1 / 18

Revising future valuation: Updating Capacities and Upstating Discount Factors

Revising future valuation: Updating Capacities and Upstating Discount Factors. Robert Kast CNRS, Laboratoire Montpelliérain d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée et Institut d’Economie Publique André Lapied Professor University of Aix-Marseille

pello
Download Presentation

Revising future valuation: Updating Capacities and Upstating Discount Factors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Revising future valuation: Updating Capacities and Upstating Discount Factors Robert Kast CNRS,Laboratoire Montpelliérain d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée et Institut d’Economie Publique André Lapied Professor University of Aix-Marseille Groupement de Recherche en Economie Quantitative d’Aix-Marseille et Institut d’Economie Publique

  2. Motivation: revising valuation in a present certainty equivalent value (NPV) • Integrate option values and flexibilities • In a dynamic setting, the future is described by, at least: • Uncertain states: S • Dates in future Time: T • Information arrivals: measurable functions that take value at some dates • We concentrate on cash flows X: SXT  R+

  3. The role of information on preferences and valuation • Information is not neutral: the way it is integrated in preferences depends on its type. • Good news, i.e. information that confirms forecasts may induce finance analysts to be too optimistic • Bad news are not integrated in the same way • An information that comes too late may induce a change in the preference for present consumption • An information that comes too early may the DM leave unchanged the discount factors • None of these effects are taken care of by usual NPV calculations

  4. Classical NPV and the introduction of non-additive measures • Classical NPV is done with additive measures on uncertain states (probabilities) and on dates (time separable discount factors). • Bayes updating rule and accountants’ time consistency apply: r(T) = r(t) rt(T) • Other rules are obtained for capacities, depending on axioms:Bayes (B), Dempster-Shafer (D), or the Full Bayesian Uptdate (FUBU)

  5. Problems with Dynamic Consistency • Horie (2006) proposes a general updating rule that obtains all others as particular cases. • Most models weaken or drop altogether DC (Eicheberger et al. 2005), they concentrate on some subset of information sets Denneberg 1994, Chateauneuf et al. 2003) • . Sarin Wakker (1998) : under model consistency (MC), dynamic consistency (DC) and consequentialism (C), only the multiprior model fits, that leaves B and FUBU. • Ghirardato (2004) shows that axioms on the whole sigma-algebra yields B only. • In this paper consequentialism is violated by the rules.

  6. X(s, t), w. l. o. g. And let’s add: X(0, 0) = 0 Notations • The future is: ST,S = {1,… , S}, T = {1, … , T}. • Sis endowed with a filtrationF indexed by time: F1 …  FT = 2S. • T is measurable (T,2T). • A cash flow is a non-negative measurable real function: • X: (S T, 2S 2T) R+, and X = [X(1,1), … , X(s,t), … X(S,T)]. • It can be seen as a stochastic process adapted to F: • X = (X1, … , XT), with tT,Xt= X(.,t), Ft-measurable. • Or as a list of trajectories indexed by states in S: X = [X(s, .)]sS with  s  S,X(s, .):(T, 2T)  R+

  7. Preferences valuation and measures 1-Pref. oncertain cash flows are represented by D: RT R, Axioms by Koopmans (1972), or Gilboa (1989) increasing non negative bounded measures on T: p(additive) or r s. t. D is the Choquet integral of payoffs w.r.t. the measure. 2-Pref. onuncertain payoffsare represented by: E :RS R, Axioms by de Finetti (1932) or Chateauneuf (1991),  probability or capacity measures on S: m (additive) or n s.t. E is the Choquet expectation of payoffs w.r.t. the measure. 3- Preferences onuncertain cash flows are represented whether by DE: Discounted Expected uncertain payoffs or by ED: Expected Discounted payoff trajectories.

  8. E(Xt) = Xt(s) Dn(s,t) (1) ,or:E(X)= . Xt(s) m(s)(1') D[X(s,.)] = X(s,t) Dr(s,t)(2) ,or:D(X(s,.)]= X(s,t) p(t)(2’) X(s,t) Dn(s,t)] Dr(t) (3) DE(X) = X(s,t) Dm(s,t)] Dp(t) DE(X) = X(s,t) Dr(s,t)] Dn(s) (4) ED(X) = X(s,t) Dp(s,t)] Dm(s) = =ED(X) Expectations and Discounting Expectations and additive expectations (certainty equivalents): Dn(s,t) = n{ s’ S / X(s’,t)  X(s,t)} - n{s’ S / X(s’,t) > X(s,t)} Discounting and time-separable discounting (present equivalents): Dr(s,t) = r{ t’ T / X(s,t’) X(s,t)} - r{t’ T / X(s,t’) > X(s,t)} Discounted Expected payoffs: Expected Discounted payoffs:

  9. X(s,t) Dn [Yt= i](s,t) pt(t) (3’) Here: DtE[Yt= i](X) = E[Yt= i] Dt(X) = X(s,t) Drt(s,t)m [Yt= i](s)(4’) Information and conditoning Information is yielded by an adpted process(Yt)t=1…T-1in(I, 2I). At date t, information is [Yt=i]inFt. Model Consistency: for any date t and information [Yt =i], conditional preferences satisfy the same axioms and expectations and discounting are computed according to the same models as those at the initial date. Two assumptions: # Only one measure is non-additive: n or r # Conditional discounting is non-random: r [Yt= i] = rt

  10. Hierarchy 1: States then Dates Discounting Expected payoffs, formulas (3) and (3’): DE Dynamic consistency: DE(X) = DE [ (X1, ... , Xt-1, Xt + DtE[Yt= i](X) , 0, … , 0) ]. In the case X = (0, …,0, XT): DE(XT)=DE[DtE[Yt=i](XT)], Separable discountingD(x) = DDt(x) :r(T) = r(t) rt(t+1, …,T) And simplifying away, Dynamic consistency: E(XT)=E [ E[Yt= i](XT) ]. i.e.: It yields an implicit definition of conditional Choquet expectation, from which updating rules are obtained.

  11. 1B 1A 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 X 0 0 or 1 0 1 1 or X' 0 1 Graph 2 Updtating rules for a capacity n(A/B)= E[1B=1](1A), If information is comonotonic with payoffs, Bayes' rule prevails: If information is antimonotonic (1Bcomonotonic with –1A) with payoffs, Dempster-Shafer’s rule obtains:

  12. interpretations • The formulas show the importance of the relation between information and future payoffs, even those that are not possible anymore. • If information is in accordance with future payoffs, it is taken as it is: B conditions the future payoffs (Bayes rule confirms forecasts). • If information goes the other way than future payoffs, its complementary is given more importance (Dempster-Shafer rule infirms forecasts). • But, in both cases, this behaviour shows a lack of confidence in information (Chateauneuf et al. 2003).

  13. Hierarchy 2: Dates then States Formulas (4) and (4’) Dynamic consistency:ED(X) = ED[(X1(s), … , Xt-1(s), Xt(s) + E[Yt= i]Dt[X(s)], 0, … , 0)s[Yt= i]]. In the case of a cash flow of the form: 1E with E a subset of T, and lett- = {1, … , t-1} and t+ = {t+1, ... , T} and ED(1E) = D(1E) = r(E), EDt(1E) = rt(Et+), Then, Dynamic Consistency becomes: ED(1E) = r(E) = ED[(1tE)].

  14. D(X) = xt Dr(t) + r(t) [xt + xt Drt(t) ] Upstating: a special case E = {1, ... ,T} say, a constant coupon on a bond: Which yields, for a riskless cash flow X = (x1, … , xT) where all the xt’s are strictly positive payoffs: Let Et = { t’>t / xt’> xt}, then: Drt(t) = rt( [Et{t’/xt’ = xt}] t+) - rt(Et t+)

  15. Upstating rules for time non-separable discount factors Because of rank dependency: If tE: If tE and If tE and

  16. interpretations • The formulas show the importance of the timing of information arrivals with respect to the payoffs, even the past ones. • It depends also on the preference for present consumption and of aversion to time variability. • An information that arrives after too much payoffs have been cashed, doesn’t change much the valuation. • An information that arrives when a lot of cash is expected does affect valuation and decisions: flexibilities, options, etc.

  17. Updating and Upstating rules violate consequentialism Consequentialism: pref. depend only on future possible consequences Conseqentialism for uncertain payoffs sB, X(s)=X’(s) and Y(s)=Y’(s); and sB, X(s)=Y(s) and X’(s)=Y’(s). Dt E[Yt=i](X)  Dt E[Yt=i](X')  Dt E[Yt=i](Y)  Dt E[Yt=i](Y') But updating depends on payoffs that are NOT POSSIBLE after information Conseqentialism for trajectories Dt(X)  Dt(X')  Dt(Y)  Dt(Y') But upstating depends not only on FUTURE, but also on PAST payoffs

  18. To be continued … • Applications 1: Managing insurance portfolios when static vs dynamic matters: abondon « consequentialism »? • Application 2: The observed behaviours of Finance analysts (forecasts): sensitive on the « comonotonicity » of information and previous predictions?, i.e.: (too) optimistic when information is « good » and (too) pessimistic when information is « bad ». • At the theoretical level: 1. What if rtis really r[Yt= i]: what is DE(r[Yt= i] E[Yt= i])? 2. How to formalise preferences if they are contingent on other parameters than dates and states? 3. Or on the future as a whole (not a product space)?

More Related