Aversion Analysis

In this paper : a) the consumer’s problem is studied over two periods, the second one involving S states, and the consumer being endowed with S+1 incomes and having access to N financial assets; b) the consumer is then representable by a continuously differentiable system of demands, commodity demands, asset demands and desirabilities of incomes (the S+1 Lagrange multiplier of the S+1 constraints); c) the multipliers can be transformed into subjective Arrow prices; d) the effects of the various incomes on these Arrow prices decompose into a compensation effect (an Antonelli matrix) and a wealth effect; e) the Antonelli matrix has rank S-N, the dimension of incompleteness, if the consumer can financially adjust himself when facing income shocks; f) the matrix has rank S, if not; g) in the first case, the matrix represents a residual aversion; in the second case, a fundamental aversion; the difference between them is an aversion to illiquidity; this last relation corresponds to the Drèze-Modigliani decomposition (1972); h) the fundamental aversion decomposes also into an aversion to impatience and a risk aversion; i) the above decompositions span a third decomposition; if there exists a sure asset (to be defined, the usual definition being too specific), the fundamental aversion admits a three-component decomposition, an aversion to impatience, a residual aversion and an aversion to the illiquidity of risky assets; j) the formulas of the corresponding financial premiums are also presented.

Inequality Aversion and Performance in and on the Field

The experimental literature and studies using survey data have established that people care a great deal about their relative economic position and not solely, as standard economic theory assumes, about their absolute economic position. Individuals are concerned about social comparisons. However, behavioral evidence in the field is rare. This paper provides an empirical analysis, testing the model of inequality aversion using two unique panel data sets for basketball and soccer players. We find support that the concept of inequality aversion helps to understand how the relative income situation affects performance in a real competitive environment with real tasks and real incentives.

Values and actions in aversion

Model-based and model-free controllers can, in principle, learn arbitrary actions to optimize their behavior, at least those actions that can be expressed and explored. Indeed, these are often referred to as instrumental controllers because their choices are learned to be instrumental for the delivery of desired outcomes. Although this flexibility is very powerful, it comes with an attendant cost of learning. Evolution appears to have endowed everything from the simplest organisms to us with powerful, pre-specified, but inflexible alternatives. These responses are termed Pavlovian, after the famous Russian physiologist and psychologist Pavlov. The responses of the Pavlovian controller are determined by evolutionary (phylogenetic) considerations rather than (ontogenetic) aspects of the contingent development or learning of an individual. These responses directly interact with instrumental choices arising from goal-directed and habitual controllers. This interaction has been studied in a wealth of animal paradigms, and can be helpful, neutral, or harmful, according to circumstance. Although there has been less careful or analytical study of it in humans, it can be interpreted as underpinning a wealth of behavioral aberrations. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

An Ambiguity Aversion Framework of Security Game under Ambiguities

Security is a critical concern around the world. Since resources for security are always limited, lots of interest have arisen in using game theory to handle security resource allocation problems. However, most of the existing work does not address adequately how a defender chooses his optimal strategy in a game with absent, inaccurate, uncertain, and even ambiguous strategy profiles' payoffs. To address this issue, we propose a general framework of security games under ambiguities based on Dempster-Shafer theory and the ambiguity aversion principle of minimax regret. Then, we reveal some properties of this framework. Also, we present two methods to reduce the influence of complete ignorance. Our investigation shows that this new framework is better in handling security resource allocation problems under ambiguities.

A Survey Measure of Risk Aversion

We Use Survey Data on the Well-Being of Individuals to Measure Attitude Toward Risk. Risk Neutrality Cannot Be Rejected by the Data.

Risk Aversion, Intertemporal Substitution, and Option Pricing

This paper develops a general stochastic framework and an equilibrium asset pricing model that make clear how attitudes towards intertemporal substitution and risk matter for option pricing. In particular, we show under which statistical conditions option pricing formulas are not preference-free, in other words, when preferences are not hidden in the stock and bond prices as they are in the standard Black and Scholes (BS) or Hull and White (HW) pricing formulas. The dependence of option prices on preference parameters comes from several instantaneous causality effects such as the so-called leverage effect. We also emphasize that the most standard asset pricing models (CAPM for the stock and BS or HW preference-free option pricing) are valid under the same stochastic setting (typically the absence of leverage effect), regardless of preference parameter values. Even though we propose a general non-preference-free option pricing formula, we always keep in mind that the BS formula is dominant both as a theoretical reference model and as a tool for practitioners. Another contribution of the paper is to characterize why the BS formula is such a benchmark. We show that, as soon as we are ready to accept a basic property of option prices, namely their homogeneity of degree one with respect to the pair formed by the underlying stock price and the strike price, the necessary statistical hypotheses for homogeneity provide BS-shaped option prices in equilibrium. This BS-shaped option-pricing formula allows us to derive interesting characterizations of the volatility smile, that is, the pattern of BS implicit volatilities as a function of the option moneyness. First, the asymmetry of the smile is shown to be equivalent to a particular form of asymmetry of the equivalent martingale measure. Second, this asymmetry appears precisely when there is either a premium on an instantaneous interest rate risk or on a generalized leverage effect or both, in other words, whenever the option pricing formula is not preference-free. Therefore, the main conclusion of our analysis for practitioners should be that an asymmetric smile is indicative of the relevance of preference parameters to price options.

Risk Aversion in Inventory Management

Traditional inventory models focus on risk-neutral decision makers, i.e., characterizing replenishment strategies that maximize expected total profit, or equivalently, minimize expected total cost over a planning horizon. In this paper, we propose a framework for incorporating risk aversion in multi-period inventory models as well as multi-period models that coordinate inventory and pricing strategies. In each case, we characterize the optimal policy for various measures of risk that have been commonly used in the finance literature. In particular, we show that the structure of the optimal policy for a decision maker with exponential utility functions is almost identical to the structure of the optimal risk-neutral inventory (and pricing) policies. Computational results demonstrate the importance of this approach not only to risk-averse decision makers, but also to risk-neutral decision makers with limited information on the demand distribution.

Business cycle asymmetries: Loss aversion, sticky prices, and wages

In this chapter, the Smets-Wouters (2003) New Kenesian model is reformulated by introducing the loss aversion utility function developed in chapter two. The purpose of this is to understand how asymmetric real business cycles are linked to asymmetric behavior of agents in a price and wage rigidities set up. The simulations of the model reveal not only that the loss aversion in consumption and leisure is a good mechanism channel for explaining business cycle asymmetries, but also is a good mechanism channel for explaining asymmetric adjustment of prices and wages. Therefore the existence of asymmetries in Phillips Curve. Moreover, loss aversion makes downward rigidities in prices and wages stronger and also reproduces a more severe and persistent fall of the employment. All in all, this model generates asymmetrical real business cycles, asymmetric price and wage adjustment as well as hysteresis.

A DSGE model with loss aversion in consumption and leisure: an explanation for business cycles asymmetries

In this chapter, an asymmetric DSGE model is built in order to account for asymmetries in business cycles. One of the most important contributions of this work is the construction of a general utility function which nests loss aversion, risk aversion and habits formation by means of a smooth transition function. The main idea behind this asymmetric utility function is that under recession the agents over-smooth consumption and leisure choices in order to prevent a huge deviation of them from the reference level of the utility; while under boom, the agents simply smooth consumption and leisure, but trying to be as far as possible from the reference level of utility. The simulations of this model by means of Perturbations Method show that it is possible to reproduce asymmetrical business cycles where recession (on shock) are stronger than booms and booms are more long-lasting than recession. One additional and unexpected result is a downward stickiness displayed by real wages. As a consequence of this, there is a more persistent fall in employment in recession than in boom. Thus, the model reproduces not only asymmetrical business cycles but also real stickiness and hysteresis.