IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apmtfi/v4y1997i3p135-149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuzzy measures and asset prices: accounting for information ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Umberto Cherubini

Abstract

A recent stream of literature has suggested that many market imperfections or 'puzzles' can be easily explained once information ambiguity, or knightian uncertainty is taken into account. Here we propose a parametric representation of this concept by means of a special class of fuzzy measures, known as gλ-measures. The parameter λ may be considered an indicator of uncertainty. Starting with a distribution, a value λ in (0, ∞) and a benchmark utility function we obtain a sub-additive expected utility, representing uncertainty aversion. A dual value λ* in (-1, 0) defining a super-additive expected utility is also recovered, while the benchmark expected utility is obtained for λ = λ* = 0. The two measures may be considered as lower and upper bounds of expected utility with respect to a set of probability measures, in the spirit of Gilboa-Schmeidler MMEU theory and of Dempster probability interval approach. The parametrization may be used to determine the effect of information ambiguity on asset prices in a very straightforward way. As examples, we determine the price of a corporate debt contract and a 'fuzzified' version of the Black and Scholes model.

Suggested Citation

  • Umberto Cherubini, 1997. "Fuzzy measures and asset prices: accounting for information ambiguity," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 135-149.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:apmtfi:v:4:y:1997:i:3:p:135-149
    DOI: 10.1080/135048697334773
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/135048697334773
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/135048697334773?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norbert Hofmann & Eckhard Platen & Martin Schweizer, 1992. "Option Pricing Under Incompleteness and Stochastic Volatility," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(3), pages 153-187, July.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1985. "Duality in Non-Additive Expected Utility Theory," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275390, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Jouini Elyes & Kallal Hedi, 1995. "Martingales and Arbitrage in Securities Markets with Transaction Costs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 178-197, June.
    4. Dow, James & da Costa Werlang, Sergio Ribeiro, 1992. "Excess volatility of stock prices and Knightian uncertainty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(2-3), pages 631-638, April.
    5. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    6. Sarin, Rakesh K & Wakker, Peter, 1992. "A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1255-1272, November.
    7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    8. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1990. "Utility Theory and Uncertainty," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275480, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    9. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    10. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    11. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    12. Jie Hu, 1994. "Market breakdowns and price crashes explained by information ambiguity," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 94-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    13. M. Avellaneda & A. Levy & A. ParAS, 1995. "Pricing and hedging derivative securities in markets with uncertain volatilities," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 73-88.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5630 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:crs:wpaper:9513 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Epstein, Larry G & Wang, Tan, 1994. "Intertemporal Asset Pricing Under Knightian Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 283-322, March.
    18. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    19. Marco Avellaneda & Antonio ParAS, 1996. "Managing the volatility risk of portfolios of derivative securities: the Lagrangian uncertain volatility model," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 21-52.
    20. T. J. Lyons, 1995. "Uncertain volatility and the risk-free synthesis of derivatives," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 117-133.
    21. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1991. "Utility theory with uncertainty," Handbook of Mathematical Economics, in: W. Hildenbrand & H. Sonnenschein (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 33, pages 1763-1831, Elsevier.
    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. Tarik Driouchi & Lenos Trigeorgis & Raymond H. Y. So, 2018. "Option implied ambiguity and its information content: Evidence from the subprime crisis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(2), pages 463-491, March.
    2. Muzzioli, S. & Torricelli, C., 2005. "The pricing of options on an interval binomial tree. An application to the DAX-index option market," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(1), pages 192-200, May.
    3. Muzzioli, Silvia & Torricelli, Costanza, 2004. "A multiperiod binomial model for pricing options in a vague world," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 861-887, February.

    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. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    4. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    5. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    6. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    7. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Gulen, Huseyin & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2022. "Comparing ambiguous urns with different sizes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    8. Kozhan, Roman & Schmid, Wolfgang, 2009. "Asset allocation with distorted beliefs and transaction costs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 236-249, April.
    9. repec:awi:wpaper:0448 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Umberto Cherubini & Giovanni Della Lunga, 2001. "Liquidity and credit risk," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 79-95.
    11. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    12. Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2021. "Ambiguity and Probabilistic Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4310-4326, July.
    13. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    14. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    15. Treich, Nicolas, 2010. "The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 15-26, January.
    16. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7323 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    18. Tallon, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Do sunspots matter when agents are Choquet-expected-utility maximizers?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 357-368, March.
    19. Costis Skiadas, 1991. "Conditioning and Aggregation of Preferences," Discussion Papers 1010, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    20. Daniela Grieco, 2018. "Innovation and stock market performance: A model with ambiguity-averse agents," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 287-303, April.
    21. Nobuo Koida, 2012. "Nest-monotonic two-stage acts and exponential probability capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 99-124, May.
    22. Veronika Köbberling & Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 395-423, August.

    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:taf:apmtfi:v:4:y:1997:i:3:p:135-149. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAMF20 .

    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.