The Case Against Power Utility and a Suggested Alternative: Resurrecting Exponential Utility

Alpanda, Sami and Woglom, Geoffrey (2007): The Case Against Power Utility and a Suggested Alternative: Resurrecting Exponential Utility.

Abstract

Utility modeled as a power function is commonly used in the literature despite the fact that it is unbounded and generates asset pricing puzzles. The unboundedness property leads to St. Petersburg paradox issues and indifference to compound gambles, but these problems have largely been ignored. The asset pricing puzzles have been solved by introducing habit formation to the usual power utility. Given these issues, we believe it is time re-examine exponential utility. Exponential utility was abandoned largely because it implies increasing relative risk aversion in a cross-section of individuals and nonstationarity of the aggregate consumption to wealth ratio, contradicting macroeconomic data. We propose an alternative preference specification with exponential utility and relative habit formation. We show that this utility function is bounded, consistent with asset pricing facts, generates near-constant relative risk aversion in a cross-section of individuals and a stationary ratio of aggregate consumption to wealth.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: unbounded utility, asset pricing puzzles, habit formation
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; G - Financial Economics > G1 - General Financial Markets > G11 - Portfolio Choice ; Investment Decisions

References

Abel, A. (1990), “Asset Prices Under Habit Formation and Catching Up with the Joneses,” American Economic Review, 80, pp. 38-42.

Arrow, K., (1971), Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing, (Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.)

Campbell, J. and J. Cochrane (1999), “By Force of Hasbit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, 107, pp. 205-51.

Cochrane, J. (2006), “Financial Markets and the Real Economy,” Manuscript, University of Chicago.

Constantinides, G. (1990), “Habit Formation: A Resolution of the Equity Premium Puzzle,” The Journal of Political Economy, 98, (June), pp. 519-43.

Davis, M. and R. Martin, (2005) “Housing, House Prices and the Equity Premium Puzzle,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series: 2005-13, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Epstein, L. and S. Zin, (1991), “Substitution, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Asset Returns,” Journal of Political Economy, 99, pp. 263-86.

Friend, I. and M. Blume (1975), “The Demand for Risky Assets,” American Economic Review, 65 (December), pp. 900-22.

Gali, J. (1994), “Keeping Up with the Joneses: Consumption Externalities, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Prices,” Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 26, pp. 1-8.

Kocherlakota, N. (1996), “The Equity Premium: It’s Still a Puzzle,” Journal of Economic Literature, 34, (March), pp. 42-71.

Mehra, R. and E. Prescott (1985), “The Equity Premium Puzzle,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 15, (March), pp. 145-161.

Merton R., (1969), “Lifetime Portfolio Selection by Dynamic under Uncertainty: The Continuous Time Case,” Review of Economic Statistics, 51 (August), pp. 247-57.

_________, (1992), Continuous Time Finance, (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing Co.).

Meyer, D. and J. Meyer (2005), “Risk Preferences in Multi-Period Consumption Models, the Equity Premium Puzzle, and Habit Formation Utility,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 52, (November), pp. 1497-515.

Samuelson, P. (1963), “A Fallacy of the Law of Large Numbers,” Scienta, 6th series, 57th year, (April-May).

_________ (1969), “Lifetime Portfolio Selection by Dynamic Stochastic Programming,” Review of Economic Studies, 51 (August), pp. 239-46.

Sundaresan, S. (1989), “Intertemporally Dependent Preferences and the Volatility of Consumption and Wealth,” Review of Financial Studies, 2, pp. 73-89.

Weil, P. (1989), “The Equity Premium Puzzle and the Risk-Free Rate Puzzle,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 24, (November), pp. 401-21.