Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T08:50:43.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logarithmic Preferences, Myopic Decisions, and Incomplete Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

David Feldman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines a dynamic production economy with incomplete information and shows that the set of myopic preferences, those that induce myopic decisions, depends on the representation of the information flow. For example, logarithmic preferences are nonmyopic when some of the economic state variables are unobservable. The analysis offers a broader definition of myopic behavior, termed “generalized myopia,” which is independent of the representation of the information flow. Allowing for any smooth concave utility function, logarithmic preferences endogenously emerge as necessary for generalized myopia in incomplete information economies; and when combined with restrictions on the information structure, they become sufficient.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 619 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1992

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

Adler, M., and Detemple, J.. “On the Optimal Hedge of a Non-Traded Cash Position.” Journal of Finance, 43 (03 1988), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. J. “Optimal Capital Policy, the Cost of Capital and Myopic Decision Rules.” Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 16 (1964), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeden, D. T. “An Intertemporal Asset Pricing Model with Stochastic Consumption and Investment Opportunities.” Journal of Financial Economics, 7 (09 1979), 265–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeden, D. T. “Futures Markets and Commodity Options Hedging and Optimality in Incomplete Markets.” Journal of Economic Theory, 32 (04 1984), 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cass, D., and Stiglitz, J. E.. “The Structure of Investor Preferences and Asset Returns, and Separability in Portfolio Allocations: A Contribution to the Pure Theory of Mutual Funds.” Journal of Economic Theory, 2 (06 1970), 122–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C; Ingersoll, J. E.; and Ross, S. A.. “An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model of Asset Prices.” Econometrica, 51 (03 1985a), 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C; Ingersoll, J. E.; and Ross, S. A.. “A Theory of the Term Structure of Interest Rates.” Econometrica, 53 (03 1985b), 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detemple, J. “Asset Pricing in a Production Economy with Incomplete Information.” Journal of Finance, 41 (03 1986), 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detemple, J., and Kihlstrom, R. E.. “Information Acquisition and Valuation in a Continuous Time Model.” Unpubl. Manuscript, Graduate School of Business, Columbia Univ. (1987).Google Scholar
Dothan, M., and Feldman, D.. “Equilibrium Interest Rates and Multiperiod Bonds in a Partially Observable Economy.” Journal of Finance, 41 (03 1986), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D. “A Theory of Asset Prices and the Term Structure of Interest Rates in a Partially Observable Economy.” Ph.D. Diss., Northwestern Univ. (1983).Google Scholar
Feldman, D. “The Term Structure of Interest Rates in a Partially Observable Economy.” Journal of Finance, 44 (07 1989), 789–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennotte, G. “Optimal Portfolio Choice under Incomplete Information.” Journal of Finance, 41 (07 1986), 733–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grauer, F. L. A. “The Strong Case for the Generalized Logarithmic Utility Model as the Premier Model of Financial Markets: Discussion.” Journal of Finance, 31 (05 1976), 605–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakansson, N. H. “Optimal Investment and Consumption Strategies under Risk for a Class of Utility Functions.” Econometrica, 38 (09 1970), 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakansson, N. H. “On Optimal Myopic Portfolio Policies, With and Without Serial Correlation of Yields.” Journal of Business, 44 (03 1971), 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingersoll, J. E.Theory of Financial Decision Making. New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield (1987).Google Scholar
Kraus, A., and Litzenberger, R. H.. “Market Equilibrium in a Multiperiod State Preference Model with Logarithmic Utility.” Journal of Finance, 30 (12 1975), 1213–1227.Google Scholar
Leland, H. “Dynamic Portfolio Theory.” Ph.D. Diss., Harvard Univ. (1968).Google Scholar
Liptser, R. S., and Shiryayev, A. N.. Statistics of Random Processes II. New York: Springer-Verlag (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marglin, S. A.Approaches to Dynamic Investment Planning. Amsterdam: North Holland (1963).Google Scholar
Merton, R. C. “Optimum Consumption and Portfolio Rules in a Continuous Time Model.” Journal of Economic Theory, 3 (12 1971), 373–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. C. “An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model.” Econometrica, 41 (09 1973), 867–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossin, J. “Optimal Multiperiod Portfolio Policies.” Journal of Business, 41 (04 1968), 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, M. “The Strong Case for the Generalized Logarithmic Utility Model as the Premier Model of Financial Markets.” Journal of Finance, 31 (05 1976), 551–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. “Lifetime Portfolio Selection by Dynamic Stochastic Programming.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 51 (08 1969), 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar