/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 2 Show that if an individual's uti... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Show that if an individual's utility-of-wealth function is convex (rather than concave, as shown in Figure 8.1 ), he or she will prefer fair gambles to income certainty and may even be willing to accept somewhat unfair gambles. Do you believe this sort of risk-taking behavior is common? What factors might tend to limit its occurrence?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: A convex utility-of-wealth function implies that an individual's utility increases at an increasing rate and may prefer fair gambles over income certainty due to the higher potential satisfaction derived from larger wealth increases. They might even be willing to accept unfair gambles as the potential large gains outweigh the possible losses. However, factors like personal preferences, financial constraints, limited knowledge, and market regulations might limit the occurrence of such risk-taking behavior.

Step by step solution

01

Define Convex Utility-of-Wealth Function

A utility-of-wealth function represents the satisfaction derived from a given level of wealth. A convex utility function indicates that the individual's utility increases at an increasing rate. In contrast, a concave utility function, as shown in Figure 8.1, indicates that the individual's utility increases at a decreasing rate.
02

Explain Preference for Fair Gambles

If the utility function is convex, the individual derives greater utility from wealth increases. This implies that the individual would prefer the potential for larger wealth increases in a gamble over a fixed, less-variable income. Let's use a simple example to illustrate this. Suppose an individual has the option between a certain income of \(X\), and a fair gamble where they have a 50% chance of winning \(2X\) and a 50% chance of losing \(X\). The expected value of the gamble is also \(X\). However, with a convex utility function, the utility derived from winning \(2X\) would be substantially more significant than the disutility from losing \(X\). The individual would, therefore, prefer the gamble over the guaranteed income of \(X\).
03

Willingness to Accept Unfair Gambles

Similarly, an individual with a convex utility function would be more likely to accept unfair gambles because the potential utility derived from the larger wealth increases outweighs the disutility from losses. This risk-taking behavior will depend on the level of convexity of the individual's utility function, as well as their beliefs about the probability distribution of possible outcomes.
04

Discuss Prevalence of Risk-Taking Behavior and Factors Limiting its Occurrence

This sort of risk-taking behavior can be observed in certain circumstances, such as in entrepreneurship, investments, or gambling activities. However, not all individuals exhibit such risk-seeking behavior due to various factors. Factors that might limit risk-taking behavior include: 1. Personal preferences and risk tolerance: Some individuals have a more conservative attitude towards risk-taking and prefer stable and secure incomes to the possibility of large fluctuations in wealth. 2. Financial constraints and responsibilities: Individuals with financial obligations or limited resources may not be able to afford potential losses, thus limiting their exposure to risk. 3. Information and knowledge: A lack of understanding about potential returns and risks associated with certain activities may dissuade individuals from participating in them. 4. Market regulations and restrictions: Laws and policies aimed at reducing risk in financial markets can influence the decision-making process of individuals and limit the occurrence of risk-taking behavior. In conclusion, while the convex utility-of-wealth function may lead to risk-seeking behavior in some cases, personal preferences, financial constraints, knowledge, and market regulations can limit the occurrence of such behavior.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Suppose Molly Jock wishes to purchase a high-definition television to watch the Olympic Greco-Roman wrestling competition. Her current income is \(\$ 20,000,\) and she knows where she can buy the television she wants for \(\$ 2,000\). She has heard the rumor that the same set can be bought at Crazy Eddie's (recently out of bankruptcy) for \(\$ 1,700,\) but is unsure if the rumor is true. Suppose this individual's utility is given by \\[\text { utility }=\ln (Y).\\] where Fis her income after buying the television. a. What is Molly's utility if she buys from the location she knows? b. What is Molly's utility if Crazy Eddie's really does offer the lower price? c. Suppose Molly believes there is a \(50-50\) chance that Crazy Eddie does offer the lowerpriced television, but it will cost her \(\$ 100\) to drive to the discount store to find out for sure (the store is far away and has had its phone disconnected). Is it worth it to her to invest the money in the trip?

A farmer's tomato crop is wilting, and he must decide whether to water it. If he waters the tomatoes, or if it rains, the crop will yield \(\$ 1,000\) in profits; but if the tomatoes get no water, they will yield only \(\$ 500 .\) Operation of the farmer's irrigation system costs \(\$ 100 .\) The farmer seeks to maximize expected profits from tomato sales. a. If the farmer believes there is a 50 percent chance of rain, should he water? b. What is the maximum amount the farmer would pay to get information from an itiner ant weather forecaster who can predict rain with 100 percent accuracy? c. How would your answer to part (b) change if the forecaster were only 75 percent accurate?

In Problem \(8.5,\) Ms. Fogg was quite willing to buy insurance against a 25 percent chance of losing \(\$ 1,000\) of her cash on her around-the-world trip. Suppose that people who buy such insurance tend to become more careless with their cash and that their probability of losing \(\$ 1,000\) rises to 30 percent. What is the actuarially fair insurance premium in this situation? Will Ms. Fogg buy insurance now? (Note: This problem and Problem 9.3 illustrate moral hazard.)

Blue-eyed people are more likely to lose their expensive watches than are brown-eyed people. Specifically, there is an 80 percent probability that a blue-eyed individual will lose a \(\$ 1,000\) watch during a year, but only a 20 percent probability that a brown-eyed person will. Blue-eyed and brown-eyed people are equally represented in the population. a. If an insurance company assumes blue-eyed and brown-eyed people are equally likely to buy watch-loss insurance, what will the actuarially fair insurance premium be? b. If blue-eyed and brown-eyed people have logarithmic utility-of-wealth functions and cur rent wealths of \(\$ 10,000\) each, will these individuals buy watch insurance at the premium calculated in part (a)? c. Given your results from part (b), will the insurance premiums be correctly computed? What should the premium be? What will the utility for each type of person be? d. Suppose that an insurance company charged different premiums for blue-eyed and brown-eyed people. How would these individuals' maximum utilities compare to those computed in parts (b) and (c)? (This problem is an example of adverse selection in insurance.)

Investment in risky assets can be examined in the state-preference framework by assuming that \(W^{*}\) dollars invested in an asset with a certain return, \(r,\) will yield \(\mathrm{W}^{*}(\mathrm{l}+r)\) in both states of the world, whereas investment in a risky asset will yield \(\mathrm{W}^{*}\left(1+r_{g}\right)\) in good times and \(\left.\mathrm{W}^{*}\left(\mathrm{l}+r_{b}\right) \text { in bad times (where } r_{g}>r>r_{b}\right)\) a. Graph the outcomes from the two investments. b. Show how a "mxied portfolio" containing both risk-free and risky assets could be illustrated in your graph. How would you show the fraction of wealth invested in the risky asset? c. Show how individuals' attitudes toward risk will determine the mix of risk- free and risky assets they will hold. In what case would a person hold no risky assets? d. If an individual's utility takes the constant relative risk aversion form (Equation 8.62 ), ex plain why this person will not change the fraction of risky asset held as his or her wealth increases.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.