IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Model of Comparative Statics for Changes in Stochastic Returns with Dependent Risky Assets


  • Dionne, Georges
  • Gollier, Christian


In this article, we show how the order of Linear Stochastic Dominance proposed by Gollier (1995) can be applied to situations with dependent risky assets. This order was shown to be the least constrained necessary and sufficient condition to guarantee that all risk-averse agents reduce their risky position when an increase in risk is imposed. This was done in a model with only one source of risk, as in the standard portfolio problem with one safe asset and one risky asset. We obtain the necessary and sufficient condition for a change in the joint distribution of returns to yield an unambiguous comparative statics result when the two assets are risky. We show in particular that the concept of Linear Stochastic Dominance is sufficient to generate the desired result. These results are linked to existing sufficient conditions in the one-safe-one-risky-asset model, as the condition of strong increase in risk or the monotone likelihood ratio order. They are also compared to those in models where restrictions are on the set of concave utility functions. Copyright 1996 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Dionne, Georges & Gollier, Christian, 1996. "A Model of Comparative Statics for Changes in Stochastic Returns with Dependent Risky Assets," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 147-162, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:13:y:1996:i:2:p:147-62

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    2. 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.
    3. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1987. "An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuations of Multiple Health Risks," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(4), pages 465-479, Winter.
    4. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    5. Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2001. "Ambiguity Aversion and Incompleteness of Financial Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 68(4), pages 883-904.
    6. Chow, Clare Chua & Sarin, Rakesh K, 2001. "Comparative Ignorance and the Ellsberg Paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 129-139, March.
    7. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 1999. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and the Role of Context," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 99-47, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    8. Eisenberger, Roselies & Weber, Martin, 1995. "Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept for Risky and Ambiguous Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 223-233, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank & Abrams, Richard A., 1986. "Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 230-256, October.
    11. Kip Smith & John Dickhaut & Kevin McCabe & José V. Pardo, 2002. "Neuronal Substrates for Choice Under Ambiguity, Risk, Gains, and Losses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 711-718, June.
    12. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    13. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    14. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    15. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    16. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    17. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Gollier Christian & Schlee Edward E, 2006. "Increased Risk-Bearing with Background Risk," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-29, March.
    2. Anissa Chaibi & Maria-Lenuta Ciupac-Ulici & Mircea-Cristian Gherman, 2014. "Do Recent Stochastic Tools Help to Better Understand Investors Preference and Asset Allocation?," Working Papers 2014-130, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    3. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Favard, Pascal & Gaudet, Gerard & Moreaux, Michel, 1998. "On the Optimal Order of Natural Resource Use When the Capacity of the Inexhaustible Substitute Is Limited," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 153-170, May.
    4. Dachraoui, Kais & Dionne, Georges, 2001. "Stochastic dominance and optimal portfolio," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 347-354, June.
    5. Burton Hollifield & Alan Kraus, 2009. "Defining Bad News: Changes in Return Distributions That Decrease Risky Asset Demand," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1227-1236, July.
    6. Choi, Gyemyung & Kim, Iltae & Snow, Arthur, 2000. "Comparative statics predictions for the cross-effects of central dominance changes in risk with quasilinear payoffs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 41-48, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions


    Access and download statistics


    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:kap:jrisku:v:13:y:1996:i:2:p:147-62. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.