The Relationship between Relative Risk Aversion and Survivability

  • Shu-Heng Chen
  • Ya-Chi Huang
Conference paper
Part of the Agent-Based Social Systems book series (ABSS, volume 3)


As a follow-up to the work of [4] and [5], this paper continues to explore the relationship between wealth share dynamics and risk preferences in the context of an agent-based multi-asset artificial stock market. We simulate a multiasset agent-based artificial stock market composed of heterogeneous agents with different degrees of relative risk aversion (RRA). A wide range of RRA coefficients has been found in the literature, and so far no unanimous conclusion has been reached. The agent-based computational approach as demonstrated in this paper proposes the possibility that in reality there may be such a wide survival range of the RRA coefficient. In addition, the time series plot of the wealth share dynamics indicates that the higher the risk aversion coefficient, the higher the wealth share. This result combined with our earlier result ([5]) well articulates the contribution of risk aversion to survivability.


Risk Preferences CRRA (Constant Relative Risk Aversion) Blume-Easley Theorem Agent-Based Artificial Stock Markets Genetic Algorithms 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blume L, Easley D (1992) Evolution and Market Behavior. Journal of Economic Theory 58: 9–40.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blume L, Easley D (2001) If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets. Working paper.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bullard J, Duffy J (1999) Using Genetic Algorithms to Model the Evolution of Heterogeneous Beliefs. Computational Economics 13(1): 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen S-H, Huang Y-C (2004) Risk Preference, Forecasting Accuracy and Survival Dynamics: Simulations Based on a Multi-Asset Agent-Based Artificial Stock Market. Working Paper Series 2004-1, AI-ECON Research Center, National Chengchi University.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen S-H, Huang Y-C (2005) Risk Preference and Survival Dynamics. In: Terano T, Kita H, Kaneda T, Arai K and Deghchi H (eds), Agent-Based Simulation: From Modeling Methodologies to Real-World Applications. Springer, 135–143.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Constantinides G-M, Donaldson J-B, Mehra R (2002) Junior Can’t Borrow: A New Perspective on the Equity Premium Puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chatterjee S, Giuliano P, Turnovsky S-J (2004) Capital Income Taxes and Growth in a Stochastic Economy: A Numerical Analysis of the Role of Risk Aversion and Intertemporal Substitution. Journal of Public Economic Theory 6: 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epstein L-G, Zin S-E (1991) Substitution, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption and Asset Returns: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Political Economy 99: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friend I, Blume M-E (1975) The Demand for Risky Assets. American Economic Review 65: 900–922.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon M-J, Paradis G-E, Rorke C-H (1972) Experimental Evidence on Alternative Portfolio Decision Rules. American Economic Review 62: 107–118.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hansen L-P, Singleton K (1982) Generalized Instrumental Variables Estimation of Nonlinear Rational Expectation Models. Econometrica 50: 1269–1286.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holland J, Miller J (1991) Artificial Adaptive Agents in Economic Theory. American Economic Review 81(2): 365–370.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jorion P, Giovannini A (1993) Time Series Tests of a Non-expected-Utility Model of Asset Pricing. European Economic Review 37: 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kandel S, Stambaugh R-F (1991) Asset Returns and Intertemporal Preferences. Journal of Monetary Economics 27: 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lucas D (1994) Asset Pricing with Undiversifiable Risk and Short Sales Constraints: Deepening the Equity Premium Puzzle. Journal of Monetary Economics 34: 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mankiw G-N, Rotemberg J-J, Summers L-H (1985) Intertemporal Substitution in Macroeconomics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 100: 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Obstfeld M (1994) Risk Taking, Global Diversification, and Growth. American Economic Review 84: 1310–1329.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandroni A (2000) Do Markets Favor Agents Able to Make Accurate Predictions? Econometrica 68: 1303–1341.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sciubba E (1999) The Evolution of Portfolio Rules and the Capital Asset Pricing Model. DAE Working Paper No. 9909, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tesfatsion L (2001) Introduction to the Special Issue on Agent-Based Computational Economics. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25: 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zeldes S-P (1989) Consumption and Liquidity Constraints: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Political Economy 97(2): 305–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shu-Heng Chen
    • 1
  • Ya-Chi Huang
    • 2
  1. 1.AI-ECON Research Center Department of EconomicsNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of International TradeLunghwa University of Science and TechnologyTaoyuanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations