IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1301.0907.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On a dynamic adaptation of the Distribution Builder approach to investment decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Phillip Monin

Abstract

Sharpe et al. proposed the idea of having an expected utility maximizer choose a probability distribution for future wealth as an input to her investment problem instead of a utility function. They developed a computer program, called The Distribution Builder, as one way to elicit such a distribution. In a single-period model, they then showed how this desired distribution for terminal wealth can be used to infer the investor's risk preferences. We adapt their idea, namely that a risk-averse investor can choose a desired distribution for future wealth as an alternative input attribute for investment decisions, to continuous time. In a variety of scenarios, we show how the investor's desired distribution combines with her initial wealth and market-related input to determine the feasibility of her distribution, her implied risk preferences, and her optimal policies throughout her investment horizon. We then provide several examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Phillip Monin, 2013. "On a dynamic adaptation of the Distribution Builder approach to investment decisions," Papers 1301.0907, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1301.0907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0907
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cox, John C. & Leland, Hayne E., 2000. "On dynamic investment strategies," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 24(11-12), pages 1859-1880, October.
    2. Carole Bernard & Phelim P. Boyle & Steven Vanduffel, 2014. "Explicit Representation of Cost-Efficient Strategies," Finance, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, vol. 35(2), pages 5-55.
    3. He Hua & Huang Chi-fu, 1994. "Consumption-Portfolio Policies: An Inverse Optimal Problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 257-293, April.
    4. Daniel G. Goldstein & Eric J. Johnson & William F. Sharpe, 2008. "Choosing Outcomes versus Choosing Products: Consumer-Focused Retirement Investment Advice," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 440-456, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1301.0907. 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: (arXiv administrators). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.