12 visualizações

Enviado por Tecwyn Lim

- Expected Utility and Risk Aversion (1).pdf
- A Behavioral Analysis of Stochastic Reference Dependence.pdf
- MIT15_450F10_lec04
- Pref Revers Summary
- Hobbes Spinoza Rationality and Utility
- Paper Comportamiento Organizacional
- [Chi-Fu_Huang,_Robert_H._Litzenberger]_Foundations(BookSee.org).pdf
- Portfolio Performance Evaluation With Generalized Sharpe Ratios_beyond the Mean Variance
- Risk and Uncertainty
- Bus 4087 s Test 12013
- Paradox Question.
- Utility Theory & Prospect Theory
- Class 1 - Thaler - Deal or No Deal
- Topic 2 Expected Utility Theory
- Expected Utility and Risk Aversion
- Applications of Behavioral Finance to Entrepreneurs and Venture Capitalists
- 248.pdf
- rp25
- Smith, C. W., and R. M. Stulz. “The Determinants of a Firm’s Hedging Policy.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 20 (1985)- 391–406..pdf
- Dueling Realisms

Você está na página 1de 25

Selection

In economics and nance, the most popular ap-

proach to the problem of choice under uncer-

tainty is the expected utility (EU) hypothesis.

The reason for this to be the preferred paradigm

is that, as a general approach to decision making

under risk, it has a sound theoretical basis.

about the composition of her portfolio to be

held until period 1, and that there are N assets

which can be purchased, with (random) returns

R

i

, i = 1, . . . , N.

If the initial wealth to be invested is W

0

, she will

have wealth

W

1

=

_

_

1 +

N

i=1

x

i

R

i

_

_

W

0

= (1 +r

p

)W

0

Gollier, and Schlesinger (2005): Economic and Finan-

cial Decisions under Risk. Princeton University Press,

Princeton.

in period 1, where r

p

=

i

x

i

R

i

is the portfo-

lio return, and the x

i

, i = 1, . . . , N, satisfying

i

x

i

= 1, are the portfolio weights.

In period 1, the individual will extract utility from

consuming goods that can be purchased with

this wealth.

The relationship between wealth and the utility

of consuming this wealth is described by a util-

ity function, U(). In general, each investor will

have a dierent U().

The expected utility hypothesis states that the

individual will choose the portfolio weights such

that the expected value of utility is maximized,

i.e., the portfolio problem is

max

x

1

,...,x

N

E[U(W

1

)] = E

_

_

_

U

_

_

_

_

1 +

N

i=1

x

i

R

i

_

_

W

0

_

_

_

_

_

subject to

i

x

i

= 1.

U() is also called expected utility function, or

von NeumannMorgenstern utility function.

Properties of the Expected Utility Function

An important property of an expected util-

ity function is that it is unique up to ane

transformations. That is, if U() describes

the preferences of an investor, then so does

U

() = c

1

U() +c

2

, where c

1

> 0.

While the above is a purely mathematical result,

we can restrict the range of reasonable utility

functions by economic reasoning.

Positive marginal utility. That is, U

(W) > 0

for all W.

Risk Aversion.

Denition 1 An agent is riskaverse if, at

any wealth level W, he or she dislikes every

lottery with an expected payo of zero, i.e.,

E[U(W +)] < U(W)

for all W and every zero-mean random vari-

able .

Note that any random outcome Z can be

written as Z = E(Z)+, where = ZE(Z)

is a zero-mean random variable.

Thus, a riskaverse agent always prefers re-

ceiving the expected outcome of a lottery

with certainty, rather than the lottery itself.

Using Jensens inequality, it can readily be

shown that a necessary and sucient con-

dition for risk aversion is that the expected

utility function is concave, i.e., U

(W) < 0

for all W.

In the context of applications to portfolio choice,

it is important to note that risk aversion is closely

related to portfolio diversication.

As a simple example, consider the case of two

assets, the returns of which are identically and

independently distributed.

Then the problem is to solve

max

x

E{U[(1 +xR

1

+(1 x)R

2

)W

0

]}.

The rstorder condition is

E{U

[(1 +xR

1

+(1 x)R

2

)W

0

](R

1

R

2

)} = 0.

(1)

By the assumptions about the joint distribution

of R

1

and R

2

, (1) will hold exactly if x = 1/2.

The secondorder condition,

E{U

[(1 +xR

1

+(1 x)R

2

)W

0

](R

1

R

2

)

2

} < 0,

is satised for a riskaverse investor.

Measuring and Comparing Risk

Aversion

The Risk Premium and the ArrowPratt

Measure

Risk averters dislike zeromean risks.

Thus, a natural way to measure risk aversion is

to ask how much an investor is ready to pay to

get rid of a zeromean risk .

This is called the risk premium, , and is dened

implicitly by

E[U(W +)] = U(W ). (2)

In general, the risk premium is a complex func-

tion of the distribution of , initial wealth W,

and U().

However, let us consider a small risk.

A secondorder and a rstorder Taylor approx-

imation of the lefthand and the righthand side

of (2) gives

E[U(W +)] E[U(W) +U

(W) +

2

2

U

(W)]

= U(W) +

2

2

U

(W),

and

U(W ) U(W) U

(W),

respectively, where

2

:= E(

2

) is the variance

of .

Substituting back into (2), we get

2

2

A(W),

where

A(W) :=

U

(W)

U

(W)

(3)

is the ArrowPratt measure of absolute risk aver-

sion, which can be viewed as a measure of the

degree of concavity of the utility function.

The division by U

sense that it makes A(W) independent of ane

transformations of U(), which do not alter the

preference ordering.

In view of the above, it is reasonable to say that

Agent 1 is locally more riskaverse than Agent

2 if both have the same initial wealth W and

1

>

2

, or, equivalently, A

1

(W) > A

2

(W).

We can say more, however. Namely, Pratts

theorem

following three conditions are equivalent:

1)

1

>

2

for any zeromean risk and any

wealth level W.

2) A

1

(W) > A

2

(W) for all W.

3) U

1

(W) = G(U

2

(W)) for some increasing strictly

concave function G, where U

1

and U

2

are the

utility functions of Agents 1 and 2, respec-

tively.

Large. Econometrica, 32: 122-136.

A related question is what happens with the de-

gree of risk aversion as a function of W.

Since Arrow (1971)

absolute risk aversion should be a decreasing

function of wealth.

For example, a lottery to gain or loose 100 is po-

tentially lifethreatening for an agent with initial

wealth W = 101, whereas it is negligible for an

agent with wealth W = 1000000. The former

person should be willing to pay more than the

latter for the elimination of such a risk.

Thus, we may require that the risk premium as-

sociated with any risk is decreasing in wealth.

It can be shown that this holds if and only if the

ArrowPratt measure of absolute risk aversion

is decreasing in wealth, i.e.,

d

dW

< 0

dA(W)

dW

< 0.

Chicago.

Thus, we can equivalently require that A

(W) <

0 for all W.

Note that this requirement means

A

(W) =

U

(W)U

(W) U

(W)

2

U

(W)

2

< 0.

A necessary condition for this to hold is U

(W) >

0, so that we can also sign the third derivative

of the utility function.

MeanVariance Analysis and Expected

Utility Theory

Meanvariance portfolio theory (or anal-

ysis) assumes that investors preferences can

be described by a preference function, V (, ),

over the mean () and the standard devia-

tion () of the portfolio return.

Standard assumptions are

V

:=

V (, )

> 0,

and

V

:=

V (, )

< 0,

which may be interpreted as risk aversion,

if the variance is an appropriate measure of

risk.

The existence of such a preference function

would greatly simplify things, because, then,

the class of potentially optimal portfolios are

those with the greatest expected return for a

given level of variance and, simultaneously,

the smallest variance for a given expected

return.

Moreover, portfolio means and variances are

easily computed once the mean vector and

the covariance matrix of the asset returns

are given, and ecient sets can be worked

out straightforwardly.

However, in general, meanvariance analysis

and the expected utility approach are not

necessarily equivalent.

Thus, because the expected utility paradigm,

as a general approach to decision making

under risk, has a sound theoretical basis (in

contrast to the meanvariance criterion), we

are interested in situations where both ap-

proaches are equivalent.

Example

tion

p(x) =

_

_

_

0.8 if x = 1

0.2 if x = 100

with E(X) = 20.8 and Var(X) = 1568.16.

Let random variable Y have probability function

p(y) =

_

_

_

0.99 if y = 10

0.01 if x = 1000

with E(Y ) = 19.9 and Var(Y ) = 9702.99.

Thus E(Y ) < E(X) and Var(Y ) > Var(X).

Let U(W) = logW. Then,

E[U(X)] = 0.8log1 +0.2log100 = 0.9210

< 2.3486 = 0.99log10 +0.01log1000

= E[U(Y )].

Analysis of Choices Involving Risk. Review of Economic

Studies, 36: 335-346.

To make analysis reconcilable with ex-

pected utility theory, we have to make assump-

tions about either 1) the utility function of the

decision maker, or 2) the return distribution.

1) Restricting the Utility Function:

Quadratic Utility

Assume that the investors expected utility func-

tion is given by

U(W) = W

b

2

W

2

, b > 0.

Note that this is the most general form of quadratic

utility, because expected utility functions are unique

only up to an ane transformation.

Marginal utility is U

1/b.

As all concave quadratic functions are decreas-

ing after a certain point, care must be taken

to make sure that the outcome remains in the

lower, relevant range of utility.

Furthermore, U

tees risk aversion.

Expected utility is

E[U(W)] = E(W)

b

2

E(W

2

)

= E(W)

b

2

[Var(W) +E

2

(W)]

=

b

2

(

2

+

2

)

= : V (, ),

a function of and .

V (, ) is called a preference function.

We have

V

: =

V

V

: =

V

= b < 0.

In this framework, variance is the appropriate

measure of risk.

For the analysis of portfolio selection, it will be

useful to introduce the concept of an indier-

ence curve in (, )space.

Denition 2 The indierence curve in (, )

space, relative to a given utility level V , is the

locus of points (, ) along which expected util-

ity is constant, i.e., equal to V .

For quadratic utility, indierence curves can be

derived from

b

2

(

2

+

2

) V .

Multiply both sides by 2/b and add 1/b

2

, to get

2

+

2

2

b

+

1

b

2

2

b

_

1

2b

V

_

,

or

2

+

_

1

b

_

2

const.

Note that 1/(2b) V > 0, as max{U} = 1/(2b).

Thus, indierence curves are semicircles cen-

tered at (0, 1/b).

In particular, in the economically relevant range

( < 1/b), they are convex in (, )space, i.e.,

d

2

d

2

V (,)=V

> 0.

Moving in a westward or northern direction in

(the economically relevant part of) (, )space,

the indierence curves will correspond to higher

levels of expected utility, V , as the same mean

is associated with a lower standard deviation, or

the same standard deviation is associated with

a higher mean.

Example

Let b = 0.25, and let V

1

= 1, and V

2

= 1.5, so

that the indierence curve associated with V

2

reects a higher expected utility level than that

associated with V

1

.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Indifference curves for quadratic utility (b=0.25)

standard deviation,

m

e

a

n

,

V

2

= 1.5

V

1

= 1

1/b

Drawbacks of quadratic utility

Marginal utility becomes negative for W >

1/b.

Quadratic utility implies globally increasing

absolute risk aversion, given by

A(W) =

U

(W)

U

(W)

=

b

1 bW

.

This is increasing in b, which is reasonable.

But,

A

(W) =

_

b

1 bW

_

2

> 0.

In a portfolio context, Arrow (1971) has shown

that this implies that wealthier people invest less

in risky assets, which contradicts both intuition

and fact.

In view of its consequences, Arrow (1971) has

characterized the quadratic utility assumption as

absurd.

1) Restricting the Return Distribution:

Normality

If the returns have a multivariate normal distri-

bution, then the portfolio return (and wealth)

will likewise be normal.

Thus, portfolio return (and wealth) distributions

will dier only by means and variances.

In case of normally distributed wealth, we can

write

E[U(W)] =

_

U(W)

1

2

exp

_

(W )

2

2

2

_

dW

=

_

U(W +)(W)dW

= V (, ),

where () is the standard normal density.

We have

V

=

_

(W +)(W)dW > 0

by the positivity of marginal utility, and

V

=

_

WU

(W +)(W)dW

=

_

0

WU

(W +)(W)dW

+

_

0

WU

(W +)(W)dW

=

_

0

W[U

(W +) U

(W +)](W)dW,

where the last line follows from the symmetry

of (W).

By risk aversion, i.e., U

have U

(W+) < U

V

< 0,

i.e., investors like higher expected returns and

dislike return variance.

To derive indierence curves, set

V (, ) V .

Dierentiating implicitly,

d

d

V (,)=V

=

V

> 0.

Not surprisingly, indierence curves are upward

sloping in (, )space.

To gure out their shape, we follow Tobin (1958)

) being on

the same indierence locus.

By concavity of the utility function,

1

2

U(W +) +

1

2

U(

W +

)

< U

_

+

2

W +

+

2

_

.

Taking expectations, we have

V

_

+

2

,

+

2

_

> V (, ) = V (

),

so that the indierence curves are again convex

in (, )-space (see the picture).

of Economic Studies, 25: 65-86.

*

( + *)/2

( + *)/2

V(,) = V(*,*)

V[(+*)/2,(+*)/2]

Example

When normality of returns is assumed, a conve-

nient choice of U() is the constant absolute risk

aversion (CARA) utility function, given by

U(W) = exp{cW}, c > 0,

where c = A(W) = U

(W)/U

stant coecient of absolute risk aversion.

Then,

E[U(W)] = exp

_

c +

c

2

2

2

_

,

and the preference function may be written

as

V (, ) =

c

2

2

.

Indierence curves relative to a preference level

V are dened by

V +

c

2

2

,

where V = log{E[U(W)]}/c.

Note that analysis does not necessarily

require normality of returns but holds within a

more general class of distributions, namely, the

elliptical distributions, see, e.g., Ingersoll (1987):

Theory of Financial Decision Making. Roman

and Littleeld Publishing, Savage.

Finally, even if analysis does not hold ex-

actly, it will often serve as a reasonable approxi-

mation to the true, expectedutility maximizing

solution, with the advantage of greatly simplify-

ing the decision problem.

In fact, a number of studies (using real data and

a range of utility functions) have shown that

the exact solutions are often rather close to or

even economically indistinguishable from

ecient portfolios (to be dened below).

- Expected Utility and Risk Aversion (1).pdfEnviado porRaghuveer Chandra
- A Behavioral Analysis of Stochastic Reference Dependence.pdfEnviado porBhuwan
- MIT15_450F10_lec04Enviado porseanwu95
- Pref Revers SummaryEnviado porpofdg2012
- Hobbes Spinoza Rationality and UtilityEnviado porraphaelechappe
- Paper Comportamiento OrganizacionalEnviado porDavid Celedon
- [Chi-Fu_Huang,_Robert_H._Litzenberger]_Foundations(BookSee.org).pdfEnviado porYi Sun
- Portfolio Performance Evaluation With Generalized Sharpe Ratios_beyond the Mean VarianceEnviado porẢo Tung Chảo
- Risk and UncertaintyEnviado porIndranil Ganguly
- Bus 4087 s Test 12013Enviado porAnoosh Arevshatian
- Paradox Question.Enviado porChris Davies
- Utility Theory & Prospect TheoryEnviado porfahd_faux9282
- Class 1 - Thaler - Deal or No DealEnviado porRodrigo Van Bebber Ríos
- Topic 2 Expected Utility TheoryEnviado porJeremiahOmwoyo
- Expected Utility and Risk AversionEnviado porVishnupriya Aryabhumi
- Applications of Behavioral Finance to Entrepreneurs and Venture CapitalistsEnviado porbhanu.chandu
- 248.pdfEnviado porNico Andrei Abadilla
- rp25Enviado porkamalairesh
- Smith, C. W., and R. M. Stulz. “The Determinants of a Firm’s Hedging Policy.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 20 (1985)- 391–406..pdfEnviado porpeiyunshi_163454687
- Dueling RealismsEnviado porsilviugeopolitic
- Based on prospect theory of pedestrian impact analysisEnviado porAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- The bipolar Choquet integral representationEnviado porbboyvn
- 031702_1Enviado porPGP
- National Science Foundation: nsf0031Enviado porNSF
- Age and Entre AspirationsEnviado pormcbayon
- tmpC3A3.tmpEnviado porFrontiers
- ch7Enviado poryawnzz89
- controlEnviado porfalcon_vam
- FahimKhan NBEnviado porImamuddin Tunio
- Ecology and EnvironmentEnviado porShivam Gupta

- PM 1Enviado porTecwyn Lim
- 02 EconomicsEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Chi-square-table.pdfEnviado porJazel Porciuncula
- FI 1Enviado porTecwyn Lim
- XOGFS-17U.pdfEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- XOGFS-17U.pdfEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- XOGFS-17U.pdfEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- 01 EthicsEnviado porRahul Raghwani
- 04 FSAEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Economics 1Enviado porTecwyn Lim
- 11 Alternative Hedge FundEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Summary.pdfEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- 2014 CFA Level 3 Secret Sauce.pdfEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Durbin Watson TablesEnviado porgotiii
- ar2016Enviado porTecwyn Lim
- UtilityEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Classified Balance Sheet - AccountingToolsEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Vault-Finance Practice GuideEnviado porMohit Sharma
- All in oneEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- A Primer on the MACDEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Terms of Agreement - How is Terms of Agreement AbbreviatedEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- IFRS 13 FVM 21st Century Real Estate Values 0511Enviado porjalal
- Quant 1Enviado porTecwyn Lim
- Sample Exam Questions (FINC3015, S1, 2012)Enviado porTecwyn Lim
- Non-compete Clause - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Bollinger Band__ Definition _ InvestopediaEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- CF 1Enviado porTecwyn Lim
- UoS Outline BUSS3500 SUM JAN 2014 ApprovedEnviado porTecwyn Lim
- Blind Trust - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaEnviado porTecwyn Lim

- Aggregate Data AnalysisEnviado porgomoria
- JFE steelEnviado porfree_share
- Human Trafficking Written Assignment CindyEnviado pormjomarkes208
- Psat Question and AnswersEnviado pormoiahxp
- DupScout Duplicate Files FinderEnviado porFlexense
- 4. San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRCEnviado porGayle Abaya
- Carbon FibersEnviado porHarish Sonawane
- lidl romania - retail marketing projectEnviado porCristina Șișcanu
- DS 8000 ArchitechtureEnviado porNikhil Verma
- 224786424-Organic-Bakery-Marketing-Plan.docxEnviado porCarlos Dungca
- Evaluation of a New Temporary Immersion Bioreactor SystemEnviado poraguilaquecae
- 5323895-CONTROL-STATEMENTS-IN-JAVA.pptEnviado porrednri
- Pre-Bar Review 2018_Schedule (Autosaved)Enviado porDaniel Torres Atayde
- MS-16GC Disassembly GuideEnviado porAriyawira Binui
- DaweiEnviado pordaweiprojectwatch
- a3aa1acf4a42cff8a4a4e0df0ba3696d OriginalEnviado pormau tau
- EphEnviado porRow Niz
- Risk Sensitive Land Use Plan, KathmanduEnviado porRamesh Pokharel
- Admission Pathwaysto CPEngEnviado porjjcolejj
- Business PlanEnviado porConan Marc Perez Fortunato
- TY Bsc Computer Sci Sem III.pdfEnviado porsb
- Battery-Testing-Guide.pdfEnviado porNagaraj Ram
- Network IssuesEnviado pormohitd2009
- 04_RA41334EN50GLA1_LTE Paging and RRC ConnectionEnviado porkhanhnam0509
- Panduan Pengguna Toshiba Satellite l30Enviado porsupriyatnoiaz
- D70F-D001_FS0030493CDEAEnviado porAnonymous hxQ7PNOQ
- FMEA OF SHEET METAL COMPONENTSEnviado porvkms
- PRTG Network MonitorEnviado porCan dien tu Thai Binh Duong
- Princples of Financial Accounting3Enviado porThelearningHights
- BSI-ISO-TS-16949-Product-Guide-UK-EN.pdfEnviado porsorina