IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kyo/wpaper/975.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Portfolio Allocation Problems between Risky Ambiguous Assets

Author

Listed:
  • Takao Asano

    (Okayama University)

  • Yusuke Osaki

    (Waseda University)

Abstract

This paper considers a portfolio allocation problem between a risky asset and an ambiguous asset, and investigates how greater ambiguity aversion influences the optimal proportion invested in the two assets. We derive several sufficient conditions under which greater ambiguity aversion decreases the optimal proportion invested in the ambiguous asset. Furthermore, we consider an international diversification problem as an application and show that ambiguity aversion partially resolves the home bias puzzle.

Suggested Citation

  • Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2017. "Portfolio Allocation Problems between Risky Ambiguous Assets," KIER Working Papers 975, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:kyo:wpaper:975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/DP/DP975.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen K. Lewis, 1999. "Trying to Explain Home Bias in Equities and Consumption," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(2), pages 571-608, June.
    2. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Gollier, Christian, 1995. "Demand for Risky Assets and the Monotone Probability Ratio Order," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 113-122, September.
    3. Louis Eeckhoudt & Harris Schlesinger, 2006. "Putting Risk in Its Proper Place," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 280-289, March.
    4. Ekern, Steinar, 1980. "Increasing Nth degree risk," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 329-333.
    5. Menezes, C & Geiss, C & Tressler, J, 1980. "Increasing Downside Risk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 921-932, December.
    6. Tomasz Strzalecki, 2013. "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Recursive Models of Ambiguity Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(3), pages 1039-1074, May.
    7. Ian Jewitt, 1987. "Risk Aversion and the Choice Between Risky Prospects: The Preservation of Comparative Statics Results," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 54(1), pages 73-85.
    8. Peter C. Fishburn & R. Burr Porter, 1976. "Optimal Portfolios with One Safe and One Risky Asset: Effects of Changes in Rate of Return and Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(10), pages 1064-1073, June.
    9. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    10. Landsberger, Michael & Meilijson, Isaac, 1990. "Demand for risky financial assets: A portfolio analysis," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 204-213, February.
    11. Epstein, Larry G. & Miao, Jianjun, 2003. "A two-person dynamic equilibrium under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 1253-1288, May.
    12. W. Chiu & Louis Eeckhoudt & Beatrice Rey, 2012. "On relative and partial risk attitudes: theory and implications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 151-167, May.
    13. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    14. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    15. Ephraim Clark & Octave Jokung, 1999. "A Note on Asset Proportions, Stochastic Dominance, and the 50% Rule," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1724-1727, December.
    16. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
    17. Susan Athey, 2002. "Monotone Comparative Statics under Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 187-223.
    18. Christian Gollier, 2011. "Portfolio Choices and Asset Prices: The Comparative Statics of Ambiguity Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(4), pages 1329-1344.
    19. Cheng, Hsueh-Cheng & Magill, Michael J P & Shafer, Wayne J, 1987. "Some Results on Comparative Statics under Uncertainty," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(2), pages 493-507, June.
    20. Jindapon, Paan & Neilson, William S., 2007. "Higher-order generalizations of Arrow-Pratt and Ross risk aversion: A comparative statics approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 719-728, September.
    21. Masaaki Kijima & Masamitsu Ohnishi, 1996. "Portfolio Selection Problems Via The Bivariate Characterization Of Stochastic Dominance Relations1," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 237-277, July.
    22. 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.
    23. Donald Meyer & Jack Meyer, 2005. "Relative Risk Aversion: What Do We Know?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 243-262, December.
    24. Donald M. Topkis, 1978. "Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 305-321, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tatiana Morozova & Ravil Akhmadeev & Liubov Lehoux & Alexei Valerievich Yumashev & Galina Vladimirovna Meshkova & Marina Lukiyanova, 2020. "Crypto asset assessment models in financial reporting content typologies," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 7(3), pages 2196-2212, March.

    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. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2020. "Portfolio allocation problems between risky and ambiguous assets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 63-79, January.
    2. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    3. Mario Menegatti & Richard Peter, 2022. "Changes in Risky Benefits and in Risky Costs: A Question of the Right Order," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3625-3634, May.
    4. Heinzel, Christoph, 2023. "Comparing utility derivative premia under additive and multiplicative risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 23-40.
    5. Nocetti, Diego C., 2013. "The LeChatelier principle for changes in risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 460-466.
    6. Asano, Takao & Osaki, Yusuke, 2021. "Optimal investment under ambiguous technology shocks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(1), pages 304-311.
    7. Huang, Yi-Chieh & Tzeng, Larry Y. & Zhao, Lin, 2015. "Comparative ambiguity aversion and downside ambiguity aversion," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 257-269.
    8. Donatella Baiardi & Marco Magnani & Mario Menegatti, 2020. "The theory of precautionary saving: an overview of recent developments," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 513-542, June.
    9. W. Chiu & Louis Eeckhoudt & Beatrice Rey, 2012. "On relative and partial risk attitudes: theory and implications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 151-167, May.
    10. Hideki Iwaki & Yusuke Osaki, 2014. "The dual theory of the smooth ambiguity model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 275-289, June.
    11. Marzia Donno & Marco Magnani & Mario Menegatti, 2020. "Changes in multiplicative risks and optimal portfolio choice: new interpretations and results," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(1), pages 251-267, June.
    12. Diego C. Nocetti, 2016. "Robust Comparative Statics of Risk Changes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1381-1392, May.
    13. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    14. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    15. Heinzel Christoph & Richard Peter, 2021. "Precautionary motives with multiple instruments," Working Papers SMART 21-09, INRAE UMR SMART.
    16. Wong, Kit Pong, 2017. "A note on risky targets and effort," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 27-30.
    17. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Etner, Johanna & Schroyen, Fred, 2009. "The values of relative risk aversion and prudence: A context-free interpretation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 1-7, July.
    18. Louis Eeckhoudt & Liqun Liu & Jack Meyer, 2017. "Restricted increases in risk aversion and their application," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(1), pages 161-181, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Paan Jindapon & Liqun Liu & William S. Neilson, 2021. "Comparative risk apportionment," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(1), pages 91-112, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Uncertainty Modelling; Home Bias Puzzle; Portfolio Allocation Problem; Smooth Ambiguity Model; Greater Ambiguity Aversion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:kyo:wpaper:975. 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: Makoto Watanabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iekyojp.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.