Heterogeneity of Investors and Asset Pricing in a Risk-Value World



Compare the solution of the exogenous benchmark model with that of
the endogenous benchmark model. From equation (12), raising the payoff
in some state always reduces risk in the case of an exogenous benchmark.
From equation (8), for an endogenous benchmark an increase in some payoff
lowers [raises] risk if the payoff
eε is lower [higher] than f~ 1(E[f (ê)]). This
follows from the impact of the payoff increase on the benchmark. Yet, in
the case of an exogenous benchmark, the risk reduction is higher the lower
the payoff. Therefore, the risk reduction induced by raising the payoff in
some state minus the expected risk reduction induced by raising the payoff
in every state,
f (eε) + E[f (ê)], in the exogenous benchmark model has the
same properties as the risk reduction in the endogenous benchmark model.
This explains why the first order conditions (11) and (14) look precisely the
same although the optimal portfolios are different because of the different
benchmarks.

In spite of the formal identity of (11) and (14) the optimal solutions to
both problems differ substantially. If the payoff constraint (6) is not binding,
then the optimal solution to the endogenous benchmark-problem is to buy
only the risk free asset. The exogenous benchmark-problem without the
payoff constraint is formally the same as the traditional state preference -EU-
choice problem Max E[u(e)] subject to the budget constraint (5). This follows
since minimizing risk with the risk function being a negative utility function
is formally the same as maximizing expected utility. Hence the investor
minimizing risk with an exogenous benchmark chooses a risky portfolio
e^
even if the payoff constraint (6) is not binding. This implies E(e(o)) > Wq
or, equivalently, an expected gross portfolio return E(R) > 1. The payoff
constraint becomes binding only if the required expected payoff is raised
above this expectation, i.e. if
WqR* > E(e(0)); (see figure 1).

16



More intriguing information

1. Whatever happened to competition in space agency procurement? The case of NASA
2. Innovation in commercialization of pelagic fish: the example of "Srdela Snack" Franchise
3. AJAE Appendix: Willingness to Pay Versus Expected Consumption Value in Vickrey Auctions for New Experience Goods
4. Should informal sector be subsidised?
5. Modellgestützte Politikberatung im Naturschutz: Zur „optimalen“ Flächennutzung in der Agrarlandschaft des Biosphärenreservates „Mittlere Elbe“
6. Electricity output in Spain: Economic analysis of the activity after liberalization
7. The name is absent
8. Une Gestion des ressources humaines à l'interface des organisations : vers une GRH territoriale ?
9. The Response of Ethiopian Grain Markets to Liberalization
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Development in the United States
13. A Duality Approach to Testing the Economic Behaviour of Dairy-Marketing Co-operatives: The Case of Ireland
14. Opciones de política económica en el Perú 2011-2015
15. The name is absent
16. A Location Game On Disjoint Circles
17. Healthy state, worried workers: North Carolina in the world economy
18. The name is absent
19. The Complexity Era in Economics
20. EMU: some unanswered questions