Assume that your utility has a natural log function U(W)=ln(W), which is a concave function. Your car is worth $10,000 and your total wealth is $20,000 including the car. There is a 5% chance that a major accident occurs and you have a total loss of $10,000; a 10% chance that a minor accident occurs and you have a loss of $500; 85% chance you will not have any accident. Given these assumptions, how much are you willing to pay for an insurance that provides full coverage against car accidents?

Assume that your utility has a natural log function U(W)=ln(W), which is a concave function. Your car is worth $10,000 and your total wealth is $20,000 including the car. There is a 5% chance that a major accident occurs and you have a total loss of $10,000; a 10% chance that a minor accident occurs and you have a loss of $500; 85% chance you will not have any accident. Given these assumptions, how much are you willing to pay for an insurance that provides full coverage against car accidents?

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter7: Uncertainty

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 7.1P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Leo owns one share of Anteras, a semiconductor chip company which may have to recall millions of chips. The stock currently trades at $100/share. Leo believes the probability that they have to recall the chips is 50%. If the chips have to be recalled, the stock price will be cut in half, but otherwise it will remain $100. The expected value of Leo's share is ______ Assume Leo has the utility function, U(X)=√X. The minimum price Leo would accept to sell his share is _______ Leo's risk premium is ________
Suppose your utility function for money is a square-root function of its value in US dollars. So, for instance, $400 is worth 20 utils for you, $961 is worth 31 utils for you, and $62.5K is worth 250 utils for you. Now, let’s say your annual salary is $90K, although there is a small risk (p = 0.05) that something catastrophic will happen and reduce your income for the year to $14.4K. An insurance company comes along and offers to insure you against the loss of your salary. The cost of the insurance is $4,736. If you buy the policy and catastrophe strikes, the insurance company will pay out the $75,600 that you would otherwise have lost. From the standpoint of maximizing expected utility, would buying this insurance be a good deal for you? What would be the insurance company’s expected monetary value of selling you the policy?
. Priyanka has an income of £90,000 and is a von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility maximiser with von Neumann-Morgenstern utility index u(x) √x . There is a 1 % probability that there is flooding damage at her house. The repair of the damage would cost £80,000 which would reduce the income to £10,000. a) Would Priyanka be willing to spend £500 to purchase an insurance policy that would fully insure her against this loss? Explain.
Calculate the expected utility of John when he faces the risky prospect X = {1, 2, 3, 4; 0.2, 0.4, 0.4, 0.2} . His utility function is u(x) = 4 ln x, where x is wealth and ln represents the natural log. (Use two decimals)
A consumer has the following utility function u(x)= root x where x is the consumer’s total wealth. The consumer's total wealth is the consumer’s cash plus the value of her house. The consumer has $400 in cash (risk free) plus a house. The house is currently worth $756. With probability 70% nothing happens, and the value of the house stays the same. With probability 30%, high winds will cause $580 in damages to the house (in which case, the house value becomes $176). An insurance company offers to fully insure the house at an insurance premium p. What is the maximum insurance premium that the consumer is willing to pay? The consumer is willing to pay at most p=. The fair insurance premium is . In this example, the associated risk premium is .
Please draw a utility function that exhibits risk-loving behavior for small gambles (low values)and risk-averse behavior for larger gambles (high value).
Please answer true or false for each of the following statements. A risk-averse consumer has increasing marginal utility. A risk-neutral consumer is willing to pay a positive risk-premium to avoid risk. A risk-neutral consumer has a linear utility function. A risk-loving consumer has a convex utility function. A risk-averse consumer can increase her expected utility by buying multiple stocks whose outcomes are not closely related, instead of buying only one stock.
Priyanka has an income of £90,000 and is a von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility maximiser with von Neumann-Morgenstern utility index u(x) = square root x . There is a 1 % probability that there is flooding damage at her house. The repair of the damage would cost £80,000 which would reduce the income to £10,000. a) Would Priyanka be willing to spend £500 to purchase an insurance policy that would fully insure her against this loss? Explain
The von-Neumann Morgenstern utility function is of the form u(e) - In(e). There is a lottery over consumption outcomes: with probability 0.3, the consumption will be 1 and with probability 0.7 the consumption will be 3; Compute the risk premium (round to 2 decimals).
Show that a decision maker who has a linear utilityfunction will rank two lotteries according to their expectedvalue.
. Priyanka has an income of £90,000 and is a von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility maximiser with von Neumann-Morgenstern utility index . There is a 1 % probability that there is flooding damage at her house. The repair of the damage would cost £80,000 which would reduce the income to £10,000. a) Would Priyanka be willing to spend £500 to purchase an insurance policy that would fully insure her against this loss? Explain.
A risk-averse manager is considering two projects. The first project involves expanding the market for bologna; the second involves expanding the market for caviar. There is a 10 percent chance of a recession and a 90 percent chance of an economic boom. During a boom, the bologna project will lose $10,000, whereas the caviar project will earn $20,000. During a recession, the bologna project will earn $12,000 and the caviar project will lose $8,000. If the alternative is earning $3,000 on a safe asset (say, a Treasury bill), what should the manager do? Why?