IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v314y2024i3p1029-1039.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of ambiguity on dynamic portfolio selection in the epsilon-contaminated binomial market model

Author

Listed:
  • Petturiti, Davide
  • Vantaggi, Barbara

Abstract

We consider dynamic portfolio selection under ambiguity in the classical multi-period binomial market model. Ambiguity is incorporated in the real-world probability measure through an epsilon-contamination, that gives rise to a completely monotone capacity conveying a pessimistic investor’s ambiguous beliefs. The dynamic portfolio selection problem is formulated as a Choquet expected utility maximization problem on the final wealth. Then, the optimal final wealth is proved to be a function of the final stock price: this allows a dimension reduction of the problem, switching from an exponential to a linear size with respect to the number of periods. Finally, an explicit characterization of the optimal final wealth is given in the case of a constant relative risk aversion utility function and the interaction between the ambiguity and the relative risk aversion parameters is investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Petturiti, Davide & Vantaggi, Barbara, 2024. "The impact of ambiguity on dynamic portfolio selection in the epsilon-contaminated binomial market model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(3), pages 1029-1039.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:314:y:2024:i:3:p:1029-1039
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2023.11.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221723008500
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.11.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Hanqing Jin & Xun Yu Zhou, 2008. "Behavioral Portfolio Selection In Continuous Time," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 385-426, July.
    4. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324, January.
    5. Peijnenburg, Kim & Anantanasuwong, Kanin & Kouwenberg, Roy & Mitchell, Olivia S, 2019. "Ambiguity Attitudes about Investments: Evidence from the Field," CEPR Discussion Papers 13518, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    7. Bi, Junna & Jin, Hanqing & Meng, Qingbin, 2018. "Behavioral mean-variance portfolio selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 644-663.
    8. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    9. Georg Pflug & David Wozabal, 2007. "Ambiguity in portfolio selection," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 435-442.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    2. Barnett, William A. & Han, Qing & Zhang, Jianbo, 2021. "Monetary services aggregation under uncertainty: A behavioral economics extension using Choquet expectation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 437-447.
    3. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    4. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami & Mengxing Wei, 2018. "Quantum Decision Theory and the Ellsberg Paradox," CESifo Working Paper Series 7158, CESifo.
    5. Carlo Zappia, 2012. "Re-reading Keynes after the crisis: probability and decision," Department of Economics University of Siena 646, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    6. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2015. "On a decision rule supported by a forecasting stage based on the decision maker’s coefficient of optimism," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(3), pages 579-594, September.
    7. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2019. "An experimental test of the predictive power of dynamic ambiguity models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-83, August.
    8. Yehuda Izhakian & David Yermack & Jaime F. Zender, 2016. "Ambiguity and the Tradeoff Theory of Capital Structure," NBER Working Papers 22870, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2017. "Newsvendor problem under complete uncertainty: a case of innovative products," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(3), pages 561-585, September.
    10. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    12. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    13. Jordi Grau-Moya & Pedro A Ortega & Daniel A Braun, 2016. "Decision-Making under Ambiguity Is Modulated by Visual Framing, but Not by Motor vs. Non-Motor Context. Experiments and an Information-Theoretic Ambiguity Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    14. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2016. "The Ellsberg paradox: A challenge to quantum decision theory?," Discussion Papers in Economics 16/08, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    15. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2019. "Project Net Present Value estimation under uncertainty," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(1), pages 179-197, March.
    16. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2018. "The Impact of the Structure of the Payoff Matrix on the Final Decision made Under Uncertainty," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 35(01), pages 1-27, February.
    17. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Ambiguity preferences for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1699-1716, November.
    18. Izhakian, Yehuda & Yermack, David, 2017. "Risk, ambiguity, and the exercise of employee stock options," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 65-85.
    19. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    20. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:314:y:2024:i:3:p:1029-1039. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.