IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/awi/wpaper/0572.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Informativeness of Experiments for MEU - A Recursive Definition

Author

Listed:
  • Heyen, Daniel
  • Wiesenfarth, Boris R.

Abstract

The well-known Blackwell's theorem states the equivalence of statistical informativeness and economic valuableness. Celen (2012) generalizes this theorem, which is well-known for subjective expected utility (SEU), to maxmin expected utility (MEU) preferences. We demonstrate that the underlying definition of the value of information used in Celen (2012) is in contradiction with the principle of recursively defined utility. As a consequence, Celen's framework features dynamic inconsistency. Our main contribution consists in the definition of a value of information for MEU preferences that is compatible with recursive utility and thus respects dynamic consistency.

Suggested Citation

  • Heyen, Daniel & Wiesenfarth, Boris R., 2014. "Informativeness of Experiments for MEU - A Recursive Definition," Working Papers 0572, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:awi:wpaper:0572
    Note: This paper is part of http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/view/schriftenreihen/sr-3.html
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-175115
    File Function: Frontdoor page on HeiDOK
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/17511/1/Heyen_Wiesenfarth_2014_dp572.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Epstein, Larry G. & Schneider, Martin, 2003. "Recursive multiple-priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-31, November.
    2. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2007. "Learning Under Ambiguity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(4), pages 1275-1303.
    3. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    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. Nengjiu Ju & Jianjun Miao, 2012. "Ambiguity, Learning, and Asset Returns," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 559-591, March.
    2. Swagata Bhattacharjee, 2019. "Dynamic Contracting for Innovation Under Ambiguity," Working Papers 1022, Ashoka University, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2019.
    3. Guo, Liang, 2013. "Determinants of credit spreads: The role of ambiguity and information uncertainty," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 279-297.
    4. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Shi, Zhan, 2019. "Time-varying ambiguity, credit spreads, and the levered equity premium," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 617-646.
    6. Hui Chen & Nengjiu Ju & Jianjun Miao, 2014. "Dynamic Asset Allocation with Ambiguous Return Predictability," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 17(4), pages 799-823, October.
    7. Massimo Guidolin & Francesca Rinaldi, 2013. "Ambiguity in asset pricing and portfolio choice: a review of the literature," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 183-217, February.
    8. Werner, Jan, 2022. "Speculative trade under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    9. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2008. "Ambiguity, Information Quality, and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(1), pages 197-228, February.
    10. Besanko, David & Tong, Jian & Wu, Jianjun, 2016. "Dynamic game under ambiguity: the sequential bargaining example, and a new "coase conjecture"," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 1606, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    11. Hackbarth, Dirk & Miao, Jianjun, 2012. "The dynamics of mergers and acquisitions in oligopolistic industries," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 585-609.
    12. Yu, Edison G., 2018. "Dynamic market participation and endogenous information aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 491-517.
    13. Lorenzo Garlappi & Raman Uppal & Tan Wang, 2007. "Portfolio Selection with Parameter and Model Uncertainty: A Multi-Prior Approach," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(1), pages 41-81, January.
    14. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    15. Ariel M. Viale & Antoine Giannetti & Luis Garcia-Feijoó, 2020. "The stock market’s reaction to macroeconomic news under ambiguity," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 34(1), pages 65-97, March.
    16. Daniele Pennesi, 2013. "Asset Prices in an Ambiguous Economy," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 315, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    17. Daniel Heyen, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 373-386, May.
    18. Lahno, Amrei M., 2014. "Social anchor effects in decision-making under ambiguity," Discussion Papers in Economics 20960, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    19. David K. Backus & Bryan R. Routledge & Stanley E. Zin, 2005. "Exotic Preferences for Macroeconomists," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2004, Volume 19, pages 319-414, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Philipp K. Illeditsch & Jayant V. Ganguli & Scott Condie, 2021. "Information Inertia," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(1), pages 443-479, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Value of information; Maxmin expected utility; Recursive utility;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:awi:wpaper:0572. 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: Gabi Rauscher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/awheide.html .

    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.