CRRA Utility and Absolute Versus Relative Risk Aversion
Summary
The document explains how risk aversion changes with wealth under constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) utility. For the stated power utility function, it distinguishes absolute risk aversion, measured by the Arrow–Pratt ratio of negative second to first derivatives, from relative risk aversion, which scales that ratio by wealth. The resulting formulas show that absolute risk aversion falls as wealth rises, while relative risk aversion stays constant at the utility parameter.
This distinction addresses the question of whether someone with less wealth is more risk-averse: the answer depends on which measure is meant. The discussion does not establish that every practical notion of risk-taking follows directly from these measures, nor does it develop a time-dependent utility model. It offers definitions and comparative statics rather than empirical evidence or investment guidance.
Key ideas
- CRRA utility has constant relative risk aversion equal to its parameter.
- Absolute risk aversion under the stated utility function decreases as wealth increases.
- Risk aversion comparisons depend on whether absolute or relative risk aversion is meant.
- The document gives mathematical definitions rather than empirical evidence about investor behavior.
Tags
Full text
# Does CRRA-utility imply higher risk-aversion for lower wealth?
# Does CRRA-utility imply higher risk-aversion for lower wealth?
Consider the utility function $u(W)=\dfrac{1}{1-\gamma}W^{1-\gamma}$, where $\gamma=0.5$
Since this function will exhibit decreasing marginal utility of wealth, is it correct to say that for any given level of wealth $W_1$, risk aversion is higher than for any given level of wealth $W_2>W_1$? My intuition is as follows:
Given an initial amount of wealth $W_I$, since the marginal utility of wealth is decreasing, the utility from an amount of wealth gained $W*$, must be higher than the absolute value of the utility from loosing $W*$. (At least if not gained instantaneously)
Moreover, the decreasing marginal utility of wealth implies that loosing wealth over time becomes increasingly worse compared to gaining wealth over time (in terms of utility), the lower initial wealth is.
Hence, it is increasingly worse loosing an amount of $W*$ over time than gaining an amount of $W*$ over time when initial wealth is $W_1$, compared to when initial wealth is $W_2$. Therefore, risk aversion should be higher for an initial level of wealth $W_1$, than for an initial level of wealth $W_2$.
Also, I suspect I am missing a time notation in the utility function, so please help me in the direction of a more correct utility function if that is the case.
## Answer by phdstudent (score 2, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/39306
It depends on what you mean by risk aversion. The utility function you mention is called "CRRA - Constant Relative Risk Aversion Utility". As the name implies it has constant relative risk aversion (but not absolute).
How economists define risk aversion:
Arow–Pratt measure of absolute risk-aversion (ARA): \begin{equation} A(W) = -\frac{u''(W)}{u'(W)} = \frac{\gamma}{W} \end{equation}
So as wealth increases absolute risk aversion decreases. Or mathematically:
\begin{equation} \frac{\partial A(W)}{\partial W} < 0 \end{equation}
Arow–Pratt measure of relative risk-aversion (ARA): \begin{equation} R(W) = -W \frac{u''(W)}{u'(W)} = \gamma \end{equation}
However relative risk aversion is constant. Mathematically:
\begin{equation} \frac{\partial R(W)}{\partial W} = 0 \end{equation}Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.