Risk aversion and skewness preference

Thierry Post, Pim van Vliet, Haim Levy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Empirically, co-skewness of asset returns seems to explain a substantial part of the cross-sectional variation of mean return not explained by beta. This finding is typically interpreted in terms of a risk averse representative investor with a cubic utility function. This paper questions this interpretation. We show that the empirical tests fail to impose risk aversion and the implied utility function takes an inverse S-shape. Unfortunately, the first-order conditions are not sufficient to guarantee that the market portfolio is the global maximum for this utility function, and our results suggest that the market portfolio is more likely to represent the global minimum. In addition, if we do impose risk aversion, then co-skewness has minimal explanatory power.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1178-1187
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Banking and Finance
Volume185
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Skewness
Utility function
Risk aversion
Coskewness
Market portfolio
Empirical test
Investors
Asset returns
Risk-averse
Guarantee

Keywords

  • 3M CAPM
  • Asset pricing
  • Asymmetry
  • Co-skewness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Finance
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

Risk aversion and skewness preference. / Post, Thierry; van Vliet, Pim; Levy, Haim.

In: Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 185, 07.2005, p. 1178-1187.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Post, Thierry ; van Vliet, Pim ; Levy, Haim. / Risk aversion and skewness preference. In: Journal of Banking and Finance. 2005 ; Vol. 185. pp. 1178-1187.
@article{6f3785943e8c49b2a29ab1af67feb455,
title = "Risk aversion and skewness preference",
abstract = "Empirically, co-skewness of asset returns seems to explain a substantial part of the cross-sectional variation of mean return not explained by beta. This finding is typically interpreted in terms of a risk averse representative investor with a cubic utility function. This paper questions this interpretation. We show that the empirical tests fail to impose risk aversion and the implied utility function takes an inverse S-shape. Unfortunately, the first-order conditions are not sufficient to guarantee that the market portfolio is the global maximum for this utility function, and our results suggest that the market portfolio is more likely to represent the global minimum. In addition, if we do impose risk aversion, then co-skewness has minimal explanatory power.",
keywords = "3M CAPM, Asset pricing, Asymmetry, Co-skewness",
author = "Thierry Post and {van Vliet}, Pim and Haim Levy",
year = "2005",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.02.008",
language = "English",
volume = "185",
pages = "1178--1187",
journal = "Journal of Banking and Finance",
issn = "0378-4266",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk aversion and skewness preference

AU - Post, Thierry

AU - van Vliet, Pim

AU - Levy, Haim

PY - 2005/7

Y1 - 2005/7

N2 - Empirically, co-skewness of asset returns seems to explain a substantial part of the cross-sectional variation of mean return not explained by beta. This finding is typically interpreted in terms of a risk averse representative investor with a cubic utility function. This paper questions this interpretation. We show that the empirical tests fail to impose risk aversion and the implied utility function takes an inverse S-shape. Unfortunately, the first-order conditions are not sufficient to guarantee that the market portfolio is the global maximum for this utility function, and our results suggest that the market portfolio is more likely to represent the global minimum. In addition, if we do impose risk aversion, then co-skewness has minimal explanatory power.

AB - Empirically, co-skewness of asset returns seems to explain a substantial part of the cross-sectional variation of mean return not explained by beta. This finding is typically interpreted in terms of a risk averse representative investor with a cubic utility function. This paper questions this interpretation. We show that the empirical tests fail to impose risk aversion and the implied utility function takes an inverse S-shape. Unfortunately, the first-order conditions are not sufficient to guarantee that the market portfolio is the global maximum for this utility function, and our results suggest that the market portfolio is more likely to represent the global minimum. In addition, if we do impose risk aversion, then co-skewness has minimal explanatory power.

KW - 3M CAPM

KW - Asset pricing

KW - Asymmetry

KW - Co-skewness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43949084402&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=43949084402&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.02.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.02.008

M3 - Article

VL - 185

SP - 1178

EP - 1187

JO - Journal of Banking and Finance

JF - Journal of Banking and Finance

SN - 0378-4266

ER -