Compound Lotteries; Call Option Spreads in Black-Scholes Markets

  • Joel N. Morse
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 190)


From the earliest days of risky utility theory decision, theorists have elicited information from decision makers by analyzing their reaction to elementary lotteries, or gambles. The Purpose of the process was to define a mathematical function which could yield an ordering on a set of risky objects of choice. The information processing demands on the DM were minimal; everyone has an intuitive feel for endpoints such as $0 and $100. The purpose of this paper is to develop a reliable means of ordering compound lotteries in which the unaided decision maker does not even know the endpoints. Since the ordering will occur in several dimensions, several concepts from multiple criteria decision making will be used.


Financial Market Option Price Utility Theory Prospect Theory Call Option 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Black, F. and Scholes, M. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, No. 3, May–June, 1973, 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brealey, R. and Myers, S. Principles of Corporate Finance, McGraw Hill, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. Colson, Gerard and Zeleny, Milan. Uncertain Prospects Ranking and Portfolio Analysis Under the Conditions of Partial Information, Mathematical Systems in Economics, No. 44, Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain Publishers, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. Dobscn, E. D. “Using Hedged Stock Option Strategies to Shift Odds in Your Favor,” Commodities, April, 1977, 42-44.Google Scholar
  5. Einhorn, Hillel J. “Unit Weighting Scheme, for Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13, 1975, 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2, March, 1979, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Morse, J. N. “A Theory of Naive Weights,” in S. Zionts (ed.) Multiple Criteria Problem Solving. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, No. 155, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1978, pp. 384–401.Google Scholar
  8. Morse, J. N. “Reducing the Size of the Nondominated Set: Pruning by Clustering,” Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 7, No. 1–2, 1980, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd Edition, Princeton University, Press, 1953.Google Scholar
  10. Yilmaz, M. R. “Risk as a Multiattribute Concept,” Working Paper, Northeastern University, 1980.Google Scholar
  11. Zionts, S. and Wallenius, J. “An Interactive Programming Method for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem,” Management Science, Vol. 22, No. 6, 1979, 652–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel N. Morse
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of DelawareUSA

Personalised recommendations