arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 30 Mar 2014

Transcription

1 Binomial discrete time ruin probability with Parisian delay Irmina Czarna Zbigniew Palmowski Przemys law Świ atek October 8, 2018 arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 30 Mar 2014 Abstract. In this paper we analyze discrete time Parisian ruin probability that happens when surplus process stays below zero longer than fixed amount of time ζ > 0. We identify expressions for the ruin probabilities with finite and infinite-time horizon. We find also their asymptotics when reserves tends to infinity. Finally, we calculate these probabilities for a few explicit examples. Keywords: discrete time risk process, ruin probability, asymptotics, Parisian ruin. MSC 2000: 60J99, 93E20, 60G51. 1 Introduction In risk theory we usually consider the classical risk process: where u > 0 denotes the initial reserve, t = 1, 2, 3,... and R t = u + t S t, (1) S t = t Y i (2) i=1 We assume that Y i, (i = 1, 2,...) are i.i.d distributed claims. We will denote P(Y 1 = n) = p n for n = 0, 1, 2,... and we will assume µ = E(Y 1 ) < 1, hence R t + a.s. Risk process starts from R 0 = u and later we will use convention P( R 0 = u) = P u ( ) and P 0 = P. One of the most important characteristics in a risk theory is a finite-time ruin probability defined by P u (T 0 < t) for the ruin time T 0 = inf{t 0 : R t 0}. In this paper we extend this notion to so-called Parisian ruin probability, that occurs if the process X stays below zero for a longer period than a fixed ζ {1, 2,...}. Formally, we define Parisian ruin time by: τ ζ = inf{n N : n sup{s < n : R s > 0} > ζ, R n 0} and we consider Parisian ruin probabilities P u (τ ζ < t) and P u (τ ζ < ). The case ζ = 0 corresponds to classical ruin problem and we do not deal with this case here. The name for this problem is borrowed from Parisian option, where prices are activated or canceled depending on type of option if underlying asset stays above or below barrier long enough in a row (see [1, 8, 10]). We believe that Parisian ruin probability could be a better measure of risk in many situations giving possibility for insurance company to get solvency. So far the Parisian ruin probability has been considered only in a continuous-time setting. In particular, Dassios and Wu [10] analyze the classical risk process (1) with exponential claims and for the Brownian motion with drift. Dassios Department of Mathematics, University of Wroc law, pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, Wroc law, Poland, irmina.czarna@gmail.com Department of Mathematics, University of Wroc law, pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, Wroc law, Poland, zbigniew.palmowski@gmail.com Department of Mathematics, University of Wroc law, pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, Wroc law, Poland, przemek.swiatek@gmail.com 1

2 and Wu [11] found also Cramér-type asymptotics for this risk process. Czarna and Palmowski [9] and Loeffen et al. [17] extended these results to the case of a general spectrally negative Lévy process using the fluctuation theory (see also [15] concerning an exponential Parisian delay). The main goal of this paper is to derive discrete-time counterparts of above results and propose efficient numerical procedure of finding Parisian finite-time ruin probability. This paper is organized as follows. In Sections 2 and 3 we give main representation of Parisian ruin probabilities. In Sections 4 and 5 we give asymptotics of Parisian ruin probability both in Cramér and heavy-tailed cases. Finally, in Section 6 we analyze a few particular examples. 2 Main representation We will use the following facts: Fact 1 (Seal-type formula) We have P u (T 0 = 1) = P(Y 1 u + 1) and for t 1: u+t 1 u+t 1 u+t 1 P u (T 0 t + 1) = p t j p (j u) t + u n j t + u j p (t+u j) n j, (3) j=0 j=u+1 n=j where {p t n, n N} denotes the t-th convolution of the law of Y 1. Proof See [16, Prop. 2.4]. Fact 2 For s 1 we have: P u (T 0 = s, R T0 = z) = = u+s 2 n=0 u+s 2 u+s 2 n=0 p (s 1) n p u+s n+z n n=u+1 j=u+1 P u (T 0 > s 1, S s 1 = n)p u+s n+z s 1 + u n s 1 + u j p (s 1+u j) n j p (j u) j p u+s n+z. (4) Proof The first equality is a straightforward consequence of Markov property. The second equality follows from decomposition of a trajectory of R n into two parts and using [16, Lem. 2.3]. Let τ x = inf{n : R n = x}. The main representation is given in the next theorem. Theorem 1 For u 1 the recursive representation of the finite-time Parisian ruin probability is given as follows. For t ζ + 1 we have P u (τ ζ t) = 1. For t ζ + 2: P u (τ ζ t) = P u (T 0 t ζ) + t ζ 1 s=1 ζ ω 1 P u (T 0 = s, R T0 = z)p(τ z+1 = ω)p 1 (τ ζ t ω s), ω=1 z=0 (5) where P(τ x = ω) = x ω P(R ω = x) = x ω p ω ω x (6) and P u (T 0 t) and P u (T 0 = s, R T0 = z) are given in Facts 1 and 2, respectively. 2

3 Proof The statement for t ζ + 1 is obvious. For t ζ + 2 the Parisian ruin will occur after time t if and only if one of two separate scenarios will happen. In the first one the classical ruin time T 0 will happen after time t ζ. In the second scenario we can decompose possible trajectory that will go below zero into two parts: one up to recovery time and one after it. Precisely, the first piece of this trajectory at the moment of classical ruin time T 0 {1,..., t ζ 1} has the undershoot of 0 of size, say, z < 0 and then it continues to level 1. This excursion from z must have length ω < ζ. Otherwise we will have Parisian ruin before time t. The second part of the above mentioned trajectory starts at 1 and avoids Parisian ruin over the left period of time up to t, namely t ω s. This observation and the strong Markov property will produce formula (5). Equality (6) follows from Kendalls identity for a random walk having property that it can jump over previous maxima by 1 (see [12, eq. (9.3), p. 424], [2] and [5, Cor. VII.3]). Remark 1 To compute probability given in (5) for u 2 we start from counting P 1 (τ ζ t) using the algorithm given in Theorem 1 for u = 1. 3 Infinite-time horizon Fact 3 We have: Proof See [16, Cor. 2.8]. P u (T 0 < ) = (1 µ) j=u+1 p (j u) j. (7) Theorem 2 For u 1 the representation of infinite-time horizon Parisian ruin probability is given by: P u (τ ζ < ) = (1 µ) where P 1 (τ ζ < ) = j=u+1 p (j u) j ( 1 P 1 (τ ζ < ) ) ζ 1 P u (T 0 <, R T0 = z)p(τ z+1 ζ), (8) z=0 P 1 (T 0 < ) ζ 1 1 ζ 1 z=0 z=0 P 1 (T 0 <, R T0 = z)p(τ z+1 ζ). (9) P 1 (T 0 <, R T0 = z)p(τ z+1 ζ) Proof Taking it t in formula (5) produces equation: P u (τ ζ < ) = P u (T 0 < ) ( 1 P 1 (τ ζ < ) ) ζ ω 1 P u (T 0 = s, R T0 = z)p(τ z+1 = ω), (10) s=1 ω=1 z=0 where P u (T 0 < ) is given in Fact 3. Now we can use the following identity ζ 1 P u (T 0 <, R T0 = z)p(τ z+1 ζ) z=0 = ζ ω 1 P u (T 0 = s, R T0 = z)p(τ z+1 = ω). s=1 ω=1 z=0 to get (8). To obtain (9) we apply (8) with u = 1. 3

4 4 Cramér s estimate In this section we derive the exponential asymptotics of the Parisian ruin probability. For all β 0 we define moment-generating function ϕ(β) := log E(e βr1 ) = β+log ( E(e βy ) ), where Y is a generic claim size and E is expectation with respect of P. We will consider also dual random walk R n = R n with a generic increment U = Y 1. Note that P u (T 0 < ) = P(max k 1 Rn > u). Let L 1 n be the number of times new maxima are reached within n steps of R, L n = inf{k 1 : k = n} be the number of steps required to achieve n new maxima and Ĥn = R Ln be the n-th new maxima of R. In other words, let { L n, Ĥn), n N} be a ladder height process of R. Assume Cramér conditions that there exists γ > 0 satisfying: and that L 1 ϕ( γ) = 0 (11) ϕ ( γ) <. (12) From [4, Th and , p. 365] (in a lattice version) we can get the following Cramér asymptotics of classical ruin probability. Fact 4 If we assume Cramér conditions (11) and (12), we have: u,u N eγu P u (T 0 < ) = C (13) for Proof It suffices to prove that C = 1 µ ϕ ( γ). 1 P( L 1 < ) C = (1 e γ )E [Ĥ1 e γĥ1, L ]. (14) 1 < ) For process R we can define weakly ascending height process {L n, H n ), n N}. Note that H 1 = (1 p 0 )δ 0 + p 0 δ 1. From the Wiener-Hopf factorization [4, p. 234]: Moreover from (15) with θ 0 we have [ 1 E e θĥ1, L ] 1 < = 1 eϕ(θ) (1 e θ. (15) )p 0 1 P( L 1 < ) = ϕ (0+) = (1 µ)/p 0. (16) Taking derivative at θ = γ of the above equation (15) and plugging this result and (16) into the right-hand side of the equation (14) completes the proof. Moreover, we can get also the following fact. Fact 5 If we assume Cramér condition (11) for θ > γ we have: E [ u e θr T0 T0 < ] = D(θ) (17) u,u N for D(θ) = (1 e ϕ( θ) )(1 e γ ) (1 µ)(1 e θ )(1 e (γ+θ) ). 4

5 Proof Observe first that: [ E u e θr T0 T0 < ] [ = E e θ( R Tu u) T ] u <, where T u = inf{k N : R k > u}. Define Esscher transform via: dp c u = E n (c) dp u E 0 (c) Fn (18) for any c for which Ee c R 1 <, where E n (c) = exp{c R n ϕ ( c) n} is the exponential martingale under P u. From [4, Th and , p. 365] we have also that [ E e θ( R Tu u) T ] [ ] [ ] u < = u,u N u,u N Eγ e (θ+γ)( R Tu u) /E γ e γ( R Tu u). From [4, Th. VIII.2.1, p. 224] we have that [ ] u,u N Eγ e θ( R Tu u) = = 1 E γĥ e θk (1 P γ (Ĥ1 k)) 1 k=0 [ 1 E e (γ θ)ĥ1, L ] 1 < [ (1 e θ )E e γĥ1ĥ 1, L ]. 1 < Identity (15) completes now the proof. Let Φ( ) be the inverse of ϕ. We are ready now to state the main result of this section. Theorem 3 Under the Cramér condition (11) we have: where for θ > ϕ(γ): u,u N eγu P u (τ ζ < ) = C [ 1 (1 P 1 (τ ζ < ))f(ζ) ]. e kθ f(k) = e Φ(θ) (1 e θ D(Φ(θ)). (19) ) k=0 and P 1 (τ ζ < ) is given in Theorem 2. Proof To find Cramér asymptotics (19) we use equations (19) and (8), Fact 5 for the function f(k) = k 1 z=0 P u( R T0 = z T 0 < )P(τ z+1 ζ). (20) u,u N To prove (19) note that by summing-by-parts formula: e kθ 1 P(τ z+1 k) = (1 e θ e (k+1)θ P(τ z+1 = k + 1) ) k=0 = E(e θτz+1, τ z+1 < ) (1 e θ ) k=0 = e Φ(θ)(z+1) (1 e θ ), where we use Optional Stopping Theorem to the martingale E n (Φ(θ)) and τ z. Hence e kθ f(k) k=0 = = e Φ(θ) ( ) (1 e θ ) E u e Φ(θ)R T 0 T0 < u,u N e Φ(θ) (1 e θ ) D(Φ(θ)). 5

6 5 Heavy-tailed estimate In this section we will assume that generic claim size has a heavy-tailed distribution. In particular, we assume that the distribution {p n, n N} of Y belongs to the class S (α). That class is defined as follows. Definition 1 (Class L (α), lattice case of span 1) For a parameter α 0 we say that distribution function G on N with tail G = 1 G belongs to class L (α) if (i) G(k) > 0 for each k N, (ii) n G(n 1) G(n) = e α. Definition 2 (Class S (α), lattice case of span 1) We say that G belongs to class S (α) if (i) G L (α), (ii) k=0 eαk (G(k) G(k 1)) <, (iii) for some M 0 <, we have where G 2 (u) = 1 G 2 (u) and denotes convolution. G 2 (u) = 2M 0, (21) u,u N G(u) Let F (k) = k l=0 p l and F I (k) = 1 k µ l=0 F (l), k N. From now on we will assume that either F I S (0) (22) or F S (α), α > 0. (23) Fact 6 If (22) holds then If (23) holds then where P u (T 0 < ) u,u N µ 1 µ F = 1. I(u) P u (T 0 < ) = 1, u,u N KF (u) K = (1 µ)(1 e α ) (1 e ϕ( α) ) 2. (24) Proof For the case α = 0 observe that the ruin probability P u (T 0 < ) equals the ruin probability for the classical renewal risk process in a continuous time with interarrival time equal 1 and the generic claim size Y. [3, Th , p. 305] (see also [13, Th. 5.12, p. 113]) completes the proof of the first part of the proof. The case of α > 0 follows from [7, Th. 1] and [4, eq. (4.4.5), p. 231] with K = 1 P( L 1 < ) (1 e ϕ( α) )(1 E[e αĥ1, L 1 < ]). Identities (16) and (15) complete the proof. Observe that P u (T 0 < ) = P(τ(u) < ), 6

7 where τ(u) = inf{t 0 : X t > u} for a compound Poisson process X t = N t i=1 (Y i 1) and N t being independent of {Y i } Poisson process with intensity 1. Similarly, P u (R T0 = k T 0 < ) = P(X τ(u) = k τ(u) < ), k N. From [14, Th. 4.2, eq. (2.8), Remark 4.3 (iii) and eq. (5.2)] we have that Fact 7 P(X τ(u) k τ(u) < ) = W (k) If (22) holds then the distribution W = 1 W is degenerate placing all its mass at infinity which follows from so-called principle of one big jump. If (23) holds then the function W is a tail of (possibly improper) distribution function: W (k) = e αk 1 µ ( φ( α) α with φ(α) = log Ee αx1 = e α Ee αy 1. + l=k+1 ( e αl e αk) P(Ĥ1 = l, L 1 < ) [ Remark 2 Note that by Definition 2(ii) for α > 0 we have Ee αy < and E e αĥ1, L ] 1 < <. We can now state the main result of this section. Theorem 4 Under assumption (22) we have: Under assumption (23) we have: P u (τ ζ < ) = µ u,u N F I (u) 1 µ. P u (τ ζ < ) = BK, u,u N F (u) where constant K is given in (24) and B = [ 1 (1 P 1 (τ ζ < ))g(ζ) ] for a function g on N with the Laplace transform: e kθ g(k) = e Φ(θ) (1 e θ w(φ(θ)), (26) ) where w(θ) = k=0 e Φ(θ) (1 e θ ) e Φ(θ)k ( W (k 1) W (k) ). k=1 Proof The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 3, where we use Fact 7 instead of Fact 5. Remark 3 Note that the Parisian delay have influence on the heavy-tailed asymptotics of the ruin probability only when α > 0. The subexponential case gives the same asymptotics which is a consequence of the big claim that cause the ruin. ) (25) 7

8 6 Examples In this section we use Theorem 1 to calculate the Parisian probability. We compare it with Monte Carlo algorithm. We also consider different initial capitals and Parsisian delays. Example 1. We will assume that claim size Y has a binomial distribution B(3; 0.3). At the beginning we take u = 5 (initial capital), ζ = 3 (Parisian delay), t = 20 (time horizon). With such a setup we will show in Table 1 the efficiency of recursive algorithm given in of Theorem 1. Table 1: Parisian probability calculated using Theorem 1 and MC method Description Probablility Time in sec Abs diff Theorem1 0, , MC 100 0,95 0, , MC 200 0,975 0, , MC 400 0,9775 0, , MC 800 0, , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , Note that for t = 20 we have approximately the same computation time when we use Theorem 1 and Monte Carlo method with paths. The suggested algorithm given in Theorem 1 gives hence very promising results. Next Table 2 identifies Parisian non-ruin probability for different t 26. 8

9 Table 2: Parisian non-ruin probability for different time horizons Time Ruin probablility , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Results of above Table we also presented on Figure 1. Figure 1: Parisian non-ruin probability for different time horizons 9

10 Similar result could be derived for the Parisian non-ruin probability with different initial capital; see Table 3 and Figure 2. Table 3: Parisian non-ruin probability for different initial capitals u Ruin probablility 0 0, , , , , , , , , , , Figure 2: Parisian non-ruin probability for different initial capitals Above calculations show that formula given in Theorem 1 can produce deep comparison results for very wide choice of parameters. 10

11 Finally we show how the Parisian non-ruin probability changes when change Parisian delay, see Table 4. Table 4: Parisian non-ruin probability for different Parisian delays ζ Ruin probablility 1 0, , , , , , , , , , Above table shows that increasing of the Parisian delay can substantially decrease the ruin probability keeping initial capital fixed. Example 2. To compare Parisian ruin probability for different distributions we choose now negative binomial distribution NB(3; 9 19 ) for modelling a generic claim size Y. Again at the beginning we take u = 5 (initial capital), ζ = 3 (Parisian delay), t = 20 (time horizon) and analyze the efficiency of recursive algorithm given in of Theorem 1. Table 5: Parisian probability calculated using Theorem 1 and MC method Description Probablility Time in sec Abs diff Theorem1 0, , MC 100 0,74 0, , MC 200 0,645 0, , MC 400 0,6625 0, , MC 800 0, , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , MC , , , What is surprising here the Parisian ruin probability is substantially larger. It means that the choice of the distribution of the generic claim size is crucial for its determining. 11

12 In the following tables and figures we show how the Parisian non-ruin probability changes for different time horizons (Table 6 and Figure 3), different initial capitals (Table 7 and Figure 4) and different Parisian delays (Table 8). Here the ruin probability quicker decreases with increase of the initial capital, Parisian delay. Table 6: Parisian non-ruin probability for different time horizons Time Ruin probablility , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Figure 3: Parisian non-ruin probability for different time horizons 12

13 Table 7: Parisian non-ruin probability for different initial capitals u Ruin probablility 0 0, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Figure 4: Parisian non-ruin probability for different initial capitals 13

14 Table 8: Parisian non-ruin probability for different Parisian delays ζ Ruin probablility 1 0, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Acknowledgements This work is partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland under the grant DEC-2011/01/B/HS4/00982 ( ). All authors kindly acknowledges partial support by the project RARE , a Marie Curie IRSES Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme. References [1] Albrecher, H., Kortschak, D. and Zhou, X. (2012) Pricing of Parisian options for a jump-diffusion model with two-sided jumps. Appl. Math. Fin. 19(2). [2] Alili, L., Chaumont, L. and Doney, R. (2005) On a fluctuation identity for random walks and Lévy processes. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc 37, [3] Asmussen, S. and Hanjoerg, A. (2010) Ruin Probabilities. World Scientific, Singapore. [4] Asmussen, S. (2003) Applied Probability and Queuees. Springer. [5] Bertoin, J. (1996) Lévy processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [6] Bertoin, J. and Doney, R. (1994) Cramér s estimate for Lévy processes. Stat. Probab. Lett. 21(5), [7] Bertoin, J. and Doney, R. (1996) Some Asymptotic Results for Transient Random Walks. Adv. Appl. Probab. 28(1), [8] Chesney, M., Jeanblanc-Picqué, M. and Yor, M. (1997) Brownian excursions and Parisian barrier options. Adv. in Appl. Probab. 29(1), [9] Czarna, I. and Palmowski, Z. (2011) Ruin probability with Parisian delay for a spectrally negative Lévy risk process. J. Appl. Probab. 48(4), [10] Dassios, A. and Wu, S. (2009) Parisian ruin with exponential claims. Submitted for publication, see [11] Dassios, A. and Wu, S. (2009) Ruin probabilities of the Parisian type for small claims. Submitted for publication, see [12] Feller W. (1966) An Introiluction to Probubility Theory and its Applications, Vol. II (Wiley, New York) [13] Foss, S., Korshunov, D. and Zachary, S. (2011) An Introduction to Heavy-Tailed and Subexponential Distributions. Springer. [14] Klüppelberg, C., Kyprianou, A. and Maller, R. (2004) Ruin probabilities and overshoots for general Lévy insurance risk processes. Ann. Appl. Probab. 14(4), [15] Landriault, D., Renaud, J.F. and Zhou, X. (2013) Insurance risk models with Parisian implementation delays. Method. Comp. Appl. Probab.. [16] Lefévre, C. aned Loisel, S. (2008) On finite-time ruin probabilities for classisal risk models. Scand. Actuarial J. 1, [17] Loeffen, R., Czarna, I. and Palmowski, Z. (2013) Parisian ruin probability for spectrally negative Lévy processes. Bernoulli 19(2),