IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v194y2009i1p236-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asset allocation with distorted beliefs and transaction costs

Author

Listed:
  • Kozhan, Roman
  • Schmid, Wolfgang

Abstract

In this paper we study the problem of the optimal portfolio selection with transaction costs for a decision-maker who is faced with Knightian uncertainty. The decision-maker's portfolio consists of one risky and one risk-free asset, and we assume that the transaction costs are proportional to the traded volume of the risky asset. The attitude to uncertainty is modeled by the Choquet expected utility. We derive optimal strategies and bounds of the no-transaction region for both optimistic and pessimistic decision-makers. The no-transaction region of a pessimistic investor is narrower and its bounds lie closer to the origin than that of an optimistic trader. Moreover, under the Choquet expected utility the structure of the no-transaction region is not necessarily a closed interval as it is under the standard expected utility model.

Suggested Citation

  • Kozhan, Roman & Schmid, Wolfgang, 2009. "Asset allocation with distorted beliefs and transaction costs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 236-249, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:194:y:2009:i:1:p:236-249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(07)01198-8
    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. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    3. Zengjing Chen & Larry Epstein, 2002. "Ambiguity, Risk, and Asset Returns in Continuous Time," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1403-1443, July.
    4. Raman Uppal & Tan Wang, 2003. "Model Misspecification and Underdiversification," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(6), pages 2465-2486, December.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5446 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Sarin, Rakesh K & Wakker, Peter, 1992. "A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1255-1272, November.
    7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    8. M. H. A. Davis & A. R. Norman, 1990. "Portfolio Selection with Transaction Costs," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 676-713, November.
    9. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    10. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    11. Lorenzo Garlappi & Raman Uppal & Tan Wang, 2007. "Portfolio Selection with Parameter and Model Uncertainty: A Multi-Prior Approach," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(1), pages 41-81, January.
    12. Wang, Shaun S. & Young, Virginia R. & Panjer, Harry H., 1997. "Axiomatic characterization of insurance prices," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 173-183, November.
    13. Dumas, Bernard & Luciano, Elisa, 1991. "An Exact Solution to a Dynamic Portfolio Choice Problem under Transactions Costs," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(2), pages 577-595, June.
    14. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    15. Dow, James & Werlang, Sergio Ribeiro da Costa, 1992. "Uncertainty Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Optimal Choice of Portfolio," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 197-204, January.
    16. Phelim Boyle & Xiaodong Lin, 1997. "Optimal Portfolio Selection with Transaction Costs," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 27-39.
    17. George M. Constantinides, 1979. "Multiperiod Consumption and Investment Behavior with Convex Transactions Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(11), pages 1127-1137, November.
    18. Yonggan Zhao & Ulrich Haussmann & William T. Ziemba, 2003. "A Dynamic Investment Model with Control on the Portfolio's Worst Case Outcome," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 481-501, October.
    19. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    20. Carlier, G. & Dana, R. A., 2003. "Core of convex distortions of a probability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 199-222, December.
    21. Gerard Gennotte & Alan Jung, 1994. "Investment Strategies under Transaction Costs: The Finite Horizon Case," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 385-404, March.
    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. Gupta, Pankaj & Mittal, Garima & Mehlawat, Mukesh Kumar, 2013. "Expected value multiobjective portfolio rebalancing model with fuzzy parameters," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 190-203.
    2. Jianli Wang & Yingrong Su & Jingyuan Li & Ho Yin Yick, 2022. "Demand for insurance with nonadditive probabilistic beliefs," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 854-862, July.
    3. Ying Fu & Kien Ng & Boray Huang & Huei Huang, 2015. "Portfolio optimization with transaction costs: a two-period mean-variance model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 233(1), pages 135-156, October.
    4. Yu, Jing-Rung & Lee, Wen-Yi, 2011. "Portfolio rebalancing model using multiple criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(2), pages 166-175, March.

    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. Kozhan, Roman & Salmon, Mark, 2009. "Uncertainty aversion in a heterogeneous agent model of foreign exchange rate formation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1106-1122, May.
    2. Massimo Guidolin & Francesca Rinaldi, 2013. "Ambiguity in asset pricing and portfolio choice: a review of the literature," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 183-217, February.
    3. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Ola Mahmoud, 2016. "Diversification preferences in the theory of choice," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 39(2), pages 143-174, November.
    4. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    5. Kozhan, Roman, 2006. "Multiple Priors And No-Transaction Region," Working Paper Series 2006,4, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), The Postgraduate Research Programme Capital Markets and Finance in the Enlarged Europe.
    6. Umberto Cherubini, 1997. "Fuzzy measures and asset prices: accounting for information ambiguity," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 135-149.
    7. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    8. Sujoy Mukerji & Han N. Ozsoylev & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2023. "Trading Ambiguity: A Tale Of Two Heterogeneities," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1127-1164, August.
    9. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    10. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub, 2016. "Optimal Insurance for a Minimal Expected Retention: The Case of an Ambiguity-Seeking Insurer," Risks, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, March.
    11. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    12. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
    13. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2007. "The weight of argument and non-additive measures: a note," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 003, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    14. Philipp Karl ILLEDITSCH, 2009. "Ambiguous Information, Risk Aversion, and Asset Pricing," 2009 Meeting Papers 802, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    15. Sujoy Mukerji & Han N. Ozsoylev & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2023. "Trading Ambiguity: A Tale Of Two Heterogeneities," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1127-1164, August.
    16. Martin Schneider, 2010. "The Research Agenda: Martin Schneider on Multiple Priors Preferences and Financial Markets," EconomicDynamics Newsletter, Review of Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(2), April.
    17. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Gulen, Huseyin & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2022. "Comparing ambiguous urns with different sizes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    18. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    19. repec:awi:wpaper:0448 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Dimmock, Stephen G. & Kouwenberg, Roy & Mitchell, Olivia S. & Peijnenburg, Kim, 2016. "Ambiguity aversion and household portfolio choice puzzles: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 559-577.
    21. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.

    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:194:y:2009:i:1:p:236-249. 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.