(No-)Betting Pareto Optima Under Rank-Dependent Utility

References

• [1] Abdellaoui M, L’Haridon O, Zank H (2010) Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function. J. Risk Uncertainty 41(1):39–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [2] Aliprantis C, Border K (2006) Infinite Dimensional Analysis, 3rd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg).Google Scholar
• [3] Barbu V, Precupanu T (2012) Convexity and Optimization in Banach Spaces (Springer Science & Business Media, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• [4] Billot A, Chateauneuf A, Gilboa I, Tallon J (2000) Sharing beliefs: Between agreeing and disagreeing. Econometrica 68(3):685–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [5] Billot A, Chateauneuf A, Gilboa I, Tallon J (2002) Sharing beliefs and the absence of betting in the Choquet expected utility model. Statist. Papers 43(1):127–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [6] Cass D, Shell K (1983) Do sunspots matter? J. Political Econom. 91(2):193–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [7] Chateauneuf A, Cohen M (1994) Risk seeking with diminishing marginal utility in a non-expected utility model. J. Risk Uncertainty 9(1):77–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [8] Chateauneuf A, Cohen M, Meilijson I (2004) Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model. J. Math. Econom. 40(5):547–571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [9] Chateauneuf A, Cohen M, Meilijson I (2005) More pessimism than greediness: A characterization of monotone risk aversion in the rank-dependent expected utility model. Econom. Theory 25(3):649–667.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [10] Chew S, Karni E, Safra Z (1987) Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities. J. Econom. Theory 42(2):370–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [11] Cohen M (1995) Risk-aversion concepts in expected- and non-expected-utility models. Geneva Papers Risk Insurance Theory 20(1):73–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [12] De Castro L, Chateauneuf A (2011) Ambiguity aversion and trade. Econom. Theory 48(2/3):243–273.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [13] De Finetti B (1937) La prévision: Ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré 7(1):1–68.Google Scholar
• [14] Dominiak A, Eichberger J, Lefort JP (2012) Agreeable trade with optimism and pessimism. Math. Social Sci. 64(2):119–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [15] Föllmer H, Schied A (2016) Stochastic Finance: An Introduction in Discrete Time, 4th ed. (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin).Crossref, Google Scholar
• [16] Ghirardato P, Siniscalchi M (2018) Risk sharing in the small and in the large. J. Econom. Theory 175(1):730–765.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [17] Ghossoub M, He X (2021) Comparative risk aversion in RDEU with applications to optimal underwriting of securities issuance. Insurance Math. Econom. 101(1):6–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [18] Gilboa I, Samuelson L (2022) No-betting Pareto under ambiguity. Theory Decision 92(3–4):625–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [19] Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1989) Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. J. Math. Econom. 18(2):141–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [20] Gilboa I, Samuelson L, Schmeidler D (2014) No-betting-Pareto dominance. Econometrica 82(4):1405–1442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [21] He X, Kouwenberg R, Zhou X (2017) Rank-dependent utility and risk taking in complete markets. SIAM J. Financial Math. 8(1):214–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [22] Hiriart-Urruty JB, Lemaréchal C (2004) Fundamentals of Convex Analysis (Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg).Google Scholar
• [23] Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [24] Kajii A, Ui T (2006) Agreeable bets with multiple priors. J. Econom. Theory 128(1):299–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [25] Klibanoff P, Marinacci M, Mukerji S (2005) A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73(6):1849–1892.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [26] Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Rustichini A (2006) Ambiguity aversion, robustnsess, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica 74(6):1447–1498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [27] Myerson R (1981) Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res. 6(1):58–73.Link, Google Scholar
• [28] Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [29] Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):323–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [30] Quiggin J (1991) Comparative statics for rank-dependent expected utility theory. J. Risk Uncertainty 4(4):339–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [31] Quiggin J (1993) Generalized Expected Utility Theory—The Rank-Dependent Model (Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands).Crossref, Google Scholar
• [32] Rieger M, Wang M (2006) Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox. Econom. Theory 28(3):665–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [33] Rigotti L, Shannon C, Strzalecki T (2008) Subjective beliefs and ex ante trade. Econometrica 76(5):1167–1190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [34] Ryan M (2006) Risk aversion in RDEU. J. Math. Econom. 42(6):675–697.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [35] Savage L (1972) The Foundations of Statistics, 2nd rev. ed. (Dover Publications, New York).Google Scholar
• [36] Schmeidler D (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57(3):571–587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [37] Tallon J (1998) Do sunspots matter when agents are Choquet-expected-utility maximizers? J. Econom. Dynamic Control 22(3):357–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [38] Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [39] Wakker P (1994) Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion. Theory Decision 36(1):1–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [40] Xu Z (2016) A note on the quantile formulation. Math. Finance 26(3):558–588.Crossref, Google Scholar
• [41] Yaari M (1969) Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses. J. Econom. Theory 1(3):315–329.Crossref, Google Scholar