Subjective random discounting and intertemporal choice

This paper provides an axiomatic foundation for a particular type of preference shock model called the random discounting representation where a decision maker believes that her discount factors change randomly over time. For this purpose, we formulate an infinite horizon extension of [E. Dekel, B. Lipman, A. Rustichini, Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space, Econometrica 69 (2001) 891-934], and identify the behavior that reduces all subjective uncertainties to those about future discount factors. We also show uniqueness of subjective belief about discount factors. Moreover, a behavioral comparison about preference for flexibility characterizes the condition that one's subjective belief second-order stochastically dominates the other. Finally, the resulting model is applied to a consumption-savings problem.     

Lexicographic expected utility with a subjective state space

This paper provides a model that allows for a criterion of admissibility based on a subjective state space. For this purpose, we build a non-Archimedean model of preference with subjective states, generalizing Blume et al. (Econometrica 59:61–79, 1991), who present a non-Archimedean model with exogenous states; and Dekel et al. (Econometrica 69:891–934, 2001), who present an Archimedean model with an endogenous state space. We interpret the representation as modeling an agent who has several “hypotheses” about her state space, and who views some as “infinitely less relevant” than others.     

Comment on "Ellsberg's two-color experiment, portfolio inertia and ambiguity"

In the setting of Ellsberg's two-color experiment, Mukerji and Tallon (2003) claim, without relying on particular representations, that ambiguity-averse behavior implies subjective portfolio inertia. In this note, we point out using a counterexample that their axioms are not enough to establish the result. We fill in the gap in their argument using additional axioms and argue that these axioms are of their own interest in that they behaviorally separate two prominent models of ambiguity: the maximin expected utility and smooth ambiguity models.