Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:17:03.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Safety-First, Stochastic Dominance, and Optimal Portfolio Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Vijay S. Bawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Stochastic Dominance rules are playing an increasingly prominent role in the literature on choice under uncertainty. Their foundation is the mainstream VonNeumann-Morgenstern expected utility paradigm. Their essence is to provide an admissible set of choices under restrictions on the utility functions that follow from prevalent and appealing modes of economic behavior: The admissible sets generated are useful for a large group of individual decision makers and the optimal choice for an individual can then be obtained from among the smaller set of admissible choices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1978 , pp. 255 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Ang, J. “A Note on the E, SL Portfolio Selection Model.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 10 (1975), pp. 849–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Bawa, V. S. “Optimal Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 2 (1975), pp. 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Bawa, V. S. “Admissible Portfolios for All Individuals. Journal of Finance, Vol. 31, No. 4 (09 1976), pp. 1169–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Bawa, V. S. “Portfolio Choice and Capital Market Equilibrium with Unknown Distributions.” In Estimation Risk and Optimal Portfolio Choice, by Bawa, V. S., Brown, S. J., and Klein, R. W.North Holland (forthcoming).Google Scholar
[5]Bawa, V. S., and Lindenberg, E. B.. “Capital Market Equilibrium in a Mean, Lower Partial Moment Framework.” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 5 (1977), pp. 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Fishburn, P. C.Decision and Value Theory. New York: Wiley (1964).Google Scholar
[7]Hadar, J., and Russell, W. R.. “Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” American Economic Review, Vol. 59 (1969), pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
[8]Hadar, J., and Russell, W. R.. “Stochastic Dominance and Diversification.” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 3 (1971), pp. 288–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Hammond, J. S. III. “Simplifying the Choice between Uncertain Prospects Where Preference Is Nonlinear.” Management Science, Vol. 20 (1974), pp. 1047–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Hanoch, G., and Levy, H.. “The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 36 (1969), pp. 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Hogan, W. W., and Warren, J. M.. “Computation of Efficient Boundary in the E-S Portfolio Selection Model.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 7 (1972), pp. 1881–1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Hogan, W. W., and Warren, J. M.. “Toward the Development of an Equilibrium Capital-Market Model Based on Semi-Variance.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 9 (1974), pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Klein, R. W., and Bawa, V. S.. “The Effect of Estimation Risk on Optimal Portfolio Choice.” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3 (1976), pp. 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Levy, H., and Sarnat, M.. “A Note on Portfolio Selection and Investors Wealth.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 6 (1971), pp. 639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Mao, J. C. T. “Models of Capital Budgeting: E-V vs. E-S.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 5 (1970), pp. 657–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Markowitz, H.Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments. New York: Wiley (1970).Google Scholar
[17]Markowitz, H. “An Algorithm for Finding Undominated Portfolios.” In Financial Decision Making under Uncertainty, edited by Levy, H. and Sarnat, M.. Academic Press (1977).Google Scholar
[18]Porter, R. B. “Semi-Variance and Stochastic Dominance: A Comparison.” American Economic Review, Vol. 64 (1974), pp. 200–204.Google Scholar
[19]Quirk, J. P., and Saposnik, R.. “Admissibility and Measurable Utility Functions.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29 (1962), pp. 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Roy, A. D. “Safety-First and the Holding of Assets.” Econometrica, Vol. 20 (1952), pp. 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Tobin, J. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior toward Risk.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 25 (1958), pp. 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Vickson, R. G. “Stochastic Dominance for Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 10 (1975), pp. 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Vickson, R. G. “Stochastic Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion? Is Discrete Random Variables.” Management Science, Vol. 21 (1975), pp. 1438–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Vickson, R. G. “Stochastic Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion. II: General Random Variables.” Management Science, Vol. 23 (1977), pp. 478–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25]VonNeumann, J., and Morgenstern, O.. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New York: Wiley (1967).Google Scholar
[26]Whitmore, G. A. “Third Order Stochastic Dominance.” American Economic Review, Vol. 60 (1970), pp. 457–459.Google Scholar