Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Agricultural investors valuing sequences of monetary rewards – results of an experiment

Agricultural investors valuing sequences of monetary rewards – results of an experiment Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to quantify the differences between the classical normative investment theory and alternative investment models of agricultural stakeholders’ choices. Design/methodology/approach – Farmers ( n =1,024) and agricultural commodity traders ( n =509) were asked to rank investment alternatives. Non‐linear regressions were integrated into a Monotonic Analysis of Variance algorithm to analyze the investment rankings. The results reveal coefficients for classical constant discounting, hyperbolic discounting and a preference for a sequence model. Two information criteria indicate the models’ goodness of fit and allow a comparison of the investment rankings of different age groups. Findings – Agribusiness stakeholders have preferences for sequences and could be willing to accept lower internal rates of return for monotone‐distributed rewards. Practical implications – The results are useful for state‐aided agricultural investment policies and contractual relations within agribusiness. Originality/value – To the author's knowledge, this paper is the first paper to analyze agricultural stakeholders’ preferences for sequences. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agricultural Finance Review Emerald Publishing

Agricultural investors valuing sequences of monetary rewards – results of an experiment

Martin Philipp Steinhorst; Enno Bahrs
Agricultural Finance Review , Volume 74 (3): 18 – Aug 26, 2014
Download PDF
18 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/agricultural-investors-valuing-sequences-of-monetary-rewards-results-9SuVmHFjgP
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0002-1466
DOI
10.1108/AFR-06-2013-0026
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to quantify the differences between the classical normative investment theory and alternative investment models of agricultural stakeholders’ choices. Design/methodology/approach – Farmers ( n =1,024) and agricultural commodity traders ( n =509) were asked to rank investment alternatives. Non‐linear regressions were integrated into a Monotonic Analysis of Variance algorithm to analyze the investment rankings. The results reveal coefficients for classical constant discounting, hyperbolic discounting and a preference for a sequence model. Two information criteria indicate the models’ goodness of fit and allow a comparison of the investment rankings of different age groups. Findings – Agribusiness stakeholders have preferences for sequences and could be willing to accept lower internal rates of return for monotone‐distributed rewards. Practical implications – The results are useful for state‐aided agricultural investment policies and contractual relations within agribusiness. Originality/value – To the author's knowledge, this paper is the first paper to analyze agricultural stakeholders’ preferences for sequences.

Journal

Agricultural Finance Review – Emerald Publishing

Published: Aug 26, 2014

Keywords: Discounted utility; Hyperbolic discounting; Investment behavior; Preference for sequences

References

  • Intertemporal tradeoffs for gains and losses: an experimental measurement of discounted utility
    Abdellaoui, M.; Attema, A.E.; Bleichrodt, H.
  • Sign‐dependence in intertemporal choice
    Abdellaoui, M.; Bleichrodt, H.; L'Haridon, O.
  • Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing, and defaults
    Agnew, J.R.; Anderson, L.R.; Gerlach, J.R.; Szykman, L.R.
  • Hyperbolic discounting models in prescriptive theory of intertemporal choice.
    Ahlbrecht, A.; Weber, M.
  • An empirical study on intertemporal decision making under risk
    Ahlbrecht, A.; Weber, M.
  • Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control
    Ainslie, G.
  • Pure hyperbolic discount curves predict ‘eyes open’ self‐control
    Ainslie, G.
  • A new look at the statistical model identification
    Akaike, H.
  • Seeing sets: representation by statistical properties
    Ariely, D.
  • Gestalt characteristics of experiences: the defining features of summarized events
    Ariely, D.; Carmon, Z.
  • Discount rates inferred from decisions: an experimental study
    Benzion, U.; Rapoport, A.; Yagil, J.
  • Intertemporal choice – toward an integrative framework
    Berns, G.S.; Laibson, D.I.; Loewenstein, G.
  • Discounting of sequences of delayed rewards of different amounts
    Bialaszek, W.; Ostaszewski, P.
  • Time preference for health: a test of stationarity vs decreasing timing aversion
    Bleichrodt, H.; Johannesson, M.
  • Valuing future private and social benefits: the discounted utility model vs hyperbolic discounting models
    Cairns, J.; van der Pol, M.
  • Further beyond conjoint measurement: toward a comparison of methods
    Cattin, P.; Wittink, D.R.
  • Expectations and preferences for sequences of health and money
    Chapman, G.B.
  • The evaluation of infinite utility streams
    Diamond, P.A.
  • Perceived variance and preference for sequences of outcomes
    Dolansky, E.; Vandenbosch, M.
  • The influence of aging on preferences for sequences of mixed affective events
    Drolet, A.; Lau‐Gesk, L.; Scott, C.
  • Time preference
    Fishburn, P.C.; Rubinstein, A.
  • Conflicting motives in evaluations of sequences
    Frederick, S.; Loewenstein, G.
  • Time discounting and time preferences: a critical review
    Frederick, S.; Loewenstein, G.; O'Donoghue, T.
  • A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards
    Green, L.; Myerson, J.
  • Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes
    Green, L.; Fristoe, N.; Myerson, J.
  • Rate of temporal discounting decreases with amount of reward
    Green, L.; Myerson, J.; Mcfadden, E.
  • Temporal discounting in choice between delayed rewards: the role of age and income
    Green, L.; Myerson, J.; Lichtman, D.; Rosen, S.; Fry, A.
  • Consistency among elicitation techniques for intertemporal choice: a within‐subjects investigation of the anomalies
    Guyse, J.L.; Simon, J.
  • Valuing environmental outcomes: preferences for constant or improving sequences
    Guyse, J.L.; Keller, L.R.; Eppel, T.
  • Value functions for infinite‐period planning
    Harvey, C.M.
  • Regression and time series model selection in small samples
    Hurvich, C.M.; Tsai, C.‐L.
  • Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature
    Kay, R.H.; LeSage, A.
  • Bidding on the future: evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards
    Kirby, K.N.
  • Modeling myopic decisions: evidence for hyperbolic delay‐discounting within subjects and amounts
    Kirby, K.; Maraković, N.
  • Making choices in anticipation of similar future choices can increase self‐control
    Kirby, K.N.; Guastello, B.
  • Stationary ordinal utility and impatience
    Koopmans, T.C.
  • Stationary utility and time perspective
    Koopmans, T.C.; Diamond, P.A.a.R.W.
  • Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data
    Kruskal, J.B.
  • Geometric models and badness‐of‐fit functions
    Kruskal, J.B.; Carrol, J.D.
  • Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting
    Laibson, D.
  • An axiomatic theory of consumer time preference
    Lancaster, K.
  • Frames of mind in intertemporal choice
    Loewenstein, G.
  • Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation
    Loewenstein, G.; Prelec, D.
  • Do workers prefer increasing wage profiles?
    Loewenstein, G.; Sicherman, N.
  • Preferences for sequences of outcomes
    Loewenstein, G.F.; Prelec, D.
  • Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement
    Luce, R.D.; Tukey, J.W.
  • Sequential preference questions factors influencing completion rates and response times using an online panel
    Louviere, J.J.; Carson, R.T.; Burgess, L.; Street, D.; Marley, A.A.J.
  • Choosing monetary sequences: theory and experimental evidence
    Manzini, P.; Mariotti, M.; Mittone, L.
  • An adjustment procedure for studying delayed reinforcement
    Mazur, J.E.
  • Inertia in disinvestment decisions: experimental evidence
    Mußhoff, O.; Odening, M.; Schade, C.; Maart‐Noelck, S.C.; Sandri, S.
  • Discounting of delayed rewards: models of individual choice
    Myerson, J.; Green, L.
  • Doing it now or later
    O'Donoghue, T.; Rabin, M.
  • New paradoxes in intertemporal choice
    Rao, L.; Li, S.
  • Reasons for sequence preferences
    Read, D.; Powell, M.
  • Time discounting over the lifespan
    Read, D.; Read, N.L.
  • Tradeoffs between sequences: weighing accumulated outcomes against outcome‐adjusted delays
    Read, D.; Scholten, M.
  • Four days later in Cincinnati: longitudinal tests of hyperbolic discounting
    Read, D.; Frederick, S.; Airoldi, M.
  • Mixing virtue and vice: combining the immediacy effect and the diversification Heuristic
    Read, D.; Loewenstein, G.; Kalyanaraman, S.
  • Which factors influence the expansion of bioenergy? An empirical study of the investment behaviours of German farmers
    Reise, C.; Mußhoff, O.; Granoszewski, K.; Spiller, A.
  • Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: when ‘goods satiate’
    Reutskaja, E.; Hogarth, R.M.
  • ‘Economics and psychology’? The case of hyperbolic discounting
    Rubinstein, A.
  • A note on measurement of utility
    Samuelson, P.A.
  • Outcome signs, question frames and discount rates
    Shelley, M.K.
  • Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization
    Strotz, R.H.
  • Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency
    Thaler, R.
  • Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice
    Thaler, R.H.; Johnson, E.J.
  • Experiences extended across time: evaluation of moments and episodes
    Varey, C.; Kahneman, D.
  • Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update
    Wittink, D.R.; Cattin, P.