To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Even (Mixed) Risk Lovers are Prudent: Comment

American Economic Review 2013 103(4), 1536-1537
Crainich, Eeckhoudt, and Trannoy (2013) show that mixed risk lovers are prudent. I show that common risk loving utility functions may not exhibit mixed risk loving—as is typical for risk aversion and mixed risk aversion—and thus these traits should be carefully distinguished. In particular, risk lovers may be imprudent. (JEL D81)

Until the Bitter End: On Prospect Theory in a Dynamic Context

American Economic Review 2015 105(4), 1618-1633
We provide a result on prospect theory decision makers who are naïve about the time inconsistency induced by probability weighting. If a market offers a sufficiently rich set of investment strategies, investors postpone their trading decisions indefinitely due to a strong preference for skewness. We conclude that probability weighting in combination with naïveté leads to unrealistic predictions for a wide range of dynamic setups. (JEL D81, G02, G11)

Cumulative Prospect Theory, Option Returns, and the Variance Premium

Review of Financial Studies 2019 32(9), 3667-3723
Abstract We develop a tractable equilibrium asset pricing model with cumulative prospect theory (CPT) preferences. Using GMM on a sample of U.S. equity index option returns, we show that by introducing a single common probability weighting parameter for both tails of the return distribution, the CPT model can simultaneously generate the otherwise puzzlingly low returns on both out-of-the-money put and out-of-the-money call options as well as the high observed variance premium. In a dynamic setting, probability weighting and time-varying equity return volatility combine to match the observed time-series pattern of the variance premium. Received May 30, 2017; editorial decision August 10, 2018 by Editor Andrew Karolyi.