IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Probability weighting and loss aversion in futures hedging

  • Mattos, Fabio
  • Garcia, Philip
  • Pennings, Joost M.E.

We analyze how the introduction of probability weighting and loss aversion in a futures hedging model affects decision making. Analytical findings indicate that probability weighting alone always affects optimal hedge ratios, while loss and risk aversion only have an impact when probability weighting exists. In the presence of probability weighting, simulation results for a relevant range of parameter values suggest that probability weighting is dominant; changes in probability weighting affect hedge ratios relatively more than changes in loss and risk aversion. When decisions are made independently, loss aversion has a relatively small impact on hedge ratios for all parameter values, and risk aversion becomes important for only a narrow range of risk coefficients which produce implausible speculative behavior. When prior losses and gains affect behavior, hedging is influenced most by prior outcomes that influence risk attitudes, but this effect is still somewhat less than the consequences of changes in probability weighting.

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:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Financial Markets.

Volume (Year): 11 (2008)
Issue (Month): 4 (November)
Pages: 433-452

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:finmar:v:11:y:2008:i:4:p:433-452
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Philip Garcia, 2004. "A selected review of agricultural commodity futures and options markets," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 235-272, September.
  2. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
  3. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 1999. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," NBER Working Papers 7220, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Massimo Massa & Andrei Simonov, 2005. "Behavioral Biases and Investment," Review of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 483-507, December.
  5. Lence, Sergio H., 1996. "Relaxing The Assumptions Of Minimum-Variance Hedging," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(01), July.
  6. Terrance Odean, 1998. "Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(5), pages 1775-1798, October.
  7. Humphrey, Steven J. & Verschoor, Arjan, 2004. "The probability weighting function: experimental evidence from Uganda, India and Ethiopia," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 419-425, September.
  8. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Vossman, Frank & Weber, Martin, 2003. "Choice-Based Elicitation and Decomposition of Decision Weights for Gains and Losses Under Uncertainty," CEPR Discussion Papers 3756, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  9. Keasey, Kevin & Moon, Philip, 1996. "Gambling with the house money in capital expenditure decisions: An experimental analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 105-110, January.
  10. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
  11. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
  12. Alarie, Yves & Dionne, Georges, 2001. " Lottery Decisions and Probability Weighting Function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 21-33, January.
  13. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
  14. Carl H. Nelson, 2004. "Toward exploring the location-scale condition: a constant relative risk aversion location-scale objective function," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 273-287, September.
  15. Nicholas Barberis & Richard Thaler, 2002. "A Survey of Behavioral Finance," NBER Working Papers 9222, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71, February.
  17. Locke, Peter R. & Mann, Steven C., 2005. "Professional trader discipline and trade disposition," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 401-444, May.
  18. Berkelaar, A.B. & Kouwenberg, R.R.P., 2000. "Optimal portfolio choice under loss aversion," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2000-08/A, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
  19. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
  20. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, 03.
  21. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, 08.
  22. Joshua D. Coval & Tyler Shumway, 2005. "Do Behavioral Biases Affect Prices?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 1-34, 02.
  23. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1993. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 4369, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  24. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. " Arrow-Pratt Risk Aversion, Risk Premium and Decision Weights," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 265-90, November.
  25. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
  26. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
  27. Michael Faulkender, 2005. "Hedging or Market Timing? Selecting the Interest Rate Exposure of Corporate Debt," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(2), pages 931-962, 04.
  28. Marc Rieger & Mei Wang, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 665-679, 08.
  29. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-63, June.
  30. Robert A. Collins, 1997. "Toward a Positive Economic Theory of Hedging," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 488-499.
  31. Francisco J. Gomes, 2005. "Portfolio Choice and Trading Volume with Loss-Averse Investors," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(2), pages 675-706, March.
  32. Berkelaar, Arjan & Kouwenberg, Roy, 2009. "From boom 'til bust: How loss aversion affects asset prices," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1005-1013, June.
  33. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2005. "Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: how general is the phenomenon?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 25-38, January.
  34. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. " Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:finmar:v:11:y:2008:i:4:p:433-452. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.