IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ihs/ihsesp/322.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Consumption-Investment Decision of a Prospect Theory Household

Author

Listed:
  • Fortin, Ines

    (Financial Markets and Econometrics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria)

  • Hlouskova, Jaroslava

    (Financial Markets and Econometrics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria and Department of Economics, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, Canada)

  • Tsigaris, Panagiotis

    (Department of Economics, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, Canada)

Abstract

This study extends the literature on portfolio choice under prospect theory preferences by introducing a two-period life cycle model, where the household decides on optimal consumption and investment in a portfolio with one risk-free and one risky asset. The optimal solution depends primarily on the household’s choice of the present value of the consumption reference levels relative to the present value of its endowment income. If the present value of the consumption reference levels is set below the present value of endowment income, then the household behaves in such a way to avoid relative losses in consumption in any present or future state of nature (good or bad). As a result the degree of loss aversion does not directly affect optimal consumption and risk taking activity. However, it must be sufficiently high in order to rule out outcomes with relative losses. On the other hand, if the present value of the consumption reference levels is set exactly equal to the present value of the endowment income, i.e., the household sets its reference levels such that they are in balance with its income, then the household’s optimal consumption is the reference consumption in both periods and the household will not invest in the risky asset. Finally, if the present value of the household’s consumption reference levels is set above the present value of its endowment income, then the household cannot avoid experiencing a relative loss in consumption, either now or in the future. As a result, loss aversion directly affects consumption and risky investment. Reference levels play a significant role in consumption and risk taking activity. In most cases the household will “follow the Joneses” if the reference levels are set equal to the consumption levels of the Joneses. Independent of how consumption reference levels are set, being more ambitious, i.e., increasing one’s reference levels, will result in less happiness. The only case when this is not true is when reference levels increase with growing income (and the present value of reference levels is set below the present value of endowment income).

Suggested Citation

  • Fortin, Ines & Hlouskova, Jaroslava & Tsigaris, Panagiotis, 2016. "The Consumption-Investment Decision of a Prospect Theory Household," Economics Series 322, Institute for Advanced Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:ihs:ihsesp:322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/eco/es-322.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fortin, Ines & Hlouskova, Jaroslava, 2011. "Optimal asset allocation under linear loss aversion," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 2974-2990, November.
    2. Carolina Achury & Sylwia Hubar & Christos Koulovatianos, 2012. "Saving Rates and Portfolio Choice with Subsistence Consumption," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 15(1), pages 108-126, January.
    3. Abel, Andrew B, 1990. "Asset Prices under Habit Formation and Catching Up with the Joneses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 38-42, May.
    4. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    5. 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.
    6. Arjan B. Berkelaar & Roy Kouwenberg & Thierry Post, 2004. "Optimal Portfolio Choice under Loss Aversion," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(4), pages 973-987, November.
    7. John Y. Campbell & John Cochrane, 1999. "Force of Habit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(2), pages 205-251, April.
    8. S. Dellavigna., 2011. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 5.
    9. John Y. Campbell & John H. Cochrane, 1994. "By Force of Habit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior," CRSP working papers 412, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
    10. Lawrence J. Christiano & Michele Boldrin & Jonas D. M. Fisher, 2001. "Habit Persistence, Asset Returns, and the Business Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 149-166, March.
    11. Bowman, David & Minehart, Deborah & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Loss aversion in a consumption-savings model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 155-178, February.
    12. Merton, Robert C., 1971. "Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 373-413, December.
    13. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," NBER Working Papers 8190, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Charles L. Evans, 2005. "Nominal Rigidities and the Dynamic Effects of a Shock to Monetary Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(1), pages 1-45, February.
    15. Constantinides, George M, 1990. "Habit Formation: A Resolution of the Equity Premium Puzzle," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(3), pages 519-543, June.
    16. Jaroslava Hlouskova & Panagiotis Tsigaris, 2012. "Capital income taxation and risk taking under prospect theory," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(4), pages 554-573, August.
    17. Carolina Achury & Sylwia Hubar & Christos Koulovatianos, 2012. "Saving Rates and Portfolio Choice with Subsistence Consumption," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 15(1), pages 108-126, January.
    18. Nicholas Barberis & Wei Xiong, 2009. "What Drives the Disposition Effect? An Analysis of a Long-Standing Preference-Based Explanation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(2), pages 751-784, April.
    19. Andrew E. Clark & Paul Frijters & Michael A. Shields, 2008. "Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 95-144, March.
    20. repec:dgr:kubcen:199554 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Sandmo, Agnar, 1969. "Capital Risk, Consumption, and Portfolio Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(4), pages 586-599, October.
    22. Xue Dong He & Xun Yu Zhou, 2011. "Portfolio Choice Under Cumulative Prospect Theory: An Analytical Treatment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 315-331, February.
    23. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    24. Ines Fortin & Jaroslava Hlouskova, 2015. "Downside loss aversion: Winner or loser?," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 81(2), pages 181-233, April.
    25. Bernard, Carole & Ghossoub, Mario, 2009. "Static Portfolio Choice under Cumulative Prospect Theory," MPRA Paper 15446, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    26. Xiang Yu, 2011. "Utility maximization with addictive consumption habit formation in incomplete semimartingale markets," Papers 1112.2940, arXiv.org, revised May 2015.
    27. Martin Lettau & Harald Uhlig, 2000. "Can Habit Formation be Reconciled with Business Cycle Facts?," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 3(1), pages 79-99, January.
    28. Merton, Robert C, 1969. "Lifetime Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty: The Continuous-Time Case," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 51(3), pages 247-257, August.
    29. Nicholas Barberis, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1247-1292, August.
    30. Francisco J. Gomes, 2005. "Portfolio Choice and Trading Volume with Loss-Averse Investors," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(2), pages 675-706, March.
    31. Armin Falk & Markus Knell, 2004. "Choosing the Joneses: Endogenous Goals and Reference Standards," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(3), pages 417-435, October.
    32. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    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. repec:eee:quaeco:v:66:y:2017:i:c:p:345-358 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    prospect theory; loss aversion; consumption-savings decision; portfolio allocation; happiness;

    JEL classification:

    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • E20 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)

    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:ihs:ihsesp:322. 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: (Doris Szoncsitz). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deihsat.html .

    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.