Moment Risks: Investment for Self and for a Firm

References

• Abdellaoui M, Bleichrodt H, Kammoun H (2013) Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study. Theory Decision 74(3):411–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acharya V, Richardson M (2009) Causes of the financial crisis. Critical Rev. 21(2–3):195–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersson O, Holm H, Tyran J, Wengström E (2016) Risk aversion relates to cognitive ability: Preferences or noise? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 14(5):1129–1154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrondel L, Debbich M, Savignac F (2014) Financial literacy and financial planning in france. Numeracy 6(2):8.Google Scholar
• Åstebro T, Mata J, Santos-Pinto L (2015) Skewness seeking: Risk loving, optimism or overweighting of small probabilities? Theory Decision 78(2):189–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Schlesinger H, van de Kuilen G (2018) Measuring higher order ambiguity preferences. Experiment. Econom. 21(2):233–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Rata C (2006) A survey study of factors influencing risk-taking behavior in real-world decisions under uncertainty. Decision Anal. 3(3):163–176.Link, Google Scholar
• Bernoulli D (1738) Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitana 5:175–192.Google Scholar
• Binswanger H (1980) Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. Amer. J. Agricultural Econom. 62(3):395–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy P, Pogrebna G (2008) Risk aversion when gains are likely and unlikely: Evidence from a natural experiment with large stakes. Theory Decision 64(2–3):395–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy P, Pogrebna G (2010) Endowment effects? “Even” with half a million on the table! Theory Decision 68(1–2):173–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bodily S, Pfeifer P (2010) Darden’s luckiest student: Lessons from a high-stakes risk experiment. Decision Anal. 7(4):331–345.Link, Google Scholar
• Booij A, Van Praag B, Van De Kuilen G (2010) A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population. Theory Decision 68(1–2):115–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breaban A, van de Kuilen G, Noussair C (2016) Prudence, emotional state, personality, and cognitive ability. Frontiers Psych. 7:1688.Google Scholar
• Brown R (1965) Social Psychology (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Bruhn M, Zia B (2011) The impact of business and financial literacy training for young entrepreneurs in Bosnia-Herzogovina. World Bank, mimeo. Accessed January 2, 2018, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEVIMPEVAINI/Resources/Bruhn_Zia-BusinessandFinancialLiteracyforYoungEntrepreneurs.pdf.Google Scholar
• Brünner T, Levínskỳ R, Qiu J (2011) Preferences for skewness: Evidence from a binary choice experiment. Eur. J. Finance 17(7):525–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caballé J, Pomansky A (1996) Mixed risk aversion. J. Econom. Theory 71(2):485–513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calomiris C (2009) The subprime turmoil: What’s old, what’s new, and what’s next. J. Structured Finance 15(1):6–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Hogarth R (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. J. Risk Uncertainty 19(1–3):7–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell J (2006) Household finance. J. Finance 61(4):1553–1604.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaigneau P (2015) Risk aversion, prudence, and compensation. Eur. J. Finance 21(15):1357–1373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravarty S, Harrison G, Haruvy E, Rutström E (2011) Are you risk averse over other people’s money? Southern Econom. J. 77(4):901–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christ M, Sedatole K, Towry K (2012) Sticks and carrots: The effect of contract frame on effort in incomplete contracts. Accounting Rev. 87(6):1913–1938.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Citci S, Inci E (2016) The masquerade ball of the CEOs and the mask of excessive risk. Econom. Modell. 58(November):383–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crainich D, Eeckhoudt L, Trannoy A (2013) Even (mixed) risk lovers are prudent. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(4):1529–1535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dave C, Eckel C, Johnson C, Rojas C (2010) Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? J. Risk Uncertainty 41(3):219–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deck C, Schlesinger H (2010) Exploring higher order risk effects. Rev. Econom. Stud. 77(4):1403–1420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deck C, Schlesinger H (2014) Consistency of higher order risk preferences. Econometrica 82(5):1913–1943.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deck C, Lee J, Reyes J (2014) Investing versus gambling: Experimental evidence of multi-domain risk attitudes. Appl. Econom. Lett. 21(1):19–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drexler A, Fischer G, Schoar A (2014) Keeping it simple: Financial literacy and rules of thumb. Amer. Econom. J.: Appl. Econom. 6(2):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ebert S (2013) Moment characterization of higher-order risk preferences. Theory Decision 74(2):267–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ebert S (2015) On skewed risks in economic models and experiments. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 112(April):85–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ebert S, Van de Kuilen G (2015) Measuring multivariate risk preferences. Working paper, Tilburg University, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Ebert S, Wiesen D (2011) Testing for prudence and skewness seeking. Management Sci. 57(7):1334–1349.Link, Google Scholar
• Ebert S, Wiesen D (2014) Joint measurement of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance. J. Risk Uncertainty 48(3):231–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman P (2008) Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Plott CR, Smith VL, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Results, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam),1061–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L, Schlesinger H (2006) Putting risk in its proper place. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(1):280–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faro D, Rottenstreich Y (2006) Affect, empathy, and regressive mispredictions of others’ preferences under risk. Management Sci. 52(4):529–541.Link, Google Scholar
• Gerardi K, Goette L, Meier S (2010) Financial literacy and subprime mortgage delinquency: Evidence from a survey matched to administrative data. Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta.Google Scholar
• Hadar L, Fischer I (2008) Giving advice under uncertainty: What you do, what you should do, and what others think you do. J. Econom. Psych. 29(5):667–683.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haering A, Heinrich T, Mayrhofer T (2017) Exploring the consistency of higher-order risk preferences. Ruhr Economic Papers No. 688, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany.Google Scholar
• Harrison GW (1986) An experimental test for risk aversion. Econom. Lett. 21(1):7–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hastings J, Madrian BC, Skimmyhorn W (2013) Financial literacy, financial education, and economic outcomes. Annual Rev. Econom. 5(August):347–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heinrich T, Mayrhofer T (2018) Higher-order risk preferences in social settings. Experiment. Econom. 21(2):434–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hilgert M, Hogarth J, Beverly S (2003) Household financial management: The connection between knowledge and behavior. Federal Res. Bull. 89(July):309–322.Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury S (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C, Weber E (1997) A fundamental prediction error: Self–others discrepancies in risk preference. J. Experiment. Psych.: General 126(1):45–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Humphrey S, Renner E (2011) The social costs of responsibility. Working paper, CeDEx, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
• Kachelmeier S, Shehata M (1992) Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. Amer. Econom. Rev. 82(5):1120–1141.Google Scholar
• Kalayci K, Serra-Garcia M (2016) Complexity and biases. Experiment. Econom. 19(1):31–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, Valdivia M (2011) Teaching entrepreneurship: Impact of business training on microfinance clients and institutions. Rev. Econom. Statist. 93(2):510–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimball M (1990) Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. Econometrica 58(1):53–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimball M (1992) Precautionary motives for holding assets. Newman P, Milgate M, Falwell J, eds. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance, Vol. 3 (MacMillan, London), 158–161.Google Scholar
• Lewellyn K, Muller-Kahle M (2012) CEO power and risk taking: Evidence from the subprime lending industry. Corporate Governance: Internat. Rev. 20(3):289–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Z, Rohde K, Wakker P (2015) Improving one’s choices by putting oneself in others’ shoes—An experimental analysis. J. Risk Uncertainty 54(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lusardi A (2003) Saving and the effectiveness of financial education. Working paper, George Washington University, Washington DC.Google Scholar
• Lusardi A, Mitchell O (2007) Financial literacy and retirement planning: New evidence from the RAND American Life Panel. Working paper, George Washington University, Washington DC.Google Scholar
• Lusardi A, Mitchell O (2008) Planning and financial literacy: How do women fare? Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(2):413–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lusardi A, Mitchell O (2011) Financial literacy and planning: Implications for retirement wellbeing. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Lusardi A, Mitchell O (2014) The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidences. J. Econom. Literature 52(1):5–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lusardi A, Tufano P (2015) Debt literacy, financial experiences, and overindebtedness. J. Pension Econom. Finance 14(4):332–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maier J, Ruger M (2011) Experimental evidence on higher-order risk preferences with real monetary losses. Working paper, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
• Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J. Finance 7(1):77–91.Google Scholar
• Mather M, Mazar N, Gorlick M, Lighthall N, Burgeno J, Schoeke A, Ariely D (2012) Risk preferences and aging: The certainty effect in older adults’ decision making. Psych. Aging 27(4):801–816.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore D (2003) Survey of financial literacy in washington state: Knowledge, behavior, attitudes, and experiences. Technical Report 03-39, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
• Neely A (2007) Business Performance Measurement: Unifying Theory and Integrating Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nosić A, Weber M (2010) How riskily do I invest? The role of risk attitudes, risk perceptions, and overconfidence. Decision Anal. 7(3):282–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Noussair CN, Trautmann S, Van de Kuilen G (2013) Higher order risk attitudes, demographics, and financial decisions. Rev. Econom. Stud. 81(1):325–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pollmann M, Potters J, Trautmann S (2014) Risk taking by agents: The role of ex-ante and ex-post accountability. Econom. Lett. 123(3):387–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reynolds D, Joseph J, Sherwood R (2011) Risky shift versus cautious shift: Determining differences in risk taking between private and public management decision-making. J. Bus. Econom. Res. 7(1):63–78.Google Scholar
• Roger P (2011a) Mixed risk aversion and preference for risk disaggregation: A story of moments. Theory Decision 70(1):27–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roger P (2011b) Testing alternative theories of financial decision making: A survey study with lottery bonds. J. Behavioral Finance 12(4):219–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross L, Greene D, House P (1977) The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 13(3):279–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothschild M, Stiglitz J (1970) Increasing risk: I. a definition. J. Econom. Theory 2(3):225–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott R, Horvath P (1980) On the direction of preference for moments of higher order than the variance. J. Finance 35(4):915–919.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silverman B (1986) Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 26 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sinclair-Desgagne B, Spaeter S (2013) The prudent principal. Working paper, French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS, Paris; Bureau of Economic Theory and Application (BETA), Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
• Soane E, Chmiel N (2005) Are risk preferences consistent? The influence of decision domain and personality. Personality Individual Differences 38(8):1781–1791.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stone E, Yates A, Caruthers A (2002) Risk taking in decision making for others versus the self. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 32(9):1797–1824.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sun Q, Liu Y, Zhang H, Lu J (2017) Increased social distance makes people more risk-neutral. J. Soc. Psych. 157(4):502–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tarazona-Gomez M (2004) Are individuals prudent? An experimental approach using lottery choices. Working paper, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
• Taylor M (2016) Are high-ability individuals really more tolerant of risk? A test of the relationship between risk aversion and cognitive ability. J. Behavioral Experiment. Econom. 63(August):136–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (2011) The financial crisis inquiry report: Final report of the National Commission on the causes of the financial and economic crisis in the United States. Report, U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Valencia F (2014) Monetary policy, bank leverage, and financial stability. J. Econom. Dynam. Control 47(October):20–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vrecko D, Langer T (2013) What are investors willing to pay to customize their investment product? Management Sci. 59(8):1855–1870.Link, Google Scholar
• Vrecko D, Klos A, Langer T (2009) Impact of presentation format and self-reported risk aversion on revealed skewness preferences. Decision Anal. 6(2):57–74.Link, Google Scholar
• Weber E, Blais AR, Betz N (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J. Behavioral Decision Making 15(4):263–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838.Crossref, Google Scholar