Towards multi‐factor models of decision making and risk

Michael Nwogugu

Journal of Risk Finance, 2005, vol. 6, issue 3, 267-274

Abstract: Purpose - The purposes of this article are to evaluate models of stock market risk developed by Robert Engle, and related models (ARCH, GARCH, VAR, etc.); to establish whether prospect theory, cumulative prospect theory, expected utility theory, and market‐risk models (ARCH, GARCH, VAR, etc.) are related and have the same foundations. Design/methodology/approach - The author critiques existing academic work on risk, decision making, prospect theory, cumulative prospect theory, expected utility theory, VAR and other market‐risk models (ARCH, GARCH, etc.) and analyzes the shortcomings of various measures of risk (standard deviation, VAR, etc.). Findings - Prospect theory, cumulative prospect theory, expected utility theory, and market‐risk models are conceptually the same and do not account for many facets of risk and decision making. Risk and decision making are better quantified and modeled using a mix of situation‐specific dynamic, quantitative, and qualitative factors. Belief systems (a new model developed by the author) can better account for the multi‐dimensional characteristics of risk and decision making. The market‐risk models developed by Engle and related models (ARCH, GARCH, VAR, etc.) are inaccurate, do not incorporate many factors inherent in stock markets and asset prices, and thus are not useful and accurate in many asset markets. Research limitations/implications - Areas for further research include: development of dynamic market‐risk models that incorporate asset‐market psychology, liquidity, market size, frequency of trading, knowledge differences among market participants, and trading rules in each market; and further development of concepts in belief systems. Practical implications - Decision making and risk assessment are multi‐criteria processes that typically require some processing of information, and thus cannot be defined accurately by rigid quantitative models. Existing market‐risk models are inaccurate – many international banks, central banks, government agencies, and financial institutions use these models for risk management, capital allocation, portfolio management, and investments, and thus the international financial system may be compromised. Originality/value - The critiques, ideas, and new theories in the article were all developed by the author. The issues discussed in the article are relevant to a multiplicity of situations and people in any case that requires decision making and risk assessment.

Keywords: Decision making; Complexity theory; Artificial intelligence; Psychology (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:jrfpps:15265940510599865

DOI: 10.1108/15265940510599865

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk Finance is currently edited by Nawazish Mirza

More articles in Journal of Risk Finance from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().