I am trying to understand Rabin's Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth Cannot Explain Risk Aversion.

I am struggling to completely understand the following:

Suppose you have initial wealth of $W$, and that you reject a 50-50 lose 10/gain 11 gamble because of diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Then it must be that $U(W+11) - U(W) ≤ U(W) - U(W-10)$. Hence, on average you value each of the dollars between $W$ and $W+11$ by at most $\frac{10}{11}$ as much as you on average value each of the dollars between $W$ and $W-10$.

By concavity, this implies that you value the dollar $W+11$ at most $\frac{10}{11}$ as much as you value the dollar $W-10$.

Iterating this observation, if you have the same aversion to the lose 10/gain 11 bet at wealth level $W+21$, then you value dollar $W+21+11 = W+32$ by at most $\frac{10}{11}$ as you value dollar $W+21-10 = W+11$, which means you value dollar $W+32$ by at most $\frac{10}{11}\times \frac{10}{11} \approx \frac{5}{6}$ as much as dollar $W-10$.

May someone please provide the mathematics to the bolded italic part in the quote above?

Thank you very much



From $U(W+11)−U(W)\le U(W)−U(W−10)$ we get that $\frac{U(W+11)-U(W)}{11}\le\frac{10}{11}\frac{U(W)-U(W-10)}{10}$, which is what the sentence before the bolded italic part says.

Now by concavity of $U(.)$ we know that $MU(W-10)\ge\frac{U(W)-U(W-10)}{10}$, and also that $MU(W+11)\le\frac{U(W+11)-U(W)}{11}$.

Therefore $MU(W+11)\le\frac{U(W+11)-U(W)}{11}\le\frac{10}{11}\frac{U(W)-U(W-10)}{10}\le\frac{10}{11}MU(W-10)$.

So $MU(W+11)\le\frac{10}{11}MU(W-10)$, wich is just the bolded italic statement.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.