Principle of uncertain future and utility

Harin, Alexander (2007): Principle of uncertain future and utility.

Abstract

The principle of uncertain future: the probability of a future event contains a degree of (hidden) uncertainty. As a result, this uncertainty (in a sense, similar to vibrations, fluctuations) pushes the probability value back from the bounds to the middle of its range (from ~100% and ~0% to the middle probability values). In other words, the real values of high probabilities are lower than the preliminarily determined ones. Conversely, the real values of low probabilities are higher than the preliminarily determined ones. This result provides the uniform solution of a number of fundamental problems: the underweighting of high and the overweighting of low probabilities, the Allais paradox, risk aversion, loss aversion, the Ellsberg paradox, the equity premium puzzle, etc. The principle and its consequences can be applied in the fields of banking, investment, insurance, trade, industry, planning and forecasting. Explanations of the principle and examples of solution of three types of basic utility problems are provided.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Institution: Modern University for the Humanities
• Language: English
• Keywords: risk; market; banking; industry; development; investments; insurance; hidden causes
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E22 - Investment ; Capital ; Intangible Capital ; Capacity; G - Financial Economics > G2 - Financial Institutions and Services > G22 - Insurance ; Insurance Companies ; Actuarial Studies; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory

References

Allais, M. (1953) “Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école Américaine” Econometrica 21, 503-46.

Capuano, C. (2006) “Strategic noise traders and liquidity pressure with a physically deliverable futures contract” International Review of Economics & Finance, 2006, 15, # 1, 1-14.

Chay, K., McEwan, P. and Urquiola, M. (2005) “The Central Role of Noise in Evaluating Interventions that Use Test Scores to Rank Schools” American Economic Review, 2005, 95, # 4, 1237-1258.

Fehr-Duda, H., Schürer, M. and Schubert, R. (2006) “What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function?” Center of Economic Research at ETH Zurich, Working Paper 06/54.

Harin, A. (2006) “Economic uncertainty principle?” Pre- and Post-Print documents from HAL, CCSd/CNRS.

Harin, A. (2005) “A new approach to solve old problems” Game Theory and Information from Economics Working Paper Archive at WUSTL, 0505005.

Harin, A. (2004) “Arrangement infringement possibility approach: some economic features of large-scale events” Research Announcements, Economics Bulletin, November 15, 2004 at http://www.economicsbulletin.uiuc.edu/DisplayList.asp?Type=All&Code=2#more

Hey, J. (2005) “Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise” Experimental Economics, 2005, 8, 325-345.

Hey, J. and Orme, C. (1994) “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data” Econometrica, 62, 1291-1326.

Kahneman, D. and Thaler, R. (2005) “Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility” Working Paper Series SSRN.

Di Mauro, C. and Maffioletti, A. (2004) “Attitudes to risk and attitudes to uncertainty: experimental evidence” Applied Economics, 36, 357-372.

Novarese, M. (2002) “Toward a Cognitive Experimental Economics” Experimental from Economics Working Paper Archive at WUSTL, 0211002.

Quiggin, J. (2005) “The precautionary principle in environmental policy and the theory of choice under uncertainty” No WPM05_3, Murray-Darling Program Working Papers from Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.

Quiggin, J. and Chambers, R. (2005) “Economists and uncertainty” No WP2R05, Risk & Uncertainty Working Papers from Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.

Schoemaker, P. (1982) “The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations” Journal of Economic Literature, XX, 529–563.

Tversky, A. and P. Wakker (1995) “Risk attitudes and decision weights” Econometrica, 63, 1255-1280.