scholarly journals Calculation of Price Equilibria for Utility Functions of the HARA Class

1986 ◽  
Vol 16 (S1) ◽  
pp. S91-S97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Lienhard
Keyword(s):  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Closed System ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Utility Functions ◽  
The Other ◽  
Pareto Optimum ◽  
Price Equilibrium ◽  
Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
The One

AbstractWe explicitly calculate price equilibria for power and logarithmic utility functions which—together with the exponential utility functions—form the so-called HARA (Hyperbolic Absolute Risk Aversion) class.A price equilibrium is economically admissible in the market which is a closed system. Furthermore it is on the one side individually optimal for each participant of the market (in the sense of maximal expected utility), on the other side it is a Pareto optimum and thus collectively optimal for the market as a whole.

Utility and Risk Aversion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerry E. Back
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Risk Tolerance ◽  
Relative Risk Aversion ◽  
Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
Certainty Equivalents ◽  
Conditional Expectations ◽  
Constant Absolute Risk Aversion

Expected utility is introduced. Risk aversion and its equivalence with concavity of the utility function (Jensen’s inequality) are explained. The concepts of relative risk aversion, absolute risk aversion, and risk tolerance are introduced. Certainty equivalents are defined. Expected utility is shown to imply second‐order risk aversion. Linear risk tolerance (hyperbolic absolute risk aversion), cautiousness parameters, constant relative risk aversion, and constant absolute risk aversion are described. Decreasing absolute risk aversion is shown to imply a preference for positive skewness. Preferences for kurtosis are discussed. Conditional expectations are introduced, and the law of iterated expectations is explained. Risk averse investors are shown to dislike mean‐independent noise.

scholarly journals Design of Principal-agent Incentive Mechanism between Government and NPO

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Honglian Guo ◽  
Zhenzhen Wu ◽  
Han Li
Keyword(s):  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Principal Agent ◽  
Output Level ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
Output Coefficient ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Society Research

Based on principal-agent theory, this paper establishes an incentive contract mechanism between government and NPO under asymmetric information, and analyzes the impact of absolute risk aversion and output level on the expected utility of government, NPO and society. Research shows that risk aversion is negatively correlated with the expected utility of government, NPO and society. The output coefficient is positively correlated with the expected utility of government, NPO and society. Reducing absolute risk aversion, increasing output coefficient and increasing government incentives can effectively motivate NPO to actively participate in social rescue activities.

Constant Absolute Risk Aversion, Bankruptcy, and Wealth-Dependent Decisions

1980 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Lippman ◽  
John J. McCall ◽  
Wayne L. Winston
Keyword(s):  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
Constant Absolute Risk Aversion

On the relationship between absolute prudence and absolute risk aversion

2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario A. Maggi ◽  
Umberto Magnani ◽  
Mario Menegatti
Keyword(s):  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
The Relationship

DE FINETTI ON RISK AVERSION

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-159
Author(s):  
Joseph B. Kadane ◽  
Gaia Bellone
Keyword(s):  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Risk Premia ◽  
Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
Kenneth Arrow ◽  
De Finetti ◽  
Constant Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
Special Case

According to Mark Rubinstein (2006) ‘In 1952, anticipating Kenneth Arrow and John Pratt by over a decade, he [de Finetti] formulated the notion of absolute risk aversion, used it in connection with risk premia for small bets, and discussed the special case of constant absolute risk aversion.’ The purpose of this note is to ascertain the extent to which this is true, and at the same time, to correct certain minor errors that appear in de Finetti's work.

Fractional Degree Stochastic Dominance

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (10) ◽  
pp. 4630-4647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel J. Huang ◽  
Larry Y. Tzeng ◽  
Lin Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bound ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Stochastic Dominance ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Comparative Statics ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
Risk Apportionment ◽  
Lottery Choices ◽  
Increase In Risk

We develop a continuum of stochastic dominance rules for expected utility maximizers. The new rules encompass the traditional integer-degree stochastic dominance; between adjacent integer degrees, they formulate the consensus of individuals whose absolute risk aversion at the corresponding integer degree has a negative lower bound. By extending the concept of “uniform risk aversion” previously proposed in the literature to high-order risk preferences, we interpret the fractionalized degree parameter as a benchmark individual relative to whom all considered individuals are uniformly no less risk averse in the lottery choices. The equivalent distribution conditions for the new rules are provided, and the fractional degree “increase in risk” is defined. We generalize the previously defined notion of “risk apportionment” and demonstrate its usefulness in characterizing comparative statics of risk changes in fractional degrees. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, decision analysis.

An Alternative Characterization of Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion

Econometrica ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip H. Dybvig ◽  
Steven A. Lippman
Keyword(s):  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Absolute Risk Aversion ◽  
Alternative Characterization
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document