IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ide/wpaper/2376.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Illusions and Decisions under Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Gollier, Christian

Abstract

We examine a static one-risk-free-one-risky asset portfolio choice when the investor’s well-being is affected by the anticipatory feelings associated to potential capital gains and losses. These feelings can be manipulated by the choice of subjective beliefs on the distribution of returns. However, the bias of these endogenous subjective beliefs induces the choice of a portfolio that is suboptimal with respect to the objective expected utility of final wealth. We characterize the structure of these optimal beliefs. We first show that optimal subjective beliefs must be degenerated with only two possible returns. Moreover, under some weak conditions on the utility function, these two atoms are at the lower and upper bounds of the objectively feasible returns. When the intensity of anticipatory feelings is small, the formation of beliefs must be biased in favor of optimism, which implies an increase in the equilibrium demand for the risky asset. We also show that the optimal beliefs are approximately independent of the investor’s degree of risk aversion.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Gollier, Christian, 2005. "Optimal Illusions and Decisions under Risk," IDEI Working Papers 340, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
  • Handle: RePEc:ide:wpaper:2376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/wp/2005/optimal_illusion.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Gollier, Christian, 1995. "Demand for Risky Assets and the Monotone Probability Ratio Order," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 113-122, September.
    2. Guiso, Luigi & Jappelli, Tullio & Terlizzese, Daniele, 1996. "Income Risk, Borrowing Constraints, and Portfolio Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 158-172, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Andrew Caplin & John Leahy, 2001. "Psychological Expected Utility Theory and Anticipatory Feelings," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 55-79.
    5. Edward L. Glaeser, 2004. "Psychology and the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 408-413, May.
    6. Susan Athey, 2002. "Monotone Comparative Statics under Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 187-223.
    7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Gollier Christian, 1995. "The Comparative Statics of Changes in Risk Revisited," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 522-535, August.
    10. Abel, Andrew B., 2002. "An exploration of the effects of pessimism and doubt on asset returns," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 1075-1092, July.
    11. Tversky, Amos & Wakker, Peter, 1995. "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1255-1280, November.
    12. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
    13. Paul A. Samuelson, 1937. "A Note on Measurement of Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 4(2), pages 155-161.
    14. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Raphaël Giraud & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2011. "Are beliefs a matter of taste? A case for objective imprecise information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 23-31, July.
    2. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Jonathan A. Parker & Christian Gollier, 2007. "Optimal Beliefs, Asset Prices, and the Preference for Skewed Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 159-165, May.
    3. Marie-Hélène Broihanne & Maxime Merli & Patrick Roger, 2016. "Diversification, gambling and market forces," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 129-157, July.
    4. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Jonathan A. Parker, 2005. "Optimal Expectations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1092-1118, September.
    5. Alem, Yonas & Colmer, Jonathan, 2013. "Optimal Expectations and the Welfare Cost of Climate Variability," Working Papers in Economics 578, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Christian Gollier & Alexander Muermann, 2010. "Optimal Choice and Beliefs with Ex Ante Savoring and Ex Post Disappointment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1272-1284, August.
    7. Patrick Roger & Marie-Hélène Broihanne & Maxime Merli, 2012. "In search of positive skewness: the case of individual investors," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2012-04, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    8. GOLLIER Christian & MUERMANN Alexander, 2006. "Optimal choice and beliefs with ex ante savoring ex post disappointment," LERNA Working Papers 06.18.211, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    9. D’Hondt, Catherine & McGowan, Richard & Roger, Patrick, 2021. "Trading leveraged Exchange-Traded products is hazardous to your wealth," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 287-302.
    10. Ajay Singh Behl, 2010. "Children and labour supply," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 251-255, February.
    11. M. Trojanowska & P. M. Kort, 2010. "The Worst Case for Real Options," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 146(3), pages 709-734, September.
    12. Iwaki, Hideki & Osaki, Yusuke, 2010. "Some properties of subjective probabilities induced by optimal expectations," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 98-102, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gollier, Christian, 2004. "Optimal Positive Thinking and Decisions under Risk," IDEI Working Papers 268, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    2. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    3. Minh Hai Ngo & Marc Oliver Rieger & Shuonan Yuan, 2018. "The Fundamental Equity Premium and Ambiguity Aversion in an International Context," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-24, November.
    4. Christian Gollier, 2011. "Portfolio Choices and Asset Prices: The Comparative Statics of Ambiguity Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(4), pages 1329-1344.
    5. 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.
    6. Stracca, Livio, 2004. "Behavioral finance and asset prices: Where do we stand?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 373-405, June.
    7. Kocher, Martin G. & Krawczyk, Michal & van Winden, Frans, 2014. "‘Let me dream on!’ Anticipatory emotions and preference for timing in lotteries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 29-40.
    8. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    9. Christian Gollier, 2007. "Whom should we believe? Aggregation of heterogeneous beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 107-127, October.
    10. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    11. Santos-Pinto, Luís & Astebro, Thomas & Mata, José, 2009. "Preference for Skew in Lotteries: Evidence from the Laboratory," MPRA Paper 17165, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2017. "Portfolio Allocation Problems between Risky Ambiguous Assets," KIER Working Papers 975, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    13. 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.
    14. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers vie2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    15. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    16. Eyal Baharad & Doron Kliger, 2013. "Market failure in light of non-expected utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 599-619, October.
    17. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    18. L'Haridon, Olivier, 2009. "Behavior in the loss domain: An experiment using the probability trade-off consistency condition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 540-551, August.
    19. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Kemel, Emmanuel & Panin, Amma & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2019. "Measuring time and risk preferences in an integrated framework," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 459-469.
    20. Diecidue, Enrico & Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "Parametric weighting functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 1102-1118, May.

    More about this item

    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:ide:wpaper:2376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/idtlsfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.