×

Investment under ambiguity with the best and worst in mind. (English) Zbl 1255.91394

Summary: Recent literature on optimal investment has stressed the difference between the impact of risk and the impact of ambiguity – also called Knightian uncertainty – on investors’ decisions. In this paper, we show that a decision maker’s attitude towards ambiguity is similarly crucial for investment decisions. We capture the investor’s individual ambiguity attitude by applying \(\alpha\)-MEU preferencesto a standard investment problem. We show that the presence of ambiguity often leads to an increase in the subjective project value, and entrepreneurs are more eager to invest. Thereby, our investment model helps to explain differences in investment behavior in situations which are objectively identical.

MSC:

91G10 Portfolio theory
91B06 Decision theory
91B08 Individual preferences

References:

[1] Ahn, D., Choi, S., Gale, D., Kariv, S.: Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. UC Berkeley Working Paper (2007) · Zbl 1395.91393
[2] Al-Najjar N.I., Weinstein J.: The ambiguity aversion literature: a critical assessment. Econ. Philos. 25, 249–284 (2009) · doi:10.1017/S026626710999023X
[3] Asano, T.: Irreversibilities and the optimal timing of environmental policy under knightian uncertainty. Discussion paper No. 643, Institute of Social and Economic Research at Osaka University (2005)
[4] Bhidé A.V.: The Origin and Evolution of New Business. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)
[5] Chateauneuf A., Eichberger J., Grant S.: Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: neo-additive capacities. J. Econ. Theory 137, 538–567 (2007) · Zbl 1132.91420 · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2007.01.017
[6] Chen Z., Epstein L.: Ambiguity, risk, and asset returns in continuous time. Econometrica 70(4), 1403–1443 (2002) · Zbl 1121.91359 · doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00337
[7] Choi, U.J., Kim, K., Kwak, M.: Investment under ambiguity and regime-switching environment. Working paper, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) (2009)
[8] DeBondt, W.F., Thaler, R.H.: Financial decision-making in markets and firms: a behavioral perspective. In: Handbook in Operations Research and Management Science: Finance, pp. 385–410. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1995)
[9] Dixit A.K., Pindyck R.S.: Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)
[10] Duffie D.: Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory, 3rd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2001) · Zbl 1140.91041
[11] Economist: The R-Word. The Econ. 359(8216), 106 (2001)
[12] Ellsberg D.: Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Quart. J. Econ. 75(4), 643–669 (1961) · Zbl 1280.91045 · doi:10.2307/1884324
[13] Epstein L.G., Schneider M.: IID: independently and indistinguishable distributed. J. Econ. Theory 113(1), 32–50 (2003a) · Zbl 1066.91028 · doi:10.1016/S0022-0531(03)00121-2
[14] Epstein L.G., Schneider M.: Recursive multiple-priors. J. Econ. Theory 113(1), 1–31 (2003b) · Zbl 1107.91360 · doi:10.1016/S0022-0531(03)00097-8
[15] Epstein L.G., Schneider M.: Ambiguity, information quality and asset pricing. J. Finance 63(1), 197–228 (2008) · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01314.x
[16] Epstein L.G., Wang T.: Intertemporal asset pricing under knightian uncertainty. Econometrica 62(3), 283–322 (1994) · Zbl 0799.90016 · doi:10.2307/2951614
[17] Ghiradato P., Maccheroni F., Marinacci M.: Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. J. Econ. Theory 118, 133–173 (2004) · Zbl 1112.91021 · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2003.12.004
[18] Gilboa I., Schmeidler D.: Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. J. Math. Econ. 18, 141–153 (1989) · Zbl 0675.90012 · doi:10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9
[19] Gysler, M., Kruse, J.B., Schubert, R.: Ambiguity and gender differences in financial decision making: an experimental examination of competence and confidence effects. Center for Economic Research, Swiss Federal Insitute of Technology, working paper (2002)
[20] Hannay E., Klibanoff P.: Updating preferences with multiple priors. Theor. Econ. 2, 261–298 (2006)
[21] Heath C., Tversky A.: Preference and belief: ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 4(1), 5–28 (1991) · Zbl 0729.90713 · doi:10.1007/BF00057884
[22] Hurwicz, L.: Optimality criteria for decision making under ignorance. Cowles Communication Discussion Paper, Statistics No. 370 (1951)
[23] Karatzas I., Kou S.G.: Hedging american contigent claims with constraint portfolios. Finance Stoch. 2, 215–258 (1998) · Zbl 0904.90012 · doi:10.1007/s007800050039
[24] Kilka M., Weber M.: What determines the shape of the probability weighting function under uncertainty?. Manage. Sci. 47, 1712–1726 (1998) · Zbl 1232.91134 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.12.1712.10239
[25] Klibanoff P., Marinacci M., Mukerji S.: A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73(6), 1849–1892 (2005) · Zbl 1151.91372 · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00640.x
[26] Klibanoff P., Marinacci M., Mukerji S.: Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences. J. Econ. Theory 144(3), 930–976 (2009) · Zbl 1160.91324 · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2008.10.007
[27] Knight F.H.: Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA (1921)
[28] Kopylov, I.: Subjective probability and confidence. Working paper University of California, Irvine, (2008)
[29] Marinacci M.: Probabilistic sophistication and multiple priors. Econometrica 70(2), 755–764 (2002) · Zbl 1103.91333 · doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00303
[30] McDonald R., Siegel D.: The value of waiting to invest. Quart. J. Econ. 101(4), 707–728 (1986) · doi:10.2307/1884175
[31] Miao, J., Wang, N.: Risk, uncertainty, and option exercise. Working paper Boston University and Columbia Business School (2007) · Zbl 1211.91096
[32] Nishimura K.G., Ozaki H.: An axiomatic approach to $${\(\backslash\)epsilon}$$ -contamination. Econ. Theory 27, 333–340 (2004a) · Zbl 1149.91026 · doi:10.1007/s00199-004-0584-3
[33] Nishimura K.G., Ozaki H.: Search and knightian uncertainty. J. Econ. Theory 119(2), 299–333 (2004b) · Zbl 1099.91070 · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2003.04.001
[34] Nishimura K.G., Ozaki H.: Irreversible investment and knightian uncertainty. J. Econ. Theory 136(1), 668–694 (2007) · Zbl 1281.91061 · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2006.10.011
[35] Olszewski W.: Preferences over sets of lotteries. Rev. Econ. Stud. 74, 567–595 (2007) · Zbl 1297.91051 · doi:10.1111/j.1467-937X.2007.00431.x
[36] Riedel F.: Optimal stopping with multiple priors. Econometrica 77(3), 857–908 (2009) · Zbl 1181.60064 · doi:10.3982/ECTA7594
[37] Roubaud, D., Lapied, A., Kast, R.: Real options under ambiguity. working paper (2010)
[38] Sarin R., Wakker P.: Dynamic choice and non expected utility. J. Risk Uncertain. 17, 87–119 (1998) · Zbl 0917.90017 · doi:10.1023/A:1007769628257
[39] Savage L.J.: The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York (1954) · Zbl 0055.12604
[40] Schmeidler D.: Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57(3), 571–587 (1989) · Zbl 0672.90011 · doi:10.2307/1911053
[41] Skiadas, C.: Smooth ambiguity aversion towards small risks and continuous-time recursive utility. Working paper (2008)
[42] Trojanowska M., Kort P.M.: The worst case for real options. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 146(3), 709–734 (2010) · Zbl 1208.91156 · doi:10.1007/s10957-010-9687-0
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.