The only step in the existence proof that differs from the
risk neutral case considered by Dasgupta and Maskin [1986b] is in showing that [[[sigma].sup.N].sub.i=1] [U.sup.i](a), where a = ([a.sup.1],...,[a.sup.N]) is the vector of agents' locations, or pure strategies, and [U.sup.i](.)'s are individual utilities as functions of locations, is upper semicontinuous in its arguments.
This remark studies Tibiletti's bargaining condition and shows that, for
risk neutral buyers or the default loss are small relative to the buyer's size, there exists a more shortcut bargaining condition.
The remaining individuals are considered
risk neutral. These division values are arbitrary.
We assume that the insurance market is competitive, and the insurance companies are
risk neutral. However, risk-neutral insurers might act as if they were risk averse.
With
risk neutral firms and risk-averse workers, the presence of moral hazard in search behavior will induce contracts in which the firm bears some but not all of the risk of uncertain unemployment spell duration.
Risk aversion does not completely explain the corporate demand for insurance, since firms can be considered less risk averse or
risk neutral. Researchers find that efficient risk sharing, real-service provision, and resolving agency problems are important reasons for the corporate demand for insurance.
Thus, in the discussion of Arrow-Debreu Static Model, the authors sneak in the concept of
risk neutral probabilities.
where [??] denotes the expectation under the
risk neutral probability measure [??].
Eeckhoudt evaluates the decision tree in the case of a
risk neutral decision maker to obtain a threshold for treatment.
This is the reason why [lambda] is called a
Risk Neutral Probability Measure, and Theorem 1 shows that its existence (and positiveness) is the necessary and sufficient condition to guarantee the absence of arbitrage of the second type (of any kind).
Therefore, the least risk-averse individual in the DEU framework plays the same role as a
risk neutral individual in the expected utility framework.
Although this exercise price is unknown as of the current date, this type of option can be valued using the "
risk neutral" technique of Cox and Ross (1976), a technique that Hatoson and Kreps (1979) generalized into "martingale pricing" theory.
