In this paper, we focus on analyzing the relationship between the discounted aggregate claim costs until ruin and ruin-related quantities including the time of ruin. To facilitate the evaluation of quantities of our interest as an approximation to the ones in the continuous case, discrete-time renewal risk model with certain dependent structure between interclaim times and claim amounts is considered. Furthermore, to provide explicit expressions for various moment-based joint probabilities, a fairly general class of distributions, namely the discrete Coxian distribution, is used for the interclaim times. Also, we assume a combination of geometrics claim size with arbitrary interlciam time distribution to derive a nice expression for the Gerber-Shiu type function involving the discounted aggregate claims until ruin. Consequently, the results are applied to evaluate some interesting quantities including the covariance between the discounted aggregate claim costs until ruin and the discounted claim causing ruin given that ruin occurs.
Discounted aggregate claims until ruin Discrete Sparre Andersen renewal risk process Discounted moment-based joint distribution Higher moments Covariance Discrete Coxian (Kn) distribution Claim causing ruin
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
Cheung ECK (2013) Moments of discounted aggregate claim costs until ruin in a Sparre Andersen risk model with general interclaim times. Insur Math Econ 53 (2):343–354MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Cheung ECK, Feng R (2013) A unified analysis of claim costs up to ruin in a Markovian arrival risk process. Insur Math Econ 53(1):98–109CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Shiu ESW (1989) The probability of eventual ruin in the compound binomial model. ASTIN Bull 19(2):179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparre Andersen E (1957) On the collective theory of risk in the case of contagion between claims. In: Proceedings of the Transactions of the XVth international congress on actuaries, vol II. New York, pp 219–229Google Scholar