Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T17:44:01.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimists and Pessimists in (In)Complete Markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2019

Nicole Branger ,
Patrick Konermann Open the ORCID record for Patrick Konermann [Opens in a new window]  and
Christian Schlag
Nicole Branger
Affiliation:
Branger, [email protected], University of Muenster
Patrick Konermann*
Affiliation:
Konermann, [email protected], BI Norwegian Business School
Christian Schlag
Affiliation:
Schlag, [email protected], Goethe University and Research Center SAFE
*
Konermann (corresponding author), [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the effects of market incompleteness on speculation, investor survival, and asset pricing moments when investors disagree about the likelihood of jumps and have recursive preferences. We consider two models. In a model with jumps in aggregate consumption, incompleteness barely matters because the consumption claim resembles an insurance product against jump risk and effectively reproduces approximate spanning. In a long-run risk model with jumps in the long-run growth rate, market incompleteness affects speculation and investor survival. Jump and diffusive risks are more balanced regarding their importance, and therefore the consumption claim cannot reproduce approximate spanning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 55 , Issue 8 , December 2020 , pp. 2466 - 2499
Copyright
Copyright © Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank an anonymous referee for many helpful comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the article. Furthermore, we are grateful for the input provided by seminar participants at Goethe University Frankfurt, the University of Muenster, and BI Norwegian Business School as well as the participants of the 13th Colloquium on Financial Markets, the 17th Conference of the Swiss Society for Financial Market Research (SGF), the Arne Ryde Workshop in Financial Economics 2014, the 2016 meeting of the German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB), the 2017 North American Winter Meeting of the Econometric Society, and the 2018 SITE Asset Pricing Theory and Computation Workshop. Special thanks go to Hengjie Ai, Laurent Calvet, Paul Ehling, Alessandro Graniero, Holger Kraft, Christoph Meinerding, Miguel Palacios, Jacob Sagi, and Costas Xiouros. Supplementary Material for this article is available at http://home.bi.no/patrick.konermann. Schlag gratefully acknowledges research and financial support from SAFE, funded by the State of Hessen initiative for research LOEWE.

References

Alchian, A. A.“Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy, 58 (1950), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansal, R., and Yaron, A.. “Risks for the Long Run: A Potential Resolution of Asset Pricing Puzzles.” Journal of Finance, 59 (2004), 1481–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basak, S.“Asset Pricing with Heterogeneous Beliefs.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 29 (2005), 2849–2881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D.“The Market for Crash Risk.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32 (2008), 2291–2321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benzoni, L.; Collin-Dufresne, P.; and Goldstein, R. S.. “Explaining Asset Pricing Puzzles Associated with the 1987 Market Crash.” Journal of Financial Economics, 101 (2011), 552–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, L., and Easley, D.. “If You Are So Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets.” Econometrica, 74 (2006), 929–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borovicka, J.“Survival and Long-Run Dynamics with Heterogeneous Beliefs under Recursive Preferences.” Journal of Political Economy, forthcoming (2020).Google Scholar
Campbell, J., and Shiller, R. J.. “Stock Prices, Earnings, and Expected Dividends.” Journal of Finance, 43 (1988), 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabakauri, G.“Dynamic Equilibrium with Rare Events and Heterogeneous Epstein–Zin Investors.” Working Paper, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2421039 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, H.; Joslin, S.; and Tran, N.-K.. “Rare Disasters and Risk Sharing.” Review of Financial Studies, 25 (2012), 2189–2224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collin-Dufresne, P.; Lochstoer, L.; and Johannes, M.. “A Robust Numerical Procedure for Solving Risk-Sharing Problems with Recursive Preferences.” Working Paper, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and Columbia Business School (2015).Google Scholar
Collin-Dufresne, P.; Lochstoer, L.; and Johannes, M.. “Asset Pricing When ‘This Time Is Different.”’ Review of Financial Studies, 30 (2017), 505–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieckmann, S.“Rare Event Risk and Heterogeneous Beliefs: The Case of Incomplete Markets.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 46 (2011), 459–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffie, D., and Epstein, L. G.. “Stochastic Differential Utility.” Econometrica, 60 (1992), 353–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumas, B., and Lyasoff, A.. “Incomplete-Market Equilibria Solved Recursively on an Event Tree.” Journal of Finance, 67 (2012), 1897–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L. G., and Zin, S. E.. “Substitution, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption Growth and Asset Returns I: A Theoretical Framework.” Econometrica, 57 (1989), 937–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eraker, B., and Shaliastovich, I.. “An Equilibrium Guide to Designing Affine Pricing Models.” Mathematical Finance, 18 (2008), 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (1953).Google Scholar
Garleanu, N., and Panageas, S.. “Young, Old, Conservative, and Bold: The Implications of Heterogeneity and Finite Lives for Asset Pricing.” Journal of Political Economy, 123 (2015), 670–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, J., and Lucas, D.. “Evaluating the Effects of Incomplete Markets on Risk Sharing and Asset Pricing.” Journal of Political Economy, 104 (1996), 443–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krüger, D., and Lustig, H.. “When Is Market Incompleteness Irrelevant for the Price of Aggregate Risk (and When Is It Not)?” Journal of Economic Theory, 145 (2010), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, D. K., and Zame, W. R.. “Does Market Incompleteness Matter?” Econometrica, 70 (2002), 1805–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustig, H., and Verdelhan, A.. “Does Incomplete Spanning in International Financial Markets Help to Explain Exchange Rates?” American Economic Review, 109 (2019), 2208–2244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohl, W.; Schmedders, K.; and Wilms, O.. “Asset Pricing with Heterogeneous Agents and Long-Run Risk.” Working Paper, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3066637 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandroni, A.“Do Markets Favor Agents Able to Make Accurate Predictions?” Econometrica, 68 (2000), 1303–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandroni, A.“Market Selection When Markets Are Incomplete.” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 41 (2005), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, P.“Does It Pay to Be an Optimist?” Working Paper, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3103707 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telmer, C.“Asset-Pricing Puzzles and Incomplete Markets.” Journal of Finance, 48 (1993), 1803–1832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachter, J.“Can Time-Varying Risk of Rare Disasters Explain Aggregate Stock Market Volatility?” Journal of Finance, 68 (2013), 987–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, H.“Natural Selection in Financial Markets: Does It Work?” Management Science, 54 (2008), 1935–1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Branger et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Branger et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.6 MB