Self-insurance, self-protection, and saving : on consumption smoothing and risk management

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000cab a2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20160027044</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20160921170713.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">160915e20160905usa|||p      |0|||b|eng d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">7</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080166090</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Hofmann, Annette</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Self-insurance, self-protection, and saving</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">: on consumption smoothing and risk management</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Annette Hofmann, Richard Peter</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">This article studies the effect of risk preferences on self-insurance and selfprotection in a two-period expected utility framework. Here the investment to reduce risk precedes its effect. In contrast to single-period models, selfinsurance and self-protection react similarly when the agent's utility function becomes more concave. Effort is increased if and only if current consumption is sufficiently large. However, if we introduce endogenous saving, an agent with more concave utility always selects more self-insurance, but will select more self-protection if and only if the probability of loss is small enough. These latter results concur with those in standard monoperiodic models with no saving.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080591182</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Gerencia de riesgos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080553326</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Autoseguro</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080568016</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Autoprotección</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080540104</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Ahorro</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080614720</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Modelos de planificación</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20160007701</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Peter, Richard</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20077000727</subfield>
      <subfield code="t">The Journal of risk and insurance</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">Nueva York : The American Risk and Insurance Association, 1964-</subfield>
      <subfield code="x">0022-4367</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">05/09/2016 Volumen 83 Número 3 - septiembre 2016 , p. 719-734</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>