Behavorial Models of Financial and Betting Markets
Zusammenfassung
Daily people have to make decisions under uncertainty since they usually cannot control all factors influencing the consequences of their decisions. Also most significant decisions in economic terms have to be made under uncertainty. This is obvious for investments of the stock market or taking up insurance. But also many other cases like educational or entrepreneurial decisions involve uncertainty. All the examples mentioned have in common that they have a strong impact on economic growth and welfare. This is particularly true for developing countries as, due to the absence of financial institutions and sufficient health services, people here face higher risks than people in developed countries. Also the most severe economic problems at the global level like mitigating climate change, fighting poverty, or regulating speculation on financial markets cannot be properly analyzed without taking into account the involved uncertainties.
In view of these facts it seems evident that adequate models of individual decision making under uncertainty is crucial for positive economic analyses. A bulk of empirical studies has shown that the classical normative framework of expected utility theory is often not able to accommodate observed patterns of decision making. Well known examples from empirical finance are the equity premium puzzle or the disposition effect. The empirical evidence has motivated the development of numerous alternative theories which aim at giving a more realistic account of real choice behavior. Prospect theory which differs from expected utility theory be probability weighting and reference dependence, has become nowadays the most prominent alternative theory.
But also prospect theory is often violated in specific choice problems. Particularly, new experimental studies show that reference dependence is not adequately modeled in prospect theory. Additionally, there is evidence that individual behavior cannot be captured by a deterministic theory as prospect theory, since people often behave randomly or make errors. Therefore, stochastic theories have to be developed and tested.
The present project aims at contributing to an improved descriptive modeling of individual choice under uncertainty and application to the analysis of financial markets. We will also consider sport betting markets as they have many parallels to financial markets but are easier to analyze as for sport events only a small number of well-defined states of nature exist. Altogether the project has the following goals:
- Development of new theories of choice under risk which provide an improved accommodation of empirical evidence
- Application of these theories to financial and betting market
- Empirical, in particular experimental tests of the new theories
- Analysis of efficiency and regulation of betting markets and application of the results to financial markets
Recent Publications
-
Forthcoming
- Lohse, T., Robledo, J., Schmidt, U. (Forthcoming). Self-Insurance and Self-Protection as Public Goods. Journal of Risk and Insurance
- Roos, M., Schmidt, U. (Forthcoming). The importance of time series extrapolation for macroeconomic expectations. German Economic Review
- Schmidt, U., Zimper, A. (Forthcoming). Explaining the harmonic sequence paradox. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
- Trautmann, S., Schmidt, U. (Forthcoming). Pricing risk and ambiguity: The effect of perspective taking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
-
2012
- Schmidt, U. (2012). Insurance Demand and Prospect Theory. Kiel Working Paper, 1750, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, 6 pp.
-
2011
- Cox, J., Sadiraj, V., Schmidt, U. (2011). Paradoxes and Mechanisms for Choice under Risk. Kiel Working Paper, 1712, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, 44 pp.
- Maschke, M., Schmidt, U. (2011). Das Wettmonopol in Deutschland: Status Quo und Reformansätze. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, 60(1): 110-123
- Michailova, J., Schmidt, U. (2011). Overconfidence and Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets. Kiel Working Paper, 1729, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, 35 pp.
- Roos, M., Schmidt, U. (2011). The importance of time series extrapolation for macroeconomic expectations. Kiel Working Paper, 1723, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, 25 pp.
- Schmidt, U., Zimper, A. (2011). Explaining the harmonic sequence paradox. Kiel Working Paper, 1724, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, 18 pp.
- Trautmann, S., Schmidt, U. (2011). Pricing risk and ambiguity: The effect of perspective taking. Kiel Working Paper, 1727, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, 14 pp.
-
2010
- Birnbaum, M., Schmidt, U. (2010). Allais Paradoxes Can be Reversed by Presenting Choices in Canonical Split Form. Kiel Working Papers, 1615, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, 28 S.
- Birnbaum, M., Schmidt, U., , M. (2010). Testing Independence Conditions in the Presence of Errors and Splitting Effects. Kiel Working Papers, 1614, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, 27 S.
- Birnbaum, M., Schmidt, U. (2010). Testing Transitivity in Choice under Risk. Theory and Decision, 69 (4), 599-614.
- Lohse, T., Robledo, J., Schmidt, U. (2010). Self-Insurance and Self-Protection as Public Goods. Kiel Working Paper, 1613, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, 28 S.
- Menkhoff, L., Schmeling, M., Schmidt, U. (2010). Are All Professional Investors Sophisticated?. German Economic Review, 11 (4), 418-440.
- Menkhoff, L., Schmeling, M., Schmidt, U. (2010). Overconfidence, Experience, and Professionalism: An Experimental Study. Kiel Working Papers, 1612, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, 17 pp.
- Schmidt, U. (2010). Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives and Random Incentive Mechanisms. Kiel Working Paper, 1646, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, 5 pp.
- Schmidt, U., Zank, H. (2010). Endogenizing Prospect Theory's Reference Point. Kiel Working Papers, 1611, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, 16 pp.
- Schmidt, U., Trautmann, S. (2010). Common Consequence Effects with Pricing Data. Kiel Working Papers, 1610, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, 6 pp.
-
2009
- Bleichrodt, H., Schmidt, U., Zank, H. (2009). Additive Utility in Prospect Theory. Management Science, 55(5), 863-873.
- Bleichrodt, H., Schmidt, U. (2009). Applications of Non-Expected Utility. P. Anand and C. Puppe (eds), Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press
- Diecidue, E., Schmidt, U., Zank, H. (2009). Parametric Weighting Functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(3), 1102-1118.
- Hey, J., Morone, A., Schmidt, U. (2009). Noise and Bias in Eliciting Preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39 (3), 213-235.
- Maffioletti, A., Schmidt, U., Schröder, C. (2009). The Effect of Elicitation Methods on Ambiguity Aversion: An Experimental Investigation. Economics Bulletin, 29, 645-650.
- Schmidt, U., Zank, H. (2009). A Simple Model of Cumulative Prospect Theory. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 45(3-4), 308-319.
-
2008
- Birnbaum, M., Schmidt, U. (2008). An Experimental Investigation of Violations of Transitivity in Choice under Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(1), 77-91.
- Morone, A., Schmidt, U. (2008). An Experimental Investigation of Alternatives to Expected Utility Using Pricing Data. Economics Bulletin, 4(20), 1-12.
- Schmidt, U., Zank, H. (2008). Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory. Management Science, 54, 208-216.
- Schmidt, U., Starmer, C., Sudgen, R. (2008). Third-Generation Prospect Theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 202-223.
-
- Schmidt, U., Zank, H. Endogenizing Prospekct Theory's Reference Point.