IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbfina/v84y2017icp1-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative statics and portfolio choices under the phantom decision model

Author

Listed:
  • Iwaki, Hideki
  • Osaki, Yusuke

Abstract

This study characterizes attitudes toward uncertainty in the phantom decision model introduced by Izhakian and Izhakian (2015) and conducts a comparative statics analysis to examine how changes in phantom uncertainty and phantom aversion affect portfolio choices. First, “phantom averse” and “more phantom-averse” are defined in a manner that differs from Izhakian and Izhakian (2015). Assuming that utility functions have realization forms, the above notions are characterized by the shapes of their reduction components. For the portfolio choice problem that consists of one safe asset and one phantom asset, we derive sufficient conditions under which changes in phantom uncertainty and phantom aversion monotonically decrease the investment in the phantom asset. Some familiar concepts in expected utility theory are extended to the framework of the phantom decision model.

Suggested Citation

  • Iwaki, Hideki & Osaki, Yusuke, 2017. "Comparative statics and portfolio choices under the phantom decision model," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 1-8.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbfina:v:84:y:2017:i:c:p:1-8
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.07.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426617301516
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.07.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Hideki Iwaki & Yusuke Osaki, 2014. "The dual theory of the smooth ambiguity model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 275-289, June.
    2. Yehuda Izhakian & Zur Izhakian, 2015. "Decision making in phantom spaces," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(1), pages 59-98, January.
    3. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    4. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    5. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
    6. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    7. Christian Gollier, 2011. "Portfolio Choices and Asset Prices: The Comparative Statics of Ambiguity Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(4), pages 1329-1344.
    8. Segal, Uzi & Spivak, Avia, 1990. "First order versus second order risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-125, June.
    9. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
    10. 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 721-736, August.
    11. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    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. Dennis W. Jansen & Liqun Liu, 2022. "Portfolio choice in the model of expected utility with a safety-first component," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(1), pages 187-207, June.
    2. Korotkov, Vladimir & Wu, Desheng, 2021. "Benchmarking project portfolios using optimality thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Octave Jokung & Sovan Mitra, 2019. "Asset Prices and Changes in Risk within a Bivariate Model," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 26(1), pages 47-60, 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. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    2. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    3. Christian Gollier, 2011. "Portfolio Choices and Asset Prices: The Comparative Statics of Ambiguity Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(4), pages 1329-1344.
    4. Huang, Yi-Chieh & Tzeng, Larry Y. & Zhao, Lin, 2015. "Comparative ambiguity aversion and downside ambiguity aversion," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 257-269.
    5. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2020. "Portfolio allocation problems between risky and ambiguous assets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 63-79, January.
    6. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    7. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    8. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    9. André, Eric, 2014. "Optimal portfolio with vector expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 50-62.
    10. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2020. "Risk, Ambiguity, And The Value Of Diversification," Working Papers hal-02910906, HAL.
    11. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    12. Carole Bernard & Gero Junike & Thibaut Lux & Steven Vanduffel, 2022. "Cost-efficient Payoffs under Model Ambiguity," Papers 2207.02948, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    13. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    14. Gollier, Christian & Schlesinger, Harris, 2002. "Changes in risk and asset prices," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 747-760, May.
    15. Jiang, Julia & Liu, Jun & Tian, Weidong & Zeng, Xudong, 2022. "Portfolio concentration, portfolio inertia, and ambiguous correlation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    16. Hill, Brian, 2023. "Beyond uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.
    17. Matthias Lang, 2017. "First-Order and Second-Order Ambiguity Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 1254-1269, April.
    18. Takashi Nishiwaki, 2020. "Does Ambiguity Generate Demand for Options?," Working Papers 2011, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    19. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    20. Bommier, Antoine, 2017. "A dual approach to ambiguity aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 104-118.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Comparative statics; Portfolio choice; Phantom aversion; Phantom decision model; Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    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:eee:jbfina:v:84:y:2017:i:c:p:1-8. 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/jbf .

    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.