Stochastic Dominance pp 215-228

Part of the Studies in Risk and Uncertainty book series (SIRU, volume 12)

The Empirical Studies

  • Haim Levy

Abstract

In judging the quality of an investment decision making rule, two factors have to be taken into account: a) its underlying assumptions; b) its effectiveness in terms of the relative size of the resultant efficient set. Based solely on the first factor, the FSD is the best rule because the only assumption needed for its derivation is that U ∈ U1 or U′ ≥ 0. However, the FSD rule is likely to be ineffective in that the resultant efficient set may not be much smaller than the feasible set. Generally, the larger the number of assumptions (e.g., risk aversion, decreasing absolute risk aversion), the smaller the induced efficient set.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Levy, H., and Hanoch, G., “Relative Effectiveness of Efficiency Criteria for Portfolio Selection,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,” Vol. 5, 1970, pp. 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hadar, J. and Russell, W.R., “Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects,” American Economic Review, Vol. 59, 1969, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanoch, G. and Levy, H., “The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 36, 1969, pp. 335–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levy, H., and Sarnat, M, “Alternative Efficiency Criteria: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 25, 1970, pp. 1153–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porter, R.B., and Gaumnitz, J.E., “Stochastic Dominance vs. Mean Variance Portfolio Analysis: An Empirical Evaluation,” American Economic Review, Vol. 62, 1972, pp. 438–46.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Porter, R.B., “An Empirical Comparison of Stochastic Dominance and Mean-Variance Choice Criteria,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 8, 1973, pp. 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    Porter, R.B., “Semi-variance and Stochastic Dominance: A Comparison,” American Economic Review, Vol. 64, 1974, pp. 200–204.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Joy, O.M., and Porter, R.B., “Stochastic Dominance and Mutual Fund Performance,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 9, 1974, pp. 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    Vickson, R.G., and Altman, M., “On the Relative Effectiveness of Stochastic Dominance Rules: Extension to Decreasingly Risk-Averse Utility Functions,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 12, 1977, pp. 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 12.
    Kroll, Y., and Levy, H., “Stochastic Dominance with a Riskless Asset: An Imperfect Market,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 14, June 1979, pp. 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 14.
    Levy, H., and Sarnat, M., “Investment Performance in an Imperfect Securities Market,” Financial Analyst Journal, Vol. 28, 1972, pp. 78–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 16.
    Tehranian, H., “Empirical Studies in Portfolio Performance Using Higher Degrees of Stochastic Dominance,” Journal of Finance, 35, March 1980, pp. 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 17.
    Okuney, J., “A Comparative Study of the Gini’s Mean Difference and Mean Variance in Portfolio Analysis,” Accounting and Finance, 28, 1988, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    Fishburn, P.S., Decision and Value Theory, New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Meyer, J., “Choices Among Distributions,” Journal of Economic Theory, 11, 1977, pp. 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 20.
    Meyer, J., “Second Degree Stochastic Dominance with Respect to a Function,” International Economic Review, 18, 1979, pp. 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 21.
    Bawa, V.S., J. Bondurtha, M.R., Rao and H.L. Suri, “On Determination of Stochastic Dominance Optimal Set,” Journal of Finance, 40, 1985, pp. 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 22.
    Deshpande, J.V. and H. Singh, “Testing for Second Order Stochastic Dominance,” Comm. Statist., Part A: Theory and Methods, 14, 1985, pp. 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 23.
    Eubank, R., Schechtman, E., and Yitzhaki, S., “A Test for Second Order Stochastic Dominance,” Commun. Statist. — Theory Math., 22(7), 1993, pp. 1893–1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 24.
    Dickinson, J.P., “The Reliability of Estimation Procedures in Portfolio Analysis,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 9, 1974, pp. 447–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 25.
    Johnson, K.H., and Burgess, R.C., “The Effects of Sample Sizes on the Accuracy of EV and SD Efficiency Criteria,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 10, December 1975, pp. 813–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 26.
    Levy, H., and Kroll, Y., “Stochastic Dominance: A Review and Some New Evidence,” Research in Finance, Vol. 2, 1980, pp. 163–227.Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    Levy, H., and Kroll, Y., “Sampling Errors and Portfolio Efficiency Analysis,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 15, No. 3, September 1980, pp. 655–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haim Levy
    • 1
  1. 1.The Hebrew University of JerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations