Cumulative Prospect Theory and Radner Theory: A Critical Assessment from Nigeria

Main Article Content

Sunday Oseiweh Ogbeide
Peter Ehizokhale Okpamen

Abstract

Aims: This study undertook a critical comparative assessment of cumulative prospect theory and Radner theory. The aim is to examine investors’ behavior in the financial market using these theories. The specific objectives of the study were to examine if there are similarities between the cumulative prospect theory and Radner theory; ascertain the implications of the cumulative prospect theory to financial market; find out the implications of the Radner theory to financial market; and assess the drawbacks of the cumulative prospect a’’nd Radner theories.

Methodology: The study used the desk top library research approach’’ to survey relevant extant literatures on investors’ behaviour in relation to cumulative prospect theory and Radner’’ theory in a comparative manner.

Results: Findings indicate that investors’ behaviour in investment/consu’’mption decision making is predicated on attitude to risk/uncertainty. They prefer higher return to lower risk; higher ‘’satisfaction from commitment of wealth to asset bundle under condition of general equilibrium. These behavioural dispositions have been observed and addressed in the cumulative prospect theory and Radner theory. The finding of this study is that the cumulative prospect and Radner theories serve as the barometers with which investors’ direction of investments are constantly monitored in the stock market globally.

Recommendation: This study therefore recommends that financial analysts and market participants should frequently combine the rudiments of the traditional finance and behavioural finance in analyzing investments as well as observing reactions of myriad competing investors, particularly in perfect markets or in incomplete markets.

Keywords:
Investors’ behavior, cumulative prospect theory, radner theory and general equilibrium.

Article Details

How to Cite
Ogbeide, S. O., & Okpamen, P. E. (2020). Cumulative Prospect Theory and Radner Theory: A Critical Assessment from Nigeria. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 20(3), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2020/v20i330326
Section
Review Article

References

Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton university press. 1944;32:44-78.

Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrics, 1979;47(2):263-291.

Osamwonyi IO, Kasimu A. Behavioural bias factors and investment behavior in the Nigerian stock market. Journal of Banking. 2017;7(1):90-139.

Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992;5(4):297-323.

He XD. Zhou XY. Portfolio choice under cumulative prospect theory: an analytical treatment. Journal of Finance. 2010;23(4):12-45.

Arrow KJ. Leroledes valeurs boursieres pour la repartition la meilleure des risques, in econometric, CNRS, Paris (translated as the role of securities in the optimal allocation of risk-bearing, in Review of Economic Studies. 1953;31:91-96.

Debreu G, Theory of Value, Yale University- press, New Haven; 1959.

Shefrin H, Meir S. The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long; theory and evidence. Journal of Finance, 1985;40(3):777-790.

Phung A. Behavioural finance: key concepts-prospect theory. Investopodia, 2013;1–5.

Rieger MO, Wang M. Prospect theory for continuous distributions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2008;36(1):83–102.

Barberis N, Huang M, Santo T. Prospect theory and asset prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001;CXVI(1):1–53.

Barberis W, Thaler R. A survey of behavioural finance. Handbook of the Economicsof Finance, 2003;1051–1121.

Benartzi S, Thaler RH. Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1995;110(1):73–92.

Bernoulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica. 1954;22:23-36.

Bials E, Glosten L, Spatt C. Market microstructure: A survey of microfoudnations, empirical results, and policy implications. Journal of Financial Markets. 2004;8(2):217–264.

Bui I. Prospect theory and functional choice. A dissertation submitted to the graduate school in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Erasmus mundus master: Models and Methods of Quantitative Economics (QEM). 2009;1-55.

Cass D. Competitive equilibrium with incomplete financial markets, CARESS working paper, (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA). 1984;85-16.

Currim IS, Sarin RK. Prospect versus utility. Management Science. 1989;35:22–41.

Dejong A, Roseuthail L, Van Dijk M. The risk and return of arbitrage in dual listed companies. Review of Finance. 2009;13:495–520.

Diamond P. The role of a stock market in a general equilibrium model with technical uncertainty. American Economic Review, 1967;57:759-776.

Duflie D. Stochastic equilibria with incomplete financial markets. Journal of Economic Theory. 1987;41:405-416.

Duflie D, Shafer W. Equilibrium in incomplete markets: A basic model of generic existence. Journal of Mathematical Economics. 1985;14(3):285-300.

Levy H, Levy M. Prospect theory and mean-variance analysis. The Review of Financial Studies. 2004;17:1015–1041.

Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behaviour. T. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1947;3(42):23-38.

Prelec, D. The probability weighting function. Econometrica. 1998;66(3):497–528.

Quiggin, J. C. A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 1982;3:323-343.

Sanakoplos J, Polemarchakis H. Existence, regularity, and constrained suboptimality of competitive allocations when markets are incomplete in uncertainty, information and communication: Essays in honor of Kenneth Arrow, Heller WP, Ross RM, Starrett eds DA., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986;3.

Thaler R. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science. 1985;4(3):199-214.

Thaler RH. Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making. 1999;12:183–206.