IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v165y2016icp242-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguity aversion in the long run: “To disagree, we must also agree”

Author

Listed:
  • Araujo, Aloisio
  • da Silva, Pietro
  • Faro, José Heleno

Abstract

We consider an economy populated by smooth ambiguity-averse agents with complete markets of securities contingent to economic scenarios, where bankruptcy is permitted but there is a penalty for it. We show that if agents' posterior belief reductions given by their “average probabilistic beliefs” do not become homogeneous then an equilibrium does not exist. It is worth noting that our main result does not imply any convergence of ambiguity perception or even the attitudes towards it. In this way, complete markets with default and punishment allow for ambiguity aversion in the long run, and the agents can disagree on their ambiguity perception but they must agree on their expected beliefs.

Suggested Citation

  • Araujo, Aloisio & da Silva, Pietro & Faro, José Heleno, 2016. "Ambiguity aversion in the long run: “To disagree, we must also agree”," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 242-256.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:165:y:2016:i:c:p:242-256
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2016.04.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053116300199
    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. 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.
    2. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
    3. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    4. Guerdjikova, Ani & Sciubba, Emanuela, 2015. "Survival with ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 50-94.
    5. Harrison, J. Michael & Kreps, David M., 1979. "Martingales and arbitrage in multiperiod securities markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 381-408, June.
    6. Klibanoff, Peter & Marinacci, Massimo & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2009. "Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 930-976, May.
    7. Nengjiu Ju & Jianjun Miao, 2012. "Ambiguity, Learning, and Asset Returns," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 559-591, March.
    8. Thomas J. Sargent & LarsPeter Hansen, 2001. "Robust Control and Model Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 60-66, May.
    9. Pradeep Dubey & John Geanakoplos & Martin Shubik, 2005. "Default and Punishment in General Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 1-37, January.
    10. Epstein, Larry G & Zin, Stanley E, 1989. "Substitution, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption and Asset Returns: A Theoretical Framework," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(4), pages 937-969, July.
    11. Zame, William R, 1993. "Efficiency and the Role of Default When Security Markets Are Incomplete," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1142-1164, December.
    12. Armen A. Alchian, 1950. "Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 211-211.
    13. Easley, David & Yang, Liyan, 2015. "Loss aversion, survival and asset prices," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 494-516.
    14. Aloisio Araujo & Alvaro Sandroni, 1999. "On the Convergence to Homogeneous Expectations when Markets Are Complete," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 663-672, May.
    15. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    16. Lawrence Blume & David Easley, 2006. "If You're so Smart, why Aren't You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 929-966, July.
    17. Dana, Rose Anne, 1993. "Existence and Uniqueness of Equilibria When Preferences Are Additively Separable," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 953-957, July.
    18. Frank Riedel, 2003. "Arrow-Debreu equilibria with asymptotically heterogeneous expectations exist," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 21(4), pages 929-934, June.
    19. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    20. Alvaro Sandroni, 2000. "Do Markets Favor Agents Able to Make Accurate Predicitions?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1303-1342, November.
    21. Bewley, Truman F., 1972. "Existence of equilibria in economies with infinitely many commodities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 514-540, June.
    22. Luca Rigotti & Chris Shannon & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2008. "Subjective Beliefs and ex ante Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1167-1190, September.
    23. Scott Condie, 2008. "Living with ambiguity: prices and survival when investors have heterogeneous preferences for ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(1), pages 81-108, July.
    24. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ambiguity aversion; Bankruptcy; Complete markets; Convergence of beliefs; Punishments; Smooth ambiguity model;

    JEL classification:

    • D53 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Financial Markets
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    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:jetheo:v:165:y:2016:i:c:p:242-256. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    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.