IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v193y2009i1p323-326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing financial investments by their state dependent returns: A one-way log utility representation

Author

Listed:
  • Speckbacher, Gerhard

Abstract

In a standard single-period model under risk, we formalize and discuss an intuitive criterion for the binary comparison of financial investments. Two investments - x and y - are compared by calculating the present value of x's payoffs using the state dependent returns of y as discount factors. The induced preference is asymmetric but exhibits intransitive indifference. If the feasible set is convex, then the criterion selects a unique maximum element. Interestingly, it can be shown that the induced preference can be represented by a one-way expected utility representation employing logarithmic utility. Besides giving a relevant and illustrative example for a one-way utility representation, this result provides a new interpretation of using logarithmic utility for expected utility based decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Speckbacher, Gerhard, 2009. "Comparing financial investments by their state dependent returns: A one-way log utility representation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(1), pages 323-326, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:193:y:2009:i:1:p:323-326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(07)01239-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Speckbacher, Gerhard, 1998. "Maintaining capital intact and WARP," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 145-155, September.
    2. Fishburn, Peter C, 1991. "Nontransitive Preferences in Decision Theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 113-134, April.
    3. Hellwig, K. & Speckbacher, G. & Wentges, P., 2000. "Utility maximization under capital growth constraints," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-12, February.
    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. Hellwig, Klaus, 2004. "Portfolio selection subject to growth objectives," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(10), pages 2119-2128, September.
    2. Hellwig, Klaus, 2007. "The creation of wealth," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 172-178, September.
    3. Klaus Hellwig, 2005. "Portfolio Selection with Little Information about the Future," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 6(2), pages 331-335, November.
    4. Hellwig, Klaus, 2005. "Sustainability revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 193-197, May.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:1044-1051 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Petri, Henrik & Voorneveld, Mark, 2016. "Characterizing lexicographic preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 54-61.
    7. Mongin, P., 1998. "Does Optimization Imply Rationality?," Papers 9817, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
    8. Ehrgott, Matthias & Wang, Judith Y.T. & Watling, David P., 2015. "On multi-objective stochastic user equilibrium," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P3), pages 704-717.
    9. Louis Lévy-Garboua, 1999. "Expected Utility and Cognitive Consistency," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03674666, HAL.
    10. Michele Lombardi, 2008. "Uncovered set choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 271-279, August.
    11. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2015. "Expected utility without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 707-722, December.
    12. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2005. "Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1860-1872, December.
    13. Heller, Yuval, 2012. "Justifiable choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 375-390.
    14. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    15. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.
    16. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt, 2002. "A Context-Dependent Model of the Gambling Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 802-812, June.
    17. Raphaël Giraud, 2005. "Anomalies de la théorie des préférences. Une interprétation et une proposition de formalisation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(4), pages 829-854.
    18. Hellwig, K. & Speckbacher, G. & Wentges, P., 2000. "Utility maximization under capital growth constraints," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-12, February.
    19. Marc Le Menestrel & Luk N. Wassenhove, 2016. "Subjectively biased objective functions," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 73-83, June.
    20. Amélie Vrijdags, 2010. "An experimental investigation of transitivity in set ranking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 213-232, February.
    21. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2011. "Bibliometric rankings of journals based on Impact Factors: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 75-86.

    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:eee:ejores:v:193:y:2009:i:1:p:323-326. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.