IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/roc/rocher/464.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Probabilities Used in Markets?

Author

Listed:
  • Epstein, L.G.

Abstract

Working in a complete-markets setting, a property of asset demands in identified that is inconsistent with the investor's preference being based on probabilities. In this way, a market counterpart of the Ellsberg Paradox is provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Epstein, L.G., 1999. "Are Probabilities Used in Markets?," RCER Working Papers 464, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    • Handle: RePEc:roc:rocher:464
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://rcer.econ.rochester.edu/RCERPAPERS/rcer_464.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kin Chung Lo, 2000. "Rationalizability and the savage axioms," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 15(3), pages 727-733.
    2. Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
    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.
    4. 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.
    5. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    6. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    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. Mukerji, Sujoy & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2003. "Ellsberg's two-color experiment, portfolio inertia and ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 299-316, June.
    2. Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon & CNRS-EUREQua & Universite Paris I, 2002. "Ellsberg`s 2-Color Experiment, Bid-Ask Behavior and Ambiguity," Economics Series Working Papers 114, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Chambers, Christopher P. & Liu, Ce & Martinez, Seung-Keun, 2016. "A test for risk-averse expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 775-785.
    4. Zambrano, Eduardo, 2005. "Testable implications of subjective expected utility theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 262-268, November.
    5. Fontana, Giuseppe & Gerrard, Bill, 2004. "A Post Keynesian theory of decision making under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 619-637, October.
    6. Federico Echenique & Taisuke Imai & Kota Saito, 2019. "Decision Making under Uncertainty: An Experimental Study in Market Settings," Papers 1911.00946, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    7. Xiao Luo & Yi-Chun Chen, 2004. "A Unified Approach to Information, Knowledge, and Stability," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 472, Econometric Society.
    8. Federico Echenique, 2020. "New Developments in Revealed Preference Theory: Decisions Under Risk, Uncertainty, and Intertemporal Choice," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 299-316, August.
    9. Christopher P. Chambers & Georgios Gerasimou, 2023. "Non-diversified portfolios with subjective expected utility," Papers 2304.08059, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    10. Pierpaolo Angelini, 2023. "Probability Spaces Identifying Ordinal and Cardinal Utilities in Problems of an Economic Nature: New Issues and Perspectives," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Charles Gauthier & Raghav Malhotra & Agustin Troccoli Moretti, 2022. "Finite Tests from Functional Characterizations," Papers 2208.03737, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    12. Stefania Minardi & Andrei Savochkin, 2017. "Characterizations of Smooth Ambiguity Based on Continuous and Discrete Data," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 167-178, January.
    13. Carmela Mauro, 2008. "Uncertainty Aversion Vs. Competence: An Experimental Market Study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 301-331, March.
    14. Grant, Simon & Karni, Edi, 2004. "A theory of quantifiable beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 515-546, August.

    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. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    2. Lo, Kin Chung, 2009. "Correlated Nash equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 722-743, March.
    3. Lo, Kin Chung, 1999. "Extensive Form Games with Uncertainty Averse Players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-270, August.
    4. Wang, Tan, 2003. "Conditional preferences and updating," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 286-321, February.
    5. Marciano Siniscalchi, "undated". "Vector-Adjusted Expected Utility," Working Papers 191, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    6. Lo, Kin Chung, 1996. "Equilibrium in Beliefs under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 443-484, November.
    7. Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Klibanoff, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2000. "Maxmin Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 35-65, May.
    8. Lo, Kin Chung, 2006. "Agreement and stochastic independence of belief functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-22, January.
    9. Tapking, Jens, 2004. "Axioms for preferences revealing subjective uncertainty and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 771-797, November.
    10. Lo, Kin Chung, 2002. "Correlated equilibrium under uncertainty," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 183-209, November.
    11. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    12. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    13. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    14. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    15. Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2001. "Ambiguity Aversion and Incompleteness of Financial Markets," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(4), pages 883-904.
    16. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "A belief-based definition of ambiguity aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 15-30, July.
    17. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    18. Bleichrodt, Han & Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David & Li, Chen, 2021. "Testing dynamic consistency and consequentialism under ambiguity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    19. Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7616, David K. Levine.
    20. Chateauneuf, Alain & Faro, José Heleno, 2009. "Ambiguity through confidence functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(9-10), pages 535-558, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    FINANCIAL MARKET ; SECURITIES ; DEMAND ; INVESTMENTS;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G15 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - International Financial Markets
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates

    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:roc:rocher:464. 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: Richard DiSalvo (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.