Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth Cannot Explain Risk Aversion
Arrow (1971) shows that an expected-utility maximizer with a differentiable utility function will always want to take a sufficiently small stake in any positive-expected-value bet. That is, expected- utility maximizers are arbitrarily close to risk neutral when stakes are arbitrarily small. While most economists understand this formal limit result, fewer appreciate that the approximate risk-neutrality prediction holds not just for very small stakes, but for quite sizable and economically important stakes. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth is not a plausible explanation of people's aversion to risk on the scale of $10, $100, $1000 or even more. After illustrating and providing intuition for these claims, I shall argue that economists often reach misleading conclusions by invoking expected-utility theory to explain substantial risk aversion in contexts where the theory actually predicts virtual risk neutrality.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
|Date of creation:||01 Jun 2000|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/groups/iber/wps/econwp.html
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: IBER, F502 Haas Building, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-1922|
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.:
- Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1993.
"Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle,"
NBER Working Papers
4369, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Benartzi, Shlomo & Thaler, Richard H, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92, February.
- Mankiw, N. Gregory & Zeldes, Stephen P., 1991.
"The consumption of stockholders and nonstockholders,"
Journal of Financial Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 97-112, March.
- Mankiw, N.G. & Zeldes, S.P., 1990. "The Consumption Of Stockholders And Non-Stockholders," Weiss Center Working Papers 23-90, Wharton School - Weiss Center for International Financial Research.
- N. Gregory Mankiw & Stephen P. Zeldes, 1990. "The Consumption of Stockholders and Non-Stockholders," NBER Working Papers 3402, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-54, Summer.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
- Loomes, Graham & Segal, Uzi, 1994.
"Observing Different Orders of Risk Aversion,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 239-56, December.
- Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
- Gneezy, U. & Potters, J.J.M., 1996.
"An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods,"
1996-61, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Gneezy, Uri & Potters, Jan, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 631-45, May.
- Gneezy, U. & Potters, J.J.M., 1997. "An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods," Other publications TiSEM da6ba1bf-e15c-41b2-ae95-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-89, November.
- Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 1990.
"'First-order' risk aversion and the equity premium puzzle,"
Journal of Monetary Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 387-407, December.
- L. Epstein & S. Zin, 2010. "First order risk aversion and the equity premium puzzle," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1400, David K. Levine.
- Kandel, S. & Stambaugh, R.F., 1990. "Asset Returns, Investment Horizons, And Intertemporal Preferences," Weiss Center Working Papers 7-90, Wharton School - Weiss Center for International Financial Research.
- Uzi Segal & Avia Spivak, 1988.
"First Order Versus Second Order Risk Aversion,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
540, UCLA Department of Economics.
- 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.
- Read, Daniel & Loewenstein, George & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Choice Bracketing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 171-97, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucb:calbwp:e00-287. 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: (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.