Decreasing absolute risk aversion, prudence and increased downside risk aversion

Downside risk increases have previously been characterized as changes preferred by all decision makers u(x) with u????(x) > 0. For risk averse decision makers, u????(x) > 0 also defines prudence. This paper finds that downside risk increases can also be characterized as changes preferred by all decision makers displaying decreasing absolute risk aversion (DARA) since those changes involve random variables that have equal means. Building on these findings, the paper proposes using ??more decreasingly absolute risk averse?? or ??more prudent?? as alternative definitions of increased downside risk aversion. These alternative definitions generate a transitive ordering, while the existing definition based on a transformation function with a positive third derivative does not. Other properties of the new definitions of increased downside risk aversion are also presented.     

Explaining satisficing through risk aversion

Theory and Decision - This paper extends the analysis of the data from the experiment of Hey et al. (Theory and Decision 83(3): 337–353, 2017), which was designed to test Proposition 2 of the...     

On the definition of risk aversion

Two definitions of risk aversion have recently been proposed for non-expected utility theories of choice under uncertainty: the former refers the measure of risk aversion (Montesano 1985, 1986 and 1988) directly to the risk premium (i.e. to the difference between the expected value of the action under consideration and its certainty equivalent); the latter defines risk aversion as a decreasing preference for an increasing risk (introduced as mean preserving spreads) (Chew, Karni and Safra 1987, Machina 1987, Röell 1987, Yaari 1987).When the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function exists both these definitions indicate an agent as a risk averter if his or her utility function is concave. Consequently, the two definitions are equivalent. However, they are no longer equivalent when the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function does not exist and a non-expected utility theory is assumed. Examples can be given which show how the risk aversion of the one definition can coexist with the risk attraction of the other. Indeed the two definitions consider two different questions: the risk premium definition specifically concerns risk aversion, while the mean preserving spreads definition concerns the increasing (with risk) risk aversion.The mean preserving spreads definition of risk aversion, i.e. the increasing (with risk) risk aversion, requires a special kind of concavity for the preference function (that the derivatives with respect to probabilities are concave in the respective consequences). The risk premium definition of local risk aversion requires that the probability distribution dominates on the average the distribution of the derivatives of the preference function with respect to consequences. Besides, when the local measure of the first order is zero, there is risk aversion according to the measure of the second order if the preference function is concave with respect to consequences.Yaari's (1969) measure of risk aversion is closely linked to the r.p. measure of the second order. Its sign does not indicate risk aversion (if positive) or attraction (if negative) when the measure of the first order is not zero (i.e., in Yaari's language, when subjective odds differ from the market odds).     

The impact of risk aversion and ambiguity aversion on annuity and saving choices

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty - We analyze the impact of risk aversion and ambiguity aversion on the competing demands for annuities and bequeathable savings using a lifecycle recursive utility...     

On the intensity of downside risk aversion

The degree of downside risk aversion (or equivalently prudence) is so far usually measured by . We propose here another measure, , which has specific and interesting local and global properties. Some of these properties are to a wide extent similar to those of the classical measure of absolute risk aversion, which is not always the case for . It also appears that the two measures are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they seem to be rather complementary as shown through an economic application dealing with a simple general equilibrium model of savings.

Comparing uncertainty aversion towards different sources

In this article, we discuss some aspects of Eliaz and Ok ’s (Games Econ Behav 56:61–86, 2006) choice theoretical foundations of incomplete preferences. Our aim is to clarify some aspects of their regularity condition for preorders, showing that, as far as rationalization of a choice correspondence alone is concerned, no further restriction is imposed by requiring the preorder to be regular. However, if one is also interested in capturing other observable aspects of the individual’s choice procedure, such as Eliaz and Ok’s notion of c-incomparability or the notion of behavioral indifference introduced in this paper, then the only option is to use a regular preorder. We also argue that their weak axiom of revealed non-inferiority (WARNI) is too strong a property if our aim is to characterize the rationalizability of a choice correspondence by a (possibly incomplete) preorder. Finally, as we have mentioned above, we introduce the notion of behavioral indifference and argue, not only that Eliaz and Ok’s notion of c-incomparability (observable incomparability) can be derived from it, but also that it has a wider range of applicability than their notion of observable incomparability.     

Risk aversion,downside risk aversion,and the transition to entrepreneurship

In this paper, we discuss the transition from secure employment to risky self-employment (entrepreneurship) caused by a small increase in wealth. Building on the apportioning risk literature, we prove that the transition from secure employment to risky entrepreneurship is based on a measure of the difference between the strength of downside risk aversion and the strength of risk aversion. This result highlights the idea that using the behavioral approach of risky lotteries to study entrepreneurship can produce different results from the traditional economic theory of entrepreneurship, which can have policy implications that must be considered with caution.

     

Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion

This paper is motivated by the search for one cardinal utility for decisions under risk, welfare evaluations, and other contexts. This cardinal utility should have meaningprior to risk, with risk depending on cardinal utility, not the other way around. The rank-dependent utility model can reconcile such a view on utility with the position that risk attitude consists of more than marginal utility, by providing a separate risk component: a probabilistic risk attitude towards probability mixtures of lotteries, modeled through a transformation for cumulative probabilities. While this separation of risk attitude into two independent components is the characteristic feature of rank-dependent utility, it had not yet been axiomatized. Doing that is the purpose of this paper. Therefore, in the second part, the paper extends Yaari's axiomatization to nonlinear utility, and provides separate axiomatizations for increasing/decreasing marginal utility and for optimistic/pessimistic probability transformations. This is generalized to interpersonal comparability. It is also shown that two elementary and often-discussed properties — quasi-convexity (aversion) of preferences with respect to probability mixtures, and convexity (pessimism) of the probability transformation — are equivalent.     

Risk and risk aversion for state-dependent utility

This paper analyses risk and risk aversion in the state-dependent utility model, which is useful for modelling health or life insurance purchase. We use Karni's (1983) definition of risk aversion, and extend the class of risks to which it can be applied.Research supported by the ESRC postdoctoral fellowship scheme. I would like to thank Jerry Nordquist for arousing my interest in this subject. For helpful comments on an earlier draft I am grateful to an anonymous referee and the editor of this journal.     

Ross' measure of risk aversion and portfolio selection

This article shows that if Ross' definition of riskier is replaced by a more traditional definition, such as a mean-preserving spread or second-degree stochastic dominance, then the application of Ross's stronger measure of risk aversion to the portfolio problem may no longer produce the desired result. It is also shown that the stronger measure may not perform satisfactorily when applied to exponential utility functions.The authors are grateful to John Pratt for his helpful comments.     

The risk aversion measure without the independence axiom

The risk premium (conveniently normalized) is defined as the measure of risk aversion. This measure does not require any relevant assumption in the theory of choice under uncertainty except the existence of a certainty equivalent. In particular, the independence axiom is not required. The measure of risk aversion of an action is provided not only for the case with one commodity and two consequences but also for the case with many commodities and consequences. The measure of mean risk aversion of all actions with given consequences is introduced and the local measure of risk aversion is obtained by making all these consequences approach the consequence under consideration. This measure is demonstrated to be zero when the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function exists. In this case a measure of risk aversion of the second order is introduced, which turns out to be equal to the Arrow-Pratt absolute index when there is only one commodity and similar to the generalized measures proposed by several authors when there are many commodities and two consequences.Helpful comments by I. Gilboa and suggestions by the referee are gratefully acknowledged.     

Measures of risk aversion with expected and nonexpected utility

In the expected utility case, the risk-aversion measure is given by the Arrow-Pratt index. Three proposals of a risk-aversion measure for the nonexpected utility case are examined. The first one sets “the second derivative of the acceptance frontier as a measure of local risk aversion.” The second one takes into account the concavity in the consequences of the partial derivatives of the preference function with respect to probabilities. The third one measures risk aversion through the ratio between the risk premium and the standard deviation of the lottery. The third proposal catches the main feature of risk aversion, while the other two proposals are not always in accordance with the same crude definition of risk aversion, by which there is risk aversion when an agent prefers to get the expected value of a lottery rather than to participate in it.     

Mixed risk aversion and preference for risk disaggregation: a story of moments

In a recent article entitled “Putting Risk in its Proper Place,” Eeckhoudt and Schlesinger (2006) established a theorem linking the sign of the n-th derivative of an agent’s utility function to her preferences among pairs of simple lotteries. We characterize these lotteries and show that, in a given pair, they only differ by their moments of order greater than or equal to n. When the n-th derivative of the utility function is positive (negative) and n is odd (even), the agent prefers a lottery with higher (lower) n + 2p-th moments for p belonging to the set of positive integers. This result links the preference for disaggregation of risks across states of nature to the complete structure of moments preferred by mixed risk averse agents. It can be viewed as a generalization of a proposition appearing in Ekern (1980) which focused only on the differences in the n-th moments.     

Absolute and relative risk aversion: An experimental study

Kenneth Arrow posed the hypotheses that investors reveal decreasing absolute risk aversion (DARA) and increasing relative risk aversion (IRRA). It is very difficult to empirically test these two hypotheses since one needs to analyze an investor's investment decisions at various points in his/her economic life cycle as the investor's wealth varies. An experimental study is conducted to test these two hypotheses when the subject's wealth varies depending on his/her investment performance. The experiment involves an actual money gain or loss which is indexed to the individual's investment performance. It is found that DARA is indeed strongly supported, but IRRA is rejected.     

Decreasing higher-order absolute risk aversion and higher-degree stochastic dominance

Fishburn and Vickson (Stochastic dominance: an approach to decision-making under risk, Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, pp. 39–113, 1978) showed that, when applied to random alternatives with an equal mean, 3rd-degree and decreasing absolute risk aversion stochastic dominances represent equivalent rules. The present paper generalizes this result to higher degrees. Specifically, higher-degree stochastic dominance rules and common preference by all decision makers with decreasing higher-order absolute risk aversion are shown to coincide under appropriate constraints on the respective moments of the random variables to be compared.     

Positivity of bid-ask spreads and symmetrical monotone risk aversion*

A usual argument in finance refers to no arbitrage opportunities for the positivity of the bid-ask spread. Here we follow the decision theory approach and show that if positivity of the bid-ask spread is identified with strong risk aversion for an expected utility market-maker, this is no longer true for a rank-dependent expected utility one. For such a decision-maker only a very weak form of risk aversion is required, a result which seems more in accordance with his actual behavior. We conclude by showing that the no-trade interval result of Dow and Werlang (1992a) remains valid for a rank-dependent expected utility market-maker merely exhibiting this weak form of risk aversion.     

Benchmark values for higher order coefficients of relative risk aversion

The existing literature on savings, insurance, and portfolio choices under risk has revealed that quite often comparative statics results depend, among other things, upon the values of the coefficients of relative risk aversion and relative prudence. More specifically the benchmark values for these coefficients are, respectively, one and two. Recently, several papers investigated constraints on the higher degree extensions of the coefficients of relative risk aversion and of relative prudence. The present work provides a unified approach to this question based on the concept of elementary correlation increasing transformations, allowing for a better understanding of changes in risk in the multiplicative case.     

Joint measurement of risk aversion,prudence, and temperance

Risk aversion—but also the higher-order risk preferences of prudence and temperance—are fundamental concepts in the study of economic decision making. We propose a method to jointly measure the intensity of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance. Our theoretical approach is to define risk compensations of different orders, and in an experiment we elicit these compensations with a price list technique. We find evidence for risk aversion, prudence, and temperance. These traits correlate within subjects. The compensations elicited for prudence are significantly larger than those for risk aversion and temperance. In contrast to commonly used utility functions, prospect theory can predict this behavioral pattern. In our experiment, risk-averse, risk-loving, and risk-neutral subjects are prudent. This supports a recent theoretical observation that prudence may be a more universal trait than previously realized.     

The Schwarzian derivative as a ranking of downside risk aversion

It is observed that the measure S _u  = u′′′/u′ − (3/2)(u′′/u′)², previously shown to be a relevant measure of the degree of downside risk aversion, is known in the mathematics literature as the Schwarzian derivative. The Schwarzian derivative has invariance properties under composition of functions that make it particularly well-behaved as a ranking of downside risk aversion. Indeed, it has the same invariance properties as the measure R _u  = −u′′/u′, familiar to economists as a ranking of utility functions by degree of Arrow-Pratt risk aversion.     

Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias

Various experimental procedures aimed at measuring individual risk aversion involve a list of pairs of alternative prospects. We first study the widely used method by Holt and Laury (Am Econ Rev 92(5):1644–1655, 2002), for which we find that the removal of some items from the lists yields a systematic decrease in risk aversion and scrambles the ranking of individuals by risk aversion. This bias, that we call embedding bias, is quite distinct from other confounds that have been previously observed in the use of the HL method. It may be related to empirical phenomena and theoretical developments where better prospects increase risk aversion. Nevertheless, we also find that the more recent elicitation method due to Abdellaoui et al. (Theory Decis 71:63–80, 2011), also based on lists but using only one and the same probability in the list, does not display any statistically significant bias when the corresponding items of the list are removed. Our results suggest that methods other than the popular HL one may be preferable for the measurement of risk aversion.