Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T19:39:47.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Relative Effectiveness of Stochastic Dominance Rules: Extension to Decreasingly Risk-Averse Utility Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

R. G. Vickson  and
M. Altmann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In our theoretical work on DSD ([17], [18], [19]), specially constructed examples were used to demonstrate that DSD is stronger than TSD. The results of the present paper imply that similar examples also arise naturally from realworld data. They also suggest that such examples are rare. In the specific cases studied here, the differences between these two stochastic orderings are real, but small, and TSD would likely be a suitable approximation to DSD for practical purposes. The differences between the resulting efficient subsets seem relatively less important as the size of the initial portfolio universe increases. For example, the percentage reduction in the efficient TSD subset for a 1000-portfolio problem is smaller than for a typical 100-portfolio problem. This was found to be true throughout the preliminary phases of the study, as well as in the final phase reported here. The (to us) disappointing performance of DSD resulted primarily from the left-tail problem, which became increasingly prevalent as the initial portfolio set expanded. This suggests that DSD would be most useful in problems of choice among relatively few alternatives, perhaps of the capital budgeting type. In addition, there are numerous nonfinancial problems in which DSD could prove to be useful in ranking alternative management policies. Finally, the greater strength of DSD may remain important in theoretical investigations, especially for situations in which the left-tail problem is absent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 73 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1977

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]Arrow, K. J.Aspects of the Theory of Risk-Bearing. Helsinki: Yrjö Jahnssonin Foundation, 1965.Google Scholar
[2]Bellman, R. E.Dynamic Programming. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957.Google ScholarPubMed
[3]Fishburn, P. C.Decision and Value Theory. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
[4]Hadar, J., and Russell, W. R.. “Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” American Economic Review, Vol. 59 (1969), pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
[5]Hanoch, G., and Levy, H.. “The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 36 (1969), pp. 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Levy, H., and Hanoch, G.. “Relative Effectiveness of Efficiency Criteria for Portfolio Selection.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 5 (1970), pp. 63–76.Google Scholar
[7]Levy, H., and Sarnat, M.. “Alternative Efficiency Criteria: an Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 25 (1970), pp. 1153–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Nemhauser, G. L.Dynamic Programming. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
[9]Porter, R. B.; Wart, J. R.; and Ferguson, D. L.. “Efficient Algorithms for Conducting Stochastic Dominance Tests on Large Numbers of Portfolios.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 8 (1973), pp. 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Porter, R. B. “An Empirical Comparison of Stochastic Dominance and Mean-Variance Portfolio Choice Criteria.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 8 (1973), pp. 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Porter, R. B., and Gaumnitz, J. E.. “Stochastic Dominance vs. Mean-Variance Portfolio Analysis: an Empirical Evaluation.” American Economic Review, Vol. 62 (1972), pp. 438–446.Google Scholar
[12]Porter, R. B., and Joy, M.. “Stochastic Dominance and Mutual Fund Performance.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 9 (1974), pp. 25–31.Google Scholar
[13]Pratt, J. W. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica, Vol. 32 (1964), pp. 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Quirk, J. P., and Saposnik, R.. “Admissibility and Measurable Utility Functions.” Review of Economic Stidies, Vol. 29 (1962), pp. 140–146.Google Scholar
[15]Rothschild, M., and Stiglitz, J. E.. “Increasing Risk: I. A Definition.” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 2 (1970), pp. 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Sarnat, M. “The Gains from Risk Diversification on the London Stock Exchange.” Journal of Business Finance, Vol. 4 (1972), pp. 54–63.Google Scholar
[17]Vickson, R. G. “Stochastic Dominance for Decreasing Absolute Risk-Aversion.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 10 (1975), pp. 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Vickson, R. G. “Stochastic Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk-Aversion I: Discrete Random Variables.” Management Science, Vol. 21 (1975), pp. 1438–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Vickson, R. G. “Stochastic Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk-Aversion II: General Random Variables.” Management Science, Vol. 23 (1977), pp. 478–489.Google Scholar
[20]Whitmore, G. A. “Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance.” American Economic Review, Vol. 60 (1970), pp. 457–459.Google Scholar