lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/yorken/15-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Portfolio Choice Under Ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Enrica Carbone
  • Xueqi Dong
  • John Hey
Abstract
This paper represents an intersection between two lines of research. The first is portfolio choice theory, which underlies much of finance; the second is the elicitation of preferences under uncertainty. The theory of the behaviour of financial markets builds heavily on portfolio choice theory; until recently this has assumed that preferences are of a particularly simple kind. In contrast research on preferences has revealed that people have more sophisticated preferences. This paper tries to bring the two fields together by investigating, in a portfolio choice context, the preferences that are revealed by decisions. In the second of these two fields, researchers are increasingly using allocation problems to elicit the preferences of subjects, believing that such problems are more informative, and perhaps more natural, than other elicitation methods. At the same time portfolio choice theory is itself concerned with an allocation problem. Usually in experimental finance the allocation problems are over Arrow securities each of which pays off only in one state of the world. Instead we study the more realistic case, familiar from finance, in which all assets pay off in all states of the world. To make our study more realistic we frame the problem as one under ambiguity, where the probabilities of the states are not known to the decision-maker. This enables us to compare the performance of some recent theories of behaviour under ambiguity as well as traditional ones (such as Mean-Variance) from the theory of finance. We also identify a ‘rule of thumb’ that decision-makers may be using in this rather complex scenario. This research may help us to understand more fully actual portfolio choice decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrica Carbone & Xueqi Dong & John Hey, 2015. "Portfolio Choice Under Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 15/03, Department of Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:15/03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/discussionpapers/2015/1503.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    4. Loomes, Graham, 1991. "Evidence of a New Violation of the Independence Axiom," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 91-108, January.
    5. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    6. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Jim Engle-Warnick & Diego Pulido & Marine de Montaignac, 2016. "Trust, ambiguity, and financial decision-making," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-44, CIRANO.

    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. Enrica Carbone & Xueqi Dong & John Hey, 2017. "Elicitation of preferences under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 87-102, April.
    2. John D. Hey & Noemi Pace, 2018. "The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability theories of decision making under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 6, pages 139-167, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A simple non-parametric method for eliciting prospect theory's value function and measuring loss aversion under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 403-416, October.
    5. Steffen Andersen & John Fountain & Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2014. "Estimating subjective probabilities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 207-229, June.
    6. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    7. Andreas C Drichoutis & Jayson L Lusk, 2014. "Judging Statistical Models of Individual Decision Making under Risk Using In- and Out-of-Sample Criteria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    8. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2019. "An experimental test of the predictive power of dynamic ambiguity models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-83, August.
    9. Pedro Albarrán & Judit Alonso & Carmen Herrero & Giovanni Ponti & Marcello Sartarelli & Diletta Topazio, 2025. "An experiment on outcome uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 147-170, April.
    10. Robin Cubitt & Gijs Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2018. "The strength of sensitivity to ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 275-302, October.
    11. Constantinos Antoniou & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & Daniel Read, 2015. "Subjective Bayesian beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 35-54, February.
    12. Wenting Zhou & John Hey, 2018. "Context matters," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 723-756, December.
    13. Steffen Andersen & John Fountain & Glenn Harrison & Arne Hole & E. Rutström, 2012. "Inferring beliefs as subjectively imprecise probabilities," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 161-184, July.
    14. Kops, Christopher & Pasichnichenko, Illia, 2023. "Testing negative value of information and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    15. Brian Hill, 2009. "Confidence and ambiguity," Working Papers hal-00489870, HAL.
    16. Konstantina Mari, 2017. "Does the Stochastic Specification Matter?," Discussion Papers 17/05, Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02563318, HAL.
    18. de Castro, Luciano & Galvao, Antonio F. & Noussair, Charles N. & Qiao, Liang, 2022. "Do people maximize quantiles?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 22-40.
    19. Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Ockenfels, Peter & Wilde, Christian, 2014. "Measuring ambiguity aversion: A systematic experimental approach," SAFE Working Paper Series 55, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    20. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    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:yor:yorken:15/03. 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: Paul Hodgson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.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.
    Лучший частный хостинг