WORKING PAPERS
A Failure of the No-Arbitrage
PrincipleAbstract:
Underlying the principle of no arbitrage is the assumption that markets eliminate any opportunity
for risk-free profits. In contrast, we document a pricing mistake by a $200 million
company that allowed investors a guaranteed return of 25.6% in a few days, and that resulted
in less than $60,000 being invested into exploiting the opportunity.
(with Kristóf Madarász and Máté
Matolcsi). Appendix.
Revised September 2007.
Utility from Anticipation and Personal EquilibriumAbstract:
This paper proposes a general dynamic model of individual decisionmaking in which the
agent derives utility from physical outcomes as well as from expectations regarding physical
outcomes (“anticipation”), and these two payoff components can interact. At the heart of the
theory is a new solution concept, personal equilibrium, to determine behavior in this context.
The paper explores three types of behavior made possible by utility from anticipation, and
proves that if the decisionmaker is distinguishable from one who cares only about physical outcomes,
she must exhibit at least one of these phenomena. First, the decisionmaker can be prone
to self-fulfilling expectations. Second, a person who has identical preferences in all periods can
still be time inconsistent, and due to this time inconsistency, behavior can depend on unchosen
alternatives. Third, the decisionmaker might in personal equilibrium exhibit informational
preferences, and these preferences are intimately connected to her attitudes toward disappointments.
Applications of the framework to reference-dependent preferences, impulsive behaviors,
and emotionally difficult choices are discussed.
Revised August
2007.
An older, more general, and significantly messier version:
Anticipation in Observable BehaviorAbstract:
This paper asks the natural question: how is utility from anticipation reflected in behavior?
I consider a general model of decisionmaking where rationally formed anticipation enters the
agent’s utility function in addition to physical outcomes, and allow for interactions between
these two payoff components. The paper explores three types of behavior made possible by
utility from anticipation, and proves that if a decisionmaker who cares about anticipation is
distinguishable from one who only cares about physical outcomes, she has to exhibit at least
one of these phenomena. First, the agent can display informational preferences because she is
not indifferent to insecurity, or because she cares about future disappointments. I prove that an
agent who is indifferent to insecurity always prefers full to partial information if and only if she
is disappointment averse, but a stronger condition is needed for her to prefer more information
to less. Second, the agent can be time inconsistent because anticipatory feelings pass by the
time she has to “invest” in them, and this time inconsistency can be reflected in intransitivity of
choices. Third, the agent can be prone to self-fulfilling expectations. In developing these ideas,
I also deal with several modeling difficulties when expectations enter utility.