Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting

References

• Abdellaoui M (2002) A genuine rank-dependent generalization of the Von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility theorem. Econometrica 70(2):717–736.Crossref, Google Scholar
• An L, Wang H, Wang J, Yu J (2020) Lottery-related anomalies: The role of reference-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 66(1):473–501.Link, Google Scholar
• Andrei D, Cujean J, Wilson MI (2021) The lost capital asset pricing model. Preprint, submitted December 2, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2922598.Google Scholar
• Baele L, Driessen J, Ebert S, Londono JM, Spalt OG (2019) Cumulative prospect theory, option returns, and the variance premium. Rev. Financial Stud. 32(9):3667–3723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker M, Bradley B, Wurgler J (2011) Benchmarks as limits to arbitrage: Understanding the low-volatility anomaly. Financial Anal. J. 67(1):40–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bali TG, Engle RF, Murray S (2016) Empirical Asset Pricing: The Cross Section of Stock Returns (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Bali TG, Engle RF, Tang Y (2017a) Dynamic conditional beta is alive and well in the cross-section of daily stock returns. Management Sci. 63(11):3760–3779.Link, Google Scholar
• Bali TG, Brown SJ, Murray S, Tang Y (2017b) A lottery-demand-based explanation of the beta anomaly. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 52(6):2369–2397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N (2013) The psychology of tail events: Progress and challenges. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(3):611–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Huang M (2008) Stocks as lotteries: The implications of probability weighting for security prices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(5):2066–2100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Mukherjee A, Wang B (2016) Prospect theory and stock returns: An empirical test. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(11):3068–3107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Black F, Jensen MC, Scholes M (1972) The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests (Praeger Publishers, New York).Google Scholar
• Bollerslev T, Todorov V, Xu L (2015) Tail risk premia and return predictability. J. Financial Econom. 118(1):113–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2012) Salience theory of choice under risk. Quart. J. Econom. 127(3):1243–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brockett PL, Golden LL (1987) A class of utility functions containing all the common utility functions. Management Sci. 33(8):955–964.Link, Google Scholar
• De Giorgi EG, Legg S (2012) Dynamic portfolio choice and asset pricing with narrow framing and probability weighting. J. Econom. Dynamic Control 36(7):951–972.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, French KR (1992) The cross-section of expected stock returns. J. Finance 47(2):427–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, MacBeth JD (1973) Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. J. Political Econom. 81(3):607–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frazzini A, Pedersen LH (2014) Betting against beta. J. Financial Econom. 111(1):1–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green TC, Hwang BH (2012) Initial public offerings as lotteries: Skewness preference and first-day returns. Management Sci. 58(2):432–444.Link, Google Scholar
• Hansen LP (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50(4):1029–1054.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Humphrey SJ, Verschoor A (2009) Choice under uncertainty: Evidence from Ethiopia, India and Uganda. Econom. J. (London) 120(543):80–104.Google Scholar
• Harvey CR, Siddique A (2000) Conditional skewness in asset pricing tests. J. Finance 55(3):1263–1295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33(2–3):61–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I (2004) Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psych. Sci. 15(8):534–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong H, Sraer DA (2016) Speculative betas. J. Finance 71(5):2095–2144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu M, Krajbich I, Zhao C, Camerer CF (2009) Neural response to reward anticipation under risk is nonlinear in probabilities. J. Neuroscience 29(7):2231–2237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Humphrey SJ, Verschoor A (2004) The probability weighting function: Experimental evidence from Uganda, India and Ethiopia. Econom. Lett. 84(3):419–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jagannathan R, Wang Z (1996) The conditional CAPM and the cross-section of expected returns. J. Finance 51(1):3–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jin H, Xia J, Zhou XY (2019) Arrow–Debreu equilibria for rank-dependent utilities with heterogeneous probability weighting. Math. Finance 29(3):898–927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelly B, Jiang H (2014) Tail risk and asset prices. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(10):2841–2871.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kozhan R, Neuberger A, Schneider P (2013) The skew risk premium in the equity index market. Rev. Financial Stud. 26(9):2174–2203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraus A, Litzenberger RH (1976) Skewness preference and the valuation of risk assets. J. Finance 31(4):1085–1100.Google Scholar
• Lintner J (1965) Security prices, risk, and maximal gains from diversification. J. Finance 20(4):587–615.Google Scholar
• Liu J, Stambaugh RF, Yuan Y (2018) Absolving beta of volatility’s effects. J. Financial Econom. 128(1):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RC (1980) On estimating the expected return on the market: An exploratory investigation. J. Financial Econom. 8(4):323–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mossin J (1966) Equilibrium in a capital asset market. Econometrica 34(4):768–783.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polkovnichenko V, Zhao F (2013) Probability weighting functions implied in options prices. J. Financial Econom. 107(3):580–609.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post T, Levy H (2005) Does risk seeking drive stock prices? A stochastic dominance analysis of aggregate investor preferences and beliefs. Rev. Financial Stud. 18(3):925–953.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):323–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1993) Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roll R, Ross SA (1994) On the cross-sectional relation between expected returns and betas. J. Finance 49(1):101–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg JV, Engle RF (2002) Empirical pricing kernels. J. Financial Econom. 64(3):341–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmeidler D (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57(3):571–587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharpe WF (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J. Finance 19(3):425–442.Google Scholar
• Shefrin H (2008) A Behavioral Approach to Asset Pricing (Elsevier, New York).Google Scholar
• Tanaka T, Camerer CF, Nguyen Q (2010) Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):557–571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G, Gonzalez R (1996) Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Sci. 42(12):1676–1690.Link, Google Scholar
• Xia J, Zhou XY (2016) Arrow–Debreu equilibria for rank-dependent utilities. Math. Finance 26(3):558–588.Crossref, Google Scholar