IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v40y2009i6p691-699.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integration of VaR and expected utility under departures from normality

Author

Listed:
  • Peter J. Barry
  • Bruce J. Sherrick
  • Jianmei Zhao

Abstract

This article identifies the level of the expected utility (EU) risk aversion and Value-at-Risk (VaR) confidence level that yield the same choice from a given distribution of outcomes, and thus allow for consistent application of the two criteria. The result for a given distribution is an explicit mapping between risk aversion under EU and VaR, for both normal and nonnormal distributions. The Cornish-Fisher expansion is used to establish adjusted mean-deviates for nonnormal outcome distributions and the investor's preference function is expanded to include elements for variance, skewness, and excess kurtosis. A farm-level application with nonnormal revenue distribution illustrates these approaches. Copyright (c) 2009 International Association of Agricultural Economists.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter J. Barry & Bruce J. Sherrick & Jianmei Zhao, 2009. "Integration of VaR and expected utility under departures from normality," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(6), pages 691-699, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:40:y:2009:i:6:p:691-699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00408.x
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Babcock, Bruce A. & Choi, E. Kwan & Feinerman, Eli, 1993. "Risk And Probability Premiums For Cara Utility Functions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(01), July.
    2. Basak, Suleyman & Shapiro, Alexander, 2001. "Value-at-Risk-Based Risk Management: Optimal Policies and Asset Prices," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 14(2), pages 371-405.
    3. Bruce J. Sherrick & Fabio C. Zanini & Gary D. Schnitkey & Scott H. Irwin, 2004. "Crop Insurance Valuation under Alternative Yield Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 406-419.
    4. 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 354-371, June.
    5. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2003:i:38:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Eric Jondeau & Michael Rockinger, 2006. "Optimal Portfolio Allocation under Higher Moments," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 12(1), pages 29-55.
    7. John M. Antle, 1987. "Econometric Estimation of Producers' Risk Attitudes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(3), pages 509-522.
    8. Douglas L. Young, 1979. "Risk Preferences of Agricultural Producers: Their Use in Extension and Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 1063-1070.
    9. Alexander, Gordon J. & Baptista, Alexandre M., 2002. "Economic implications of using a mean-VaR model for portfolio selection: A comparison with mean-variance analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 1159-1193, July.
    10. William J. Baumol, 1963. "An Expected Gain-Confidence Limit Criterion for Portfolio Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 174-182, October.
    11. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Barrios, Carolina & Wakker, Peter P., 2007. "Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 356-378, May.
    12. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    13. Mark R. Manfredo & Raymond M. Leuthold, 1999. "Value-at-Risk Analysis: A Review and the Potential for Agricultural Applications," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-111.
    14. Scott, Robert C & Horvath, Philip A, 1980. " On the Direction of Preference for Moments of Higher Order Than the Variance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 35(4), pages 915-919, September.
    15. Steven T. Buccola, 1986. "Testing for Nonnormality in Farm Net Returns," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 334-343.
    16. Levy, H & Markowtiz, H M, 1979. "Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(3), pages 308-317, June.
    17. Yamai, Yasuhiro & Yoshiba, Toshinao, 2002. "Comparative Analyses of Expected Shortfall and Value-at-Risk (2): Expected Utility Maximization and Tail Risk," Monetary and Economic Studies, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan, vol. 20(2), pages 95-115, April.
    18. Joseph G. Eisenhauer, 2003. "Approximation bias in estimating risk aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(38), pages 1-10.
    19. Kaplanski, Guy & Levy, Haim, 2007. "Basel's value-at-risk capital requirement regulation: An efficiency analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 1887-1906, June.
    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. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.

    More about this item

    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:bla:agecon:v:40:y:2009:i:6:p:691-699. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.