IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/frd/wpaper/dp2014-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Investors Facing Risk: Prospect Theory and Non-Expected Utility in Portfolio Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Erick W. Rengifo

    (Fordham University)

  • Debra Emanuela Trifan

    (Bayerngas Energy)

  • Debra Rossen Trendafilov

    (Truman State University)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the attitude of non-professional investors towards financial losses and their decisions on wealth allocation, and how these change subject to behavioral factors. Our contribution concerns the integration of behavioral elements into the classic portfolio optimization. Individual perceptions are modeled according to an extended prospect-theory framework: Losses loom larger than gains of the same size (loss aversion) and the past riskyportfolio performance changes the subjective valuation of risky investments. The utility of financial investments is overemphasized (myopia). The portfolio model with individual VaR delivers an optimal wealth assignment between risky and risk-free assets.

Suggested Citation

  • Erick W. Rengifo & Debra Emanuela Trifan & Debra Rossen Trendafilov, 2014. "Investors Facing Risk: Prospect Theory and Non-Expected Utility in Portfolio Selection," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2014-03, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:frd:wpaper:dp2014-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://archive.fordham.edu/ECONOMICS_RESEARCH/PAPERS/dp2014_03_rengifo_investors.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell, Rachel & Huisman, Ronald & Koedijk, Kees, 2001. "Optimal portfolio selection in a Value-at-Risk framework," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(9), pages 1789-1804, September.
    2. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2006. "The Loss Aversion / Narrow Framing Approach to the Equity Premium Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 12378, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    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. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    2. Erick Rengifo & Emanuela Trifan, 2008. "How Investors Face Financial Risk Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2008-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    3. Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2006. "Investors Facing Risk: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation Between Risky and Risk-Free Assets," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 180, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    4. Erick W. Rengifo & Debra Emanuela Trifan & Debra Rossen Trendafilov, 2014. "The Individually Accepted Loss," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2014-04, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    5. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    6. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    7. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    9. De Giorgi, Enrico & Hens, Thorsten & Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2010. "Financial market equilibria with cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 633-651, September.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    11. Chen Lian & Yueran Ma & Carmen Wang, 2019. "Low Interest Rates and Risk-Taking: Evidence from Individual Investment Decisions," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(6), pages 2107-2148.
    12. Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2007. "Investors Facing Risk: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation Between Risky and Risk-Free Assets," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 28063, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    13. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Hilda Kammoun, 2013. "Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 411-429, March.
    14. Azmat, Saad & Jalil, Muhammad Naiman & Skully, Michael & Brown, Kym, 2016. "Investor’s choice of Shariah compliant ‘replicas’ and original Islamic instruments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(S), pages 4-22.
    15. Haim Levy & Enrico De Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, "undated". "Prospect Theory and the CAPM: A contradiction or coexistence?," IEW - Working Papers 157, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Michael J. Best & Robert R. Grauer, 2017. "Humans, Econs and Portfolio Choice," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(02), pages 1-30, June.
    17. Marianne Andries, 2012. "Consumption-based Asset Pricing Loss Aversion," 2012 Meeting Papers 571, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    18. Servaas van Bilsen & Roger J. A. Laeven & Theo E. Nijman, 2020. "Consumption and Portfolio Choice Under Loss Aversion and Endogenous Updating of the Reference Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3927-3955, September.
    19. Foellmi, Reto & Rosenblatt-Wisch, Rina & Schenk-Hoppé, Klaus Reiner, 2011. "Consumption paths under prospect utility in an optimal growth model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 273-281, March.
    20. Enrico Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2006. "Making prospect theory fit for finance," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 20(3), pages 339-360, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    VaR; Non-Professional Investor; Prospect Theory; Non-Expected Utility.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G10 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • E27 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications

    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:frd:wpaper:dp2014-03. 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: Fordham Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edforus.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.