We discuss the role of ambiguity in randomized reinsurance contracts, focusing on one-period stop-loss treaties. Ambiguity is modeled as an ε-contamination of a reference joint probability with respect to the class of all finitely additive joint probabilities with a fixed loss marginal distribution. In a risk management perspective, we consider an insurer that systematically adopts a pessimistic attitude towards ambiguity. This translates in computing a lower expected profit, as a Choquet integral, and in adopting an ambiguous formulation of Value-at-Risk, both determined by the lower envelope of the ε-contamination class. Next, the optimal retention level is obtained by maximizing the insurer’s lower expected profit, that is by applying a maximin criterion of choice. We provide a complete characterization of a randomized stop-loss reinsurance contract under ambiguity, and we study the impact of the ambiguity parameter ε on the optimal retention level as well as on the resulting expected profit. Finally, we highlight the existence of an ambiguity threshold above which the benefit of randomization vanishes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Petturiti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: