Anticomonotonicity for preference axioms: The natural counterpart to comonotonicity

Abstract

Comonotonicity (same variation) of random variables minimizes hedging possibilities and has been widely used, e.g., in Gilboa and Schmeidler's ambiguity models. This paper investigates anticomonotonicity (opposite variation (AC)), the natural counterpart to comonotonicity. It minimizes leveraging rather than hedging possibilities. Surprisingly, AC restrictions of several traditional axioms do not give new models. Instead, they strengthen the foundations of existing classical models: (a) linear functionals through Cauchy's equation; (b) Anscombe–Aumann expected utility; (c) as‐if risk‐neutral pricing through no‐arbitrage; (d) de Finetti's bookmaking foundation of Bayesianism using subjective probabilities; (e) risk aversion in Savage's subjective expected utility. In each case, our generalizations show where the critical tests of classical axioms lie, i.e., in the AC cases (maximal hedges). We next present examples where AC restrictions do essentially weaken existing axioms, and do provide new properties and new models.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.