IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Prospect and Markowitz Stochastic Dominance

  • Wing-Keung Wong
  • Raymond H. Chan

Levy and Levy (2002, 2004) develop the Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance theory with S-shaped and reverse S-shaped utility functions for investors. In this paper, we extend Levy and Levy's Prospect Stochastic Dominance theory (PSD) and Markowitz Stochastic Dominance theory (MSD) to the first three orders and link the corresponding S-shaped and reverse S-shaped utility functions to the first three orders. We also provide experiments to illustrate each case of the MSD and PSD to the first three orders and demonstrate that the higher order MSD and PSD cannot be replaced by the lower order MSD and PSD. Prospect theory has been regarded as a challenge to the expected utility paradigm. Levy and Levy (2002) prove that the second order PSD and MSD satisfy the expected utility paradigm. In our paper we take Levy and Levy's results one step further by showing that both PSD and MSD of any order are consistent with the expected utility paradigm. Furthermore, we formulate some other properties for the PSD and MSD including the hierarchy that exists in both PSD and MSD relationships; arbitrage opportunities that exist in the first orders of both PSD and MSD; and that for any two prospects under certain conditions, their third order MSD preference will be ???the opposite??? of or ???the same??? as their counterpart third order PSD preference. By extending Levy and Levy's work, we provide investors with more tools for empirical analysis, with which they can identify the first order PSD and MSD prospects and discern arbitrage opportunities that could increase his/her utility as well as wealth and set up a zero dollar portfolio to make huge profit. Our tools also enable investors to identify the third order PSD and MSD prospects and make better choices.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/papers/2005/0805markowitzstochasticdominance.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Monash University, Department of Economics in its series Monash Economics Working Papers with number 08/05.

as
in new window

Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: 03 May 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:2005-08
Contact details of provider: Postal: Department of Economics, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
Phone: +61-3-9905-2493
Fax: +61-3-9905-5476
Web page: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/Email:


More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/papers/ Email:


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.:

as in new window
  1. Nicholas BARBERIS & Ming HUANG & Tano SANTOS, 2000. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," FAME Research Paper Series rp16, International Center for Financial Asset Management and Engineering.
  2. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
  3. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  4. Matthew Rabin., 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Economics Working Papers E00-279, University of California at Berkeley.
  5. Udo Broll & Jack E. Wahl & Wing-Keung Wong, 2005. "Elasticity of risk aversion and international trade," Monash Economics Working Papers 07/05, Monash University, Department of Economics.
  6. Whitmore, G A, 1970. "Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 457-59, June.
  7. Camerer, Colin, et al, 1997. "Labor Supply of New York City Cabdrivers: One Day at a Time," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 407-41, May.
  8. Levy, Haim & Wiener, Zvi, 1998. "Stochastic Dominance and Prospect Dominance with Subjective Weighting Functions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 147-63, May-June.
  9. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-80, July.
  10. R. G. Vickson, 1977. "Stochastic Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk-Aversion II: General Random Variables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 478-489, January.
  11. Mikhail & Plott, Charles R., 1995. "Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments," Working Papers 909, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  12. Tesfatsion, Leigh, 1976. "Stochastic Dominance and the Maximization of Expected Utility," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 301-15, June.
  13. Fong, Wai Mun & Wong, Wing Keung & Lean, Hooi Hooi, 2005. "International momentum strategies: a stochastic dominance approach," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 89-109, February.
  14. Dunn, L F, 1996. "Loss Aversion and Adaptation in the Labor Market: Empirical Indifference Functions and Labor Supply," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(3), pages 441-50, August.
  15. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279.
  16. Richard Thaler, 1985. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 199-214.
  17. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
  18. Jarrow, Robert, 1986. " The Relationship between Arbitrage and First Order Stochastic Dominance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 41(4), pages 915-21, September.
  19. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
  20. Hanoch, G & Levy, Haim, 1969. "The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(107), pages 335-46, July.
  21. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December.
  22. Wong, Wing-Keung & Bian, Guorui, 2005. "Estimating parameters in autoregressive models with asymmetric innovations," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 61-70, January.
  23. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R., 1971. "Stochastic dominance and diversification," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 288-305, September.
  24. Anderson, Gordon, 2004. "Toward an empirical analysis of polarization," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 1-26, September.
  25. Fishburn, Peter C., 1974. "Convex stochastic dominance with continuous distribution functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 143-158, February.
  26. Timo Kuosmanen, 2004. "Efficient Diversification According to Stochastic Dominance Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1390-1406, October.
  27. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
  28. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151.
  29. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
  30. Thaler, Richard H, et al, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 647-61, May.
  31. Dan J. Laughhunn & John W. Payne & Roy Crum, 1980. "Managerial Risk Preferences for Below-Target Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(12), pages 1238-1249, December.
  32. Mei Wang & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Incorporating Framing into Prospect Theory Modeling: A Mixture-Model Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 181-197, 09.
  33. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
  34. Chip Heath & Steven Huddart & Mark Lang, 1999. "Psychological Factors And Stock Option Exercise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(2), pages 601-627, May.
  35. Bawa, Vijay S., 1978. "Safety-First, Stochastic Dominance, and Optimal Portfolio Choice," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(02), pages 255-271, June.
  36. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
  37. Haim Levy, 2004. "Prospect Theory and Mean-Variance Analysis," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(4), pages 1015-1041.
  38. John S. Hammond, III, 1974. "Simplifying the Choice between Uncertain Prospects Where Preference is Nonlinear," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(7), pages 1047-1072, March.
  39. 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.
  40. Wong, Wing-Keung & Li, Chi-Kwong, 1999. "A note on convex stochastic dominance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 293-300, March.
  41. Meyer, Jack, 1977. "Second Degree Stochastic Dominance with Respect to a Function," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 18(2), pages 477-87, June.
  42. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1993. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 4369, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  43. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
  44. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
  45. Bruce G. S. Hardie & Eric J. Johnson & Peter S. Fader, 1993. "Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 378-394.
  46. Jun-ya Gotoh & Hiroshi Konno, 2000. "Third Degree Stochastic Dominance and Mean-Risk Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 289-301, February.
  47. Hersh Shefrin & Meir Statman, 1993. "Behavioral Aspects of the Design and Marketing of Financial Products," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 22(2), Summer.
  48. Ng Yew Kwang, 1965. "Why do People Buy Lottery Tickets? Choices Involving Risk and the Indivisibility of Expenditure," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73, pages 530.
  49. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2002. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(10), pages 1334-1349, October.
  50. Haim Falk & Haim Levy, 1989. "Market Reaction to Quarterly Earnings' Announcements: A Stochastic Dominance Based Test of Market Efficiency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 425-446, April.
  51. repec:dgr:uvatin:20020070 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:2005-08. 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: (Simon Angus)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.