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 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

Abstract not found

We develop a model that fleshes out, extends, and modifies existing models of referencedependent preferences and loss aversion while accomodating most of the evidence motivating these models. Our approach makes reference-dependent theory more broadly applicable by avoiding some of the ways that prevailing models—if applied literally and without ancillary assumptions—make variously weak and incorrect predictions. Our model combines the reference-dependent gain-loss utility with standard economic “consumption utility ” and clarifies the relationship between the two. Most importantly, we posit that a person’s reference point is her recent expectations about outcomes (rather than the status quo), and assume that behavior accords to a personal equilibrium: The person maximizes utility given her rational expectations about outcomes, where these expectations depend on her own anticipated behavior. We apply our theory to consumer behavior, and emphasize that a consumer’s willingness to pay for a good is endogenously determined by the market distribution of prices and how she expects to respond to these prices. Because a buyer’s willingness to buy depends on whether she anticipates buying the good, for a range of market prices there are multiple personal equilibria. This multiplicity disappears when the consumer is sufficiently uncertain about the price she will face. Because paying more than she anticipated induces a sense of loss in the buyer, the lower the prices at which she expects to buy the lower will be her willingness to pay. In some situations, a known stochastic decrease in prices can even lower the quantity demanded.

As part of their cumulative prospect theory (CPT), Tversky and Kahneman (1992) argue that, when people evaluate risk, they transform objective probabilities via a weighting function which, among other features, overweights the tails of a probability distribution. We investigate the implications of CPT for the pricing of financial securities, paying particular attention to the effects of the weighting function. Under CPT, the CAPM can hold when securities are normally distributed; but a positively skewed security can become overpriced and earn very low average returns, even if small and independent of other risks, and even if just one of many skewed securities in the economy. We apply the last result to the pricing of IPOs and to the valuation of equity stubs. Using data on the skewness of IPO returns, we show that investors with CPT preferences calibrated to experimental evidence would require an average return on IPOs that is several percentage points below the market return. Under CPT, then, the historical underperformance of IPOs may not be so puzzling.

If decision costs lead agents to update consumption every D periods, then econometricians will find an anomalously low correlation between equity returns and consumption growth (Lynch 1996). We analytically characterize the dynamic properties of an economy composed of consumers who have such delayed updating. In our setting, an econometrician using an Euler equation procedure would infer a coefficient of relative risk aversion biased up by a factor of 6D. Hence with quarterly data, if agents adjust their consumption every D =4quarters, the imputed coefficient of relative risk aversion will be 24 times greater than the true value. High levels of risk aversion implied by the equity premium and violations of the Hansen-Jagannathan bounds cease to be puzzles. The neoclassical model with delayed adjustment explains the consumption behavior of shareholders. Once limited participation is taken into account, the model matches most properties of aggregate consumption and equity returns, including new evidence that the covariance between ln(Ct+h/Ct) and Rt+1 slowly rises with h.

We provide a formal treatment of both static and dynamic portfolio choice using the Disappointment Aversion preferences of Gul (1991. Econometrica 59(3), 667–686), which imply asymmetric aversion to gains versus losses. Our dynamic formulation nests the standard CRRA asset allocation problem as a special case. Using realistic data generating processes, we find reasonable equity portfolio allocations for disappointment averse investors with utility functions exhibiting low curvature. Moderate variation in parameters can robustly generate

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

We argue that “narrow framing, ” whereby an agent who is offered a new gamble evaluates that gamble in isolation, may be a more important feature of decisionmaking than previously realized. Our starting point is the evidence that people are often averse to a small, independent gamble, even when the gamble is actuarially favorable. We find that a surprisingly wide range of utility functions, including many nonexpected utility specifications, have trouble explaining this evidence, but that this difficulty can be overcome by allowing for narrow framing. Our analysis makes predictions as to what kinds of preferences can most easily address the stock market participation puzzle. (JEL D81, G11) Economists, and financial economists in particular, have long been interested in how people evaluate risk. In this paper, we try to shed new light on this topic. Specifically, we argue that a feature known as “narrow framing ” may play a more important role in decision-making under