under limited expected loss constraint," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Knut Aase, 2002. "Perspectives of Risk Sharing," Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2002(2), pages 73-128.
    5. Maxime C. Cohen & Adam N. Elmachtoub & Xiao Lei, 2022. "Price Discrimination with Fairness Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8536-8552, December.
    6. Olivier Compte & Philippe Jehiel, 2010. "The Coalitional Nash Bargaining Solution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(5), pages 1593-1623, September.
    7. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    8. Milevsky, Moshe A. & Salisbury, Thomas S., 2015. "Optimal retirement income tontines," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 91-105.
    9. Bohan Li & Wenyuan Li & Kenneth Tsz Hin Ng & Sheung Chi Phillip Yam, 2025. "Mean Field Analysis of Mutual Insurance Market," Papers 2511.12292, arXiv.org.
    10. Ng, Tak Wa & Nguyen, Thai, 2025. "Individual survivor fund account: The impact of bequest motives on tontine participation," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    11. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    12. Ghossoub, Mario & Zhu, Michael B. & Chong, Wing Fung, 2025. "Pareto-optimal peer-to-peer risk sharing with robust distortion risk measures," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 537-563, September.
    13. Denuit, Michel & Dhaene, Jan & Ghossoub, Mario & Robert, Christian Y., 2025. "Comonotonicity and Pareto optimality, with application to collaborative insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-16.
    14. Asimit, Alexandru V. & Boonen, Tim J. & Chi, Yichun & Chong, Wing Fung, 2021. "Risk sharing with multiple indemnity environments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(2), pages 587-603.
    15. Boonen, Tim J. & Chen, Ze & Hu, Wentao, 2025. "Optimal design of fixed and variable costs in peer-to-peer insurance with heterogeneous risk," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 721-746, September.
    16. Yang, Jiajie & Wei, Wei, 2025. "On the optimality of linear residual risk sharing," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 514-536, September.
    17. Boonen, Tim J. & Tan, Ken Seng & Zhuang, Sheng Chao, 2016. "Pricing In Reinsurance Bargaining With Comonotonic Additive Utility Functions," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 507-530, May.
    18. Tim J. Boonen & Wing Fung Chong & Mario Ghossoub, 2024. "Pareto‐efficient risk sharing in centralized insurance markets with application to flood risk," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 91(2), pages 449-488, June.
    19. Runhuan Feng & Chongda Liu & Stephen Taylor, 2023. "Peer-to-peer risk sharing with an application to flood risk pooling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 321(1), pages 813-842, February.
    20. Feng, Runhuan & Liu, Ming & Zhang, Ning, 2024. "A unified theory of decentralized insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 157-178.
    21. Laux, Christian & Muermann, Alexander, 2010. "Financing risk transfer under governance problems: Mutual versus stock insurers," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 333-354, July.
    22. Abdikerimova, Samal & Feng, Runhuan, 2022. "Peer-to-peer multi-risk insurance and mutual aid," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 735-749.
    23. Okada, Akira, 2010. "The Nash bargaining solution in general n-person cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2356-2379, November.
    24. Debora Daniela Escobar & Wing Fung Chong, 2026. "Pareto Optimal Centralized Risk Sharing with Multiple Agents: Inclusivity and Fairness," Papers 2606.22956, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    25. Schumacher, Johannes M., 2018. "Linear Versus Nonlinear Allocation Rules In Risk Sharing Under Financial Fairness," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 995-1024, September.
    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. Tim J. Boonen & Kenneth Tsz Hin Ng & Tak Wa Ng & Thai Nguyen, 2026. "Pareto and Bowley Reinsurance Games in Peer-to-Peer Insurance," Papers 2602.14223, arXiv.org.
    2. Heather N. Fogarty & Sooie-Hoe Loke & Nicholas F. Marshall & Enrique A. Thomann, 2026. "Optimal Risk-Sharing Rules in Network-based Decentralized Insurance," Papers 2602.05155, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    3. Mario Ghossoub & Michael B. Zhu & Wing Fung Chong, 2024. "Pareto-Optimal Peer-to-Peer Risk Sharing with Robust Distortion Risk Measures," Papers 2409.05103, arXiv.org.
    4. Feng, Runhuan & Liu, Ming & Zhang, Ning, 2024. "A unified theory of decentralized insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 157-178.
    5. Michel Denuit & Jos'e Miguel Flores-Contr'o & Christian Y. Robert, 2026. "Linear Risk Sharing in Community-Based Insurance: Ruin Reduction in the Compound Poisson Model," Papers 2603.29530, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
    6. Denuit, Michel & Robert, Christian Y., 2023. "Endowment contingency funds for mutual aid and public financing," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2023009, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    7. Feng Runhuan & Liang Zongxia & Song Yilun, 2025. "Decentralized Annuity: A Quest for the Holy Grail of Lifetime Financial Security," Papers 2502.13742, arXiv.org.
    8. Miwaka Yamashita, 2025. "Risk Measure Examination for Large Losses," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, June.
    9. Christopher Blier-Wong & Jean-Gabriel Lauzier, 2026. "Designing entry-monotone risk-sharing pools," Papers 2606.00972, arXiv.org.
    10. Chen, An & Rach, Manuel, 2023. "Actuarial fairness and social welfare in mixed-cohort tontines," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 214-229.
    11. Tim J. Boonen & Wing Fung Chong & Mario Ghossoub, 2024. "Pareto‐efficient risk sharing in centralized insurance markets with application to flood risk," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 91(2), pages 449-488, June.
    12. Denuit, Michel & Dhaene, Jan & Ghossoub, Mario & Robert, Christian Y., 2025. "Comonotonicity and Pareto optimality, with application to collaborative insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-16.
    13. Venkat Venkatasubramanian & Yu Luo, 2018. "How much income inequality is fair? Nash bargaining solution and its connection to entropy," Papers 1806.05262, arXiv.org.
    14. Michiko Ogaku, 2025. "Full Subgame-Perfect Implementation of Optimal Risk Sharing on an Infinite Menu," Papers 2505.04122, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2026.
    15. Okada, Akira & 岡田, 章, 2012. "The Stationary Equilibrium of Three-Person Cooperative Games: A Classification," Discussion Papers 2012-06, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    16. Bas Dietzenbacher & Hans Peters, 2022. "Characterizing NTU-bankruptcy rules using bargaining axioms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 871-888, November.
    17. Debora Daniela Escobar & Wing Fung Chong, 2026. "Pareto Optimal Centralized Risk Sharing with Multiple Agents: Inclusivity and Fairness," Papers 2606.22956, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    18. Michel Denuit & Christian Y. Robert, 2024. "Conditional Mean Risk Sharing of Independent Discrete Losses in Large Pools," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 1-22, December.
    19. 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.
    20. KIbrIs, Özgür & TapkI, Ipek Gürsel, 2010. "Bargaining with nonanonymous disagreement: Monotonic rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 233-241, January.

    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:2608.09859. 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: https://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.