Expected utility and the Siegel paradox

Arrow, K. J. (1970):Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Bernoulli, D. (1738): “Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis.” Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae 5, St. Petersburg, pp. 175–192. German translation by A. Pringsheim (1896):Versuch einer neuen Theorie der Wertbestimmung von Glücksfällen. Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot. English translation by L. Sommer (1954): “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk.”Econometrica 22: 23–36.Google Scholar

Boyer, R. S. (1977): “The Relation between the Forward Exchange Rate and the Expected Future Spot Rate.”Intermountain Economic Review 8: 14–21.Google Scholar

Flemming, J. S.; Turnovsky, S. J.; and Kemp, M. C. (1977): “On the Choice of Numeraire and Certainty Price in General Equilibrium Models of Price Uncertainty.”Review of Economic Studies 44: 573–583.Google Scholar

Kemp, M. C., and Sinn, H.-W. (1989): “The Siegel Paradox as a General Equilibrium Phenomenon.” Discussion paper No. 89-11. University of Munich.Google Scholar

McCulloch, J. H. (1975): “Operational Aspects of the Siegel Paradox.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 170–172.Google Scholar

Roper, D. E. (1975): “The Role of Expected Value Analysis for Speculative Decisions in the Forward Currency Market.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 157–169.Google Scholar

Siegel, J. E. (1972): “Risk, Interest Rates and the Forward Exchange.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 86: 303–309.Google Scholar

— (1975): “Reply-Risk, Interest Rates, and the Forward Exchange.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 173–175.Google Scholar

Sinn, H.-W. (1983):Economic Decisions under Uncertainty. Amsterdam: North-Holland. (2nd Edition: 1989, Berlin: Springer.)Google Scholar

— (1985): “Psychophysical Laws in Risk Theory.”Journal of Economic Psychology 6: 185–206.Google Scholar