IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cte/idrepe/id-11-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

CAPM-like formulae and good deal absence with ambiguous setting and coherent risk measure

Author

Listed:
  • Balbás, Beatriz
  • Balbás, Raquel

Abstract

Risk measures beyond the variance have shown theoretical advantages when addressing some classical problems of Financial Economics, at least if asymmetries and/or heavy tails are involved. Nevertheless, in portfolio selection they have provoked several caveats such as the existence of good deals in most of the arbitrage free pricing models. In other words, models such as Black and Scholes or Heston allow investors to build sequences of strategies whose expected return tends to in nite and whose risk remains bounded or tends to minus in nite. This paper studies whether this drawback still holds if the investor is facing the presence of multiple priors, as well as the properties of optimal portfolios in a good deal free ambiguous framework. With respect to the rst objective, we show that there are four possible results. If the investor uncertainty is too high he/she has no incentives to buy risky assets. As the uncertainty (set of priors) decreases the interest in risky securities increases. If her/his uncertainty becomes too low then two types of good deal may arise. Consequently, there is a very important di¤erence between the ambiguous and the non ambiguous setting. Under ambiguity the investor uncertainty may increase in such a manner that the model becomes good deal free and presents a market price of risk as close as possible to that re ected by the investor empirical evidence. Hence, ambiguity may help to overcome some meaningless ndings in asset pricing. With respect to our second objective, good deal free ambiguous models imply the existence of a benchmark generating a robust capital market line. The robust (worst-case) risk of every strategy may be divided into systemic and speci c, and no robust return is paid by the speci c robust risk. A couple of betas may be associated with every strategy, and extensions of the CAPM most important formulas will be proved.

Suggested Citation

  • Balbás, Beatriz & Balbás, Raquel, 2011. "CAPM-like formulae and good deal absence with ambiguous setting and coherent risk measure," INDEM - Working Paper Business Economic Series id-11-04, Instituto para el Desarrollo Empresarial (INDEM).
  • Handle: RePEc:cte:idrepe:id-11-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/12636/indemwp11_04.pdf?sequence=1
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John H. Cochrane & Jesus Saa-Requejo, 2000. "Beyond Arbitrage: Good-Deal Asset Price Bounds in Incomplete Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 79-119, February.
    2. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2008. "Ambiguity, Information Quality, and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(1), pages 197-228, February.
    3. Mark Schneider & Jonathan W. Leland & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2018. "Ambiguity framed," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 133-151, October.
      • Mark Schneider & Jonathan Leland & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2016. "Ambiguity Framed," Working Papers 16-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. H. Henry Cao & Tan Wang & Harold H. Zhang, 2005. "Model Uncertainty, Limited Market Participation, and Asset Prices," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1219-1251.
    5. Dean P. Foster & Sergiu Hart, 2009. "An Operational Measure of Riskiness," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 117(5), pages 785-814.
    6. David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2009. "Satisficing Measures for Analysis of Risky Positions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 71-84, January.
    7. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
    8. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    9. Lorenzo Garlappi & Raman Uppal & Tan Wang, 2007. "Portfolio Selection with Parameter and Model Uncertainty: A Multi-Prior Approach," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(1), pages 41-81, January.
    10. Vikas Agarwal, 2004. "Risks and Portfolio Decisions Involving Hedge Funds," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 63-98.
    11. Turan G. Bali & Nusret Cakici & Fousseni Chabi-Yo, 2011. "A Generalized Measure of Riskiness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1406-1423, August.
    12. Peter Bossaerts & Paolo Ghirardato & Serena Guarnaschelli & William R. Zame, 2010. "Ambiguity in Asset Markets: Theory and Experiment," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(4), pages 1325-1359, April.
    13. Goovaerts, Marc J. & Kaas, Rob & Dhaene, Jan & Tang, Qihe, 2004. "Some new classes of consistent risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 505-516, June.
    14. Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean‐Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228, July.
    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. Agarwal, Vikas & Arisoy, Y. Eser & Naik, Narayan Y., 2017. "Volatility of aggregate volatility and hedge fund returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 491-510.
    2. Balbás, Alejandro & Balbás, Beatriz & Balbás, Raquel, 2016. "Good deals and benchmarks in robust portfolio selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 666-678.
    3. Massimo Guidolin & Francesca Rinaldi, 2013. "Ambiguity in asset pricing and portfolio choice: a review of the literature," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 183-217, February.
    4. Balbás, Alejandro & Balbás, Beatriz & Balbás, Raquel, 2013. "On the inefficiency of Brownian motions and heavier tailed price processes," INDEM - Working Paper Business Economic Series id-13-01, Instituto para el Desarrollo Empresarial (INDEM).
    5. repec:esx:essedp:770 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Condie, Scott & Ganguli, Jayant, 2017. "The pricing effects of ambiguous private information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 512-557.
    7. Jiang, Julia & Liu, Jun & Tian, Weidong & Zeng, Xudong, 2022. "Portfolio concentration, portfolio inertia, and ambiguous correlation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Nengjiu Ju & Jianjun Miao, 2012. "Ambiguity, Learning, and Asset Returns," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 559-591, March.
    10. Chao Tang, 2017. "Ambiguity and Investment Decisions: An Empirical Analysis on Mutual Fund Investor Behaviour," Academic Journal of Economic Studies, Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy Bucharest,"Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University Bucharest, vol. 3(3), pages 38-46, September.
    11. Qi Nan Zhai, 2015. "Asset Pricing Under Ambiguity and Heterogeneity," PhD Thesis, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, number 1-2015.
    12. Yu, Edison G., 2018. "Dynamic market participation and endogenous information aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 491-517.
    13. Balbás, Alejandro & Balbás, Beatriz & Balbás, Raquel & Heras, Antonio, 2015. "Optimal reinsurance under risk and uncertainty," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 61-74.
    14. Ganguli, J & Condie, S & Illeditsch, PK, 2012. "Information Inertia," Economics Discussion Papers 5628, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    15. Martin Schneider, 2010. "The Research Agenda: Martin Schneider on Multiple Priors Preferences and Financial Markets," EconomicDynamics Newsletter, Review of Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(2), April.
    16. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2010. "Ambiguity and Asset Markets," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 315-346, December.
    17. Claudia Ravanelli & Gregor Svindland, 2019. "Ambiguity sensitive preferences in Ellsberg frameworks," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(1), pages 53-89, February.
    18. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger & Weitzel, Utz, 2013. "Do ambiguity effects survive in experimental asset markets?," MPRA Paper 44700, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Illeditsch, PK & Ganguli, J & Condie, S, 2015. "Information Inertia," Economics Discussion Papers 15615, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    20. Sujoy Mukerji & Han N. Ozsoylev & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2023. "Trading Ambiguity: A Tale Of Two Heterogeneities," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1127-1164, August.
    21. Menachem Brenner & Yehuda Izhakian & Orly Sade, 2011. "Ambiguity and Overconfidence," Working Papers 11-06, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ambiguity;

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates

    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:cte:idrepe:id-11-04. 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: Ana Poveda (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://portal.uc3m.es/portal/page/portal/indem .

    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.