Adverse selection is a pervasive problem in finance, stemming from information asymmetry between parties engaging in a transaction. It essentially means that one party has more relevant information than the other, and exploits this advantage, leading to inefficient market outcomes. The party with more information can strategically select transactions that benefit them, leaving the less-informed party vulnerable to being exploited.
A classic example is in the insurance market. Imagine a health insurance company offering policies to the general public. Individuals with pre-existing health conditions, and thus a higher likelihood of needing medical care, are more likely to purchase the insurance than healthier individuals. The insurance company, lacking perfect knowledge of each applicant’s health status, ends up attracting a disproportionate number of high-risk individuals. This forces the insurer to raise premiums to cover the increased payouts, which in turn discourages healthy individuals from purchasing the policy, further exacerbating the adverse selection problem. The market could even unravel completely if the premiums become so high that only the very sickest individuals are willing to pay them.
The same principle applies to financial markets. Consider the market for used cars. Sellers generally know more about the condition of their cars than potential buyers. If there are both good (“peaches”) and bad (“lemons”) cars on the market, buyers are often unable to distinguish between them. Fearing they might end up with a lemon, buyers are only willing to pay an average price, reflecting the perceived average quality of the cars. This average price is too low for sellers of peaches, who are unwilling to sell their high-quality cars at a price that doesn’t reflect their true value. Consequently, the market becomes dominated by lemons, driving down the average quality and further depressing prices. This ultimately harms both buyers and sellers, as the market fails to efficiently allocate resources. This is often referred to as the “market for lemons” problem.
Adverse selection also manifests in lending markets. Borrowers know more about their creditworthiness and the true risk of their projects than lenders. Those with riskier projects, and therefore less likely to repay, are more willing to accept higher interest rates. Lenders, unable to perfectly assess each borrower’s risk, may raise interest rates to compensate for the increased likelihood of default. However, this can deter less risky borrowers from seeking loans, leaving the lender with a pool of riskier borrowers and a higher chance of loan defaults.
Several mechanisms can mitigate adverse selection. Signaling involves the informed party taking actions to credibly convey their private information to the uninformed party. For example, a company might signal its financial strength by undergoing a rigorous audit or maintaining a low debt-to-equity ratio. Screening involves the uninformed party designing mechanisms to elicit information from the informed party. An insurance company, for example, might offer different policies with varying levels of coverage and premiums to separate high-risk from low-risk individuals. Credit rating agencies provide independent assessments of borrowers’ creditworthiness, reducing information asymmetry for lenders. Mandatory disclosures and regulations, such as those required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), can also help reduce information asymmetry and mitigate adverse selection in financial markets.
723×500 adverse selection meaning drawbacks from efinancemanagement.com 
768×411 adverse selection intelligent economist from www.intelligenteconomist.com 
768×431 adverse selection explained economics from www.economicshelp.org