IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf0/98.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preference Relations In Ranking Multivalued Alternatives Using Stochastic Dominance: Case Of The Warsaw Stock Exchange

Author

Listed:
  • Grazyna Trzpiot

    (Academy of Economics,Katowice)

Abstract

This study used stochastic dominance tests for ranking alternatives under ambiguity, to build an efficient set of assets for a different class of investors. We propose a two step procedure: first test for multivalued stochastic dominance and next calculate the value of preference relations. The empirical part of paper was set by results from the Warsaw Stock Exchange. In decision situations we should compare many alternatives. When alternatives take uncertain character we can evaluate the performance of alternatives only in a probabilistic way. In finance, for example, problems arise with stock selection when we needs to compare return distributions. The construction of a local preference relation already requires the comparison of two probability distributions. Stochastic dominance is based on a model of risk averse preferences, which was done by Fishburn (1964) and was extended by Levy and Sarnat (1984, 1992). When we verified some of the stochastic dominance we also observed additionally that the dominance is not equivalent. We present preference relations that could help globally ranking alternatives. When one of the type of stochastic dominance is verified, we can calculate the degree of the decision maker preference by using the preference relation d. The degree of preference decreases progressively as we go from the dominance FSD to the dominance TSD. This degree of credibility of the preference relation will allow us to know the nature of the preference relation between two alternatives X and Y basis of the characteristic obtained for three functions by type of dominance, in the case of each dominance. It is easy to apply this relation for rank multivalued outcomes, which we firstly rank by multivalued stochastic dominance.

Suggested Citation

  • Grazyna Trzpiot, 2000. "Preference Relations In Ranking Multivalued Alternatives Using Stochastic Dominance: Case Of The Warsaw Stock Exchange," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 98, Society for Computational Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/cef00/papers/paper98.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Langewisch, Andrew & Choobineh, Fred, 1996. "Stochastic dominance tests for ranking alternatives under ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 139-154, November.
    2. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    3. Whitmore, G A, 1970. "Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 457-459, June.
    4. 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.
    5. James P. Quirk & Rubin Saposnik, 1962. "Admissibility and Measurable Utility Functions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 29(2), pages 140-146.
    6. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
    7. 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. Wong, Wing-Keung, 2007. "Stochastic dominance and mean-variance measures of profit and loss for business planning and investment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 829-843, October.
    2. Francesco Cesarone & Raffaello Cesetti & Giuseppe Orlando & Manuel Luis Martino & Jacopo Maria Ricci, 2022. "Comparing SSD-Efficient Portfolios with a Skewed Reference Distribution," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Unser, Matthias, 2000. "Lower partial moments as measures of perceived risk: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 253-280, June.
    4. Christodoulakis, George & Mohamed, Abdulkadir & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2018. "Optimal privatization portfolios in the presence of arbitrary risk aversion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(3), pages 1172-1191.
    5. Xu, Guo & Wing-Keung, Wong & Lixing, Zhu, 2013. "Almost Stochastic Dominance for Risk-Averse and Risk-Seeking Investors," MPRA Paper 51744, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Nowak, Maciej, 2004. "Preference and veto thresholds in multicriteria analysis based on stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 339-350, October.
    7. 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.
    8. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    9. Al-Khazali, Osamah, 2014. "Revisiting fast profit investor sentiment and stock returns during Ramadan," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 158-170.
    10. Yudhvir Seetharam, 2013. "Do Mutual Funds Attract the Right Investor? A Stochastic Dominance Approach," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 5(12), pages 905-914.
    11. Sheng-Ping Yang & Thanh Nguyen, 2019. "Skewness Preference and Asset Pricing: Evidence from the Japanese Stock Market," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-10, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Caporin, Massimiliano & Costola, Michele & Jannin, Gregory & Maillet, Bertrand, 2018. "“On the (Ab)use of Omega?”," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 11-33.
    14. Daskalaki, Charoula & Skiadopoulos, George & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2017. "Diversification benefits of commodities: A stochastic dominance efficiency approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 250-269.
    15. Dentcheva, Darinka & Ruszczynski, Andrzej, 2006. "Portfolio optimization with stochastic dominance constraints," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 433-451, February.
    16. Addae-Dapaah, Kwame & Tan Yong Hwee, Wilfred, 2009. "The unsung impact of currency risk on the performance of international real property investment," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 56-65, January.
    17. Guo, Xu & Zhu, Xuehu & Wong, Wing-Keung & Zhu, Lixing, 2013. "A note on almost stochastic dominance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 252-256.
    18. Kaplanski, Guy & Kroll, Yoram, 2002. "VaR Risk Measures versus Traditional Risk Measures: an Analysis and Survey," MPRA Paper 80070, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Kwame Addae-Dapaah & James Webb & Kim Ho & Yan Tan, 2010. "Industrial Real Estate Investment: Does the Contrarian Strategy Work?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 193-227, August.
    20. Coes, Donald V., 2008. "Income distribution trends in Brazil and China: Evaluating absolute and relative economic growth," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 359-369, May.

    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:sce:scecf0:98. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.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.