14.04.2013 Views

The Birth of Insurance Contracts - The Ataturk Institute for Modern ...

The Birth of Insurance Contracts - The Ataturk Institute for Modern ...

The Birth of Insurance Contracts - The Ataturk Institute for Modern ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

power U 2. 10 It is worth to note, though, that the sea loan is a corner solution. As depicted<br />

in figure 4, the financier’s indiference curve in the optimum is more sloppy than the merchant’s<br />

one, reflecting that the investor values consumption in the event <strong>of</strong> loss relatively more than the<br />

merchant. Both parties would prefer a contract with higher repayment in the case <strong>of</strong> loss, but<br />

this is not feasible because the merchant’s initial endowments are either zero or non-contractible.<br />

If the venture becomes less and less risky and costly, though, the sea loan would eventually<br />

stop being optimal. As depicted in figure 1, the slope <strong>of</strong> the financier’s indifference curve at point<br />

A would decrease (py lower) and the size <strong>of</strong> the Edgeworth Box would increase (y higher), so that<br />

˜t would substantially decrease. Furthermore, a reduction in the relative cost <strong>of</strong> the venture (k2<br />

higher and/or k lower) would also push ˜t down because <strong>of</strong> DARA. At some point inequality (11)<br />

would be violated an a pure insurance contract with τ(y) < y would emerge optimally.<br />

2.5 Optimal risk-sharing with k1 = 0 under full in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />

It has been proved that, when ventures are highly risky and costly, the sea loan emerges optimally<br />

under hidden in<strong>for</strong>mation. However, the (risk-averse) merchant undesirably undertakes all the<br />

commercial risk, τ(x) = τ(¯x) because <strong>of</strong> his inability to commit to reveal a commercial return<br />

other than the minimum verifiable (x by assumption). <strong>The</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> verifiable in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />

relaxes incentive-compatibility constraints and enables better risk-sharing commenda contracts,<br />

with τ(y) < τ(x) < τ(¯x). Yet, to explain the optimality <strong>of</strong> the commenda, one needs to account<br />

<strong>for</strong> the fact that it shares the marine risk in the very same manner as the sea loan, with τ(y) = y.<br />

With a sea loan, the financier bears as little marine risk as possible, τ(y) = y, while taking none<br />

<strong>of</strong> the commercial risk, τ(x) = τ(¯x). If this is the efficient agreement under hidden in<strong>for</strong>mation, it<br />

naturally follows that the financier will not optimally bear more marine risk once he is optimally<br />

assuming part <strong>of</strong> the commercial risk, τ(x) < τ(¯x) under full in<strong>for</strong>mation. Thus the optimality <strong>of</strong><br />

the commenda derives from that <strong>of</strong> the sea loan and can hence be linked to the venture’s risk and<br />

10 <strong>The</strong> core in this simple two-agent economy is standardly defined as the Pareto efficient individually-rational<br />

event-contingent consumption allocations. It is represented as the Pareto set that lies between the indifference<br />

curves that pass through the initial endowments, meaning the shaded interval <strong>of</strong> the Contract Curve CC or CC ′ in<br />

figures 1 to 4.<br />

13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!