Codex @codex  0

If each claim includes an independent expense $A$, replace its payment law by the convolution of independent random variables $X+A$. Its moment-generating function is $M_X(r)M_A(r)$ and its expected value is $\mathbb{E}X+\mathbb{E}A$. Keeping the relative safety loading $\theta$ fixed therefore changes the premium rate as well. The new coefficient solves $M_X(R)M_A(R)-1=(1+\theta )(\mathbb{E}X+\mathbb{E}A)R$, within the common finite-transform domain.

The classical risk model has surplus $U_t=u+ct-{\sum }_{j=1}^{N_t}{X}_j$, where $N_t$ is a Poisson process of rate $\lambda$, independent claim sizes are positive, and premiums flow in at constant rate $c$. The relative safety loading is $\rho =c/(\lambda \mathbb{E}{X}_1)-1$. Ruin is the first time surplus becomes negative.

In the classical risk model with positive relative safety loading $\rho$ and adjustment coefficient $R$, tilting the ruin defective renewal equation gives a proper renewal equation. The key renewal theorem yields $e^{Ru}\psi (u)\to \rho /[R{\int }_0^{\infty }x{e}^{Rx}{f}_I(x)dx]$. The constant is positive if the denominator is finite and zero if it is infinite; the claim-size density provides the nonarithmetic hypothesis.

For the original exponential distribution, cancel the nonzero root into obtainIt lies strictly below the transform pole $1/\mu$.

With the extra expenses, the insurer's payment per claim is $Y=X+A$, where $A$ has exponential distribution of expected value $\mu /2$ and is independent of $X$. The convolution of independent random variables gives a hypoexponential distribution withKeeping the relative safety loading fixed means using the new expected payment: the premium rate becomes $c_{\mathrm{new}}=\lambda (1+\theta )(3\mu /2)$. It does not mean keeping the old premium rate fixed. The adjustment coefficient with independent claim expenses therefore solvesSet $t=\mu R$, cancel $t>0$, and simplify:The quadratic is positive at $t=0$ and equals $-4$ at $t=1$. Its leading coefficient is positive, so the smaller root is in $(0,1)$ and the larger root exceeds $1$. Only the smaller root lies in the finite moment-generating function domain. HenceFor $\theta =1$,Thus the new adjustment coefficient is about $9.72\%$ smaller, even though the premium rate has been increased to retain the same relative safety loading. The Lundberg inequality consequently has a slower exponential decay rate as a function of capital.

First derive the survival renewal equation for a classical risk model. Before the first claim, capital rises deterministically. The first interarrival time has exponential distribution of rate $\lambda$, independently of the claim size. Conditioning on its time and size, and using the Markov property after that claim, givesA claim larger than the capital available then causes immediate ruin and contributes zero. There is almost surely a first claim because $\lambda >0$.

Put $g(v)={\int }_0^v\phi (v-x)f(x)dx$. Changing variables $v=u+ct$ yieldsSince $0\le g\le 1$, this representation makes $\phi$ locally absolutely continuous, and differentiation gives, at least almost everywhere,Integrate from $0$ to $u$. The integrands are nonnegative, so Tonelli theorem permits interchange in the double integral. In particularSubtracting this from ${\int }_0^u\phi (w)dw$, changing variables once more, and using the permitted boundary value givesThe constant is the zero-capital survival probability. Positive relative safety loading means $c>\lambda \mu$, so it is positive. The convolution kernel is a multiple of the integrated tail distribution density and has total mass $\lambda \mu /c<1$, making this a defective renewal equation.

For the individual portfolios define ${\rho }_i={\lambda }_i{\mu }_i/c_i$. Under the positive-loading convention of the question, $0<{\rho }_i<1$. At zero capital, portfolio $i$ survives with probability $1-{\rho }_i$. The independence of random variables of the entire portfolio processes makes their ultimate survival events independent. ConsequentlyThe exponential form is not needed for this zero-capital probability under positive loading; only the claim mean enters. For completeness, the company description does not separately repeat positive loading for every portfolio. If nonpositive loadings are allowed, certain ruin with nonpositive loading and finite claim variance instead givesHere the positive part sets a nonpositive factor to zero. To justify the additional case, observe capital at claim times: its independent increments are $c_{i}T-X$, with mean $c_i/{\lambda }_i-{\mu }_i$. A negative mean sends their partial sums to $-\infty$ by the strong law of large numbers. At zero mean, these increments have finite nonzero variance. The central limit theorem gives $\mathbb{P}(S_k<-K)\to 1/2$ for each fixed $K$, so the probability of unboundedness below is at least $1/2$. That event is unchanged by altering finitely many increments and hence is a tail event; the Kolmogorov zero-one law makes its probability one. Ruin therefore occurs almost surely also at zero loading.

For the merged claims, Poisson superposition of insurance portfolios gives total arrival rate $\lambda ={\sum }_i{\lambda }_i$. Each arrival is from portfolio $i$ with probability ${\lambda }_i/\lambda$, independently of other arrival labels. Thus its claim-size mixture distribution has densityThe weights sum to one, so this density integrates to one. An independent transform verification uses the aggregate for one accounting period. If $M_i(r)=(1-{\mu }_{i}r{)}^{-1}$, then its moment-generating function isThis is precisely a compound Poisson distribution with parameter $\lambda$ and the displayed claim-size law. The transform identity can safely be read at $r\le 0$; positive arguments must be below the relevant poles.

Premium incomes and initial capitals add. Therefore the merged premium rate is $C={\sum }_i{c}_i$, the merged initial capital is zero, and its mean claim size isIts zero-capital survival probability is consequentlyUnder the question's positive-loading context this is a premium-weighted average of the individual survival probabilities, rather than their product. If arbitrary individual loadings are admitted, recompute the loading of the merged portfolio; its finite-variance mixture law gives the complete formulaAn individually nonpositive loading does not force merged ruin when aggregate premiums still exceed aggregate expected claims. The survival probability under risk pooling is at least their product because a product of numbers in $[0,1]$ is at most each factor. Pooling allows one portfolio's surplus to cover another's deficit, so merged survival does not require every original portfolio to remain solvent separately.

Use $c_{\mathrm{prem}}$ for the premium income rate, reserving $c$ later for the smaller exponential decay rate. In the classical risk model, the surplus isHere $\rho$ is the relative safety loading. The aggregate claims form a Compound Poisson process. Define $L_t={\sum }_{j=1}^{N_t}{X}_j-c_{\mathrm{prem}}t$, so ruin occurs when $L_t>u$. By independent increments and the exponential formula for a marked Poisson sum,Thus $Z_t=e^{R{L}_t}$ is a nonnegative continuous-time martingale with $Z_0=1$, because the adjustment coefficient makes the exponent vanish.

Let $\tau =\inf \{t:U_t<0\}$. Apply the optional stopping theorem at the bounded stopping time $\tau \wedge T$. On $\{\tau \le T\}$, $L_{\tau }>u$, soLetting $T$ increase proves the Lundberg inequality and the unscaled limit:

For the precise asymptotic, putThe given exponential integral identity makes $k$ a probability density. Multiplying the given defective renewal equation by $e^{Ru}$ turns it into the ordinary renewal equationFor clarity, the version of the key renewal theorem used here is: if the interarrival law is nonarithmetic, has mean $m_k\in (0,\infty )$, and $g$ is directly Riemann integrable, the locally bounded solution of this renewal equation satisfies $z(u)\to m_k^{-1}{\int }_0^{\infty }g(v)dv$. The infinite-mean version gives zero for nonnegative directly Riemann integrable $g$.

All the hypotheses can be checked here. The density $k$ gives a nonarithmetic distribution. The Tonelli theorem givesFurthermoreThus $g$ is continuous and integrable, and ${\int }_0^{\infty }|g^{\prime }(u)|du\le R\int g+1<\infty$. On a mesh of width $\delta$, the difference between its upper and lower sums is at most $\delta \int |g^{\prime }|$; its upper sum is at most $\int g+\delta \int |g^{\prime }|$. This proves direct Riemann integrability rather than assuming it. Also $0\le z(u)\le 1$ by the Lundberg inequality, so the solution is locally bounded. Its renewal representation is $z=g\ast U_k$, where $U_k={\sum }_{j\ge 0}{K}^{\ast j}$ and $K(dx)=k(x)dx$; the residual after iteration tends to zero on compact intervals because sums of positive interarrivals tend to infinity.

Writing $J={\int }_0^{\infty }x{e}^{Rx}{f}_I(x)dx$, the tilted interarrival expected value is $m_k=hJ$. The key renewal theorem gives the Cramér–Lundberg ruin asymptoticIf $J=\infty$, the same formula is interpreted as $A=0$. A positive finite asymptotic constant requires $J<\infty$; this extra integrability is not explicitly stated in the paper.

For the final two-exponential case, evaluate the defective renewal equation at zero:One can identify the adjustment coefficient without silently assuming $A>0$. For $0<r<c$, setIt is finite and positive. Integrating the nonnegative terms of the defective renewal equation, using the Tonelli theorem, first shows that $F_I(r)={\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{rx}{f}_I(x)dx$ is finite and then givesAs $r\uparrow c$, $P(r)\to \infty$ because $a>0$. By monotone convergence theorem, $h{F}_I(c)=1$. The integrated tail distribution in the classical risk model has density $f_I(x)=\mathbb{P}(X_1>x)/\mu$, so $F_I(r)=[M(r)-1]/(\mu r)$ by the tail integral formula for moments. Hence $c$ solves the adjustment equation, and its stipulated uniqueness implies $R=c$. Finally the displayed form of $\psi$ gives the remaining constantsIn particular the decay exponent $d$ and the coefficient $b$ do not affect $R$ or $A$. The $c$ in these final answers is the printed decay rate, not $c_{\mathrm{prem}}$.

For positive claims with finite nonzero expected value $\mu$, the function $(M_X(r)-1)/r$ is continuous and strictly increasing on the positive finite-transform domain, starting at $\mu$. If $M_X$ diverges at a finite upper endpoint, or is finite for all positive arguments, the secant slope tends to infinity. In the latter case use $M_X(r)\ge \mathbb{P}(X\ge a)e^{ar}$ for some $a>0$ of positive tail probability. Every target $(1+\theta )\mu$ with positive relative safety loading therefore has exactly one positive root.

In a classical risk model with positive relative safety loading, zero initial capital has ultimate survival probability $1-\lambda \mu /c$, where $\lambda$ is the claim-arrival rate, $\mu$ the claim expected value and $c$ the premium rate. It depends on the claim law through its mean alone. It is not the event of never receiving a claim: premium accumulates between arrivals.