Abstract
In this paper, we prove recursive formulas for ultimate time survival probability when three random claims in the discrete time risk model occur in a special way. Namely, we suppose that claim X occurs at each moment of time , claim Y additionally occurs at even moments of time and claim Z additionally occurs at every moment of time, which is a multiple of three . Under such assumptions, the model that is obtained is called the three-risk discrete time model. Such a model is a particular case of a nonhomogeneous risk renewal model. The sequence of claims has the form . Using the recursive formulas, algorithms were developed to calculate the exact values of survival probabilities for the three-risk discrete time model. The running of algorithms is illustrated via numerical examples.
Keywords:
multi-risk model; discrete-time risk model; ruin probability; survival probability; ultimate time; net profit condition MSC:
91B30; 60G40
1. Introduction
According to the Andersen’s proposed risk model [1], the insurers surplus process W has a following expression
Here:
- denotes the initial insurer’s surplus;
- denotes the premium rate per unit of time;
- The cost of claims are independent copies of a nonnegative random variable (r.v.) R;
- The inter-occurrence times of claims are another sequence of independent copies of a nonnegative r.v. , which is not degenerate at zero;
- The sequences and are mutually independent;
- is the renewal process generated by r.v. , where for each natural n
Let us denote if number j divides number i, and let us suppose , and
where correspondingly are independent copies of integer valued nonnegative independent r.v.s . Under such restrictions the main equation of the Andersen’s risk model (1) becomes the following equation
where denotes the floor function. Since r.v.s are discrete, for the defined model it is enough to consider and . The model given in (3), we call the three-risk discrete time model, and our motivation to investigate it is research is done in [2,3,4,5], where discrete time risk models were investigated with the following occurrence order of claims , and .
If we suppose that for all i, then the three-risk discrete time model becomes the discrete time risk model generated by a nonnegative r.v. X. Such a model is simple to consider. A lot of various results on the behaviour of the discrete time risk model can be found; for instance, in [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] and in references therein.
If in the main equation of the Andersen’s model (1), we suppose that , and all r.v.s are integer values but not necessarily identically distributed, then we obtain so called nonhomogeneous discrete time risk model. Such a model is more general with respect to the model described by Equation (3). There are a number of results on the calculation of finite time ruin probability, the probability that for some , for models with non identically distributed claims. See, for instance, [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26] and reference therein. However, there are no results on the calculation of the ultimate time ruin probability, the probability that for some , and of the ultimate time survival probability, the probability that for all , for such a general, nonhomogenous, discrete time risk model. To get suitable algorithms for the calculations of these ultimate time probabilities, we are forced to limit the set of the discrete time risk models significantly.
In this paper, we consider the three-risk model described by Equation (3), which requires much more effort to express its ultimate time survival probability compared to the previous research in [2,3,4]. It also gives us a grip on the most general case for ultimate time, when n claims generate a multi-risk discrete time model instead of two or three claims. If , we get the homogenous discrete time risk model. For such model, a basic knowledge from probability theory is sufficient to find a suitable algorithm for ruin or survival probabilities calculation. With increasing n there decreases a “level of models homogeneity,” meaning that models move closer to the real life, but then, as a side effect, various additional elements occur: dependence on distribution, number of initial values needed for recursive formula, non-singularity of certain recursive matrices and so on.
The main critical characteristics for the three-risk discrete time model are the time of ruin :
the finite time ruin probability , the ultimate time ruin probability ; and the ultimate time survival probability . It is obvious that
Let us denote the probability distribution function (PDF) and the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for a certain convolution of r.v.s:
where , , and .
We note that
- If any of equals zero, then we do not include a corresponding r.v. (r.v.s) into a certain convolution;
- We use notations and interchangeably and , .
For the three-risk discrete time model, the values of the ultimate and finite time ruin probabilities are closely related with the following condition. It is said that the net profit condition holds if
This condition makes a direct impact for the risk model (3). Intuitively, this impact can be explained as follows. Let us take the expectation of (3) according to the probability space of r.v.s , . For time moments and with arbitrary , we obtain
The similar expressions hold up to time moment . Now we can see how the net profit condition influences the sign of and possibility that at least once in time.
Another intuitive derivation of the net profit condition is the following. Suppose that index i is uniformly distributed. Under such assumption we get from the law of total expectation that
where denotes the conditional expectation. Then we obtain the net profit condition by comparing this expression with the premium rate per unit of time.
The precise impact of the net profit condition is described in theorems of Section 2 below. For instance, unsatisfied condition (4) causes almost unavoidable ruin according to Theorem 4 below. The simplest case to make the net profit condition unsatisfied is . Indeed, if for some integer valued nonnegative r.v. X, then , which implies and . Of course, is not only the reason causing the net profit condition to be unsatisfied.
Let us denote . For the ultimate time survival probability we have that
Formula (5) shows how the values of probability we seek to calculate are recursively related. For example, to get a value of for we need to know . Supplementing and subtracting terms of the previous sum, we rewrite the Equation (5) in the following way.
where denote the previously written sums by the same order of occurrence. On the other hand, collecting the terms at from in (6), we derive that
where
and is the following summation region
Here, we suppose that and the corresponding structure of the summation region is the following
Our future work, more or less spins around the Equation (7), and the part , being dependent on and , dictates the complexity of our statements. This, keeping in mind that leads to the unsatisfied net profit condition, can be briefly described in Table 1.
Table 1.
All possible different cases of three-risk models under the net profit condition.
2. Main Results
We start with a statements on , when the net profit condition (4) holds.
Theorem 1.
Let us consider the three-risk discrete time model with generating r.v.s X, Y and Z. If , then
Theorem 2.
Let us consider the three-risk discrete time model with generating r.v.s X, Y and Z. If , , and the net profit condition (4) holds, then
Remark 1.
Restrictions in Theorem 2 ensure that . The upper bound follows straightforward from the definition of the net profit condition, and the lower bound follows from the observation that , , and .
Remark 2.
Conditions of Theorem 2 also ensure that . This follows from the observation that or leads to the unsatisfied net profit condition. If and , then the net profit condition is ruined too. Therefore, probabilities and are positive, and consequently, we have that .
The next theorem provides an algorithm of finding initial values of for Formula (7), when , , . But before we can start formulating the statement, unavoidably we need some tedious notation. Let us define six recurrent sequences , , , , and . For we present values of these sequences in Table 2,
Table 2.
Initial values of sequences , , , , and .
and for we define that
where coefficients are defined in (8), according to the proof of Theorem 2, while coefficients have the following expressions:
In (27) and (28) bellow, we will show that
and
for . That will be the starting point to gather the initial values for Formula (7) via the following theorem.
Theorem 3.
Let us consider the three-risk discrete time model with generating r.v.s X, Y and Z. If , , and the net profit condition (4) holds, then the following matrix equation holds for each
Remark 3.
From the definition of survival probability, it is clear that the sequence is not decreasing and for all . Therefore, the right hand side of (16) tends to as . Unfortunately, we can not prove that nor the system matrix in (16), nor its simpler versions in Corollaries 2 and 4, are nonsingular. On the other hand, for certain chosen distributions, we never find such matrixes to be singular. See also comments after the Corollaries 3 and 4, and the conjecture bellow.
Corollary 1.
Suppose all conditions of Theorem 3 are satisfied. Then the probabilities satisfy system (16) for all . In addition,
where , and the quantities , for suitable k are defined in Equations (8) and (11)–(14).
The next our statements on deals with the case . This case, in turn, splits in two cases too: and . For the case we have that , and expressions of , become relatively simpler than those in (13) and (14). In addition, the recurrence relation of (7) becomes the following, substantially simpler relation:
with coefficients defined in (8). Now, we introduce four modified recurrent sequences while comparing to the previous and sequences defined before Theorem 3. For , we present the values of these new sequences in Table 3,
Table 3.
Initial values of sequences , , and .
and for we suppose that
Corollary 2.
Let us consider the three-risk discrete time model for generating r.v.s X, Y and Z. If and the net profit condition (4) is satisfied, then the following system of equations holds for all .
For the next case , it follows from (10)–(14) that , , and recursive Equation (7) simplifies to the relation
where coefficient is defined in (8). Now we define again two modified recurrent sequences comparing to the previous and sequences:
Corollary 3.
Let us consider the three-risk discrete time model for generating r.v.s X, Y and Z. If and the net profit condition (4) holds, then
Differently than in Theorem 3 and Corollaries 1, 2, 4, where we can not show that in general the system matrixes formed by coefficients are nonsingular, in the Corollary 3 we can show that
for all . In fact this estimate follows from inequalities
provided for . Indeed, if inequalities (18) hold and n is even, then is odd, and consequently,
Hence, to establish lower bound (17) we need to prove inequalities (18). For this we use induction. If , then we have
Similarly,
By supposing that inequalities (18) hold for we get
where the last inequality can be derived from the fact that for the certain distribution with property we have
and
Proceeding with induction hypothesis for with odd indices, we obtain
Consequently, estimates (18) are correct. We note only that the similar technic of proving but for a seasonal bi-risk model is used in [2].
According to Table 1 for the remaining case of possible distributions in three-risk models, we have . In such a case, we obtain that , and expression of is relatively simpler with respect to that in (14). Substituting these coefficients into (7), we get the following recursive equation for survival probability in the case under consideration
Once again, arguing the same as before the Theorem 3, we define three recurrent sequences:
Corollary 4.
Let us consider the three-risk discrete time model with generating r.v.s X, Y and Z. If and the net profit condition (4) is satisfied, then the following equations hold:
The system matrix in Corollary 4 is the most simple one, and is compared with the system matrixes in Theorem 3 and Corollaries 1 and 2, to show its non singularity. One may check that
The last equality leads to the following conjecture.
Conjecture.
For all it holds that , and .
Obviously, the presented conjecture implies that the system matrix in the Corollary 4 is nonsingular. Moreover, numerical calculations with some chosen distributions always approve the conjecture.
At the end of this section, we formulate the statement on the values of survival probability , when the net profit condition (4) is unsatisfied.
Theorem 4.
For each three-risk discrete time model, with generating r.v.s X, Y and Z, the following assertions are true:
- If , then for .
- If and , then for
- If , then and for
3. Proofs
In this section we present all proofs of previously formulated statements.
Proof of Theorem 1.
Our aim is to prove that
According to definition, the survival probability for the model (3) is
where and r.v.s are defined by equality (2).
For every and we have
with by default.
Since for each , the strong law of large numbers implies that
almost surely, and following the proof of Theorem 2.3 from [2] (see page 936), one can get that
with an arbitrarily small, positive . □
Proof of Theorem 2.
One can see that if and . We recall that or or means that a corresponding r.v. is not included into a convolution. Hence, the condition , and relation (7) imply that
Summing up both sides of the last equality by u from 0 up to some nonnegative, integer and sufficiently large v and changing the order of summation, we obtain
or, equivalently,
According to Theorem 1, for the first sum in (22), we have
Indeed, the upper limit for the sum is
while the lower limit for the sum is the same, due to the assertion of Theorem 1 and the following estimate provided for each :
Proof of Theorem 3.
Recall that
where sums are defined in (6). As in the proof of Theorem 2, we sum both sides of Equation (23) by u from 0 up to some nonnegative, sufficiently large integer v. We get
By changing the order of summation, we obtain
or, equivalently,
By the proof of Theorem 2, equality (25) implies that
Consequently,
For the first of five remaining sums in the right hand side of the last equality we have
Therefore,
For the second of five remaining sums in the right hand of (26) we obtain
Consequently,
Further,
and
Similarly,
and, consequently,
For the remaining case, we first rewrite the sum in the following way
After such simplification, we obtain
and also
By substituting the derived asymptotic relations into Equation (26), we get
where coefficients are defined in (10)–(14). It is important to observe that, are nothing but collections of terms at in term
from equality (26).
We observe that equality (27) relates quantities . Setting in (23), we get a relation between . If we suppose , then we get relation between , and so on. This allows us to derive an expression for . We will prove by induction that
for all .
If , then relation (28) follows from the definition of coefficients and presented before Theorem 3. If , then the desired relation follows from Equation (27). Now, we prove that (28) is true for , assuming that it holds for .
Substituting into Equation (7), we get
Therefore,
and by the induction hypothesis we obtain
Since
and , we have
Proof of Theorem 4.
First we prove that implies for Similarly to in (20), we obtain that
almost surely, and, consequently, according to expression (19). The first part of Theorem 4 is proven.
Now let us prove that conditions and imply for all .
First, let us assume that . We observe that this condition together with conditions of the second part of Theorem imply that and for some . This allows us to define a discrete non-negative random vector , with and for some . More precisely, we define that
where positive is sufficiently small; i.e., . The distribution of vector can be expressed by Table 4.
Table 4.
Distribution of vector .
From the table above it is easy to see that and the net profit condition holds when the model is generated by . For each , let us define r.v.
where are independent copies of non-negative discrete r.v.s , and observe that
Similarly,
due to inequalities and .
Using the induction method we can show that
for all . Indeed, by supposing that inequality (29) holds for n up to a certain N, we get
Defining r.v. we enlarge its probability of small value comparing to r. v. R. Intuitively, this creates a less dangerous claim and leads to enlarged survival probability. More precisely, the equality (29) implies that
and, therefore, for all ,
Now, for the three-risk discrete time model, generated by , we can apply Theorems 2 and 3, and Corollaries 1, 2 and 4. For example, applying Theorem 2 when , we get , because and can be as small as we want. Remaining formulas from Theorem 2 lead to for all .
If , then from Theorem 3 for sufficiently large , we obtain
where and are matrixes from Theorem 3, and is as small as we want. Consequently, also can be as close to the zero as we want. From that, inequalities and the Corollary 1 imply that for all . A similar consideration, we can apply for the remaining cases: — using Corollary 2; —using Corollary 3; —using Corollary 4. If , then the conditions of the statement ensure that or . In such a case, by the similar way we can define r.v.s or , making the net profit condition of the “marked” model satisfied, and, in a similar way to that with , we can derive that for all . The second part of the Theorem 4 is proven.
Now let us prove the third part of the theorem. We prove that condition implies and for all . Since r.v.s are non-negative and discrete, the above condition means that only one of the following three cases is possible:
It follows from this that there are only three possible cases for r.v.s :
Now the statement follows immediately from the main equation of the model (3). Theorem 4 is proved. □
4. Numerical Examples
In this section we present several numerical examples of computing and for three-risk discrete time risk models with various distributions of claims. All calculations were carried out using software MATHEMATICA with sufficient precision, and most of the results were rounded up to three decimal places. For calculation, we used Theorem 1 from [4], which gives that
Example 1.
Let us consider the three-risk model generated by r.v.s X, Y and Z with the following distributions:
It is not difficult to verify that all conditions of Theorem 2 are satisfied together with the net profit condition . Using the above formulas for and formulas from Theorem 2 for , we filled Table 5 below.
Table 5.
Values of survival probabilities for the model of Example 1.
Example 2.
Suppose that r.v.s X, Y and Z generating the three-risk model have the following distributions:
Using the same formulas as in Example 1 and observing that for the given case, we found values of survival probabilities and filled Table 6. An impact of the net profit is well seen when comparing Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 6.
Values of survival probabilities for the model of Example 2.
Example 3.
Let us consider the three-risk renewal model generated by r.v.s X, Y and Z with distributions:
According to Theorem 1 we can suppose that for a sufficiently large u. Since all conditions of Corollary 1 hold, we can use formulas presented in this corollary by supposing that for all . By applying the algorithm described in Corollary 1, we calculate values of survival probability presented in Table 7.
Table 7.
Values of and for the model of Example 3.
Example 4.
We say that r.v. ξ has the Poisson distribution with parameter () if for each . Suppose that r.v.s generating three-risk discrete time models X, Y and Z have the following Poisson distributions: , and .
By applying the same algorithm which was used for calculations in Example 3, one can find values of survival probability and fill Table 8.
Table 8.
Values of survival probabilities for the model with Poissonian random variables (r.v.s) of Example 4.
Example 5.
Let us consider the three-risk discrete time model generated by r.v.s X, Y and Z with the following distributions:
According to Theorem 1 we can suppose that for sufficiently large u, and the model described in this example satisfies conditions of Corollary 2. Hence, we can use the algorithm presented in this corollary by supposing that for all , and we can calculate values of survival probability which are presented in Table 9.
Table 9.
Values of survival probabilities for the model described in Example 5.
Example 6.
Suppose that three-risk discrete time model is generated by r.v.s X, Y and Z with distributions:
To find values of survival probabilities of the described model, we use formulas from Corollary 3 and formulas presented at the beginning of Section 4. To obtain the initial value of ultimate time survival probability , we suppose in Corollary 3 that for all . The values of survival probabilities, we present in Table 10 below.
Table 10.
Values of survival probabilities for the model described in Example 6.
Example 7.
Let us consider the three-risk discrete time model generated by r.v.s X, Y and Z with the following distributions:
We observe that in this last our example, conditions of Corollary 4 are satisfied. Using the algorithm presented in this corollary and the above formulas for finite time survival probabilities we fill Table 11. We suppose that for in system of Corollary 4 to calculate the initial values of survival probability and .
Table 11.
Values of survival probabilities for the model described in Example 7.
5. Discussion
The proven statements show that for the three-risk model, the values of ruin probabilities for any value of the initial surplus can be found. However, if the value of this surplus is large and the claims of the model have infinite supports, the necessary calculations take time. In such a case, we can use also the upper estimate of ruin probability, which usually decreases with increasing initial capital. The useful estimates for the nonhomogeneous models we can find in [27,28,29,30,31] among others. For instance, results of [28,29] imply that
for all above examples with a positive constants , and depending on the numerical characteristics of the random claims X, Y and Z, generating a three-risk discrete time model. On the other hand, the proven statements ignite the hope that similar algorithms can be found to calculate values of the ultimate time survival probability for the general multi-risk discrete time model. As already mentioned in introduction, if for the Andersen’s model (1), we set , and all r.v.s are integer valued but not necessarily identically distributed, then we have the nonhomogeneous discrete time risk models. The nonhomogeneous risk models are much closer to the real life, since it is hardly possible that insurers always face the same identically distributed claims. Also, such type models may be applied in various other industries, where increase, decrease and randomness occur: some population development; risk management, where all individuals have savings, get incomes and face unexpected expenses; modelling of rare events or catastrophes.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, we derived the formulas for the calculation of exact values for the ultimate time survival probability, the probability that the random process
is positive for all . Comparing this research to the close previous studies in [4,6,7], where the models
were investigated, it is easy to see how quickly things get complicated. There occurs a significant dependency on distributions of random claims; the expressions of are a lot longer and more complicated; the proofs of the non-singularity of certain types of recurrent matrices are still open questions. It is hardly possible to give an exact expressions on for n-risk model if . For that, a new ideas and methods are needed.
Author Contributions
Both authors contributed equally to this work, and to its preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by grant number S-MIP-17-72 from the Research Council of Lithuania.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Andersen, E. Sparre. On the collective theory of risk in case of contagion between the claims. Trans. Xvth Int. Actuar. 1957, 2, 219–229. [Google Scholar]
- Damarackas, J.; Šiaulys, J. Bi-seasonal discrete time risk model. Appl. Math. Comput. 2014, 247, 930–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grigutis, A.; Korvel, A.; Šiaulys, J. Ruin probability in the three-seasonal discrete-time risk model. Mod. Stoch. Theory Appl. 2015, 2, 421–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Grigutis, A.; Korvel, A.; Šiaulys, J. Ruin probabilities of a discrete-time multi-risk model. Inf. Technol. Control 2015, 44, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navickienė, O.; Sprindys, J.; Šiaulys, J. The Gerber-Shiu discounted penalty function for the bi-seasonal discrete time risk model. Informatica 2018, 29, 733–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickson, D.C.M. On numerical evaluation of finite time survival probabilities. Br. Actuar. J. 1999, 5, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickson, D.C.M.; Waters, R. Recursive calculation of survival probabilities. ASTIN Bull. 1991, 21, 199–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, H.U. Mathematical fun with the compound binomial process. ASTIN Bull. 1988, 18, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Kok, T.G. Ruin probabilities with compounding assets for discrete time finite horizon problems, independent period claim sizes and general premium structure. Insur. Math. Econ. 2003, 33, 645–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefèvre, C.; Loisel, S. On finite-time ruin probabilities for classical risk models. Scand. Actuar. J. 2008, 1, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picard, P.; Lefèvre, C. Problèmes de ruine en théorie du risque à temps discret avec horizon fini. J. Appl. Probab. 2003, 40, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picard, P.; Lefèvre, C. Probabilité de ruine eventuelle dans un modele de risque à temps discret. J. Appl. Probab. 2003, 40, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiu, E.S.W. Calculation of the probability of eventual ruin by Beckman’s convolution series. Insur. Math. Econ. 1989, 7, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiu, E.S.W. The probability of eventual ruin in the compound binomial model. ASTIN Bull. 1989, 19, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vylder, F.E.; Goovaerts, M.J. Recursive calculation of finite-time ruin probabilities. Insur. Math. Econ. 1988, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vylder, F.E.; Goovaerts, M.J. Explicit finite-time and infinite-time ruin probabilities in the continuous case. Insur. Math. Econ. 1999, 24, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefèvre, C.; Loisel, S. Finite time ruin probabilities for discrete, possible dependent, claim severities. Method. Comput. Appl. Probab. 2009, 11, 425–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefèvre, C.; Picard, P. A nonhomogeneous risk model for insurance. Comput. Math. Appl. 2006, 51, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Sendova, K.P. On a ruin model with both interclaim times and premium depending on claim sizes. Scand. Actuar. J. 2015, 245–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picard, P.; Lefèvre, C.; Coulibaly, I. Multirisks model and finite-time ruin probabilities. Method. Comput. Appl. Probab. 2003, 5, 337–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Răducan, A.M.; Vernic, R.; Zbăganu, G. Recursive calculation of ruin probabilities at or before claim instants for non-identically distributed claims. ASTIN Bull. 2015, 45, 421–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Răducan, A.M.; Vernic, R.; Zbăganu, G. On the ruin probability for nonhomogeneous claims and arbitrary inter-claim revenues. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2015, 290, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, Z.; Liu, Y. A discrete-time risk model with dependence between interclaim arrivals and claim sizes. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2016, 2016, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bieliauskienė, E.; Šiaulys, J. Gerber–Shiu function for the discrete inhomogeneous claim case. Int. J. Comput. Math. 2012, 89, 1617–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blaževičius, K.; Bieliauskienė, E.; Šiaulys, J. Finite time ruin probability in the inhomogeneous claim case. Lith. Math. J. 2010, 50, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castañer, A.; Claramunt, M.M.; Gathy, M.; Lefèvre, C.; Mármol, M. Ruin problems for a discrete time risk model with non-homogeneous conditions. Scand. Actuar. J. 2013, 83–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.-F.; Zhang, T.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, T. Ruin probabilities in a dependent discrete-time risk model with gamma-like tailed insurance risks. Risks 2017, 5, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kievinaitė, D.; Šiaulys, J. Exponential bounds for the tail probability of the supremum of an inhomogeneous random walk. Mod. Stoch. Theory Appl. 2018, 5, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kizinevič, E.; Šiaulys, J. The exponential estimate of the ultimate ruin probabilities for the non-homogeneous renewal risk model. Risks 2018, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Zhang, H. Asymptotic estimates for the one-year ruin probability under risky investments. Risks 2017, 5, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimizu, Y.; Zhang, Z. Asymptotically normal estimators af the ruin probability for Lévy insurance surplus from discrete samples. Risks 2019, 7, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).