Uncertainty and Insurance3) There are 3 agents, one risk averse, another risk neutral, and the third is risk preferring. Theyeach have $9 in wealth and face a 5/9 probability of losing all $9 of their wealth. Their utilityfunctions are:1Risk Averse Agent: U(W) = 5/w = 5 W 2Risk Neutral Agent: U(W)=(2×W)+33Risk Preferring Agent: U(W)= 2 W 2For each agent, compute their expected utilities under the risky situation and if they purchasedactuarially fair insurance. Decide whether they would prefer to buy the insurance, be indifferent,or prefer the risky situation to being insured.

Given information 3 agents are given Utility functions of all 3 agents Each agent has wealth = $9…

Uncertainty and Insurance 3) There are 3 agents, one risk averse, another risk neutral, and the third is risk preferring. They each have $9 in wealth and face a 5/9 probability of losing all $9 of their wealth. Their utility functions are: Risk Averse Agent: U(W)= 5/w = 5 W 2 %3D Risk Neutral Agent: U(W)=(2×W)+3 Risk Preferring Agent: U(W)= 2| w 2 For each agent, compute their expected utilities under the risky situation and if they purchased actuarially fair insurance. Decide whether they would prefer to buy the insurance, be indifferent, or prefer the risky situation to being insured.

Uncertainty and Insurance 3) There are 3 agents, one risk averse, another risk neutral, and the third is risk preferring. They each have $9 in wealth and face a 5/9 probability of losing all $9 of their wealth. Their utility functions are: Risk Averse Agent: U(W)= 5/w = 5 W 2 %3D Risk Neutral Agent: U(W)=(2×W)+3 Risk Preferring Agent: U(W)= 2| w 2 For each agent, compute their expected utilities under the risky situation and if they purchased actuarially fair insurance. Decide whether they would prefer to buy the insurance, be indifferent, or prefer the risky situation to being insured.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter7: Uncertainty

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 7.11P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

V7 Consider a owner-manager problem in which πgross = 2e + ε [manager has control over e, ε are factors outside of manager’s control, ε~N(0,σ2 )] The owner pays the manager a salary of s out of the gross profits. Manager’s cost of effort = e2 /2. Manager has constant risk aversion utility function. σ 2 = 4 A = 1 a) What is the first-best outcome for manager utility, manager effort, and net profits of the owner? b) Now consider that the owner cannot observe manager effort and offers a salary tied to gross profits: s(πgross) = a + b πgross What is the second-best outcome for manager utility, manager effort, and net profits of the owner?
Mf. Mean variance utility defines risk using certainty equivalent wealth. The lower the certainty equivalent wealth, the lower the mean variance utility. uestion Select one: O True O False Under constant relative risk aversion, the lower the certainty equivalent wealth is than the average wealth of a lottery the riskier the lottery. Select one: O True O False Given a normally distributed risky asset and a risk free asset, a person with a lower CRRA risk aversion coefficient will put less in the risk free asset than a person with a higher CRRA risk aversion. Select one: O True O False Greater risk aversion means a plot of utility vs. wealth would look less curved. Select one: O True O False The greater the wealth, the less the utility of the next dollar of wealth. Select one: O True O False People don't like risk because it means they get poorer when they're poorer and richer when they're rich. In fact, a financial security…
Microeconomics Wilfred’s expected utility function is px1^0.5+(1−p)x2^0.5, where p is the probability that he consumes x1 and 1 - p is the probability that he consumes x2. Wilfred is offered a choice between getting a sure payment of $Z or a lottery in which he receives $2500 with probability p = 0.4 and $3700 with probability 1 - p. Wilfred will choose the sure payment if Z > CE and the lottery if Z < CE, where the value of CE is equal to ___ (please round your final answer to two decimal places if necessary)
Suppose that there are two types of entrepreneur: skilled and unskilled. Skilled entrepreneurs have a probability p = 2/3 of success if they get the loan. Unskilled entrepreneurs have zero chance of being successful. Despite that, assume that unskilled entrepreneurs want to take up the loan, because it is cool to say you have a startup. The bank does not observe skill. The share of skilled entrepreneurs is s. Question 1: 1A). TRUE OR FALSE: If L = 2, R = 6, and s = 0.5, then the bank would have zero expected profits, but entrepreneurs would never take up the loan. 1B. ) TRUE OR FALSE: If the loan amount is L = 2, the payback amount is R = 3, and the share of skilled entrepreneurs is s = 0.9, then the bank will have positive expected profits.
Y5 Alfred is a risk-averse person with $100 in monetary wealth and owns a house worth $300, for total wealth of $400. The probability that his house is destroyed by fire (equivalent to a loss of $300) is pne = 0.5. If he exerts an effort level e = 0.3 to keep his house safe, the probability falls to pe = 0.2. His utility function is: U = w0.5 – e where e is effort level exerted (zero in the case of no effort and 0.3 in the case of effort).a. In the absence of insurance, does Alfred exert effort to lower the probability of fire?HINT: Calculate and compare the expected utility i) with effort, and ii) without effort. If effort is exerted, then the effort cost is paid regardless of whether or not a fire occurs.b. Alfred is considering buying fire insurance. The insurance agent explains that a home owner’s insurance policy would require paying a premium α and would repay the value of the house in the event of fire, minus a deductible “D”. [A deductible is an amount of money that the…
Consider the model of competitive insurance. Peter is a risk averse individual with the utility function u(w) = w0.5. His current wealth is $300 and with probability 1/2 he will incur a loss of D = $240, but with probability 1/2 he will incur no loss. Ann has the same utility u(w) = w0.5 and current wealth $300 as Peter, but a different probability of loss: she will incur a loss of D = $240 with probability 0.3, and no loss with probability 0.7. In the separating equilibrium Peter is offered actuarially fair full insurance contract, so his wealth is equal to $180, whether loss happens or not. What amount of insurance (approximately) will Ann be offered an insurance contract with?
When the second order derivative of a function is greater than zero than the agent is risk lover. question; Asses the risk attitude of an agent represented by the expected utility function u(x)= 2x2-5. However my course material writes that this agent is risk neutral because it is affine. My question is that whys is this so despite the fact that the second order derivative is '4' which is >0. Kindly explain this to me with complete steps.
Suppose that Winnie the Pooh and Eeyore have the same value function: v(x) = x1/2 for gains and v(x) = -2(|x|)1/2 for losses. The two are also facing the same choice, between (S) $1 for sure and (G) a gamble with a 25% chance of winning $4 and a 75% chance of winning nothing. Winnie the Pooh and Eeyore both subjectively weight probabilities correctly. Winnie the Pooh codes all outcomes as gains; that is, he takes as his reference point winning nothing. For Pooh: What is the value of S? What is the value of G? Which would he choose? Eeyore codes all outcomes as losses; that is, he takes as his reference point winning $4. For Eeyore: What is the value of S? What is the value of G? Which would he choose?
Assume that there are two parties, I and V. I engages in an activity that tends to injure V. V and I both can take care to reduce the expected harm from accidents. Specifically, suppose that if I takes no care (i.e., spends $0 on accident precautions), expected injury to V is $250. If I spends $40 on accident precautions, however, the expected injury to V is reduced to $175. Further suppose that V has a choice between taking no care or spending $50 in care to avoid accidents. If V spends $50 in care, V’s expected harm falls by $20 regardless of the level of care that I takes. Assume that courts adopt the socially‐optimal level of injurer care as the negligence standard. That is, if I takes less than the socially‐optimal level of care, she will be found negligent and must pay for all damages to V. If I takes at least the socially optimal level of care, she will not have to compensate V for his damages. 1. Under a negligence standard, what is I’s dominant strategy? a) I does not have a…
Use the following information for questions 12-14. Assume that there are two parties, I and V. I engages in an activity that tends to injure V. V and I both can take care to reduce the expected harm from accidents. Specifically, suppose that if I takes no care (i.e., spends $0 on accident precautions), expected injury to V is $25. If I spends $5 on accident precautions, however, the expected injury to V is reduced to $18. Further suppose that V has a choice between taking no care or spending $4 in care to avoid accidents. If V spends $4 in care, V’s expected harm falls by $2 regardless of the level of care that I takes. Assume that courts adopt the socially-optimal level of injurer care as the negligence standard. That is, if I takes less than the socially-optimal level of care, she will be found negligent and must pay for all damages toV. If I takes at least the socially optimal level of care, she will not have to compensate V for his damages. Under a negligence standard, what is…
Use the following information for questions 12-14. Assume that there are two parties, I and V. I engages in an activity that tends to injure V. V and I both can take care to reduce the expected harm from accidents. Specifically, suppose that if I takes no care (i.e., spends $0 on accident precautions), expected injury to V is $25. If I spends $5 on accident precautions, however, the expected injury to V is reduced to $18. Further suppose that V has a choice between taking no care or spending $4 in care to avoid accidents. If V spends $4 in care, V’s expected harm falls by $2 regardless of the level of care that I takes. Assume that courts adopt the socially-optimal level of injurer care as the negligence standard. That is, if I takes less than the socially-optimal level of care, she will be found negligent and must pay for all damages toV. If I takes at least the socially optimal level of care, she will not have to compensate V for his damages. Under a negligence standard, what are…
Use the following information for questions 12-14. Assume that there are two parties, I and V. I engages in an activity that tends to injure V. V and I both can take care to reduce the expected harm from accidents. Specifically, suppose that if I takes no care (i.e., spends $0 on accident precautions), expected injury to V is $25. If I spends $5 on accident precautions, however, the expected injury to V is reduced to $18. Further suppose that V has a choice between taking no care or spending $4 in care to avoid accidents. If V spends $4 in care, V’s expected harm falls by $2 regardless of the level of care that I takes. Assume that courts adopt the socially-optimal level of injurer care as the negligence standard. That is, if I takes less than the socially-optimal level of care, she will be found negligent and must pay for all damages to V. If I takes at least the socially optimal level of care, she will not have to compensate V for his damages. What is the Nash equilibrium of this…