Proofs for the New Definitions in Financial Markets

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2309.03003
• Title: Proofs for the New Definitions in Financial Markets
• Author: Atilla Aras (Gazi University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Mathematics)
• Classification: q-fin.GN econ.GN q-fin.EC
• Publication Date: September 2023
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.03003

Abstract

This research aims to provide mathematical proofs for new definitions in financial markets. The fundamental concept of the new definitions originates from decision theory under uncertainty in economics and finance. In standard theory, the shape of the deterministic utility curve is the core element determining investors' risk attitudes. While in standard theory risk aversion, risk preference, and risk neutrality are respectively equivalent to strict concavity, strict convexity, and linearity, in the new definitions these curvature characteristics can apply to different risk attitudes. The new definitions break the fixed connection between utility curve curvature and risk attitudes. For example, a convex utility curve may exhibit risk-averse behavior under the new definitions. The paper demonstrates that the new definitions are richer and more comprehensive in shape considerations than standard definitions, thereby significantly extending standard utility theory.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Questions

The core problems addressed in this paper include:

1. Rigidity of Standard Theory: In traditional theory, the shape of utility curves strictly determines risk attitudes (concavity → risk aversion, convexity → risk preference, linearity → risk neutrality)
2. Inadequacy in Practical Applications: Standard theory cannot encompass all investors' risk attitudes in financial markets, particularly in issues such as the equity premium puzzle
3. Comparison Difficulties: In reality, it is difficult to compare certain and uncertain values at the same wealth level

Research Significance

The importance of this problem is manifested in:

1. Demand for Theoretical Extension: While expected utility theory is a core theory, it faces numerous paradoxes and criticisms
2. Practical Application Value: Provides new theoretical tools for solving financial puzzles such as the equity premium puzzle
3. Modeling Flexibility: Provides a more flexible framework for studying investor behavior

Limitations of Existing Approaches

The main limitations of standard utility theory include:

1. Shape Dependency: Risk attitudes are entirely determined by utility curve shape, lacking flexibility
2. Paradox Problems: Faces systematic challenges such as Allais paradox and Ellsberg paradox
3. Limited Application Scope: Cannot explain certain financial phenomena, such as the equity premium puzzle

Research Motivation

The author's research motivation stems from:

• Standard theory cannot encompass all types of risk attitudes in financial markets
• Need to construct a broader theoretical framework for determining investors' risk attitudes
• Provide mathematical foundations for financial theory problems

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Innovation: Proposes new definitions that break the fixed connection between utility curve shape and risk attitudes
2. Mathematical Proofs: Provides rigorous mathematical proofs for the new definitions, including 8 theorems and 2 propositions
3. Theoretical Extension: Demonstrates that the new definitions are richer in shape considerations than standard definitions
4. Practical Value: Provides theoretical foundations for solving financial problems such as the equity premium puzzle
5. Enhanced Flexibility: Provides researchers with a more flexible framework for modeling risk behavior

Detailed Methodology

Theoretical Foundations

Review of Standard Theory

The paper first establishes the foundations of standard theory:

Theorems 1-3 (Standard Form):

• Theorem 1: Assuming v(w) is an increasing curve, an agent is risk-averse in the standard form ⟺ v(w) is strictly concave
• Theorem 2: Assuming v(w) is an increasing curve, an agent is risk-preferring in the standard form ⟺ v(w) is strictly convex
• Theorem 3: Assuming v(w) is an increasing curve, an agent is risk-neutral in the standard form ⟺ v(w) is linear

Core Concepts of New Definitions

Sufficiency Factor (Ω_{t+1}): The new definition introduces the concept of "model sufficiency factor" (Ω_{t+1}), which is a coefficient that adjusts uncertain utility, enabling comparison of certain and uncertain utilities.

Time Discount Factor: Considers the agent's subjective time discount factor (β) with acceptable values.

Core Theorem System

Theorem 4: Negative Utility Allocation Case

When an agent allocates additional negative utility to uncertain wealth values (i.e., Ω_{t+1} < 1):

An agent is risk-averse, risk-preferring, or risk-neutral in the standard form ⟺ βΩ_{t+1}Ev(w_{t+2}) < v(w_{t+1})

Theorem 5: Positive Utility Allocation Case (βΩ_{t+1} ≥ 1)

When an agent allocates additional positive utility to uncertain wealth values:

An agent is risk-averse, risk-preferring, or risk-neutral in the standard form ⟺ v(w_{t+1}) < βΩ_{t+1}Ev(w_{t+2})

Theorems 6-8: Extended Cases

• Theorem 6: Addresses risk preference and risk neutrality when βΩ_{t+1} ≤ 1
• Theorem 7: Addresses risk aversion under specific conditions
• Theorem 8: Addresses all risk attitudes under equality conditions

Technical Innovations

1. Shape Independence: The new definition makes risk attitudes no longer entirely dependent on utility curve shape
2. Sufficiency Factor Mechanism: By introducing the sufficiency factor, achieves comparability between certain and uncertain utilities
3. Temporal Dimension Consideration: Incorporates time discount factor, making the model more realistic
4. Bidirectional Proof Structure: Each theorem provides bidirectional proofs of necessary and sufficient conditions

Mathematical Proof Structure

Foundational Propositions

Proposition 1: For increasing strictly convex utility curves, proves that Ev(w_{t+2}) > v(w_{t+1}) always holds.

Proposition 2: For increasing strictly concave utility curves, proves three possible relationships:

• Ev(w_{t+2}) > v(w_{t+1})
• Ev(w_{t+2}) < v(w_{t+1})
• Ev(w_{t+2}) = v(w_{t+1})

Proof Methodology

The proof of each major theorem employs the following structure:

1. Forward Proof (⟹): Case-by-case discussion of how the three standard forms of risk attitudes correspond to conditions in the new definition
2. Reverse Proof (⟸): Uses proof by contradiction to demonstrate how new definition conditions derive standard risk attitudes
3. Case Analysis: Detailed analysis for different probability values and utility curve shapes

Experimental Results and Theoretical Verification

Main Theoretical Results

1. Shape Richness: Proves that the new definition contains all shape requirements of the standard definition and possesses additional shape possibilities
2. Independence Verification: Proves the independence of the new definition from utility curve curvature
3. Equivalence Analysis: Establishes equivalence relationships between the new and standard definitions under specific conditions

Theoretical Findings

1. Flexibility of Risk Attitudes: Strictly convex utility curves can exhibit risk-averse behavior
2. Role of Sufficiency Factor: Different sufficiency factor values correspond to different risk attitude judgments
3. Impact of Temporal Factors: Time discount factor plays an important role in risk attitude determination

Related Work

Development of Decision Theory

1. Expected Utility Theory (EUT): Bernoulli (1738), Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944)
2. Subjective Expected Utility Theory (SEUT): Savage (1954) based on work by Ramsey (1931) and De Finetti (1937)
3. Descriptive Theories: Including weighted utility theory (Chew and MacCrimmon, 1979), generalized expected utility theory (Machina, 1982)
4. Regret Theory: Bell (1982), Fishburn (1982), Loomes and Sugden (1982, 1987)
5. Prospect Theory: Kahneman and Tversky (1992, 2013)

Recent Related Research

1. Uncertainty Research: Walters et al. (2023) on investor behavior sensitivity to epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty
2. Utility Function Shape Research: Phelps (2024) review of CRRA and CARA utility functions
3. Risk Aversion Research: Meta-analysis by Elmirejad et al. (2025) showing relative risk aversion is approximately 1 in economics

Relationship to Related Work

This paper builds upon the new definitions from Aras (2022, 2024), providing rigorous mathematical proof foundations and filling the gap in theoretical proofs.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theoretical Extension: The new definition successfully extends standard utility theory, providing a broader framework for describing risk attitudes
2. Shape Independence: Proves that risk attitudes can be defined independently of utility curve shape
3. Enhanced Practicality: The new definition is more operationally convenient in practical applications, without requiring comparison of certain and uncertain utilities at the same wealth level

Theoretical Significance

1. Breaking Traditional Constraints: Breaks the fixed correspondence between utility curve shape and risk attitudes
2. Enhanced Modeling Flexibility: Provides researchers with more flexible tools for modeling risk behavior
3. Solving Practical Problems: Provides new theoretical tools for addressing financial problems such as the equity premium puzzle

Limitations

1. Insufficient Empirical Verification: The paper primarily provides theoretical proofs, lacking sufficient empirical testing
2. Application Scope: The practical effectiveness of the new definition requires further verification
3. Parameter Determination: The specific methods for determining the sufficiency factor and time discount factor require further research

Future Directions

1. Empirical Research: Empirical testing of alternative shapes of the new definition in financial models
2. Application Extension: Application of the new definition to solving more financial problems
3. Parameter Estimation: Development of methods for determining the sufficiency factor and time discount factor

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Theoretical Innovation: Proposes a breakthrough theoretical framework challenging fundamental assumptions of traditional utility theory
2. Mathematical Rigor: Provides a complete system of mathematical proofs with rigorous logic
3. High Practical Value: Provides new tools for solving practical financial problems
4. Clear Writing: The paper has clear structure and accurate mathematical expression

Weaknesses

1. Insufficient Empirical Support: Lacks support and verification from actual data
2. Parameter Dependency: The new definition depends on parameters such as the sufficiency factor, but methods for parameter determination are unclear
3. Lack of Application Guidance: Lacks specific guidance on how to apply the new definition in practice
4. Limited Comparative Analysis: Insufficient comparison with other non-expected utility theories

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution: Important extension of utility theory that may initiate new research directions in the field
2. Practical Value: Provides new tools for financial modeling, particularly in risk management
3. Reproducibility: Clear mathematical proofs facilitate verification and extension by other researchers

Applicable Scenarios

1. Financial Risk Management: Applicable to scenarios requiring more flexible risk attitude modeling
2. Investment Decision Analysis: Provides theoretical support for complex investment decisions
3. Financial Product Pricing: In pricing models considering heterogeneous investor risk preferences
4. Behavioral Finance Research: Provides theoretical foundations for explaining complex investor behavior

References

The paper cites abundant relevant literature, including:

1. Classical Theory: Bernoulli (1738), Von Neumann & Morgenstern (1944), Savage (1954)
2. Modern Developments: Kahneman & Tversky series of works, various alternative theories
3. Recent Research: Research from the 2020s, reflecting timeliness of literature review
4. Foundational Work: Original definition work from Aras (2022, 2024)

Overall Assessment: This is a mathematically rigorous financial economics paper of significant theoretical value, providing solid mathematical foundations for new utility theory definitions through rigorous proofs. While it has some shortcomings in empirical verification, its theoretical innovation and potential application value make it an important contribution to the field.