The name is absent



in a bilateral relationship, b* and c*. We observe that difference is based on a pure price effect. The overall
implicit loading r is strictly lower than in the bilateral case if and only if

(1 + γ)p (1 - q) 1.

We thus have to examine the comparative statics of the transfer b and coverage c under changes of the
implicit loading. Insurance can be a Giffen good under decreasing absolute risk aversion if the income
effect outweighs the substitution effect. To abstract away from those wealth effects, we assume that the
policyholder’s preferences exhibit constant absolute risk aversion (CARA). Under this assumption, the
following proposition shows that coverage for both verifiable and non-verifiable losses can be obtained more
efficiently through the broker than under the bilateral case.

Proposition 3 Suppose that policyholder’s preferences exhibit CARA and that (1 + γ) p (1 - q) 1. Then
rbr > r.  Furthermore, b*r > b* and cbr > c* for all r < rbr and b*r = b* = 0 and cbr = c* for all r rbr.

Proof. See Appendix A.2. ■

These results show that the brokers can play an important coordinating mechanism in securing the
incomplete contract. In particular, by pooling risk and using the hold up power form their whole book of
business, the broker can secure implicit coverage for the non-verifiable loss on more advantageous terms and
this will lead to a higher values of
b* and c* .

5 Summary and Comments on Contingent Commissions

The propositions are summarized in Figure 1. Without brokers, a transfer payment of the non verifiable
loss,
b* , is negotiated but it is bounded by the future rents on the policy which might be small. The present
value of these rents is of course interest rate sensitive, and the transfers are diminishing in the interest rate
and eventually disappear. These rents are bestowed on the insurer (even under competition) to create the
hold-up required for the ex post transfer for non verifiable losses. The downside to the rents is that the
insurance on non-verifiable losses is actuarially unfair and therefore only partially insured,
b* <L.This
creates a negative spill-over effect on insurance of verifiable losses. To reduce the gap in marginal utilities,
it is optimal to also partially insure verifiable losses,
c* <L. As explicit insurance is relatively cheaper than

16



More intriguing information

1. Mean Variance Optimization of Non-Linear Systems and Worst-case Analysis
2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Valuing Access to our Public Lands: A Unique Public Good Pricing Experiment
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. An Investigation of transience upon mothers of primary-aged children and their school
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. A Study of Prospective Ophthalmology Residents’ Career Perceptions
11. Group cooperation, inclusion and disaffected pupils: some responses to informal learning in the music classroom
12. Dual Inflation Under the Currency Board: The Challenges of Bulgarian EU Accession
13. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control*
14. Electricity output in Spain: Economic analysis of the activity after liberalization
15. Does adult education at upper secondary level influence annual wage earnings?
16. The name is absent
17. Labour Market Institutions and the Personal Distribution of Income in the OECD
18. DURABLE CONSUMPTION AS A STATUS GOOD: A STUDY OF NEOCLASSICAL CASES
19. Evolution of cognitive function via redeployment of brain areas
20. EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES