The time interpretation of expected theory O. Peters1,2, A. Adamou1∗ 1London Mathematical Laboratory, 8 Margravine Gardens, W6 8RH London, UK 2Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA (Dated: March 2, 2021) is a new branch of economic theory that notes the conceptual difference between time averages and expectation values, which coincide only for ergodic observables. It postulates that individual agents maximise the time average growth rate of wealth, known widely as growth optimality. This contrasts with the dominant behavioural model in economics, expected utility theory, in which agents maximise expectation values of changes in psychologically transformed wealth. Historically, growth optimality was explored for additive and multiplicative gambles. Here we apply it to a general class of wealth dynamics, extending the range of economic situations where it may be used. Moreover, we show a correspondence between growth optimality and expected utility theory, in which the ergodicity transformation in the former is identified as the utility function in the latter. This correspondence offers a theoretical basis for choosing utility functions and predicts that wealth dynamics are strong determinants of risk preferences.

PACS numbers: 02.50.Ey,05.10.Gg,05.20.Gg,05.40.Jc

I. INTRODUCTION pool and share their individual outcomes. The expecta- tion has no mechanistic relevance to an individual Expected utility theory (EUT) is a foundational model agent, who is exposed to only one of the possible out- of decisions under , originating in [1]. In it, comes. The effect of a sequence of random variables on an individual agent maximises the mathematical expec- the agent’s wealth may be well characterised by a time tation of the random change in a nonlinear transforma- average. The ergodicity question asks whether time av- tion of wealth. This transformation is known as the util- erages are equivalent to expectation values. In general, ity function. It is viewed as encoding the agent’s id- and in particular for the increments of growth processes iosyncratic aversion to risk which, under the standard encountered in economics, they are not. assumption of fixed preferences, is stable in time and The transformation of wealth to utility in EUT can be independent of exogenous factors. In short, agents in viewed as a way of restoring empirical relevance to the- EUT care about the average over all possible changes of oretically irrelevant expectation values, by introducing a transformation of wealth that reflects their hard-wired freedom to enable their fitting to behavioural data. EE . develops in a conceptually different way: Since utility is a psychological construct, EUT offers no by modelling physical (i.e. untransformed) economic ob- way of reasoning deductively which utility function will servables, like wealth; and by specifying averages that best predict a real person’s decisions. In the revealed are mechanistically relevant to individual agents (rather preferences framework, such decisions are observed first than to hypothetical collectives). and a utility function is fitted to the data. If the person’s More specifically, and confining attention to wealth, preferences are stable and well characterised by the fitted EE seeks to build realistic models of its temporal evolu- utility function, then it is hoped their future decisions will tion. These models take the form of stochastic processes, be predictable using EUT. In practice, therefore, the the- whose generating equations are known as wealth dynam- ory is circular: it claims that agents maximise expected ics. The dynamics depend on the economic circumstances utility and defines this as the quantity agents are ob- of the agent and are defined exogenously to the agent’s served to maximise. It can be used to represent observed preferences. For example, an agent with labour income and no would be well modelled as experiencing

arXiv:1801.03680v2 [q-fin.EC] 28 Feb 2021 decisions but not to predict them a priori. Ergodicity economics (EE) is a recent branch of eco- additive changes in wealth, while for an agent with sig- nomics that examines the use of expectation values in nificant invested capital a multiplicative dynamic would economic models. See [13] and references therein. Expec- be more realistic. tation values are, by the of large numbers, additive EE posits that an agent is concerned with the time av- averages over infinitely many realisations of a random erage growth rate of wealth, i.e. that achieved in a single variable. Where the random variable models a quantity trajectory of the over long time. This of to an economic agent, like a change in wealth, is the mechanistically relevant maximand for an individ- its expectation value resembles the outcome achieved by ual exposed to a sequence of economic choices. In con- each member of a large collective of agents, who agree to trast, the growth rate of the expectation value of wealth, i.e. the average over all possible trajectories, would be relevant to a collective of agents. For general wealth dy- namics, these growth rates are different. ∗Electronic address: [email protected], [email protected] In EE all agents are assumed to have the same prefer- 2 ence: to maximise the time average growth rate of wealth. conducted to compare the predictions of EE against those This decision criterion is not new and is often referred to of EUT with fixed preferences [9]. They support the pre- as growth optimality. It has a long in the setting diction of EE that dynamics are strong determinants of of multiplicative gambles, made famous as the “Kelly cri- preferences. terion” in the 1950s [6] and dating as far back as the 1870s [16]. The cases of additive and multiplicative wealth dy- namics were treated in the EE framework in [14]. II. EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY What is a growth rate? In simple terms, it is the co- efficient of time in a growth function. Different dynam- Here we provide a brief recap of EUT. To keep it rele- ics correspond to different growth functions and, there- vant and manageable, we restrict it to financial decisions. fore, to different growth rates. For example, wealth that We will not consider the utility of an apple or a poem, grows linearly in time, x = gt, has its growth rate ex- but only utility differences between different monetary tracted by the operation dx/dt = g; while for exponen- amounts. We restrict ourselves to situations where any tial growth, x = exp(gt), the growth rate is extracted non-financial attendant circumstances of the decision can by d ln x/dt = g. In both cases, a constant is obtained be disregarded. In other words, we work with a form of from a time-varying function as the rate of change of homo economicus. transformed wealth, linear and logarithmic in these sim- For an agent facing a choice between different courses ple examples. In stochastic growth models, it is no longer of action, the workflow of EUT is as follows. possible to find functions of wealth whose rates of change 1. Imagine everything that could happen under the are constant. Instead, the function, known in EE as the different actions: ergodicity transformation, is chosen to extract an ergodic Associate with any action A, B, C, . . . a set of pos- growth rate from the stochastic process. sible future events ΩA, ΩB, ΩC ,... . We do two things in this paper. Firstly, we generalise growth optimality beyond the additive and multiplica- 2. Estimate how likely the consequences of each ac- tive wealth dynamics treated in the literature hitherto. tion are and how they affect your wealth: Economically speaking, we allow wealth to evolve in a For set ΩA, associate a p(ωA) and a general manner, rather than through income and con- change in wealth ∆xωA with each elementary event sumption flows or the compounding of investments. This ωA ∈ ΩA, and similarly for all other sets. broadens the range of economic situations that can be 3. Specify how these outcomes affect your utility: modelled in EE. Define a utility function, u(x), that depends only on Secondly, we draw a correspondence between EE and wealth and describes the agent’s risk preferences. EUT by noting that the time average of the ergodic growth rate for given wealth dynamics is, by virtue of 4. Aggregate the utility changes for each event: its ergodicity, equal to its expectation value. This allows Compute the expected changes in utility asso- growth optimal decisions to be formulated as maximis- ciated with each available action, h∆uAi = ing expected utility, by identifying the utility function in P p(ω )u(x+∆x(ω ))−u(x), and similarly for ΩA A A EUT as the ergodicity transformation for the wealth dy- actions B,C,... . namics in EE. We show that this correspondence exists 5. Pick the action that increases your utility most: for a class of wealth dynamics, specifically those that ad- The option with the highest expected utility change mit an ergodicity transformation, and we derive the con- is the agent’s preferred choice. ditions for membership of this class. Going in the oppo- site direction, we show that all invertible utility functions We assume all steps in this workflow are possible. have corresponding wealth dynamics for which expected Thus we assume that all possible future events, asso- utility maximisation is growth optimal. ciated , and changes in wealth are known; This correspondence between two conceptually differ- that a suitable utility function is available; and that the ent but well established behavioural models opens tan- mathematical expectation of utility changes is the mathe- talising new avenues to researchers in both areas. Since matical object whose ordering reflects preferences among wealth dynamics are defined exogenously, the apparent actions. For simplicity, we also make the common as- utility function of an agent is predicted a priori. In other sumption that the time between taking an action and words, EE provides a theoretical basis for the choice of experiencing the corresponding change in wealth is inde- utility function in EUT, absent from the latter frame- pendent of the action taken. work. Conversely, if a utility function is already specified in an EUT model, EE gives it a physical interpretation in terms of wealth dynamics. Furthermore, the exogeneity III. TECHNICAL of wealth dynamics implies that, if dynamics change, so do the agent’s apparent preferences. This contrasts with Here we present the technical development of decision the standard of assumption of fixed preferences. Recent theory in EE, namely time average growth rate maximi- experiments with controllable wealth dynamics have been sation under general wealth dynamics. 3

We suppose that an individual’s wealth evolves over Our decision criterion has been recast such that it fo- time according to a stochastic process. This is a de- cuses on the rate of change parture from classical decision theory, where wealth is ∆u supposed to be described by a random variable without r ≡ , (8) dynamic. To turn a gamble into a stochastic process and ∆t enable the techniques we have developed, a dynamic must As before, it is conceptually similar to maximising be assumed, that is, a mode of repetition of the gamble, ∆u see [14]. r¯ ≡ lim = lim {r}. (9) The individual is required to choose one from a set of ∆t→∞ ∆t ∆t→∞ alternative stochastic processes, say x(t) and x∗(t). We suppose that this is done by considering how the decision If x(t) satisfies certain conditions, to be discussed be- maker would fare in their long-time limits. low, then the function u(x) can be chosen such that this limit exists. We shall see thatr ¯ is then the time-average At each decision time, t0, our individual acts to max- imise subsequent changes in his wealth by selecting x(t) growth rate mentioned in Section I. For the moment we so that if he waits long enough his wealth will be greater leave our criterion in the probabilistic form of (Eq. 7) under the chosen process than under the alternative pro- but to continue the discussion we assume that the limit cess with certainty. Mathematically speaking, there ex- (Eq. 9) exists. ists a sufficiently large t such that the probability of the Everything is now set up to make the link to EUT. chosen x(t) being greater than x∗(t) is arbitrarily close Perhaps (Eq. 9) is the same as the rate of change of the to one, expectation value of ∆u

∗ ∗ h∆ui ∀ε, x (t) ∃∆t s.t. P(∆x > ∆x ) > 1 − , (1) = hri . (10) ∆t where 0 < ε < 1 and We could then make the identification of u(x) being the ∆x ≡ x(t + ∆t) − x(t ), (2) utility function, noting that our criterion is equivalent to 0 0 maximizing the rate of change in expected utility. We with ∆x∗ similarly defined. note ∆u and hence r are random variables but hri is not. The criterion is necessarily probabilistic since the Taking the long-time limit is one way of removing ran- quantities ∆x and ∆x∗ are random variables and it might domness from the problem, and taking the expectation be possible for the latter to exceed the former for any fi- value is another. The expectation value is simply another nite ∆t. Only in the limit ∆t → ∞ does the randomness limit: it’s an average over N realizations of the random vanish from the system. number ∆u, in the limit N → ∞. The effect of removing Conceptually this criterion is tantamount to maximis- randomness is that the process x(t) is collapsed into the ing lim∆t→∞{∆x} or, equivalently, lim∆t→∞{∆x/∆t}. scalar ∆u, and consistent transitive decisions are possible However, neither limit is guaranteed to exist. For exam- by ranking the relevant scalars. In general, maximising ple, consider a choice between two geometric Brownian hri does not yield the same decisions as the criterion es- motions, poused in (Eq. 7). This is only the case for a particular function u(x) whose shape depends on the process x(t). dx = x(µdt + σdW ), (3) Our aim is to find these pairs of processes and functions. dx∗ = x∗(µ∗dt + σ∗dW ), (4) When using such u(x) as the utility function, EUT will be consistent with optimisation over time. It is then pos- with µ > σ2/2 and µ∗ > σ∗2/2. The quantities ∆x/∆t sible to interpret observed behavior that is found to be and ∆x∗/∆t both diverge in the limit ∆t → ∞ and a consistent with EUT using the utility function u(x) in criterion requiring the larger to be selected fails to yield purely dynamical terms: such behavior will lead to the a decision. fastest possible wealth growth over time. To overcome this problem we introduce a montonically We ask what sort of dynamic u must follow so thatr ¯ = increasing function of wealth, which we call suggestively hri or, put another way, so that r is an ergodic observable, u(x). We define: in the sense that its time and ensemble averages are the same [7, p. 32]. ∆u ≡ u(x(t0 + ∆t)) − u(x(t0)); (5) We start by expressing the change in utility, ∆u, as a ∗ ∗ ∗ ∆u ≡ u(x (t0 + ∆t)) − u(x (t0)). (6) sum over M equal time intervals,

The monotonicity of u(x) means that the events ∆x > ∆u ≡ u(t0 + ∆t) − u(t0) (11) ∗ ∗ ∆x and ∆u > ∆u are the same. Taking ∆t > 0 allows M ∗ X this event to be expressed as ∆u/∆t > ∆u /∆t, whence = [u(t0 + mδt) − u(t0 + (m − 1)δt)] (12) the decision criterion in (Eq. 1) becomes m=1 M  ∗  X ∗ ∆u ∆u = δu (t), (13) ∀ε, x (t) ∃∆t s.t. P > > 1 − . (7) m ∆t ∆t m=1 4 where δt ≡ ∆t/M and δum(t) ≡ u(t0 + mδt) − u(t0 + This is a fascinating general connection. If the phys- (m − 1)δt). From (Eq. 9) we have ical reason why we observe non-linear utility functions is the non-linear effect of fluctuations over time, then a ( M ) 1 X given utility function encodes a corresponding stochastic r¯ = lim δum (14) wealth process. Provided that a utility function u(x) is ∆t→∞ ∆t m=1 invertible, i.e. provided that its inverse, x(u), exists, a ( M ) simple application of Itˆocalculus to (Eq. 17) yields di- 1 X δum = lim , (15) rectly the SDE obeyed by the wealth, x. Thus every M→∞ M δt m=1 invertible utility function encodes a unique dynamic in wealth which arises from a Brownian motion in utility. keeping δt fixed. From (Eq. 10) we obtain This is explored further below.

( N ) 1 X ∆un hri = lim (16) N→∞ N ∆t IV. DYNAMIC FROM A UTILITY FUNCTION n=1 where each ∆un is drawn independently from the distri- We now illustrate the relationship between utility func- bution of ∆u. tions and wealth dynamics. For the reasons discussed We now compare the two expressions (Eq. 15) and above we assume that utility follows a Brownian motion (Eq. 16). Clearly the value ofr ¯ in (Eq. 15) cannot depend with drift. on the way in which the diverging time period is parti- If u(x) can be inverted to x(u) = u−1(u), and x(u) tioned, so the length of interval δt must be arbitrary and is twice differentiable, then it is possible to find the can be set to the value of ∆t in (Eq. 16), for consistency dynamic that corresponds to the utility function u(x). we then call δum(t) = ∆um(t). Expressions (Eq. 15) and Equation (17) is an Itˆoprocess. Itˆo’slemma tells us that (Eq. 16) are equivalent if the successive additive incre- dx will be another Itˆoprocess, and Itˆo’sformula specifies ments, ∆um(t), are distributed identically to the ∆un how to find dx in terms of the relevant partial derivatives in (Eq. 16), which requires only that they are stationary  2  and independent. ∂x ∂x 1 2 ∂ x ∂x dx = + au + b dt + bu dW (18) Thus we have a condition on u(t) which suffices to ∂t ∂u 2 u ∂u2 ∂u | {z } | {z } maker ¯ = hri, namely that it be a stochastic process bx(x) ax(x) whose additive increments are stationary and indepen- dent. This means that u(t) is, in general, a L´evyprocess. We have thus shown that Without loss of realism we shall restrict our attention to processes with continuous paths. According to a theo- Theorem 1. For any invertible utility function u(x) a rem stated in [4, p. 2] and proved in [2, Chapter 12] this class of corresponding wealth processes dx can be obtained means that u(t) must be a Brownian motion with drift, such that the (linear) rate of change in the expectation value of net changes in utility is the time-average growth

du = audt + budW, (17) rate of wealth. As a consequence, optimizing expected changes in such where dW is the infinitesimal increment of the Wiener utility functions is equivalent to optimizing the time- process. average growth, in the sense of Section III, under the By arguing backwards we can address concerns regard- corresponding wealth process. ing the existence ofr ¯. If u follows the dynamics specified The origin of optimizing expected utility can be un- by (Eq. 17), then it is straightforward to show that the derstood as follows: in the 18th century, the distinction limitr ¯ always exists and takes the value a. Consequently between ergodic and non-ergodic processes was unknown, the decision criterion (Eq. 7) is equivalent to the optimi- and all stochastic processes were treated by computing sation ofr ¯, the time-average growth rate. The process expectation values. Since the expectation value of the x(t) may be chosen such that (Eq. 17) does not apply wealth process is an irrelevant mathematical object to for any choice of u(x). In this case we cannot interpret an individual whose wealth is modelled by a non-ergodic EUT dynamically, and such processes are likely to be process the available methods failed. The formalism was pathological. saved by introducing a non-linear mapping of wealth, This gives our central result: namely the utility function. The (failed) expectation value criterion was interpreted as theoretically optimal, For EUT to be equivalent to optimisation over and the non-linear utility functions were interpreted as time, utility must follow an additive stochastic pro- a psychologically motivated pattern of human behavior. cess with stationary increments which, in our frame- Conceptually, this is wrong. work, we shall take to be a Brownian motion with Optimization of time-average growth recognizes the drift. non-ergodicity of the situation and computes the appro- priate object from the outset – a procedure whose build- 5 ing blocks were developed beginning in the late 19th cen- function indeed represents a dynamic that is partly ad- tury. It does not assume anything about human psychol- ditive and partly multiplicative. ogy and indeed predicts that the same behavior will be (Eq. 21) is reminiscent of the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross model observed in any growth-optimizing entities that need not [3] in financial mathematics, especially if au < 0. Simi- be human. lar dynamics,√ i.e. with a noise amplitude that is propor- tional to x, are also studied in the context of absorbing- state phase transitions in statistical physics [5, 8]. That a A. Examples 300-year-old letter is related to recent work in statistical mechanics is not surprising: the problems that motivated Equation (18), creates pairs of utility functions u(x) the development of decision theory, and indeed of prob- and dynamics dx. In discrete time, two such pairs were ability theory itself are far-from equilibrium processes. investigated in [14], namely cases 1. and 2. below. Methods to study such processes were only developed in the 20th century and constitute much of the work cur- rently carried out in statistical mechanics. 1. Linear utility

The trivial linear utility function corresponds to addi- V. UTILITY FUNCTION FROM A DYNAMIC tive wealth dynamics (Brownian motion), We now ask under what circumstances the procedure u(x) = x ↔ dx = audt + budW. (19) in (Eq. 18) can be inverted. When can a utility func- tion be found for a given dynamic? In other words, what conditions does the dynamic dx have to satisfy so that 2. Logarithmic utility optimization over time can be represented by optimiza- tion of expected net changes in utility u(x)? Introduced by Bernoulli in 1738 [1], the logarithmic We ask whether a given dynamic can be mapped into utility function is in wide use and corresponds to multi- a utility whose increments are described by Brownian plicative wealth dynamics (geometric Brownian motion), motion, (Eq. 17). The dynamic is an arbitrary Itˆoprocess  1   u(x) = ln(x) ↔ dx = x a + b2 dt + b dW . u 2 u u dx = ax(x)dt + bx(x)dW, (22) (20) where a (x) and b (x) are arbitrary functions of x. For In practice the most useful case will be multiplicative x x this dynamic to translate into a Brownian motion for the wealth dynamics. But to demonstrate the generality of utility, u(x) must satisfy the equivalent of (Eq. 18) with the procedure, we carry it out for a different special case the special requirement that the coefficients a and b in that is historically important. u u (Eq. 17) be constants, namely

 ∂u 1 ∂2u ∂u 3. Square-root (Cramer) utility du = a (x) + b2 (x) dt + b (x) dW. (23) x ∂x 2 x ∂x2 x ∂x | {z } | {z } b The first utility function ever to be suggested was the au u 1/2 square-root function u(x) = x , by Cramer in a 1728 Explicitly, we arrive at two equations for the coefficients letter to Daniel Bernoulli, partially reproduced in [1]. This function is invertible, namely x(u) = u2, so that 1 a = a (x)u0 + b2 (x)u00 (24) (Eq. 18) applies. We note that the square root, in a spe- u x 2 x cific sense, sits between the linear function and the log- x1/2 ln(x) and arithm: limx→∞ x = 0 and limx→∞ x1/2 = 0. Since 0 linear utility produces additive dynamics and logarith- bu = bx(x)u . (25) mic utility produces multiplicative dynamics, we expect square-root utility to produce something in between or Differentiating (Eq. 25), it follows that some mix. Substituting for x(u) in (Eq. 18) and carrying b b0 (x) out the differentiations we find u00(x) = − u x . (26) b2 (x)   x dx = 2a x1/2 + b2 dt + 2b x1/2dW (21) u u u Substituting in (Eq. 24) for u0 and u00 and solving for a (x) we find the drift term as a function of the noise The drift term contains a multiplicative element (by x term, which we mean an element with x-dependence) and an additive element. We see that the square-root utility au 1 0 ax(x) = bx(x) + bx(x)bx(x). (27) function that lies between the logarithm and the linear bu 2 6

In other words, knowledge of only the dynamic is suffi- cient to determine whether a corresponding utility func- tion exists. We do not need to construct the utility func- tion explicitly to know whether a pair of drift term and 8 noise term is consistent or not. 500 Having determined for some dynamic that a consistent 7 utility function exists, we can construct it by substituting 6 400 for bx(x) in (Eq. 24). This yields a differential equation 5 for u 300 4

2 Cash 0 bu 00 Utility a = a (x)u + u (28) 200 u x 2u02 3 2 or 100 b2 1 0 = −a u02 + a (x)u03 + u u00. (29) 0 u x 2 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Overall, then the triplet noise term, drift term, utility Time function is interdependent. Given a noise term we can find consistent drift terms, and given a drift term we FIG. 1: Typical trajectories of the wealth trajectory x(t) de- find a consistency condition (differential equation) for the scribed by (Eq. 30), with parameter values au = 1/2 and utility function. bu = 1, and the corresponding Brownian motion u(t). Note that the fluctuations in x(t) become smaller for larger wealth.

A. Example Because (Eq. 30) is internally consistent, it is possi- ble to derive the corresponding utility function. Equa- Given a dynamic, it is possible to check whether this tion (25) is a first-order ordinary differential equation for dynamic can be mapped into a utility function, and the u(x) utility function itself can be found. We consider the fol- lowing example b u0(x) = u , (31) b (x) a 1  x dx = u e−x − e−2x dt + e−xdW. (30) bu 2 which can be integrated to x au −x 1 −2x −x Z We note that ax(x) = e − e and bx(x) = e . bu bu 2 u(x) = dx˜ + C, (32) Equation (27) imposes conditions on the drift term ax(x) 0 bx(˜x) in terms of the noise term bx(x). Substituting in (Eq. 27) reveals that the consistency condition is satisfied by the with C an arbitrary constant of integration. This con- dynamic in (Eq. 30). stant corresponds to the fact that only changes in utility A typical trajectory of (Eq. 30) is shown in Fig. 1. are meaningful, as was pointed out by von Neumann and Morgenstern [15] – this robust feature is visible whether one thinks in dynamic terms and time averages or in terms of consistent measure-theoretic concepts and ex- pectation values. Substituting for bx(x) from (Eq. 30), (Eq. 31) becomes

0 x u (x) = bue , (33)

which is easily integrated to

x u(x) = bue + C, (34)

plotted in Fig. 2. This expoential utility function is monotonic and therefore invertible, which is reflected in the fact that the consistency condition is satisfied. The utility function is convex. From the perspective of expected-utility theory an individual behaving opti- mally according to this function would be labelled “risk- seeking.” The dynamical perspective corresponds to a qualitatively different interpretation: Under the dynamic 7

(Eq. 30) the “risk-seeking” individual behaves optimally, in the sense that his wealth will grow faster than that of a risk-averse individual. The dynamic (Eq. 30) has 140 the feature that fluctuations in wealth become smaller as wealth grows. High wealth is therefore sticky – an indi- 120 vidual will quickly fluctuate out of low wealth and into higher wealth. It will then tend to stay there. 100

80 VI. WEALTH FROM A Utility 60 DYNAMIC 40 The dynamical interpretation of EUT makes it partic- 20 ularly simple to compute wealth distributions. A util- ity function u(x) implies a dynamic x(t), and that dy- 0 namic generates a wealth distribution Px(x, t). We know $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 that u(t) follows a simple Brownian motion, wherefore Cash we know that u(t) is normally distributed according to

2 2 FIG. 2: Utility function of (Eq. 34), with bu = 1 and C = 0. Pu(u, t) = N aut, but . (35) Optimizing the expected change in this utility function also optimizes time-average growth under the corresponding dy- Since we know Pu(u, t), the distribution of x is easily namic (Eq. 30). An unusual utility function – like the convex derived. The wealth distribution in a large population, function shown here – reflects unusual dynamics, see text. is du P (x, t) = P (u(x), t) . (36) x u dx

A. Example of a wealth distribution 0.035

0.030 The utility function (Eq. 34) corresponds to the exam- ple dynamic (Eq. 30). The wealth distribution at any 0.025 time t can be read off (Eq. 36) 0.020

x 2 ! 0.015 1 (bue + C − aut) x Px(x, t) = exp − bue , p 2 2 p 2 2

2πbut 2but Probability density 0.010 (37) which is shown in Fig. 3. The distribution is sensible 0.005 given what we know about the dynamic – since fluctu- 0.000 ations diminish with increasing wealth many individuals $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 will be found at high wealth (all those that have fluctu- Cash ated away from low wealth), with a heavy tail towards lower wealth. FIG. 3: Probability density function of wealth, also known as the wealth distribution, (Eq. 37). This distribution is gener- ated by the wealth dynamic (Eq. 30). The time is fixed to t = 5, and we use au = 1/2, bu = 1, and C = 0.

VII. UNBOUNDEDNESS OF u(x)

The scheme outlined in Section V is informative for the debate regarding the boundedness of utility functions. A well-established but false belief in the economics liter- ature, due to Karl Menger [10, 11], is that permissible utility functions must be bounded. We have argued pre- viously that boundedness is an unnecessary restriction, 8 and that Menger’s arguments are not valid [12, 14]. Sec- Such features – an end of time or a finite-time singu- tion V implies that the interpretation of expected utility larity of wealth – are inconvenient to carry around in theory we offer here formally requires unboundedness of a formalism. Since they have no physical meaning, for utility functions. Bounded functions are not invertible, simplicity a model without them should be chosen, i.e. and Menger’s incorrect result therefore contributed to unbounded utility functions will be much better. We re- obscuring the simple natural arguments we present here. peat that Menger’s arguments against unbounded utility Of course whether u(x) is bounded or not is practically functions are invalid and we need not worry about them. irrelevant because x will always be finite. However, for a clean mathematical formalism an unbounded u(x) is highly desirable. VIII. DISCUSSION The problem is easily demonstrated by considering the case of zero noise. Since u(x) always follows a Brownian motion in our treatment, in the zero-noise case it follows EUT is an 18th-century patch, applied to a flawed con- ceptual framework established in the 17th century that du = audt, (38) made blatantly wrong predictions of human behavior. Because the mathematics of randomness was in its in- meaning linear growth in time. For u to be bounded, fancy in the 18th century, the conceptual problems were time itself would have to be bounded. Another way to overlooked, and utility theory set economics off in the see the problem is inverting u(x) to find x(u). If we wrong direction. Without any of the arbitrariness inher- require simultaneously linear growth of u(t) in time, and ent in utility functions it is nowadays possible to give a boundedness from above, limx→∞ u(x) = Ub, then x(t) physical meaning to the non-linear mappings people seem has to diverge in the finite time it takes for u(t) to reach to apply to monetary amounts. These apparent map- Ub Ub, namely in Tb = (assuming for simplicity u(t = au pings simply encode the non-linearity of wealth dyan- 0) = 0). mics.

[1] D. Bernoulli. Specimen Theoriae Novae de Mensura Sor- Press, 1999. tis. Translation “Exposition of a new theory on the mea- [9] D. Meder, F. Rabe, T. Morville, K. H. Madsen, M. T. surement of risk” by L. Sommer (1954). Econometrica, Koudahl, R. J. Dolan, H. R. Siebner, and O. J. Hulme. 22(1):23–36, 1738. Ergodicity-breaking reveals time optimal economic be- [2] L. Breiman. Probability. Addison-Wesley Publishing havior in humans. arXiv:1906.04652, 2019. Company, 1968. [10] K. Menger. Das Unsicherheitsmoment in der Wertlehre. [3] J. C. Cox, J. E. Ingersoll, and S. A. Ross. An in- J. Econ., 5(4):459–485, 1934. tertemporal general equilibrium model of asset . [11] O. Peters. Menger 1934 revisited. Econometrica, 53(2):363–384, 1985. http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1578, 2011. [4] J. M. Harrison. Brownian motion of performance and [12] O. Peters. Optimal leverage from non-ergodicity. control. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Quantitative Finance, 11(11):1593–1602, Nov. 2011. [5] H. Hinrichsen. Non-equilibrium critical phenomena and [13] O. Peters. The ergodicity problem in economics. Nature phase transitions into absorbing states. Adv. Phys., Physics, 15:1216–1221, 2019. 49(7):815–958, 2000. [14] O. Peters and M. Gell-Mann. Evaluating gambles using [6] J. L. Kelly, Jr. A new interpretation of information rate. dynamics. Chaos, 26:23103, 2016. Bell Sys. Tech. J., 35(4):917–926, July 1956. [15] J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern. Theory of Games [7] P. E. Kloeden and E. Platen. Numerical solution of and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, stochastic differential equations, volume 23. Springer Sci- 1944. ence & Business Media, 1992. [16] W. A. Whitworth. Choice and chance. Deighton Bell, 2 [8] J. Marro and R. Dickman. Nonequilibrium Phase edition, 1870. Transitions in Lattice Models. Cambridge University