Abstract
Abstract. A measure of aversion to a risk akin to the risk premium is the required payoff truncation – a probability level, or a point of the distribution range - of the – null mean - risk distribution that allows an expected utility equal to the deterministic level. For a small risk – a noise of null expected value - added to the argument of an utility function, it is straight-forward to show that – for a risk-averse individual - such subsistence probability equals the conventional risk-premium over the symmetric of the worst possible outcome. However, both measures do not take into account aversion (or proneness) to risk in the utility distribution itself – they apply to expected utility maximizers. Maxmin behaviour and quantile preferences, applicable in the presence of uncertainty (or non-cooperative opponents) rather than risk, can be suggested to circumvent the problem. An alternative theory – constrained expected utility - relies on the use the expected utility over the upper truncated distribution (lower - or doubly truncated - in case of risk-loving behavior) at a given (individual specific) truncation point, or probability level. Then, a conventionally defined risk-premium weighs both the truncation bias and risk dispersion. Such distinction also applies if preference truncation – or rather, “trimming” - is (instead) accompanied by a switch of probability mass to tail “focal” points. Then, if the latter are sufficiently extreme, the effect on attitude towards risk may be reversed relative to standard preference truncation: lower trimming enhancing risk-aversion, upper one reducing it. Applications of truncated principles to mean-variance “utility” preferences – and risk-loving attitudes - were also briefly outlined. Illustrations for normal and uniform risks were often appended.
Keywords. Subsistence-payoff; Non-expected utility theories; Constrained expected utility; Truncated preferences towards risk; Maxmin, maxmax; Trimmed preferences towards risk; Focal points; Mean – variance(-utility) preferences; “Trimmed” normal (with tail focal points) distribution; Triangular distribution; Triangular preferences.
JEL. D81; C10; C16; C24; D11.
References
Arrow, K.J. (1965). Some Aspects of the Theory of Risk-Bearing. Yrjo Jahnssonin Saatio, Helsinki.
Black, F. (1972). Capital market equilibrium with restricted borrowing. Journal of Business. 45, 444-455.
Drèze, J.H. (1987). Essays on Economic Decisions under Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eichner, T., and Wagener, A. (2003). Variance vulnerability, background risks, and mean-variance preferences. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 28, 173-184. doi. 10.1023/A:1026396922206
Gollier, C. (2001). The Economics of Risk and Time. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hirshleifer, J., and Riley, J.G. (1992). The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, N.L. and Kotz, S. (1970). Continuous Univariate Distributions - 1. New York: Wiley.
Johnson, N.L. and Kotz, S. (1970a). Continuous Univariate Distributions - 2. New York: Wiley.
Karni, E., and Schmeidler, D. (1991). Utility Theory with Uncertainty. In Handbook of Mathematical Economics. Vol. 4. Edited by Werner Hildenbrand and Hugo Sonnenschein. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kelsey, D., and Quiggin, J. (1992). Theories of choice under ignorance and uncertainty. Journal of Economic Surveys. 6(2), 133-153. doi. 10.1111/j.1467-6419.1992.tb00148.x
Laffont, J.-J. (1989). The Economics of Uncertainty and Information. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lajeri-Chaherli, F. (2002). More on properness: The case of mean-variance preferences. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory. 27, 49-60.
Lintner, J. (1965). The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Review of Economics and Statistics. 47, 13-37. doi. 10.2307/1924119
Markowitz, H. (1959). Portfolio Selection. Cowles Foundation Monograph N. 16. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Martins, A.P. (2004). Multivariate risk-exposure: Risk-premium, optimal decisions and mean-variance implications. Unpublished manuscript.
Ormiston, M.B. and Schlee, E.E. (2001). Mean-variance preferences and investor behaviour. The Economic Journal. 111, 849-861. doi. 10.1111/1468-0297.00662
Pratt, J.W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica. 32, 122-136. doi. 10.2307/1913738
Rieskamp, J., Busemeyer, J.R., and Mellers, B.A. (2006). Extending the bounds of rationality: Evidence and theories of preferential choice. Journal of Economic Literature. 44(3), 631-661. doi. 10.1257/jel.44.3.631
Sharpe, W. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance. 19, 425-442. doi. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1964.tb02865.x
Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Literature. 38(2), 332-382. doi. 10.1257/jel.38.2.332
Tobin, J. (1958). Liquidity preference as behavior towards risk. Review of Economic Studies. 25, 68-85. doi. 10.2307/2296205
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.