Aumann and Serrano (J Political Econ 116(5):810–836, 2008) introduce the axiom of duality, which ensures that risk measures respect comparative risk aversion. This paper characterizes all dual risk measures by a simple equivalent condition. This equivalence provides a decomposition result and a construction method, which is used to analyze concrete dual measures. Moreover, this paper aims to extend this characterization to the most general setting. Compared with Aumann and Serrano (2008), it, therefore, relaxes the axiom of positive homogeneity, and allows for risk-neutral and risk-seeking agents, as well as for all integrable gambles.
Risk measures Duality Riskiness Expected utility Decision-making under risk
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The author thanks the two anonymous referees, Damir Filipović, Eva Lüktebohmert-Holtz, Traian Pirvu, Frank Riedel, and numerous seminar participants for many helpful comments and discussions. The views expressed in this article are the author’s personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Deutsche Bundesbank or its staff. This study is supported by the National Centre of Competence in Research “Financial Valuation and Risk Management” (NCCR FINRISK).
Arrow, K. (1965). Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Helsinki: Yrjö Jahnssonin Säätiö.Google Scholar
Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J., & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, R., & Serrano, R. (2008). An economic index of riskiness. Journal of Political Economy, 116(5), 810–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühlmann, H. (1970). Mathematical methods in risk theory. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Dhaene, J., Goovaerts, M., & Kaas, R. (2003). Economic capital allocation derived from risk measures. North American Actuarial Journal, 7(2), 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P., & Stiglitz, J. (1974). Increasing risk and risk aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 8, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, D., & Svindland, G. (2012). The canonical model space for law-invariant convex risk measures is l1. Mathematical Finance, 22(3), 585–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Föllmer, H., & Schied, A. (2002). Convex measures of risk and trading constraints. Finance and Stochastics, 6(4), 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, D., & Hart, S. (2009). An operational measure of riskiness. Journal of Political Economy, 117(5), 785–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, S. (2011). Comparing risks by acceptance and rejection. Journal of Political Economy, 119(4), 617–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homm, U., & Pigorsch, C. (2012a). An operational interpretation and existence of the Aumann–Serrano index of riskiness. Economics Letters, 114(3), 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homm, U., & Pigorsch, C. (2012b). Beyond the Sharpe ratio: An application of the Aumann–Serrano index to performance measurement. Journal of Banking and Finance, 36(8), 2274–2284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnytzer, A., & Westreich, S. (2013). A global index of riskiness. Economics Letters, 118(3), 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, K. (2014). Existence and computation of the Aumann–Serrano index of riskiness and its extension. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 50(1), 219–224.Google Scholar