Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Study illustrates that proper constraints restore comonotonic improvement in risk management, excluding ineffective caps.
Regulatory and contractual constraints on individual exposures are standard in insurance and reinsurance markets, but a poorly designed constraint can distort the economic incentives of risk-averse agents. In the unconstrained problem, the classical comonotonic improvement theorem guarantees Pareto-optimal allocations that are nondecreasing in the aggregate loss. A constraint that is not stable under risk reduction can destroy this property. We show by example that Value-at-Risk caps lead to optimal allocations that are non-comonotonic in the aggregate loss. We identify componentwise convex-order solidity as a sufficient condition on the feasible set that restores the comonotonic improvement under constraints. If replacing any agent’s allocation by a less risky one preserves feasibility, then every feasible allocation admits a feasible comonotonic improvement for all convex-order-consistent preferences. This criterion covers many constraints typical in risk management but excludes Value-at-Risk caps and idiosyncratic deductibles. We illustrate the implications of our main result in a mean-variance risk-sharing application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blier-Wong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: