IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/finana/v28y2013icp190-198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An analysis of heterogeneous utility benchmarks in a zero return environment

Author

Listed:
  • Viole, Fred
  • Nawrocki, David

Abstract

The utility of an investor should be based on an acceptable loss in the loss region and a target return in the gain region of a set of investment opportunities. The level of these benchmarks will unveil an opportunity cost, break-even effect, or indifference when the return of an investment equals zero. This condition has been arbitrarily assumed away for continuity and other simplification purposes over the past few decades. Historically, utility functions, Von Neumann–Morgenstern compliant and not, are constrained via a single target or reference point. This single target restriction coupled with the arbitrary zero-return assumption has ignored the important interpretation of this salient point on the utility curve as a proxy for the investor's current wealth. We propose a utility function using lower partial moments to describe the utility of losses and upper partial moments to describe the utility of gains.

Suggested Citation

  • Viole, Fred & Nawrocki, David, 2013. "An analysis of heterogeneous utility benchmarks in a zero return environment," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 190-198.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:finana:v:28:y:2013:i:c:p:190-198
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irfa.2013.02.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521913000318
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irfa.2013.02.014?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. Thierry Post & Martijn J. van den Assem & Guido Baltussen & Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 38-71, March.
    2. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    3. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Libby, R & Fishburn, Pc, 1977. "Behavioral-Models Of Risk-Taking In Business Decisions - Survey And Evaluation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 272-292.
    5. Harry M. Markowitz, 2010. "Portfolio Theory: As I Still See It," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Holthausen, Duncan M, 1981. "A Risk-Return Model with Risk and Return Measured as Deviations from a Target Return," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(1), pages 182-188, March.
    8. Fishburn, Peter C, 1977. "Mean-Risk Analysis with Risk Associated with Below-Target Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 116-126, March.
    9. Lalin Anik & Lara B. Aknin & Michael I. Norton & Elizabeth W. Dunn, 2009. "Feeling Good about Giving: The Benefits (and Costs) of Self-Interested Charitable Behavior," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-012, Harvard Business School.
    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. Cumova, Denisa & Nawrocki, David, 2014. "Portfolio optimization in an upside potential and downside risk framework," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-89.
    2. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    3. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    4. León, Angel & Moreno, Manuel, 2017. "One-sided performance measures under Gram-Charlier distributions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 38-50.
    5. Michael Hanemann & Susan Stratton Sayre & Larry Dale, 2016. "The downside risk of climate change in California’s Central Valley agricultural sector," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 15-27, July.
    6. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    7. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    8. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    9. Raymond H. Chan & Ephraim Clark & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2020. "New development on the third-order stochastic dominance for risk-averse and risk-seeking investors with application in risk management," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 108-132, June.
    10. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    11. LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006. "The Pearson system of utility functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
    12. Briec, Walter & Kerstens, Kristiaan, 2010. "Portfolio selection in multidimensional general and partial moment space," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 636-656, April.
    13. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    14. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    15. Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    16. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    17. Levy, Moshe, 2022. "An inter-temporal CAPM based on First order Stochastic Dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 734-739.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    20. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    21. Valeri Zakamouline, 2014. "Portfolio performance evaluation with loss aversion," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 699-710, April.

    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:finana:v:28:y:2013:i:c:p:190-198. 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/inca/620166 .

    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.