• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Chapter 3 - Stochastic dominance -alternative explanation

Bill SD

Ton up Member
Hi,
The Chap 3 notes offer alternative explanations for first and second-order stochastic dominance.
On the first line of pg 6 it explains that "Z first-order stochastically dominates X if Z can be obtained from X by shifting probability from lower to higher outcome levels." The Acted question and answer on that page then aim to provide an illustration of this alternative explanation. But i have 3 basic questions on this alternative explanation:

Q1: I'm missing something obvious but don't follow how this explanation makes sense with Z and X since both possible outcomes for Z and X have prob of 0.5 (the bottom of pg4) so 'shifting' them should make no difference!

Q2: Additionally, with 2 assets (A and B) but 3 possible returns (like $1,$2,$3 in the question on pg6) how many of the original probabilities would one trial 'shifting' for both A and B to check if the new expected outcome of A (using the 'shifted' probabilities) equals the original outcome of B (and vice versa)? [The 3 possible shifts for A, B are: shifting the prob from $1 to $2, from $1 to $3 and from $2 to $3?]

Q3: Finally, is there any intuition behind this alternative explanation or is it intended to be an incomprehensible magic trick?
 
Q1: I'm missing something obvious but don't follow how this explanation makes sense with Z and X since both possible outcomes for Z and X have prob of 0.5 (the bottom of pg4) so 'shifting' them should make no difference!
Think of "shifting the probability" as sliding the distribution function to the right. So whilst the outcomes are still split 50/50 in terms of probabilities, the returns will have increased.
Q2: Additionally, with 2 assets (A and B) but 3 possible returns (like $1,$2,$3 in the question on pg6) how many of the original probabilities would one trial 'shifting' for both A and B to check if the new expected outcome of A (using the 'shifted' probabilities) equals the original outcome of B (and vice versa)? [The 3 possible shifts for A, B are: shifting the prob from $1 to $2, from $1 to $3 and from $2 to $3?]
For this shortcut to work the patterns need to be the same, ie $1,$2,$3 would need to shift linearly to something like $2.5, $3.5, $4.5.
Q3: Finally, is there any intuition behind this alternative explanation or is it intended to be an incomprehensible magic trick?
A "shift" is like boosting each possible return by the same fixed amount. So in the example above the boost is $1.5 - no magic I'm afraid :)
 
Back
Top