IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v176y2010i1p153-17810.1007-s10479-008-0470-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economically relevant preferences for all observed epsilon

Author

Listed:
  • Haim Levy
  • Moshe Leshno
  • Boaz Leibovitch

Abstract

The common investment decision rules, Markowitz’s Mean-Variance (MV) rule and the non-parametric Stochastic Dominance (SD) rules, suffer from one severe drawback: there are pairs of prospects where experimentally 100% of the subjects choose one prospect, yet these rules are unable to rank the two prospects—a paradoxical result. Thus, the set of all preferences corresponding to these decision rules is too large, because it contains theoretical preferences that are not encountered in practice. Based on 400 subjects’ choices we define the economically relevant set of preference and the corresponding new decision rules, which avoid the paradoxical results. The results are very robust and are almost unaffected by the magnitude of the outcomes and the structure of the prospects under consideration. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Suggested Citation

  • Haim Levy & Moshe Leshno & Boaz Leibovitch, 2010. "Economically relevant preferences for all observed epsilon," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 153-178, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:176:y:2010:i:1:p:153-178:10.1007/s10479-008-0470-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-008-0470-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-008-0470-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-008-0470-7?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. Pablo C. Benítez & Timo Kuosmanen & Roland Olschewski & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2006. "Conservation Payments under Risk: A Stochastic Dominance Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 1-15.
    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. 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. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    5. Dominic Gasbarro & Wing-Keung Wong & J. Kenton Zumwalt, 2007. "Stochastic Dominance Analysis of iShares," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 89-101.
    6. Haim Levy, 2004. "Prospect Theory and Mean-Variance Analysis," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(4), pages 1015-1041.
    7. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
    8. 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..
    9. Moshe Leshno & Haim Levy, 2002. "Preferred by "All" and Preferred by "Most" Decision Makers: Almost Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1074-1085, August.
    10. William J. Baumol, 1963. "An Expected Gain-Confidence Limit Criterion for Portfolio Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 174-182, October.
    11. Dominic Gasbarro & Wing-Keung Wong & J. Kenton Zumwalt, 2007. "Stochastic Dominance Analysis of iShares," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 89-101.
    12. Garry F. Barrett & Stephen G. Donald, 2003. "Consistent Tests for Stochastic Dominance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 71-104, January.
    13. repec:bla:jfinan:v:58:y:2003:i:5:p:1905-1932 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Berk, Jonathan B., 1997. "Necessary Conditions for the CAPM," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 245-257, March.
    15. G. Hanoch & H. Levy, 1969. "The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 36(3), pages 335-346.
    16. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
    17. Levy, Moshe, 2003. "Are rich people smarter?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 42-64, May.
    18. Timo Kuosmanen, 2004. "Efficient Diversification According to Stochastic Dominance Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1390-1406, October.
    19. Quiggin, John & Chambers, R.G.Robert G., 2004. "Invariant risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 96-118, July.
    20. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    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. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    2. Levy, Moshe, 2009. "Almost Stochastic Dominance and stocks for the long run," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 250-257, April.
    3. Haim Levy, 2010. "The CAPM is Alive and Well: A Review and Synthesis," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 16(1), pages 43-71, January.
    4. Arvanitis, Stelios & Scaillet, Olivier & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2020. "Spanning analysis of stock market anomalies under prospect stochastic dominance," Working Papers unige:134101, University of Geneva, Geneva School of Economics and Management.
    5. Lean, Hooi Hooi & McAleer, Michael & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2015. "Preferences of risk-averse and risk-seeking investors for oil spot and futures before, during and after the Global Financial Crisis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 204-216.
    6. Lam, Kin & Lean, Hooi Hooi & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2016. "Stochastic Dominance and Investors’ Behavior towards Risk: The Hong Kong Stocks and Futures Markets," MPRA Paper 74386, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Lean, H.H. & McAleer, M.J. & Wong, W.-K., 2010. "Investor preferences for oil spot and futures based on mean-variance and stochastic dominance," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2010-37, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    8. Ephraim Clark & Zhuo Qiao & Wing-Keung Wong, 2016. "Theories Of Risk: Testing Investor Behavior On The Taiwan Stock And Stock Index Futures Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 907-924, April.
    9. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2018. "Decision Sciences, Economics, Finance, Business, Computing, and Big Data: Connections," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2018-09, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    10. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2018. "Decision Sciences, Economics, Finance, Business, Computing, And Big Data: Connections," Advances in Decision Sciences, Asia University, Taiwan, vol. 22(1), pages 36-94, December.
    11. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    12. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2018. "Big Data, Computational Science, Economics, Finance, Marketing, Management, and Psychology: Connections," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-29, March.
    13. Guo, Xu & Wong, Wing-Keung & Zhu, Lixing, 2013. "Make Almost Stochastic Dominance really Almost," MPRA Paper 49745, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2010. "Market Efficiency of Oil Spot and Futures: A Stochastic Dominance Approach," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-705, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    15. Haim Levy & Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2012. "Two Paradigms and Nobel Prizes in Economics: a Contradiction or Coexistence?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 18(2), pages 163-182, March.
    16. Wing-Keung Wong & Chenghu Ma, 2008. "Preferences over location-scale family," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 37(1), pages 119-146, October.
    17. Zhihui Lv & Amanda M. Y. Chu & Wing Keung Wong & Thomas C. Chiang, 2021. "The maximum-return-and-minimum-volatility effect: evidence from choosing risky and riskless assets to form a portfolio," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 97-122, June.
    18. Lean, Hooi Hooi & McAleer, Michael & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2010. "Market efficiency of oil spot and futures: A mean-variance and stochastic dominance approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 979-986, September.
    19. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2021. "Stocks versus bonds for the long run when a riskless asset is available," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    20. Kai-Yin Woo & Chulin Mai & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2020. "Review on Efficiency and Anomalies in Stock Markets," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-51, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:annopr:v:176:y:2010:i:1:p:153-178:10.1007/s10479-008-0470-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.