Pushpa Publishing House

Journal Menu

Content

Volume 42 (2025)

	Volume 42, Issue 6 Pg 515 - 620 (August 2025)
	Volume 42, Issue 5 Pg 415 - 514 (July 2025)
	Volume 42, Issue 4 Pg 303 - 414 (May 2025)
	Volume 42, Issue 3 Pg 191 - 302 (April 2025)
	Volume 42, Issue 2 Pg 89 - 190 (February 2025)
	Volume 42, Issue 1 Pg 1 - 88 (January 2025)

Volume 41 (2024)

Volume 40 (2023)

Volume 39 (2023)

Volume 38 (2023)

Volume 29 (2022)

Volume 28 (2021)

Volume 27 (2021)

Volume 26 (2021)

Volume 25 (2020)

Volume 24 (2020)

Volume 23 (2020)

Volume 22 (2019)

Volume 21 (2019)

Volume 20 (2019)

Volume 19 (2018)

Volume 18 (2017)

Volume 17 (2016)

Volume 16 (2015)

Volume 15 (2015)

Volume 14 (2014)

Volume 13 (2014)

Volume 12 (2013)

Volume 11 (2013)

Volume 10 (2012)

Volume 7 (2011)

Volume 6 (2010)

Volume 5 (2010)

Volume 4 (2009)

Volume 3 (2009)

Volume 2 (2008)

Volume 1 (2008)

Important: All future articles and volumes will be published only on our new website: www.pphmjopenaccess.com. Authors are requested to submit their papers through the new website only. Visit now: www.pphmjopenaccess.com

Advances and Applications in Discrete Mathematics

Advances and Applications in Discrete Mathematics
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages 531 - 581 (August 2025)
http://dx.doi.org/10.17654/0974165825036

DYNAMIC COOPERATIVE INVESTMENT BY PROSPECT THEORY

Anwar Almualim

Abstract:

This paper examines investor behavior using probability functions and establishes a consistent mean-variance model based on compound independent axioms with unique certainty equivalency

An alternate strategy is presented to solve cooperative investment dynamically for the mean-variance utility function. An explicit formula based on the exponential utility function over the normal distribution is established to approximate the certainty equivalent for each investor corresponding to the mean-variance utility function. Additionally, alternative decision-making theories, such as prospect theory, are defined to apply in solving cooperative investment schemes by considering investors’ preferences as a function of choice, assuming that weight does not always coincide with probability. Prospect Theory (PT) suggests that decision weight tends to underweight moderate and high probabilities and overweight small ones. Furthermore, the Prospect Theory Approach can be used to align investors’ perceptions of risk with logical decision-making through suitable modeling. A numerical experiment using S&P100 data is also displayed.

Keywords and phrases:

Pareto optimal, certainty equivalent, prospect theory, dynamic system, cooperative investment

Received: August 29, 2024; Revised: May 13, 2025; Accepted: May 31, 2025; Published: June 17, 2025

How to cite this article: Anwar Almualim, Dynamic cooperative investment by prospect theory, Advances and Applications in Discrete Mathematics 42(6) (2025), 531-581. https://doi.org/10.17654/0974165825036

This Open Access Article is Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References:

[1]A. Al-Nowaihi and S. Dhami, Probability weighting functions, Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 2010.

[2]A. Almualim, Cooperative investment in a multi-period portfolio optimisation, Proceedings of the Eighth Saudi Students Conference in the UK, 2016, pp. 599-609.

[3]A. Almualim, Dynamic cooperative investment, Ph.D Thesis, 2017.

[4]Z. Ao, X. Ji and X. Liang, Can prospect theory explain anomalies in the Chinese Stock Market? Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, Vol. 58, 2023.

[5]A. Elmire, A. A. Bassou, M. Hlyal and J. El Alami, Dynamic study of the duopoly market stability based on open innovation rate integration and intellectual property, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 10 (2024), 1434012.

[6]X. S. Ding, X. Chen, J. H. Chang and X. Zhang, Certainty equivalent in portfolio management, 8th International Symposium on Operations Research and its Applications, 2009.

[7]U. Gneezy, Updating the Reference Level: Experimental Evidence Experimental Business Research, Springer, 2005, pp. 263-284.

[8]B. Grechuk, A. Molyboha and M. Zabarankin, Cooperative games with general deviation measures, Math. Finance 23(2) (2013), 339-365.

[9]M. Kabir, L. Yu, K. Sanjoy, M. Nahiduzzaman and T. Borman, Portfolio optimization and valuation capability of multi-factor models: an observational evidence from Dhaka stock exchange, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 9 (2023), 1133-1165.

[10]B. Koszegi and M. Rabin, A model of reference-dependent preferences, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 121(4) (2006), 1133-1165.

[11]B. Koszegi and M. Rabin, Reference-dependent risk attitudes, The American Economic Review 97(4) (2007), 1047-1073.

[12]B. Koszegi and M. Rabin, Reference-dependent consumption plans, The American Economic Review 99 (2009), 909-936.

[13]D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47 (1979), 263-291.

[14]V. Lytvynenko, O. Naumov and M. Voronenko, Dynamic Bayesian Networks Application for Evaluating the Investment Projects Effectiveness, Springer Link: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Book Series AISC, 1246, 2021, pp. 315-330.

[15]N. Mustafa, D. Thomas, B. D. John and A. Tversky, The construction of efficient portfolios: a verification of risk models for investment making, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 6 (2020), 263-291.

[16]N. Moehle and S. Boyd, TA certainty equivalent Merton problem, IEEE Control Systems Letters 6 (2021), 1478-1483.

[17]A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (1992), 297-323.

[18]T. Odean, Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? The Journal of Finance 53 (1998), 1775-1798.

[19]D. Prelec, The probability weighting function, Econometrica 66 (1998), 497-527.

[20]J. Quiggin, Theory of anticipated utility, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3 (1982), 323-343.

[21]T. Sargent, Macroeconomic Theory, New York, Academic Press, Vol. 2, 1987.

[22]U. Schmidt, C. Starmer and R. Sugden, Third-generation prospect theory, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 36 (2008), 203-223.

[23]R. Sheldon, A First Course in Probability, Pearson Education India, 2002.

[24]H. Shefrin and M. Statman, The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: theory and evidence, Journal of Finance 40(3) (1985), 777-790.

[25]U. Segal, Nonlinear decision weights with the independence Axiom, UCLA Working Paper, 1984, p. 353.

[26]U. Segal, The Ellsberg paradox and risk aversion: an anticipated utility approach, International Economic Review 28 (1987), 175-202.

[27]U. Segal, Two-stage lotteries without the reduction axiom, Econometrica 58 (1990), 349-377.

[28]R. Thaler and S. Benartzi, Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1) (1995), 73-92.

[29]G. Terbish, B. Tserendorj, N. Dorj and T. Oirov, Stochastic optimal control problem of consumption and pension insurance with uncertain lifetime and its application to real-life data, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 10 (2024), 1415385.

[30]J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of games and economic behavior, Foundations of Statistic, 2nd ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, New York, Wiley, 1954.

[31]M. E. Yaari, Risk aversion without diminishing marginal utility, Econometrica 55(1) (1987), 95-115.

Number of Downloads: 101 | Number of Views: 257