Portfolio Selection with Quadratic Utility Revisited
|
|
- John Bryan
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 29: , 2004 c 2004 The Geneva Association Portfolio Selection with Quadratic Utility Revisited TIMOTHY MATHEWS tmathews@csun.edu Department of Economics, California State University-Northridge, Nordhoff St., Northridge, CA Received December 10, 2002; Revised May 15, 2003 Abstract Considering a simple portfolio selection problem by agents with quadratic utility, an apparently counterintuitive outcome results. When such a choice is over two assets that can be ordered in terms of riskiness, an agent that is more risk averse may optimally invest a larger portion of wealth in the riskier asset. It is shown that such an outcome is not counterintuitive, since for the portfolios from which agents optimally choose, a larger proportion of investment in the riskier asset leads to a less risky portfolio. Key words: portfolio selection, choice under uncertainty JEL Classification No.: G11, D8 1. Introduction Ross [1981] criticized the standard definition of more risk averse by highlighting some apparently counterintuitive choices made by agents that can be ordered in terms of degree of risk aversion. One of Ross examples showed that in a simple portfolio selection problem, an individual with a higher degree of absolute risk aversion may choose to invest more in a riskier asset (using his new definition of an asset being riskier). 1 Ross proposed a stronger concept of more risk averse and showed that such a counterintuitive outcome cannot occur when his new concept of more risk averse is applied (again, using his new definition of an asset being riskier). Hadar and Seo [1990] examine the implications of Ross definition of more risk averse in situations in which a choice is over two assets that can be compared using the traditional definition of riskier. They show that Ross stronger definition of more risk averse may not necessarily rule out the counterintuitive outcomes it was intended to. One of the examples considered by Hadar and Seo is a simple portfolio selection problem in which an agent must decide upon the proportion of wealth to invest in each of two risky assets. Comparing the optimal choice of agents with quadratic Bernoulli utility functions, they arrive at the seemingly counterintuitive conclusion that the more risk averse agent optimally chooses to invest more in the riskier asset. It is argued here that this outcome, which was labelled counterintuitive by both Ross and Hadar and Seo, is not so counterintuitive after all.
2 138 MATHEWS 2. Simple portfolio selection problem Consider an economic agent making a decision under uncertainty. The level of utility from a payoff of x is obtained by evaluating the Bernoulli utility function, u( ), at x. Given a distribution of payoffs F(x), the utility of the agent is given by the von-neumann- Morgenstern utility function U(F(x)) = u(x) df(x). Suppose an agent must choose optimal proportions of a fixed amount of wealth to invest in two risky assets X and Y. Further, suppose that Y is riskier than X in that X second order stochastic dominates Y and has a higher mean than Y. Hadar and Seo consider such a choice by agents with Bernoulli utility functions of the form u i (w) = w k i w 2 where k i > 0 and 1 2k i exceeds the largest possible realization of w. Considering two agents A and B, A is more risk averse than B in the Arrow-Pratt sense if u A (x) B (x) u A (x) u u B for all x (with strict inequality almost everywhere). In the current context, this (x) is satisfied if and only if k A > k B. A is more risk averse than B as defined by Ross if for all x and y there exists λ>0such that u A (x) u B (x) λ u A (y) u B (y). For agents with different preferences, this condition is again satisfied in the current context if and only if k A > k B. Let α denote the proportion invested in asset Y. That is, the portfolio of an agent is given by the random variable W α = αy + (1 α)x with α [0, 1]. Denote the value of α characterizing the optimal portfolio of agent i by αi. 3. A counterintuitive outcome? As a function of α, the von-neumann-morgenstern utility for agent i is U i (α) = E(W α ) k i E ( W 2 α ). Supposing that each agent optimally chooses to invest a positive amount in each asset, the optimal portfolio choices for agents A and B are such that and U A (α A ) = E(Y X) 2k A E(WA (Y X)) = 0 U B (α B ) = E(Y X) 2k B E(WB (Y X)) = 0 where W A = α A Y + (1 α A )X and W B = α B Y + (1 α B )X.
3 PORTFOLIO SELECTION WITH QUADRATIC UTILITY REVISITED 139 As shown by Hadar and Seo, these conditions imply α A >α B. That is, they arrive at the apparently counterintuitive result that the more risk averse agent will choose to invest more in the riskier asset. 2 Thus, Hadar and Seo illustrate that Ross definition of more risk averse is not strong enough to rule out such a seemingly counterintuitive result when the standard definition of riskier is used. It has been shown by Rothschild and Stiglitz [1970] that the preferences of an expected utility maximizing agent over different distributions of wealth cannot always be consistently stated as preferences over mean and variance alone. This can only be done if restrictive assumptions are made about either the Bernoulli utility function of the agent or the specific class of distributions from which the agent must choose. Borch [1969] and Baron [1977] have shown that for any arbitrary payoff distribution, preferences can be stated over mean and variance alone only if an agent has a quadratic Bernoulli utility function. Others have attempted to show consistency of mean-variance analysis and expected utility analysis for restricted classes of random variables. Meyer [1987] proves such consistency for situations in which all risks under consideration belong to a common two-parameter family, the elements of which differ from one another by only location and scale. It should be noted that the class of random variables resulting from the portfolio selection problem considered here (with two risky assets) need not satisfy the location and scale parameter condition identified by Meyer. 3 Bigelow [1993] provides a necessary and sufficient condition for consistency of mean-variance analysis and expected utility analysis. Bigelow defines a class of random variables to be normalized risk comparable if all members of the class can be ordered in terms of riskiness (in the traditional sense of Rothschild and Stiglitz) after being normalized to have zero mean. Preferences resulting from an arbitrary Bernoulli utility function are consistent with preferences over mean and variance if and only if the class of random variables under consideration is normalized risk comparable. It again should be noted that the portfolio selection problem considered here (with two risky assets) need not give rise to a class of distributions which is normalized risk comparable. 4 Mathews [2002] proposes a definition of more risk averse for situations in which preferences can be stated over mean and variance alone (in which case variance completely indexes riskiness). This definition leads to an intuitive restriction on indifference curves in (σ 2,µ) space. Letting S i (σ 2,µ) denote the slope of the indifference curve of agent i at the point (σ 2,µ), agent A is defined to be more risk averse than agent B if and only if S A (σ 2,µ) > S B (σ 2,µ) for all (σ 2,µ). The notion of more risk averse described by Mathews corresponds to the notion of more variance averse which is discussed by Lajeri and Nielsen [2000] and Lajeri-Chaherli [2002]. Comparing the optimal choices by two agents from any common set of risky alternatives, Mathews shows that (when his proposed definition can be applied) an agent that is more risk averse cannot optimally choose an alternative characterized by a higher level of risk. For agents with quadratic Bernoulli utility functions, the notion of more risk averse proposed by Mathews is not only applicable, but corresponds to the traditional Arrow-Pratt notion of more risk averse. 5 The outcome of the portfolio selection problem considered here and the observation by Mathews that a more risk averse agent cannot optimally choose a higher level of risk initially appear to be at odds with each other. However, as more light is shed upon the matter, it is
4 140 MATHEWS clear that not only is there no contradiction, but further, the observation by Hadar and Seo does not conflict with intuition. 4. Further inspection of portfolio choice Foranagent i with u i (w) = w k i w 2 we have U i (α) = µ α k i µ 2 α k iσα 2 where µ α is the expected value and σα 2 is the variance of W α.asaresult, and U i µ α = 1 2k i µ α > 0 U i σ 2 α = k i < 0. The first inequality follows from the assumption that 2k i exceeds the largest possible realization of w; the second inequality follows from the assumption that k i > 0. Thus, an increase in expected payoff leads to an increase in von-neumann-morgenstern utility, while an increase in variance (an increase in risk) leads to a decrease in von-neumann-morgenstern utility. Let µ Y denote the expected value of Y and µ X denote the expected value of X. Since µ X >µ Y, µ α = αµ Y + (1 α)µ X is decreasing in α, asillustrated in figure 1. Letting µ B denote the expected value of WB and µ A denote the expected value of W A, α B <α A implies µ B >µ A. Let σb 2 denote the variance of W B and σ A 2 denote the variance of W A.Itmust be that σb 2 >σ2 A.Inorder to see this, suppose that the converse is true. If σ B 2 σ 2 A and µ B >µ A, then any agent with a quadratic Bernoulli utility function would prefer WB to WA, contradicting the optimality of α A for agent A. Asaresult, σ B 2 >σ2 A, implying that agent A chooses a portfolio that both agents view as less risky than the portfolio that B chooses. This outcome accords with intuition: the agent that is more risk averse chooses a portfolio which is less risky. Direct inspection of σα 2 shows that over the entire range of α from which agents might optimally choose, the riskiness of a portfolio decreases as α increases. Letting σy 2 denote the variance of Y, σx 2 denote the variance of X, and Cov(Y, X) denote the covariance between Y and X, σ 2 α = α2 σ 2 Y + 2α(1 α) Cov(Y, X) + (1 α)2 σ 2 X. For this expression α = 2{ ασy 2 + (1 2α) Cov(Y, X) (1 α)σ X 2 } = 2 { αvar(y X) + Cov(Y, X) σx} 2. σ 2 α 1
5 PORTFOLIO SELECTION WITH QUADRATIC UTILITY REVISITED 141 Figure 1. Mean and variance of portfolio. Var(Y X) isalways positive. Assume Cov(Y, X) σx 2 < 0, so that agents always wish to diversify. As a result, for small values of α the second term dominates this expression, leading to σ2 α α < 0. Since σ Y 2 >σ2 X, σ α 2 is as illustrated in figure 1.6 Thus, as α is increased from zero to one, σα 2 decreases up to some level ᾱ and then increases beyond ᾱ. Since U i (α) isincreasing in µ α and decreasing in σα 2, the optimal choice of α cannot exceed ᾱ. That is, the optimal portfolio of any such agent is characterized by α (0, ᾱ]. This can also be seen by illustrating the resulting values of (σα 2,µ α)in(σ 2,µ) space, as in figure 2. Different values of α lead to different portfolios along the locus from X = W 0 to Y = W 1. From the observations thus far, this locus is positively sloped at points induced by α [0, ᾱ) and negatively sloped at points induced by α (ᾱ, 1]. Further, as α is increased from zero to ᾱ (that is, as we move along the locus from X = W 0 to Wᾱ), the slope of the locus increases. Clearly the optimal portfolio of any agent must lie on this locus somewhere between X = W 0 and Wᾱ, corresponding to α (0, ᾱ). When preferences can be stated over mean and variance alone, the shape of indifference curves has been characterized: by Meyer and by Lajeri and Nielsen (when all risks under consideration belong to a common two-parameter family) and by Lajeri-Chaherli (when
6 142 MATHEWS Figure 2. Optimal choice of agent A and agent B. such preferences do not necessarily arise from an expected utility framework). From each of these studies, it follows that at any point in (σ 2,µ) space, S i (σ 2,µ)isgreater for agents that are more risk averse in the traditional Arrow-Pratt sense. 7 It is however important to recognize that the portfolio selection problem considered here does not necessarily give rise to a class of random variables belonging to a two-parameter family. Thus, when analyzing such a choice for an expected utility maximizing agent, the aforementioned references do not provide an immediate characterization of the shape of indifference curves in (σ 2,µ) space. Foranagent with u i (w) = w k i w 2, the slope of an indifference curve in (σ 2,µ) space is S i (σ 2,µ) = k i 1 2k i µ > 0. Considering two agents A and B such that k A > k B,atany point in (σ 2,µ) space the indifference curve of A is steeper than the indifference curve of B. These insights follow directly from observations made by Baron. From here it immediately follows that 0 <α B <α A < ᾱ. The optimal choice of each agent is illustrated in (σ 2,µ) space in figure 2. Since σα 2 decreases as α is increased over the range of α from which agents will choose, optimal portfolios characterized by larger portions of the riskier asset are in fact less risky portfolios. Thus, we arrive at the intuitive result that a more risk averse agent chooses a portfolio which all agents view as less risky. 5. Conclusion One of the examples presented by Hadar and Seo when examining the implications of Ross definition of more risk averse was a simple portfolio selection problem in which an
7 PORTFOLIO SELECTION WITH QUADRATIC UTILITY REVISITED 143 agent must decide upon the proportion of a fixed amount of wealth to invest in two risky assets. Comparing the optimal choice by agents with quadratic Bernoulli utility functions, they arrive at the seemingly counterintuitive conclusion that the more risk averse agent will choose to invest more in the riskier asset. It has been argued here that this outcome does not conflict with intuition, by pointing out that the portfolio chosen by the agent that is more risk averse is viewed as a less risky portfolio by both agents. Acknowledgment Iwould like to thank Tom Lee, Qihong Liu, and Soiliou Namoro for helpful comments. Notes 1. Ross states that an asset Y offering a higher return than an asset X is riskier if E(Y X x) 0 for all x X. 2. Lajeri-Chaherli [2002] considers a portfolio selection problem with one riskless and one risky asset (in which there are no constraints on borrowing or short sales) in a mean-variance framework, and arrives at the intuitive conclusion that a more risk averse agent will hold fewer shares of the risky asset. 3. As noted by Meyer, a portfolio selection problem of this nature over one riskless and one risky asset would lead to a class of random variables satisfying his location and scale condition. 4. Thus, in order to legitimately analyze any such portfolio selection problem in an expected utility framework as a choice over mean and variance, attention must be restricted to agents with quadratic Bernoulli utility functions. 5. When agents have non-quadratic Bernoulli utility functions the notion of more risk averse defined by Mathews need not apply, even when preferences are over mean and variance alone. Mathews provides an example of a class of random variables which is normalized risk comparable for which agents with differing degrees of constant absolute risk aversion are not ordered by the proposed definition. An implication of this observation is that for such a class of random variables, there exist points in (σ 2,µ) space for which an agent with a higher degree of constant absolute risk aversion has a flatter indifference curve. 6. If Cov(Y, X) σx 2 0 (so that it never pays to diversify), then σ α 2 would not be as illustrated in figure 1, but would rather be increasing in α for all α [0, 1]. 7. A characterization of the shape of indifference curves in (σ 2,µ) space is also provided by Mathews (when preferences arise from an expected utility framework) in which, as previously noted, one agent is defined as being more risk averse than another precisely when S i (σ 2,µ)isgreater at every point in (σ 2,µ) space. References BARON, D.P. [1977]: On the Utility Theoretic Foundations of Mean-Variance Analysis, Journal of Finance, 32, BIGELOW, J.P. [1993]: Consistency of Mean-Variance Analysis and Expected Utility Analysis: A Complete Characterization, Economics Letters, 43, BORCH, K. [1969]: A Note on Uncertainty and Indifference Curves, Review of Economic Studies, 36, 1 4. HADAR, J. and SEO, T.K. [1990]: Ross Measure of Risk Aversion and Portfolio Selection, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3, LAJERI, F. and NIELSEN, L.T. [2000]: Parametric Characterizations of Risk Aversion and Prudence, Economic Theory, 15, LAJERI-CHAHERLI, F. [2002]: Partial Derivatives, Comparative Risk Behavior and Concavity of Utility Functions, forthcoming in Mathematical Social Sciences. MATHEWS, T. [2002]: The Meaning of More Risk Averse when Preferences are over Mean and Variance, forthcoming in The Manchester School (volume 43, issue 1, January 2005).
8 144 MATHEWS MEYER, J. [1987]: Two-Moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization, American Economic Review, 77, ROSS, S.A. [1981]: Some Stronger Measures of Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large with Applications, Econometrica, 49, ROTHSCHILD, M. and STIGLITZ, J.E. [1970]: Increasing Risk: I. A Definition, Journal of Economic Theory, 2,
Andreas Wagener University of Vienna. Abstract
Linear risk tolerance and mean variance preferences Andreas Wagener University of Vienna Abstract We translate the property of linear risk tolerance (hyperbolical Arrow Pratt index of risk aversion) from
More informationElasticity of risk aversion and international trade
Department of Economics Working Paper No. 0510 http://nt2.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/pub/wp/wp0510.pdf Elasticity of risk aversion and international trade by Udo Broll, Jack E. Wahl and Wing-Keung Wong 2005 Udo
More informationCharacterization of the Optimum
ECO 317 Economics of Uncertainty Fall Term 2009 Notes for lectures 5. Portfolio Allocation with One Riskless, One Risky Asset Characterization of the Optimum Consider a risk-averse, expected-utility-maximizing
More informationLinear Risk Tolerance and Mean-Variance Utility Functions
Linear Risk Tolerance and Mean-Variance Utility Functions Andreas Wagener Department of Economics University of Vienna Hohenstaufengasse 9 00 Vienna, Austria andreas.wagener@univie.ac.at Abstract: The
More informationDepartment of Economics The Ohio State University Final Exam Questions and Answers Econ 8712
Prof. Peck Fall 016 Department of Economics The Ohio State University Final Exam Questions and Answers Econ 871 1. (35 points) The following economy has one consumer, two firms, and four goods. Goods 1
More informationAdvanced Financial Economics Homework 2 Due on April 14th before class
Advanced Financial Economics Homework 2 Due on April 14th before class March 30, 2015 1. (20 points) An agent has Y 0 = 1 to invest. On the market two financial assets exist. The first one is riskless.
More informationThe mean-variance portfolio choice framework and its generalizations
The mean-variance portfolio choice framework and its generalizations Prof. Massimo Guidolin 20135 Theory of Finance, Part I (Sept. October) Fall 2014 Outline and objectives The backward, three-step solution
More informationEconS Micro Theory I Recitation #8b - Uncertainty II
EconS 50 - Micro Theory I Recitation #8b - Uncertainty II. Exercise 6.E.: The purpose of this exercise is to show that preferences may not be transitive in the presence of regret. Let there be S states
More informationExpected Utility and Risk Aversion
Expected Utility and Risk Aversion Expected utility and risk aversion 1/ 58 Introduction Expected utility is the standard framework for modeling investor choices. The following topics will be covered:
More informationModels and Decision with Financial Applications UNIT 1: Elements of Decision under Uncertainty
Models and Decision with Financial Applications UNIT 1: Elements of Decision under Uncertainty We always need to make a decision (or select from among actions, options or moves) even when there exists
More informationOptimal Risk in Agricultural Contracts
Optimal Risk in Agricultural Contracts Ethan Ligon Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Berkeley Abstract It s a commonplace observation that risk-averse farmers
More information3. Prove Lemma 1 of the handout Risk Aversion.
IDEA Economics of Risk and Uncertainty List of Exercises Expected Utility, Risk Aversion, and Stochastic Dominance. 1. Prove that, for every pair of Bernouilli utility functions, u 1 ( ) and u 2 ( ), and
More informationStandard Risk Aversion and Efficient Risk Sharing
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Standard Risk Aversion and Efficient Risk Sharing Richard M. H. Suen University of Leicester 29 March 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86499/ MPRA Paper
More informationCHOICE THEORY, UTILITY FUNCTIONS AND RISK AVERSION
CHOICE THEORY, UTILITY FUNCTIONS AND RISK AVERSION Szabolcs Sebestyén szabolcs.sebestyen@iscte.pt Master in Finance INVESTMENTS Sebestyén (ISCTE-IUL) Choice Theory Investments 1 / 65 Outline 1 An Introduction
More informationExpected utility inequalities: theory and applications
Economic Theory (2008) 36:147 158 DOI 10.1007/s00199-007-0272-1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Expected utility inequalities: theory and applications Eduardo Zambrano Received: 6 July 2006 / Accepted: 13 July 2007 /
More informationRisk Aversion, Stochastic Dominance, and Rules of Thumb: Concept and Application
Risk Aversion, Stochastic Dominance, and Rules of Thumb: Concept and Application Vivek H. Dehejia Carleton University and CESifo Email: vdehejia@ccs.carleton.ca January 14, 2008 JEL classification code:
More informationMicro Theory I Assignment #5 - Answer key
Micro Theory I Assignment #5 - Answer key 1. Exercises from MWG (Chapter 6): (a) Exercise 6.B.1 from MWG: Show that if the preferences % over L satisfy the independence axiom, then for all 2 (0; 1) and
More informationSolution Guide to Exercises for Chapter 4 Decision making under uncertainty
THE ECONOMICS OF FINANCIAL MARKETS R. E. BAILEY Solution Guide to Exercises for Chapter 4 Decision making under uncertainty 1. Consider an investor who makes decisions according to a mean-variance objective.
More informationSTOCHASTIC CONSUMPTION-SAVINGS MODEL: CANONICAL APPLICATIONS FEBRUARY 19, 2013
STOCHASTIC CONSUMPTION-SAVINGS MODEL: CANONICAL APPLICATIONS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 Model Structure EXPECTED UTILITY Preferences v(c 1, c 2 ) with all the usual properties Lifetime expected utility function
More informationComparison of Payoff Distributions in Terms of Return and Risk
Comparison of Payoff Distributions in Terms of Return and Risk Preliminaries We treat, for convenience, money as a continuous variable when dealing with monetary outcomes. Strictly speaking, the derivation
More informationKIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
KIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES KYOTO INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/index.html Discussion Paper No. 657 The Buy Price in Auctions with Discrete Type Distributions Yusuke Inami
More informationFinancial Economics: Risk Aversion and Investment Decisions, Modern Portfolio Theory
Financial Economics: Risk Aversion and Investment Decisions, Modern Portfolio Theory Shuoxun Hellen Zhang WISE & SOE XIAMEN UNIVERSITY April, 2015 1 / 95 Outline Modern portfolio theory The backward induction,
More informationFinancial Mathematics III Theory summary
Financial Mathematics III Theory summary Table of Contents Lecture 1... 7 1. State the objective of modern portfolio theory... 7 2. Define the return of an asset... 7 3. How is expected return defined?...
More informationMORAL HAZARD AND BACKGROUND RISK IN COMPETITIVE INSURANCE MARKETS: THE DISCRETE EFFORT CASE. James A. Ligon * University of Alabama.
mhbri-discrete 7/5/06 MORAL HAZARD AND BACKGROUND RISK IN COMPETITIVE INSURANCE MARKETS: THE DISCRETE EFFORT CASE James A. Ligon * University of Alabama and Paul D. Thistle University of Nevada Las Vegas
More informationMidterm 1, Financial Economics February 15, 2010
Midterm 1, Financial Economics February 15, 2010 Name: Email: @illinois.edu All questions must be answered on this test form. Question 1: Let S={s1,,s11} be the set of states. Suppose that at t=0 the state
More informationOptimizing Portfolios
Optimizing Portfolios An Undergraduate Introduction to Financial Mathematics J. Robert Buchanan 2010 Introduction Investors may wish to adjust the allocation of financial resources including a mixture
More information1. Expected utility, risk aversion and stochastic dominance
. Epected utility, risk aversion and stochastic dominance. Epected utility.. Description o risky alternatives.. Preerences over lotteries..3 The epected utility theorem. Monetary lotteries and risk aversion..
More informationE&G, Chap 10 - Utility Analysis; the Preference Structure, Uncertainty - Developing Indifference Curves in {E(R),σ(R)} Space.
1 E&G, Chap 10 - Utility Analysis; the Preference Structure, Uncertainty - Developing Indifference Curves in {E(R),σ(R)} Space. A. Overview. c 2 1. With Certainty, objects of choice (c 1, c 2 ) 2. With
More informationEffects of Wealth and Its Distribution on the Moral Hazard Problem
Effects of Wealth and Its Distribution on the Moral Hazard Problem Jin Yong Jung We analyze how the wealth of an agent and its distribution affect the profit of the principal by considering the simple
More informationRisk and Return and Portfolio Theory
Risk and Return and Portfolio Theory Intro: Last week we learned how to calculate cash flows, now we want to learn how to discount these cash flows. This will take the next several weeks. We know discount
More informationMicroeconomic Theory May 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program.
Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program May 2013 *********************************************** COVER SHEET ***********************************************
More informationECON FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College Fall 2017 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International
More informationMaximization of utility and portfolio selection models
Maximization of utility and portfolio selection models J. F. NEVES P. N. DA SILVA C. F. VASCONCELLOS Abstract Modern portfolio theory deals with the combination of assets into a portfolio. It has diversification
More informationAn Asset Allocation Puzzle: Comment
An Asset Allocation Puzzle: Comment By HAIM SHALIT AND SHLOMO YITZHAKI* The purpose of this note is to look at the rationale behind popular advice on portfolio allocation among cash, bonds, and stocks.
More informationECON FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College Spring 2018 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International
More informationChoice under risk and uncertainty
Choice under risk and uncertainty Introduction Up until now, we have thought of the objects that our decision makers are choosing as being physical items However, we can also think of cases where the outcomes
More informationCONVENTIONAL FINANCE, PROSPECT THEORY, AND MARKET EFFICIENCY
CONVENTIONAL FINANCE, PROSPECT THEORY, AND MARKET EFFICIENCY PART ± I CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 Foundations of Finance I: Expected Utility Theory Foundations of Finance II: Asset Pricing, Market Efficiency,
More informationMean-Variance Portfolio Theory
Mean-Variance Portfolio Theory Lakehead University Winter 2005 Outline Measures of Location Risk of a Single Asset Risk and Return of Financial Securities Risk of a Portfolio The Capital Asset Pricing
More informationECON FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College April 26, 2018 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International
More informationComparative Risk Sensitivity with Reference-Dependent Preferences
The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24:2; 131 142, 2002 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands. Comparative Risk Sensitivity with Reference-Dependent Preferences WILLIAM S. NEILSON
More informationMicroeconomics of Banking: Lecture 2
Microeconomics of Banking: Lecture 2 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO September 25, 2015 A Brief Look at General Equilibrium Asset Pricing Last week, we saw a general equilibrium model in which banks were irrelevant.
More informationDepartment of Economics The Ohio State University Final Exam Answers Econ 8712
Department of Economics The Ohio State University Final Exam Answers Econ 872 Prof. Peck Fall 207. (35 points) The following economy has three consumers, one firm, and four goods. Good is the labor/leisure
More informationDepartment of Economics The Ohio State University Midterm Questions and Answers Econ 8712
Prof. James Peck Fall 06 Department of Economics The Ohio State University Midterm Questions and Answers Econ 87. (30 points) A decision maker (DM) is a von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility maximizer.
More informationUtility and Choice Under Uncertainty
Introduction to Microeconomics Utility and Choice Under Uncertainty The Five Axioms of Choice Under Uncertainty We can use the axioms of preference to show how preferences can be mapped into measurable
More informationReview Session. Prof. Manuela Pedio Theory of Finance
Review Session Prof. Manuela Pedio 20135 Theory of Finance 12 October 2018 Three most common utility functions (1/3) We typically assume that investors are non satiated (they always prefer more to less)
More informationGame-Theoretic Risk Analysis in Decision-Theoretic Rough Sets
Game-Theoretic Risk Analysis in Decision-Theoretic Rough Sets Joseph P. Herbert JingTao Yao Department of Computer Science, University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S 0A2 E-mail: [herbertj,jtyao]@cs.uregina.ca
More informationSession 9: The expected utility framework p. 1
Session 9: The expected utility framework Susan Thomas http://www.igidr.ac.in/ susant susant@mayin.org IGIDR Bombay Session 9: The expected utility framework p. 1 Questions How do humans make decisions
More informationSTOCHASTIC CONSUMPTION-SAVINGS MODEL: CANONICAL APPLICATIONS SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 BASICS. Introduction
STOCASTIC CONSUMPTION-SAVINGS MODE: CANONICA APPICATIONS SEPTEMBER 3, 00 Introduction BASICS Consumption-Savings Framework So far only a deterministic analysis now introduce uncertainty Still an application
More informationAversion to Risk and Optimal Portfolio Selection in the Mean- Variance Framework
Aversion to Risk and Optimal Portfolio Selection in the Mean- Variance Framework Prof. Massimo Guidolin 20135 Theory of Finance, Part I (Sept. October) Fall 2017 Outline and objectives Four alternative
More informationECO 317 Economics of Uncertainty Fall Term 2009 Tuesday October 6 Portfolio Allocation Mean-Variance Approach
ECO 317 Economics of Uncertainty Fall Term 2009 Tuesday October 6 ortfolio Allocation Mean-Variance Approach Validity of the Mean-Variance Approach Constant absolute risk aversion (CARA): u(w ) = exp(
More informationLecture 8: Asset pricing
BURNABY SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY BRITISH COLUMBIA Paul Klein Office: WMC 3635 Phone: (778) 782-9391 Email: paul klein 2@sfu.ca URL: http://paulklein.ca/newsite/teaching/483.php Economics 483 Advanced Topics
More informationFoundations of Financial Economics Choice under uncertainty
Foundations of Financial Economics Choice under uncertainty Paulo Brito 1 pbrito@iseg.ulisboa.pt University of Lisbon March 9, 2018 Topics covered Contingent goods Comparing contingent goods Decision under
More informationIncreases in Risk Aversion and the Distribution of Portfolio Payoffs
Increases in Risk Aversion and the Distribution of Portfolio Payoffs Philip H. Dybvig Yajun Wang June 10, 2011 Abstract Hart [10] proved the difficulty of deriving general comparative statics in portfolio
More informationFinancial Economics Field Exam January 2008
Financial Economics Field Exam January 2008 There are two questions on the exam, representing Asset Pricing (236D = 234A) and Corporate Finance (234C). Please answer both questions to the best of your
More informationResolution of a Financial Puzzle
Resolution of a Financial Puzzle M.J. Brennan and Y. Xia September, 1998 revised November, 1998 Abstract The apparent inconsistency between the Tobin Separation Theorem and the advice of popular investment
More informationAversion to Risk and Optimal Portfolio Selection in the Mean- Variance Framework
Aversion to Risk and Optimal Portfolio Selection in the Mean- Variance Framework Prof. Massimo Guidolin 20135 Theory of Finance, Part I (Sept. October) Fall 2018 Outline and objectives Four alternative
More informationu (x) < 0. and if you believe in diminishing return of the wealth, then you would require
Chapter 8 Markowitz Portfolio Theory 8.7 Investor Utility Functions People are always asked the question: would more money make you happier? The answer is usually yes. The next question is how much more
More informationLarge Losses and Equilibrium in Insurance Markets. Lisa L. Posey a. Paul D. Thistle b
Large Losses and Equilibrium in Insurance Markets Lisa L. Posey a Paul D. Thistle b ABSTRACT We show that, if losses are larger than wealth, individuals will not insure if the loss probability is above
More informationSDMR Finance (2) Olivier Brandouy. University of Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne, IAE (Sorbonne Graduate Business School)
SDMR Finance (2) Olivier Brandouy University of Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne, IAE (Sorbonne Graduate Business School) Outline 1 Formal Approach to QAM : concepts and notations 2 3 Portfolio risk and return
More informationMeasuring the Benefits from Futures Markets: Conceptual Issues
International Journal of Business and Economics, 00, Vol., No., 53-58 Measuring the Benefits from Futures Markets: Conceptual Issues Donald Lien * Department of Economics, University of Texas at San Antonio,
More informationPORTFOLIO THEORY. Master in Finance INVESTMENTS. Szabolcs Sebestyén
PORTFOLIO THEORY Szabolcs Sebestyén szabolcs.sebestyen@iscte.pt Master in Finance INVESTMENTS Sebestyén (ISCTE-IUL) Portfolio Theory Investments 1 / 60 Outline 1 Modern Portfolio Theory Introduction Mean-Variance
More informationName. Final Exam, Economics 210A, December 2014 Answer any 7 of these 8 questions Good luck!
Name Final Exam, Economics 210A, December 2014 Answer any 7 of these 8 questions Good luck! 1) For each of the following statements, state whether it is true or false. If it is true, prove that it is true.
More informationProblem Set 3 Solutions
Problem Set 3 Solutions Ec 030 Feb 9, 205 Problem (3 points) Suppose that Tomasz is using the pessimistic criterion where the utility of a lottery is equal to the smallest prize it gives with a positive
More informationMistakes, Negligence and Liabilty. Vickie Bajtelsmit * Colorado State University. Paul Thistle University of Nevada Las Vegas.
\ins\liab\mistakes.v1a 11-03-09 Mistakes, Negligence and Liabilty Vickie Bajtelsmit * Colorado State University Paul Thistle University of Nevada Las Vegas November, 2009 Thistle would like to thank Lorne
More informationChoice under Uncertainty
Chapter 7 Choice under Uncertainty 1. Expected Utility Theory. 2. Risk Aversion. 3. Applications: demand for insurance, portfolio choice 4. Violations of Expected Utility Theory. 7.1 Expected Utility Theory
More informationHomework 1: Basic Moral Hazard
Homework 1: Basic Moral Hazard October 10, 2011 Question 1 (Normal Linear Model) The following normal linear model is regularly used in applied models. Given action a R, output is q = a + x, where x N(0,
More informationConsumption- Savings, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Pricing
Finance 400 A. Penati - G. Pennacchi Consumption- Savings, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Pricing I. The Consumption - Portfolio Choice Problem We have studied the portfolio choice problem of an individual
More information6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts
6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts Asu Ozdaglar MIT February 9, 2010 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria
More informationFinancial Economics: Risk Aversion and Investment Decisions
Financial Economics: Risk Aversion and Investment Decisions Shuoxun Hellen Zhang WISE & SOE XIAMEN UNIVERSITY March, 2015 1 / 50 Outline Risk Aversion and Portfolio Allocation Portfolios, Risk Aversion,
More informationA. Introduction to choice under uncertainty 2. B. Risk aversion 11. C. Favorable gambles 15. D. Measures of risk aversion 20. E.
Microeconomic Theory -1- Uncertainty Choice under uncertainty A Introduction to choice under uncertainty B Risk aversion 11 C Favorable gambles 15 D Measures of risk aversion 0 E Insurance 6 F Small favorable
More informationAdvanced Risk Management
Winter 2014/2015 Advanced Risk Management Part I: Decision Theory and Risk Management Motives Lecture 1: Introduction and Expected Utility Your Instructors for Part I: Prof. Dr. Andreas Richter Email:
More informationMossin s Theorem for Upper-Limit Insurance Policies
Mossin s Theorem for Upper-Limit Insurance Policies Harris Schlesinger Department of Finance, University of Alabama, USA Center of Finance & Econometrics, University of Konstanz, Germany E-mail: hschlesi@cba.ua.edu
More informationIncome distribution orderings based on differences with respect to the minimum acceptable income
Income distribution orderings based on differences with respect to the minimum acceptable income by ALAITZ ARTABE ECHEVARRIA 1 Master s thesis director JOSÉ MARÍA USATEGUI 2 Abstract This paper analysis
More informationMathematics in Finance
Mathematics in Finance Steven E. Shreve Department of Mathematical Sciences Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA shreve@andrew.cmu.edu A Talk in the Series Probability in Science and Industry
More informationIncreases in skewness and three-moment preferences
Increases in skewness and three-moment preferences Thomas Eichner a and Andreas Wagener b a) Department of Economics, University of Hagen, Universitätsstr. 41, 58097 Hagen, Germany. E-mail: thomas.eichner@fernuni-hagen.de
More informationLecture 8: Introduction to asset pricing
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON Paul Klein Office: Murray Building, 3005 Email: p.klein@soton.ac.uk URL: http://paulklein.se Economics 3010 Topics in Macroeconomics 3 Autumn 2010 Lecture 8: Introduction
More information1 Consumption and saving under uncertainty
1 Consumption and saving under uncertainty 1.1 Modelling uncertainty As in the deterministic case, we keep assuming that agents live for two periods. The novelty here is that their earnings in the second
More informationChanges in Risk and the Demand for Saving
Changes in Risk and the Demand for Saving Louis Eeckhoudt, Catholic University of Mons (Belgium) and CORE Harris Schlesinger, University of Alabama September 4, 2006 Abstract This paper examines how stochastic
More informationMaking Hard Decision. ENCE 627 Decision Analysis for Engineering. Identify the decision situation and understand objectives. Identify alternatives
CHAPTER Duxbury Thomson Learning Making Hard Decision Third Edition RISK ATTITUDES A. J. Clark School of Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 13 FALL 2003 By Dr. Ibrahim. Assakkaf
More informationThe Probationary Period as a Screening Device: The Monopolistic Insurer
THE GENEVA RISK AND INSURANCE REVIEW, 30: 5 14, 2005 c 2005 The Geneva Association The Probationary Period as a Screening Device: The Monopolistic Insurer JAAP SPREEUW Cass Business School, Faculty of
More informationPhD Qualifier Examination
PhD Qualifier Examination Department of Agricultural Economics May 29, 2014 Instructions This exam consists of six questions. You must answer all questions. If you need an assumption to complete a question,
More informationAdverse selection in insurance markets
Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences Adverse selection in insurance markets KC Border Fall 2015 This note is based on Michael Rothschild and Joseph Stiglitz [1], who argued that in the presence
More informationECO 317 Economics of Uncertainty Fall Term 2009 Notes for lectures 9. Demand for Insurance
The Basic Two-State Model ECO 317 Economics of Uncertainty Fall Term 2009 Notes for lectures 9. Demand for Insurance Insurance is a method for reducing (or in ideal circumstances even eliminating) individual
More informationECON FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College April 3, 2018 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International
More informationRepresenting Risk Preferences in Expected Utility Based Decision Models
Representing Risk Preferences in Expected Utility Based Decision Models Jack Meyer Department of Economics Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 jmeyer@msu.edu SCC-76: Economics and Management
More informationExpected Utility And Risk Aversion
Expected Utility And Risk Aversion Econ 2100 Fall 2017 Lecture 12, October 4 Outline 1 Risk Aversion 2 Certainty Equivalent 3 Risk Premium 4 Relative Risk Aversion 5 Stochastic Dominance Notation From
More informationFinancial Economics 4: Portfolio Theory
Financial Economics 4: Portfolio Theory Stefano Lovo HEC, Paris What is a portfolio? Definition A portfolio is an amount of money invested in a number of financial assets. Example Portfolio A is worth
More informationOnline Shopping Intermediaries: The Strategic Design of Search Environments
Online Supplemental Appendix to Online Shopping Intermediaries: The Strategic Design of Search Environments Anthony Dukes University of Southern California Lin Liu University of Central Florida February
More informationTechniques for Calculating the Efficient Frontier
Techniques for Calculating the Efficient Frontier Weerachart Kilenthong RIPED, UTCC c Kilenthong 2017 Tee (Riped) Introduction 1 / 43 Two Fund Theorem The Two-Fund Theorem states that we can reach any
More informationWe examine the impact of risk aversion on bidding behavior in first-price auctions.
Risk Aversion We examine the impact of risk aversion on bidding behavior in first-price auctions. Assume there is no entry fee or reserve. Note: Risk aversion does not affect bidding in SPA because there,
More informationUnraveling versus Unraveling: A Memo on Competitive Equilibriums and Trade in Insurance Markets
Unraveling versus Unraveling: A Memo on Competitive Equilibriums and Trade in Insurance Markets Nathaniel Hendren October, 2013 Abstract Both Akerlof (1970) and Rothschild and Stiglitz (1976) show that
More information1 Precautionary Savings: Prudence and Borrowing Constraints
1 Precautionary Savings: Prudence and Borrowing Constraints In this section we study conditions under which savings react to changes in income uncertainty. Recall that in the PIH, when you abstract from
More informationCourse Handouts - Introduction ECON 8704 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS. Jan Werner. University of Minnesota
Course Handouts - Introduction ECON 8704 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Jan Werner University of Minnesota SPRING 2019 1 I.1 Equilibrium Prices in Security Markets Assume throughout this section that utility functions
More informationAsymmetric Information: Walrasian Equilibria, and Rational Expectations Equilibria
Asymmetric Information: Walrasian Equilibria and Rational Expectations Equilibria 1 Basic Setup Two periods: 0 and 1 One riskless asset with interest rate r One risky asset which pays a normally distributed
More information3.1 The Marschak-Machina triangle and risk aversion
Chapter 3 Risk aversion 3.1 The Marschak-Machina triangle and risk aversion One of the earliest, and most useful, graphical tools used to analyse choice under uncertainty was a triangular graph that was
More informationPAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV. If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to
GAME THEORY PROBLEM SET 1 WINTER 2018 PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV Introduction If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to andrey.zhukov@aalto.fi. Materials from Osborne and Rubinstein
More informationThis paper addresses the situation when marketable gambles are restricted to be small. It is easily shown that the necessary conditions for local" Sta
Basic Risk Aversion Mark Freeman 1 School of Business and Economics, University of Exeter It is demonstrated that small marketable gambles that are unattractive to a Standard Risk Averse investor cannot
More informationRisk aversion and choice under uncertainty
Risk aversion and choice under uncertainty Pierre Chaigneau pierre.chaigneau@hec.ca June 14, 2011 Finance: the economics of risk and uncertainty In financial markets, claims associated with random future
More informationThird-degree stochastic dominance and DEA efficiency relations and numerical comparison
Third-degree stochastic dominance and DEA efficiency relations and numerical comparison 1 Introduction Martin Branda 1 Abstract. We propose efficiency tests which are related to the third-degree stochastic
More informationPrudence, risk measures and the Optimized Certainty Equivalent: a note
Working Paper Series Department of Economics University of Verona Prudence, risk measures and the Optimized Certainty Equivalent: a note Louis Raymond Eeckhoudt, Elisa Pagani, Emanuela Rosazza Gianin WP
More information