Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T12:37:58.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nonparametric Tests of Models of Investor Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Hal R. Varian
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standard models of consumer behavior under uncertainty are the expected utility model and the mean-variance model. As with any models involving unobservables one might well ask about the empirical content of these hypotheses: what restrictions on observed behavior do these models impose? How can one test observed behavior for consistency with these models? How can one recover the underlying utility function and forecast behavior in new situations?

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 269 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1983

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

[1]Afriat, S. “The Construction of a Utility Function from Expenditure Data.” International Economic Review, Vol. 8 (02 1967), pp. 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Chipman, J.; Hurwicz, L.; Richter, M.; and Sonnenschein, H., eds. Preferences, Utility, and Demand. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. (1971).Google Scholar
[3]Diewert, E. “Afriat and Revealed Preference Theory.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 40 (07 1973), pp. 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Diewert, E., and Parkan, C.. “Test for Consistency of Consumer Data and Nonparametric Index Numbers.” Working paper 78–27, University of British Columbia (1978).Google Scholar
[5]Dybvig, P. “Recovering Additive Utility Functions.” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University (1979).Google Scholar
[6]Dybvig, P., and Polemarchakis, H.. “Recovering Cardinal Utility.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 48 (01 1981), pp. 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Dybvig, P., and Ross, S.. “Portfolio Efficient Sets.” Econometrka, Vol. 50 (11 1982), pp. 1525–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Green, J.; Lau, L.; and Polemarchakis, H.. “Identifiability of the von Neuman-Morgenstern Utility Function from Asset Demands.” In General Equilibrium, Growth, and Trade, Green, J. and Scheinkman, J., eds. NY: Academic Press, Inc. (1978).Google Scholar
[9]Houthakker, H. “Revealed Preference and the Utility Function.” Economica, Vol. 17 (05 1950), pp. 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Lau, L. “Is the Expected Utility Maximization Hypothesis Refutable by Finite Market Data: The Case of Two Observations.” Economics Letters, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1980), pp. 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Polemarchakis, H., and Selden, L.. “Incomplete Markets and the Observability of Risk Preference Properties.” Mimeo, Columbia University (1980).Google Scholar
[12]Richter, M. “Revealed Preference Theory.” Econometrka, Vol. 34 (07 1966), pp. 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Samuelson, P. “Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preferences.” Economica, Vol. 15 (11 1948), pp. 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Samuelson, P.Foundations of Economic Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1947).Google Scholar
[15]Varian, H. “The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis.” Econometrka, Vol. 50, (07 1982), pp. 945–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Varian, H. “Nonparametric Tests of Consumer Behavior.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 50 (01 1983), pp. 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar