Startseite How the Investor’s Risk Preferences Influence the Optimal Allocation in a Credibilistic Portfolio Problem
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

How the Investor’s Risk Preferences Influence the Optimal Allocation in a Credibilistic Portfolio Problem

  • Irina Georgescu EMAIL logo und Jani Kinnunen
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 18. September 2019
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

A classical portfolio theory deals with finding the optimal proportion in which an agent invests a wealth in a risk-free asset and a probabilistic risky asset. Formulating and solving the problem depend on how the risk is represented and how, combined with the utility function defines a notion of expected utility. In this paper the risk is a fuzzy variable and the notion of expected utility is defined in the setting of Liu’s credibility theory. Thus, the portfolio choice problem is formulated as an optimization problem in which the objective function is a credibilistic expected utility. Different approximation calculation formulas for the optimal allocation of the credibilistic risky asset are proved. These formulas contain two types of parameters: Various credibilistic moments associated with fuzzy variables (expected value, variance, skewness and kurtosis) and the risk aversion, prudence and temperance indicators of the utility function.

References

[1] Eeckhoudt L, Gollier C, Schlesinger H. Economic and financial decisions under risk. Princeton University Press, 2005.10.1515/9781400829217Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Gollier C. The economics of risk and time. MIT, 2004.Suche in Google Scholar

[3] Arrow K J. Essays in the theory of risk bearing. North Holland, 1970.Suche in Google Scholar

[4] Pratt J W. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 1964, 32: 122–136.10.2307/1913738Suche in Google Scholar

[5] Athayde G, Flores R. Finding a maximum skewness portfolio a general solution to three-moments portfolio choice. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2004, 28: 1335–1352.10.1016/S0165-1889(02)00084-2Suche in Google Scholar

[6] Garlappi L, Skoulakis G. Taylor series approximations to expected utility and optimal portfolio choice. Mathematical and Financial Economics, 2011, 5: 121–156.10.1007/s11579-011-0051-4Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Kimball M S. Precautionary saving in the small and in the large, Econometrica, 1990, 58: 53–73.10.2307/2938334Suche in Google Scholar

[8] Kimball M S. Precautionary motives for holding assets. New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance, London: MacMillan Press: 1992 and New York: Stockton Publishers: 1992, 3: 158–161.Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Ñiguez T M, Paya I, Peel D. Pure higher-order effects in the portfolio choice model. Finance Research Letters, 2016, 19: 255–260.10.1016/j.frl.2016.08.010Suche in Google Scholar

[10] Le Courtois O. On prudence, temperance, and monoperiodic portfolio optimization. Risk and choice: A conference in honor of Louis Eeckhoudt, Toulouse, France, July 12, 2012.Suche in Google Scholar

[11] Zadeh L A. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978, 1: 3–28.10.1016/0165-0114(78)90029-5Suche in Google Scholar

[12] Carlsson C, Fullér R. Possibility for decision. Springer, 2011.10.1007/978-3-642-22642-7Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Dubois D, Prade H. Possibility theory. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Georgescu I. Possibility theory and the risk. Springer, 2012.10.1007/978-3-642-24740-8Suche in Google Scholar

[15] Georgescu I. The effect of prudence on the optimal allocation in possibilistic and mixed models. Mathematics, 2018, 6(8): 133.10.3390/math6080133Suche in Google Scholar

[16] Liu B. Uncertainty theory. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.Suche in Google Scholar

[17] Liu B, Liu Y K. Expected value of fuzzy variable and fuzzy expected models. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2002, 10: 445–450.10.1109/TFUZZ.2002.800692Suche in Google Scholar

[18] Huang X. Portfolio analysis. From Probabilistic to Credibilistic and Uncertain Approaches, Springer, 2010.Suche in Google Scholar

[19] Georgescu I, Kinnunen J. Credibilistic risk aversion and prudence. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 2016, 11(1): 146–160.10.1504/IJBIR.2016.077614Suche in Google Scholar

[20] Bhattacharyya R, Chatterjee A, Kar S. Mean-variance-skewness portfolio selection model in general uncertain environment. Indian Journal of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2012, 3(1): 45–61.Suche in Google Scholar

[21] Fono L A, Kamdem J S, Tassak C. Moments and semi-moments for fuzzy portfolios selection. 2011, Hal Archives-Ouvertes, hal-00567012.Suche in Google Scholar

[22] Ravindranath P J, Balasubrahmanyam M, Babu M S. A fuzzy mean-variance-skewness portfolios selection problem. International Journal of Mathematics and Statistics Invention, 2016, 4(3): 41–52.Suche in Google Scholar

[23] Thavaneswaran A, Thiagarajahb K, Appadoo S S. Fuzzy coefficient volatility (FCV) models with applications. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2007, 45: 777–786.10.1016/j.mcm.2006.07.019Suche in Google Scholar

[24] Thavaneswaran A, Appadoo S S, Paseka A. Weighted possibilistic moments of fuzzy numbers with applications to GARCH modeling and option pricing. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2009, 49: 352–368.10.1016/j.mcm.2008.07.035Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-01-26
Accepted: 2019-03-27
Published Online: 2019-09-18
Published in Print: 2019-09-25

© 2019 Walter De Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 20.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.21078/JSSI-2019-317-13/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen