跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要围绕保险市场的条件独立性检验展开,未明确涉及离散选择、结构估计或所列金融风险方向,因此暂不分类。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Liangjun Su
Martin Spindler

非对称信息的非参数检验

研究问题
在保险市场中,如何避免函数形式或分布关系设定错误导致误判,并用非参数方法检测风险与保障选择背后的非对称信息?
方法与思路
作者从条件独立性检验出发,构造适用于多种情形的非参数非对称信息检验,并用蒙特卡洛模拟及汽车保险、长期护理保险数据评估其表现。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称法国汽车保险应用未发现非对称信息证据;美国长期护理保险应用仅用保险公司可获信息便检出该现象,来源分析倾向于风险偏好。
阅读关注点
重点核对条件独立性与非对称信息之间的对应条件、检验统计量和控制变量选择,以及模拟设计;检查长期护理保险中风险偏好解释的证据。
阅读边界
摘要未说明显著性水平、检验功效及具体条件变量;未发现证据不等于不存在非对称信息,风险偏好解释也需核对实证依据。

原文摘要

Asymmetric information is an important phenomenon in many markets and in particular in insurance markets. Testing for asymmetric information has become a very important issue in the literature in the last two decades. Almost all testing procedures that are used in empirical studies are parametric, which may yield misleading conclusions in the case of misspecification of either functional or distributional relationships among the variables of interest. Motivated by the literature on testing conditional independence, we propose a new nonparametric test for asymmetric information, which is applicable in a variety of situations. We demonstrate that the test works reasonably well through Monte Carlo simulations and apply it to an automobile insurance dataset and a long-term care insurance (LTCI) dataset. Our empirical results consolidate Chiappori and Salanié’s findings that there is no evidence for the presence of asymmetric information in the French automobile insurance market. While Finkelstein and McGarry found no positive correlation between risk and coverage in the LTCI market in the United States, our test detects asymmetric information using only the information that is available to the insurance company, and our investigation of the source of asymmetric information suggests some sort of asymmetric information that is related to risk preferences as opposed to risk types and thus lends support to Finkelstein and McGarry.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文