کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
476618 | 1446018 | 2014 | 12 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
• The Mean-Risk model presented originates from a behavioral theory of choice under risk.
• It is based on deviations of outcomes from one another, not a single target as in classic models.
• It satisfies strict first and second order stochastic orderings, and defines a Convex Risk Measure.
• It allows commonsensical risk taking behaviors that standard models do not permit.
• A stock portfolio selection application illustrates the use of the Mean-Risk model.
We study a mean-risk model derived from a behavioral theory of Disappointment with multiple reference points. One distinguishing feature of the risk measure is that it is based on mutual deviations of outcomes, not deviations from a specific target. We prove necessary and sufficient conditions for strict first and second order stochastic dominance, and show that the model is, in addition, a Convex Risk Measure. The model allows for richer, and behaviorally more plausible, risk preference patterns than competing models with equal degrees of freedom, including Expected Utility (EU), Mean–Variance (M-V), Mean-Gini (M-G), and models based on non-additive probability weighting, such as Dual Theory (DT). In asset allocation, the model allows a decision-maker to abstain from diversifying in a positive expected value risky asset if its performance does not meet a certain threshold, and gradually invest beyond this threshold, which appears more acceptable than the extreme solutions provided by either EU and M-V (always diversify) or DT and M-G (always plunge). In asset trading, the model provides no-trade intervals, like DT and M-G, in some, but not all, situations. An illustrative application to portfolio selection is presented. The model can provide an improved criterion for mean-risk analysis by injecting a new level of behavioral realism and flexibility, while maintaining key normative properties.
Journal: European Journal of Operational Research - Volume 239, Issue 3, 16 December 2014, Pages 764–775