IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Increases in skewness and three-moment preferences

  • Eichner, Thomas
  • Wagener, Andreas

We call an agent skewness affine if and only if his marginal willingness to accept a risk increases when the distribution of the risk becomes more skewed to the right. Skewness affinity is shown to be equivalent to the marginal rate of substitution between mean and variance of wealth being decreasing in the skewness. This property allows us to characterize the comparative static effect of increases in the skewness in quasi-linear decision problems. Over domains of skewness-comparable lotteries skewness affinity is equivalent to the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility index of relative temperance being smaller than three.

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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V88-51JF805-1/2/a26e5169a7648d30379caed7061cc897
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 Mathematical Social Sciences.

Volume (Year): 61 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
Pages: 109-113

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:61:y:2011:i:2:p:109-113
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565

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. Meyer, Jack, 1987. "Two-moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 421-30, June.
  2. Scott, Robert C & Horvath, Philip A, 1980. " On the Direction of Preference for Moments of Higher Order Than the Variance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 35(4), pages 915-19, September.
  3. EECKHOUDT, Louis & ETNER, Johanna & SCHROYEN, Fred, . "The values of relative risk aversion and prudence: A context-free interpretation," CORE Discussion Papers RP -2162, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  4. Wang, Jianli & Li, Jingyuan, 2010. "Multiplicative risk apportionment," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 79-81, July.
  5. Epstein, Larry G, 1985. "Decreasing Risk Aversion and Mean-Variance Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 945-61, July.
  6. Peter C. Fishburn & R. Burr Porter, 1976. "Optimal Portfolios with One Safe and One Risky Asset: Effects of Changes in Rate of Return and Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(10), pages 1064-1073, June.
  7. Prakash, Arun J. & Chang, Chun-Hao & Pactwa, Therese E., 2003. "Selecting a portfolio with skewness: Recent evidence from US, European, and Latin American equity markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 1375-1390, July.
  8. Joseph Golec & Maurry Tamarkin, 1998. "Bettors Love Skewness, Not Risk, at the Horse Track," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 205-225, February.
  9. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Schlesinger, Harris, 2008. "Changes in risk and the demand for saving," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 1329-1336, October.
  10. Ekern, Steinar, 1980. "Increasing Nth degree risk," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 329-333.
  11. Menezes, C & Geiss, C & Tressler, J, 1980. "Increasing Downside Risk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 921-32, December.
  12. Thomas A. Garrett & Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya, 2006. "Why people choose negative expected return assets - an empirical examination of a utility theoretic explanation," Working Papers 2006-014, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
  13. Thomas Paulsson & Robert Sproule & Andreas Wagener, 2005. "The Demand For A Risky Asset: Signing, Jointly And Separately, The Effects Of Three Distributional Shifts," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 221-232, 05.
  14. Ormiston, Michael B & Schlee, Edward E, 2001. "Mean-Variance Preferences and Investor Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 849-61, October.
  15. Lajeri-Chaherli, Fatma, 2003. "Partial derivatives, comparative risk behavior and concavity of utility functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 81-99, August.
  16. Ehrlich, Isaac & Becker, Gary S, 1972. "Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(4), pages 623-48, July-Aug..
  17. Sandmo, Agnar, 1971. "On the Theory of the Competitive Firm under Price Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 65-73, March.
  18. Luisa Tibiletti, 1995. "Beneficial changes in random variables via copulas: An application to insurance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(2), pages 191-202, December.
  19. Josef Hadar & Tae Kun Seo, 1992. "A Note on Beneficial Changes in Random Variables," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 17(2), pages 171-179, December.
  20. Chunhachinda, Pornchai & Dandapani, Krishnan & Hamid, Shahid & Prakash, Arun J., 1997. "Portfolio selection and skewness: Evidence from international stock markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 143-167, February.
  21. Campbell R. Harvey & Akhtar Siddique, 2000. "Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(3), pages 1263-1295, 06.
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:matsoc:v:61:y:2011:i:2:p:109-113. 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.