Anticomonotonicity for Preference Axioms: The Natural Counterpart to Comonotonicity

Giulio Principi, Peter Wakker and Ruodu Wang

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: Comonotonicity (``same variation'') of random variables minimizes hedging possibilities and has been widely used, e.g., in Gilboa and Schmeidler's ambiguity models. This paper investigates anticomonotonicity (``opposite variation''; abbreviated ``AC''), the natural counterpart to comonotonicity. It minimizes leveraging rather than hedging possibilities. Surprisingly, AC restrictions of several traditional axioms do not give new models. Instead, they strengthen the foundations of existing classical models: (a) linear functionals through Cauchy's equation; (b) Anscombe-Aumann expected utility; (c) as-if-risk-neutral pricing through no-arbitrage; (d) de Finetti's bookmaking foundation of Bayesianism using subjective probabilities; (e) risk aversion in Savage's subjective expected utility. In each case, our generalizations show where the critical tests of classical axioms lie: in the AC cases (maximal hedges). We next present examples where AC restrictions do essentially weaken existing axioms, and do provide new properties and new models.

Date: 2023-07, Revised 2024-12
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-upt
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.08542 Latest version (application/pdf)

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:arx:papers:2307.08542

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().