Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byLydia Pummill Modified over 3 years ago

1
Decision Theory Lecture 8

2
1/3 1 1/4 3/8 1/4 3/8 A A B C A B C 1/2 A B A C Reduction of compound lotteries 1/2 1/4 A B C

3
Von Neumann Morgenstern proof graphically 1

4
Von Neumann Morgenstern proof graphically 2

5
Common misunderstandings

7
Fallacy (2) Fire insurance: – Fire: pay the premium, house rebuilt (C) – No Fire: pay the premium, house untouched (B) No insurance: – Fire: house burnt, no compansation (D) – No Fire: house the same (A) A≻B≻C≻D Suppose the probability of fire is 0.5 And an individual is indifferent between buying and not buying the insurance Although Fire insurance has smaller variance and ½u(A) + ½u(D) = ½u(B) + ½u(C), it does not mean that Fire insurance should be chosen over No insurance Loss = $70K Loss = $60K Loss = $K Loss = $0 Risk averse, and EL(insurance) = $65K EL(no insurance) = $50K

8
Fallacy (3) Fire insurance: – Fire: pay the premium, house rebuilt (C) – No Fire: pay the premium, house untouched (B) No insurance: – Fire: house burnt, no compansation (D) – No Fire: house the same (A) A≻B≻C≻D Suppose that the probability of fire is ½ and an individual prefers not buying fire insurance and hence ½u(A) + ½u(D) > ½u(B) + ½u(C) ⇒ u(A) - u(B) > u(C) - u(D) However it does not mean that the change from B to A is more preferred than the change from D to C. Preferences are defined over pairs of alternatives not pairs of pairs of alternatives

13
Crucial axiom - independence Our version The general version Why the general version implies our version?

14
If I prefer to go to the movies than to go for a swim, I must prefer: – to toss a coin and: heads: go to the movies tails: vacuum clean – than to toss a coin and: heads: go for a swim tails: vacuum clean If I prefer to bet on red than on even in roulette, then I must prefer: – to toss a coin and heads: bet on 18 tails: bet on red – than to toss a coin and: heads: bet on 18 tails: bet on even Independence – examples 14

15
Machina triangle 15 p1p1 p2p2 1 1 x2x2 x3x3 P R x1x1 P + R

16
Independence assumption in the Machina triangle 16 p1p1 p2p2 1 1 P Q R αP+(1-α)R αQ+(1-α)R Suppose that A1 is better than A2 is better than A3

17
17.1 and 17.2 17.1) Choose one lottery: P=(1 mln, 1) Q=(5 mln, 0.1; 1 mln, 0.89; 0 mln, 0.01) 17.2) Choose one lottery: P’=(1 mln, 0.11; 0 mln, 0.89) Q’=(5 mln, 0.1; 0 mln, 0.9) Kahneman, Tversky (1979) [common consequence effect violation of independence] Many people choose P over Q and Q’ over P’

18
Common consequence graphically P = (1 mln, 1) P’= (1 mln, 0.11; 0, 0.89) Q = (5 mln, 0.1; 1 mln, 0.89; 0, 0.01) Q’= (5 mln, 0.1; 0, 0.9) If we plug c = 1mln, we get P and Q respectively If we plug c = 0, we get P’ and Q’ respectively

19
18.1 i 18.2 18.1) Choose one lottery: P=(3000 PLN, 1) Q=(4000 PLN, 0.8; 0 PLN, 0.2) 18.2) Choose one lottery: P’=(3000 PLN, 0.25; 0 PLN, 0.75) Q’=(4000 PLN, 0.2; 0 PLN, 0.8) Kahneman, Tversky (1979) [common ratio effect, violation of independence] Many people choose P over Q and Q’ over P’

20
Common ratio graphically P=(3000 PLN, 1) P’=(3000 PLN, 0.25; 0 PLN, 0.75) Q=(4000 PLN, 0.8; 0 PLN, 0.2) Q’=(4000 PLN, 0.2; 0 PLN, 0.8)

21
Monotonicity of utility function BehaviourPrefers more to less 21 x x+

22
Monotonicity of utility function BehaviourPrefers more to less Utility function x, u’(x)>0; u(x) – increasing 22

23
Monotonicity of utility function BehaviourPrefers more to less Utility function x, u’(x)>0; u(x) – increasing Attitude towards risk (quantitatively)u(x)/u’(x) – fear of ruin 23 prefers more to less current wealth x probability p of bankruptcy (u(0)=0) how much to pay to avoid it?

24
Monotonicity of utility function BehaviourPrefers more to less Utility function x, u’(x)>0; u(x) – increasing Attitude towards risk (quantitatively)u(x)/u’(x) – fear of ruin When is the choice obvious First order stochastic dominance (comparing cdf) – FOSD 24 F(x) 1 x

25
Examples – comparing pairs of lotteries PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 410% 550% 640% PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 140% 230% 3 PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 250% 330% 420% PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 140% 235% 325%

26
First Order Stochastic Dominance (FOSD) PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 410% 550% 640% t cdf 1 1 PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 140% 235% 325% t cdf 1 1

27
FOSD Assume X and Y are two different lotteries (F X (.), F Y (.) are not the same) Lottery X FOSD Y if: For all a, hence: Those who prefer more to less will never choose lottery that is dominated in the above sense. Theorem: X FOSD Y if and only if Eu(X) ≥ Eu(Y), for all inreasing u

28
Compare PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 140% 250% 310% PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 140% 230% 3 PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 290% 35% 4 PayoffPr. 110% 270% 320% PayoffPr. 030% 255% 415%

29
Marginal utility Behaviour Risk averse, ie. Var(L)>0 u(E(L))>E(u(L)) 29 x x- x+ Today chance nodes split 50:50

30
Marginal utility Behaviour Risk averse, ie. Var(L)>0 u(E(L))>E(u(L)) Utility function x, u’(x)>0, u’’(x)<0; u(x) – concave, increasing 30 payoff utility

31
Certainty equivalent and risk premium 0,5 2 10 1 4,5 1 6 utility

32
Marginal utility Behaviour Risk averse, ie. Var(L)>0 u(E(L))>E(u(L)) Utility function x, u’(x)>0, u’’(x)<0; u(x) – concave, increasing Attitude towards risk (quantitatively)-u’’(x)/u’(x) – Arrow-Pratt risk aversion coeff. 32 x – initial wealth (number) l – lottery with zero exp. value (random variable) k – multiplier (we tak k close to zero) d – risk premium (number) x-d – certainty equivalent for x+l

33
Marginal utility Behaviour Risk averse, ie. Var(L)>0 u(E(L))>E(u(L)) Utility function x, u’(x)>0, u’’(x)<0; u(x) – concave, increasing Attitude towards risk (quantitatively)-u’’(x)/u’(x) – Arrow-Pratt risk aversion coeff. When is the choice obvious Second order stochastic dominance (integrals of cdf) – SOSD 33

34
Second Order Stochastic Dominance PayoffPr. 150% 220% 330% PayoffPr. 130% 260% 310% t cdf 1 1 t 1 1 tF(x)Sum 10,30 20,90,3 311,2 412,2 tF(x)Sum 10,50 20,70,5 311,2 412,2

35
SOSD Assume X and Y are two different lotteries (F X (.), F Y (.) are not the same) Lottery X SOSD Y if: For all a hence: Those who are risk averse will never choose a lottery that is dominated in the above sense. Theorem: X SOSD Y if and only if Eu(X) ≥ Eu(Y), for all inreasing and concave u

36
Compare and find FOSD and SOSD PayoffPr. 130% 240% 330% PayoffPr. 140% 215% 345% PayoffPr. 150% 230% 320% PayoffPr. 160% 210% 330% PayoffPr. 110% 250% 340% PayoffPr. 130% 215% 355% PayoffPr. 115% 245% 340% PayoffPr. 120% 240% 3

37
Risk aversion doesn’t mean that always: A better than B, if only E(A)=E(B) and Var(A)`
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "ImageObject",
"contentUrl": "http://images.slideplayer.com/13/3978315/slides/slide_37.jpg",
"name": "Risk aversion doesn’t mean that always: A better than B, if only E(A)=E(B) and Var(A)
`

38
Measures of risk aversion Risk premium measures risk aversion with respect to a given lottery As a function of payoff values risk aversion is measured by Arrow, Pratt measures of (local) risk aversion

39
From now on let’s assume X is a set of monetary pay- offs (decision maker prefers more money than less) Decision maker with vNM utility function prefers lottery (100, ¼; 1000, ¾) to (500, ½; 1000, ½) What is a realtion between (100, ½; 500, ¼; 1000, ¼) and (100, ¼; 500, ¾)? Suggestion – we can arbitrarily set utility function for two outcomes Exercise 1 39

40
Decision maker is indifferent between pairs of lotteries: (500, 1) and (0, 0,4; 1000, 0,6) and (300, 1) and (0, ½; 500, ½) Can we guess the preference relation between (0, 0,2; 300, 0,3; 1000, ½) and (500, 1)? Exercise 2 40

41
Decision maker with vNM utility is risk averse and indifferent between the following pairs (400, 1) and (0, 0,3; 1000, 0,7) and (0, ½; 200, ½) and (0, 5/7; 400, 2/7) Can we guess the preference relation between (200, ½; 600, ½) and (0, 4/9; 100, 5/9)? (suggestion – remamber than vNM utility is concave) Exercise 3 41

Similar presentations

Presentation is loading. Please wait....

OK

Lecture 4 on Individual Optimization Risk Aversion

Lecture 4 on Individual Optimization Risk Aversion

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To ensure the functioning of the site, we use **cookies**. We share information about your activities on the site with our partners and Google partners: social networks and companies engaged in advertising and web analytics. For more information, see the Privacy Policy and Google Privacy & Terms.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.

Ads by Google

Ppt on power generation in india Ppt on next generation 2-stroke engine oil Ppt on new zealand culture and tradition Ppt on the greatest dictator of the world Ppt on indian politics bjp Ppt on voltage sag mitigation Ppt on national stock exchange Ppt on cloud computing security issues in infrastructure as a service Ppt on network switching devices Ppt on high level languages in computer