Theory and Decision

, Volume 70, Issue 2, pp 179–193 | Cite as

Portfolio allocation and asset demand with mean-variance preferences

  • Thomas Eichner
  • Andreas WagenerEmail author


We analyze the comparative static effects of changes in the means, the standard deviations and the covariance of asset returns in a standard portfolio selection problem when investors have mean variance preferences. Simple and intuitive characterizations in terms of the elasticity of risk aversion are provided.


Mean Variance Elasticity of risk aversion 

JEL Classification



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bigelow J. P. (1993) Consistency of mean-variance analysis and expected utility analysis. Economics Letters 43: 187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chamberlain G. (1983) A characterization of the distributions that imply mean-variance utility functions. Journal of Economic Theory 29: 185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eichner T. (2008) Mean variance vulnerability. Management Science 54: 586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eichner T., Wagener A. (2003) Variance vulnerability, background risk and mean variance preferences. General Papers of Risk and Insurance Theory 28: 173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eichner T., Wagener A. (2009) Multiple risks and mean variance preferences. Operations Research 57: 1142–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein L. (1985) Decreasing risk aversion and mean-variance analysis. Econometrica 53: 945–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Epstein L. G., Tanny S. M. (1980) Increasing generalized correlation: a definition and some economic consequences. Canadian Journal of Economics 13: 16–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fishburn P. C., Porter R. B. (1976) Optimal portfolios with one safe and one risky asset: Effects of changes in rate of return and risk. Management Science 22: 1064–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hadar J., Seo T. K. (1990) The effect of shifts in a return distribution on optimal portfolios. International Economic Review 31: 721–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lajeri F., Nielsen L. T. (2000) Parametric characterizations of risk aversion and prudence. Economic Theory 15: 469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lajeri-Chaherli F. (2003) Partial derivatives, comparative risk behavior and concavity of utility functions. Mathematical Social Sciences 46: 81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Markowitz H. (1952) Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance 7: 77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer J. (1987) Two-moment decision models and expected utility maximization. American Economic Review 77: 421–430Google Scholar
  14. Meyer J., Ormiston M. B. (1994) The effect on optimal portfolios of changing the return to a risky asset: The case of dependent risky returns. International Economic Review 35: 603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meyer J., Rasche R. H. (1992) Sufficient conditions for expected utility to imply mean-standard deviation rankings: Empirical evidence concerning the location and scale condition. Economic Journal 102: 91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nielsen L. T. (1990) Existence of equilibrium in CAPM. Journal of Economic Theory 52: 223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ormiston M. B., Schlee E. (2001) Mean variance preferences and investor behavior. Economic Journal 111: 849–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saha A. (1997) Risk preference estimation in the non-linear standard deviation approach. Economic Inquiry 35: 770–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sharpe W. F. (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance 19: 425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tobin J. (1958) Liquidity preference as behavior towards risk. Review of Economic Studies 25: 65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wright R. (1987) Expectation dependence of random variables, with an application in portfolio theory. Theory and Decision 22: 111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of HagenHagenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations