This paper reports measures of preference parameters relating to risk tolerance, time preference, and intertemporal substitution. These measures are based on survey responses to hypothetical situations constructed using an economic theorist's concept of the underlying parameters. The individual measures of preference parameters display heterogeneity. Estimated risk tolerance and the elasticity of intertemporal substitution are essentially uncorrelated across individuals. Measured risk tolerance is positively related to risky behaviors, including smoking, drinking, failing to have insurance, and holding stocks rather than Treasury bills. These relationships are both statistically and quantitatively significant, although measured risk tolerance explains only a small fraction of the variation of the studied behaviors. Robert B. Barsky F. Thomas Juster Miles S. Kimball Matthew D. Shapiro Survey Research Center and Department of Economics University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tel. 313 ...

We model consumption and dividend growth rates as containing (i) a small long-run predictable component and (ii) fluctuating economic uncertainty (consumption volatility). These dynamics, for which we provide empirical support, in conjunction with Epstein and Zin’s (1989) preferences, can explain key asset markets phenomena. In our economy, financial markets dislike economic uncertainty and better long-run growth prospects raise equity prices. The model can justify the equity premium, the risk-free rate, and the volatility of the market return, risk-free rate, and the price-dividend ratio. As in the data, dividend yields predict returns and the volatility of returns is time-varying.

This paper argues that the typical household’s saving is better described by a “bufferstock” version than by the traditional version of the Life Cycle/Permanent Income Hypothesis (LC/PIH) model. Buffer-stock behavior emerges if consumers with important income uncertainty are sufficiently impatient. In the traditional model, consumption growth is determined solely by tastes; in contrast, buffer-stock consumers set average consumption growth equal to average labor income growth, regardless of tastes. The model can explain three empirical puzzles: the “consumption/income parallel ” of Carroll and Summers [1991]; the “consumption/income divergence ” first documented in the 1930's; and the temporal stability of the household age/wealth profile despite the unpredictability of idiosyncratic wealth changes.

This paper studies the role of fluctuations in the aggregate consumption–wealth ratio for predicting stock returns. Using U.S. quarterly stock market data, we find that these fluctuations in the consumption–wealth ratio are strong predictors of both real stock returns and excess returns over a Treasury bill rate. We also find that this variable is a better forecaster of future returns at short and intermediate horizons than is the dividend yield, the dividend payout ratio, and several other popular forecasting variables. Why should the consumption–wealth ratio forecast asset returns? We show that a wide class of optimal models of consumer behavior imply that the log consumption–aggregate wealth ~human capital plus asset holdings! ratio summarizes expected returns on aggregate wealth, or the market portfolio. Although this ratio is not observable, we provide assumptions under which its important predictive components for future asset returns may be expressed in terms of observable variables, namely in terms of consumption, asset holdings and labor income. The framework implies that these variables are cointegrated, and

This paper surveys the field of asset pricing. The emphasis is on the interplay between theory and empirical work and on the trade-off between risk and return. Modern research seeks to understand the behavior of the stochastic discount factor ~SDF! that prices all assets in the economy. The behavior of the term structure of real interest rates restricts the conditional mean of the SDF, whereas patterns of risk premia restrict its conditional volatility and factor structure. Stylized facts about interest rates, aggregate stock prices, and cross-sectional patterns in stock returns have stimulated new research on optimal portfolio choice, intertemporal equilibrium models, and behavioral finance. This paper surveys the field of asset pricing. The emphasis is on the interplay between theory and empirical work. Theorists develop models with testable predictions; empirical researchers document “puzzles”—stylized facts that fail to fit established theories—and this stimulates the development of new theories. Such a process is part of the normal development of any science. Asset pricing, like the rest of economics, faces the special challenge that data are generated naturally rather than experimentally, and so researchers cannot control the quantity of data or the random shocks that affect the data. A particularly interesting characteristic of the asset pricing field is that these random shocks are also the subject matter of the theory. As Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay ~1997, Chap. 1, p. 3! put it: What distinguishes financial economics is the central role that uncertainty plays in both financial theory and its empirical implementation. The starting point for every financial model is the uncertainty facing investors, and the substance of every financial model involves the impact of uncertainty on the behavior of investors and, ultimately, on mar-* Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

We examine the relationship between income growth and saving using both cross-country and household data. At the aggregate level, we find that growth Granger causes saving, but saving does not Granger cause growth. Using household data, we find that households with predictably higher income growth save more than households with predictably low growth. We argue that standard permanent income models of consumption cannot explain these findings, but, a model of consumption with habit formation may. The positive effect of growth on saving implies that previous estimates of the effect of saving on growth may be overstated.

In this paper we study the asset pricing implications of a parsimonious two-agent macroeconomic model with two key features: limited participation in the stock market and heterogeneity in the elasticity of intertemporal substitution. The parameter values for the model are taken from the business cycle literature and are not calibrated to match any financial statistic. Yet, with a risk aversion of two, the model is able to explain a large number of asset pricing phenomena including all the facts matched by the external habit model of Campbell and Cochrane (1999). Examples in this list include a high equity premium and a low risk-free rate; a counter-cyclical risk premium, volatility and Sharpe ratio; predictable stock returns with coefficients and R2 values of long-horizon regressions matching their empirical counterparts, among others. In addition the model generates a risk-free rate with low volatility (5.7 percent annually) and with high persistence. We also show that the similarity of our results to those from an external habit model is not a coincidence: the model has a reduced form representation which is remarkably similar to Campbell and Cochrane’s framework for asset pricing. However,themacroeconomic implications of the two models are quite different, favoring the limited participation model. Moreover, we show that policy analysis yields dramatically different conclusions in each framework.

¤ This paper was prepared for inclusion in a symposium on saving and consumption in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. The authors thank, without implication, Timothy

This paper explores one way to extend the New Open Economy Macroeconomics in an empirical direction. Adapting maximum likelihood procedures, it estimates and tests an intertemporal small open economy model with monetary shocks and nominal rigidities. Results offer mixed support for a benchmark model where prices are assumed to be sticky in the currency of the buyer. Price stickiness seems to be an important element, as overall results are poorer for versions of the model in which prices either are flexible or are sticky in the currency of the producer. The benchmark model does a better job explaining some variables than others; in particular, it does a poor job explaining exchange rate movements.

This paper attempts to reconcile two opposing views about the elasticity of intertemporal substitution in consumption (EIS), a parameter that plays a key role in macroeconomic analysis. On the one hand, empirical studies using aggregate consumption data typically find that the EIS is close to zero (Hall, 1988). On the other hand, calibrated macroeconomic models designed to match growth and business cycle facts typically require that the EIS be close to one (Weil, 1989; Lucas, 1990). We show that this apparent contradiction arises from ignoring two kinds of heterogeneity across individuals.