The informational content of the shape of utility functions: financial strategic behavior
Recently, Pennings and Smidts (2003) showed a relationship between organizational behavior and the global shape of the utility function. Their results suggest that the shape of the utility function may be related to 'higher-order' decisions. This research examines the relationship between financial strategic decisions and the global shape of the utility function of real decision makers. We assess the shape of utility functions of portfolio managers and show that the global shape is related to their strategic asset allocation. The findings demonstrate the informational content of the shape of utility functions in the context of financial strategic behavior. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 30 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976|
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.:
- Matthew Rabin, 2001.
"Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem,"
Method and Hist of Econ Thought
- Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
- Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Risk Aversion and Expected Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7667, David K. Levine.
- Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt731230f8, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Matthew Rabin., 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Economics Working Papers E00-279, University of California at Berkeley.
- Harrison, Glenn W., 1986. "Risk aversion and preference distortion in deterministic bargaining experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 22(2-3), pages 191-196.
- Bewley, Ronald & Fiebig, Denzil G., 1988. "A flexible logistic growth model with applications in telecommunications," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 177-192.
- Smith, Vernon L, 1991. "Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(4), pages 877-897, August.
- Bell, David E & Fishburn, Peter C, 2000. "Utility Functions for Wealth," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 5-44, January.
- Budescu, David V. & Weiss, Wendy, 1987. "Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: A test of prospect theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 184-202, April.
- Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
- Ale Smidts, 1997. "The Relationship Between Risk Attitude and Strength of Preference: A Test of Intrinsic Risk Attitude," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 357-370, March.
- LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006.
"The Pearson system of utility functions,"
European Journal of Operational Research,
Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
- Binswanger, Hans P, 1981.
"Attitudes toward Risk: Theoretical Implications of an Experiment in Rural India,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 867-890, December.
- Hans Binswanger, 1981. "Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural india," Artefactual Field Experiments 00010, The Field Experiments Website.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
- John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
- Gregory W. Fischer & Ziv Carmon & Dan Ariely & Gal Zauberman, 1999. "Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1057-1075, August.
- Meade, Nigel & Islam, Towhidul, 1995. "Forecasting with growth curves: An empirical comparison," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 199-215, June.
- Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003.
"The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior,"
INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
- Pennings, J.M.E. & Smidts, A., 2002. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-18-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:30:y:2009:i:2:p:83-90. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.