When does ‘All Eggs in One Risky Basket’ Make Sense?
AbstractIn an important paper comparing expected utility and mean-variance analysis, Feldstein (1969) examined a simple portfolio problem involving just two assets, one riskless and one risky. He concluded there could easily be ‘plunging’, that is, investment in the risky asset alone. His background assumptions were that the risky asset’s yield was log normally distributed and that the investor’s attitude to risk was expressible by a logarithmic utility. We look at how conclusions are affected by choice of distribution and utility function. While conclusions can depend on choice of distribution, they are remarkably robust to choice within the range of plausible positive distributions. In contrast, conclusions are sensitive to choice of utility function and we find the key determinant to be how much the investor’s relative risk aversion differs from unity and in what direction. Based on historical stock market returns, our analysis implies that the prevalence of diversification that is observed is consistent with a relative risk aversion coefficient of about 2.5.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting, National University of Ireland - Maynooth in its series Economics, Finance and Accounting Department Working Paper Series with number n1550305.
Length: 13 pages
Date of creation: Mar 2005
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Tobin, James, 1969. "Comment on Borch and Feldstein," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(105), pages 13-14, January.
- Meyer, Jack, 1987. "Two-moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 421-30, June.
- Feldstein, Martin S, 1978. "A Note on Feldstein's Criticism of Mean-Variance Analysis: A Reply," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 201, February.
- Ormiston, Michael B & Schlee, Edward E, 2001. "Mean-Variance Preferences and Investor Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 849-61, October.
- Bierwag, G O, 1974. "The Rationale of the Mean-Standard Deviation Analysis: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(3), pages 431-33, June.
- Mayshar, Joram, 1978. "A Note on Feldstein's Criticism of Mean-Variance Analysis," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 197-99, February.
- Tsiang, S C, 1972. "The Rationale of the Mean-Standard Deviation Analysis, Skewness Preference, and the Demand for Money," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 354-71, June.
- James Tobin, 1956. "Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 14, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Trino-Manuel Niguez & Ivan Paya & D Peel & Javier Perote, 2013. "Higher-order moments in the theory of diversification and portfolio composition," Working Papers 18297128, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.