Risk-Return Relationship in a Complex Adaptive System

For survival and development, autonomous agents in complex adaptive systems involving the human society must compete against or collaborate with others for sharing limited resources or wealth, by using different methods. One method is to invest, in order to obtain payoffs with risk. It is a common belief that investments with a positive risk-return relationship (namely, high risk high return and vice versa) are dominant over those with a negative risk-return relationship (i.e., high risk low return and vice versa) in the human society; the belief has a notable impact on daily investing activities of investors. Here we investigate the risk-return relationship in a model complex adaptive system, in order to study the effect of both market efficiency and closeness that exist in the human society and play an important role in helping to establish traditional finance/economics theories. We conduct a series of computer-aided human experiments, and also perform agent-based simulations and theoretical analysis to confirm the experimental observations and reveal the underlying mechanism. We report that investments with a negative risk-return relationship have dominance over those with a positive risk-return relationship instead in such a complex adaptive systems. We formulate the dynamical process for the system's evolution, which helps to discover the different role of identical and heterogeneous preferences. This work might be valuable not only to complexity science, but also to finance and economics, to management and social science, and to physics.

[1]  Yi-Cheng Zhang,et al.  The Interactive Minority Game: a Web-based investigation of human market interactions , 2003, ArXiv.

[2]  Timothy W. Ruefli,et al.  Mean-Variance Approaches to Risk-Return Relationships in Strategy: Paradox Lost , 1990 .

[3]  P. M. Hui,et al.  Crowd–anticrowd theory of the minority game , 2001 .

[4]  Hirotada Ohashi,et al.  Herd behavior in a complex adaptive system , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Rick L. Riolo,et al.  Adaptive Competition, Market Efficiency, and Phase Transitions , 1999 .

[6]  John F. Muth,et al.  A RISK/RETURN PARADOX FOR STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 2008 .

[7]  G. Parisi,et al.  Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  G. Parisi,et al.  Scale-free correlations in starling flocks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  D. Foley,et al.  The economy needs agent-based modelling , 2009, Nature.

[10]  Pak Ming Hui,et al.  Crowd Effects in Competitive, Multi-Agent Populations and Networks , 2005 .

[11]  Thomas Lux,et al.  Nonlinear Dynamics and Heterogeneous Interacting Agents , 2005 .

[12]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[13]  Jiping Huang,et al.  Heterogeneous preferences, decision-making capacity, and phase transitions in a complex adaptive system , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[15]  Yi-Cheng Zhang,et al.  Emergence of cooperation and organization in an evolutionary game , 1997 .

[16]  E. Fama,et al.  Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[17]  W. Sharpe.  CAPITAL ASSET PRICES: A THEORY OF MARKET EQUILIBRIUM UNDER CONDITIONS OF RISK* , 1964 .

[18]  F Mondada,et al.  Social Integration of Robots into Groups of Cockroaches to Control Self-Organized Choices , 2007, Science.

[19]  Yuji Takano,et al.  Big Losses Lead to Irrational Decision-Making in Gambling Situations: Relationship between Deliberation and Impulsivity , 2010, PloS one.