Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Portfolio Choices and Asset Prices: The Comparative Statics of Ambiguity Aversion

Contents:

Author Info

  • Gollier, Christian

Abstract

We investigate the comparative statics of "more ambiguity aversion" as defined by Klibanoff, Marinacci and Mukerji (2005) in the context of the static two-asset portfolio problem. It is not true in general that more ambiguity aversion reduces the demand for the uncertain asset. We exhibit some sufficient conditions to guarantee that, ceteris paribus, an increase in ambiguity aversion reduces the demand for the ambiguous asset, and raises the equity premium. For example, this is the case when the set of plausible distributions of returns can be ranked according to the monotone likelihood ratio order. We also show how ambiguity aversion distorts the price kernel in the alternative portfolio problem with complete markets for contingent claims.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.tse-fr.eu/images/doc/wp/fit/wp_fit_68_2009.pdf
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Toulouse School of Economics (TSE) in its series TSE Working Papers with number 09-068.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Jul 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:21919

Contact details of provider:
Phone: (+33) 5 61 12 86 23
Web page: http://www.tse-fr.eu/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Hansen, Pierre, 1980. "Minimum and Maximum Prices, Uncertainty, and the Theory of the Competitive Firm," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1064-68, December.
  2. Dionne, G. & Gollier, C., 1991. "Comparative Statics Under Multiple Sources of Risk with Appllications to Insurance Demand," Cahiers de recherche 9133, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  3. Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002. "A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity," Economics Series Working Papers 113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  4. Kimball, Miles S, 1990. "Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 53-73, January.
  5. Hadar, Josef & Seo, Tae Kun, 1990. "The Effects of Shifts in a Return Distribution on Optimal Portfolios," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 31(3), pages 721-36, August.
  6. Abel, Andrew B., 2002. "An exploration of the effects of pessimism and doubt on asset returns," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 1075-1092, July.
  7. Fabrice Collard & Sujoy Mukerji & Kevin Sheppard & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2011. "Ambiguity and the historical equity premium," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00594096, HAL.
  8. Pascal J. Maenhout, 2004. "Robust Portfolio Rules and Asset Pricing," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(4), pages 951-983.
  9. Haliassos, Michael & Bertaut, Carol C, 1995. "Why Do So Few Hold Stocks?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(432), pages 1110-29, September.
  10. Larry Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2006. "Learning Under Ambiguity," RCER Working Papers 527, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  11. Hansen, Lars Peter & Sargent, Thomas J & Tallarini, Thomas D, Jr, 1999. "Robust Permanent Income and Pricing," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(4), pages 873-907, October.
  12. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
  13. Shmuel Kandel & Robert F. Stambaugh, 1991. "Asset Returns and Intertemporal Preferences," NBER Working Papers 3633, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Stephen G. Cecchetti & Pok-sang Lam & Nelson C. Mark, 1998. "Asset Pricing with Distorted Beliefs: Are Equity Returns Too Good To Be True?," NBER Working Papers 6354, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Gollier, Christian, 1995. "Demand for Risky Assets and the Monotone Probability Ratio Order," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 113-22, September.
  16. Joshua Rosenberg & Robert F. Engle, 2000. "Empirical Pricing Kernels," New York University, Leonard N. Stern School Finance Department Working Paper Seires 99-014, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business-.
  17. Susan Athey, 2002. "Monotone Comparative Statics Under Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 117(1), pages 187-223, February.
  18. Alain Chateauneuf & Ghizlane Lakhnati, 2005. "Increases in risk and demand for risky asset," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques b05033, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  19. Meyer, Jack & Ormiston, Michael B, 1985. "Strong Increases in Risk and Their Comparative Statics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(2), pages 425-37, June.
  20. Gollier, Christian & Jullien, Bruno & Treich, Nicolas, 2000. "Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the 'Precautionary Principle'," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 229-253, February.
  21. Uzi Segal & Avia Spivak, 1988. "First Order Versus Second Order Risk Aversion," UCLA Economics Working Papers 540, UCLA Department of Economics.
  22. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
  23. Nengjiu Ju & Jianjun Miao, 2012. "Ambiguity, Learning, and Asset Returns," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 559-591, 03.
  24. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
  25. Christian Gollier, 2001. "Should we beware of the Precautionary Principle?," Economic Policy, CEPR & CES & MSH, vol. 16(33), pages 301-328, October.
  26. Dionne, G. & Eeckhoudt, L., 1990. "Increases In Risk And Linear Payoffs," Cahiers de recherche 9019, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  27. Athey, Susan, 2002. "Monotone Comparative Statics Under Uncertainty," Scholarly Articles 3372263, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  28. Christian Gollier, 2004. "The Economics of Risk and Time," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262572249, December.
  29. Black, Jane M & Bulkley, I George, 1989. "A Ratio Criterion for Signing the Effects of an Increase in Uncertainty," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 30(1), pages 119-30, February.
  30. Peter C. Fishburn & R. Burr Porter, 1976. "Optimal Portfolios with One Safe and One Risky Asset: Effects of Changes in Rate of Return and Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(10), pages 1064-1073, June.
  31. Gollier Christian, 1995. "The Comparative Statics of Changes in Risk Revisited," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 522-535, August.
  32. Ormiston Michael B. & Schlee Edward E., 1993. "Comparative Statics under Uncertainty for a Class of Economic Agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 412-422, December.
  33. Epstein, Larry G & Wang, Tan, 1994. "Intertemporal Asset Pricing Under Knightian Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 283-322, March.
  34. Gollier, Christian, 1997. "A Note on Portfolio Dominance," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 147-50, January.
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 in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:21919. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.