异质投资者与资产定价研究评析

传统的资产定价理论通常假设投资者是同质的,即投资者在诸多方面是完全相同的。但实际上,投资者的异质性往往对资产价格产生很大的影响:投资者偏好的异质性,使风险资产的价格行为与代表性投资者框架下的显著不同;投资者所受到的约束的异质性,使得只有部分投资者参与资本市场,从而使基于消费的资产定价模型难以成立;投资者对资本市场未来的预期不同(即具有异质性信念)更是直接影响到投资者的组合——消费行为,从而影响均衡价格。近年来发展起来的行为金融中的资产定价模型大部分都是考虑特定的异质信念及其对资产定价的影响。     

行为资产定价模型综述

金融资产定价是现代资产定价研究的核心问题.本文对行为资产定价模型进行了综述,行为资产定价研究分为两个方向:一是基于消费资产定价模型(CCAPM),借用不同的效用函数来反映不同的投资者偏好,比如财富偏好,损失厌恶,习惯形成,追赶时髦,嫉妒等等.二是在进行资产定价时直接考虑投资者心理因素,基于行为金融学对投资者分析的过度自信,保守性偏差等认知偏差,用模型量化此类偏差然后利用动态规划方法求解均衡时的资产定价.     

行为资产定价模型与实证检验

行为资产定价模型是在行为金融学基础上发展起来的有关资产定价的学说 ,本文介绍了行为资产定价模型的具体内容 ,并对该模型的运用情况利用中国证券市场的数据进行了实证分析 ,在此基础上探讨了该模型在中国证券市场应用的可能性与前景。     

金融资产定价理论的历史演变

文章着重从金融资产的定价原理角度回顾了金融资产定价理论的发展过程,主要包括资产组合选择理论、资本资产定价模型、套利定价模型、衍生产品定价、行为资产定价和随机折现因子定价等,分析了各种理论之间的承继关系,对理论的下一步发展具有启发意义。     

行为资产定价理论及实证研究

文章扼要地介绍了现代金融理论体系下主流的定价理论——资本资产定价理论,介绍了shefrin和St at man联合提出的行为资产定价模型。建立四期的简化交易模型描述噪音交易者和理性套利者之间的互动交易,导致资产价格对其基础价值的偏离。选取上证50指数的骨片,使用Eviews软件,对行为资产定价模型在我国的应用进行实证研究。     

证券资产定价:现代金融理论与行为金融理论比较研究

现代金融理论以投资者理性和有效市场假说为基础,应用新古典经济学的分析范式将证券资产定价转化为风险与收益的均衡关系,实现证券资产的间接定价。20世纪80年代以来,现代金融理论受到来自实证检验的挑战并促使行为金融理论的诞生。行为金融理论以心理学对人决策过程的研究成果为基础,重新审视证券资产定价问题并提出相应的理论模型。但这些理论模型间缺乏内在一致的分析框架,尚未突破现代金融理论的分析范式。     

会计稳健性、投资者情绪与资产误定价

本文基于行为金融学、信息不对称理论及信号传递理论,利用我国A股上市公司数据,采用面板固定效应模型回归的方法,探究投资者情绪对资产误定价的影响,以及会计稳健性在投资者情绪与资产误定价关系中的调节作用,研究表明:投资者情绪越乐观,股价越被高估;会计稳健性的提高能够缓解投资者乐观情绪对股价高估的正向影响;相比新会计准则实施前,会计稳健性对投资者乐观情绪与股价高估之间的负向调节作用在新会计准则实施后表现得更为突出。该研究结论为相关部门从会计稳健性入手缓解投资者情绪对资产误定价的影响提供了依据,也为提高证券市场定价效率提供了新思路。     

有限理性条件下的资产定价理论综述

传统的资产定价理论基于新古典经济学的研究框架,假定投资者是完全理性的,在这个基础上研究资产收益率的决定。然而,完全理性的投资者在现实中并不存在,并且基于完全理性的分析不能完全解释市场上的种种异象。与传统的研究方法不同,有限理性的资产定价理论认为:投资者是有限理性的,应按照一些基于经验的认知捷径来形成对未来的认识,并以此为基础进行投资。通过引入这种更符合现实的投资者,有限理性的资产定价理论研究资产收益率的决定,试图更好地解释各种市场现象。     

市场流动性与资产定价理论评述

上世纪80年代以来,通过流动性的研究实现对传统资产定价理论的校正成为理论研究前沿。从驱动市场流动性变化的因素出发,一方面,将交易成本所引起的市场非流动性纳入传统资产定价理论研究框架,进而采用一般均衡分析方法求解其对均衡价格的影响,从而构建了流动性与资产定价研究的基础理论;另一方面,放宽传统资产定价理论中对信息质量的约束,从交易机制与投资者行为等视角研究流动性形成的特殊机制,从而将流动性与资产定价的研究延伸到市场微观基础。因此,本文从流动性与资产定价的基础理论、微观基础和经验研究方法等方面回顾了近30年来这一领域研究中较为重要的文献。     

金融资产定价异常与资产定价模型的扩展——基于委托-代理理论视角的研究

对于金融资产定价异常现象，本文基于信息角度将信息不对称分为可识别的逆向选择效应、可识别的道德风险效应、不可识别的逆向选择效应和不可识别的道德风险效应四个部分，并在此基础上利用委托-代理理论对资产模型进行了扩展，得出了信息不对称下扩展的资产定价和代理成本资产定价模型。进而论证了动态资产定价模型、羊群效应资本资产定价模型与FF三因素模型只是扩展的资本资产定价模型的一个特例，从而为动态资产定价模型，羊群效应资本资产定价模型与FF三因素模型提供了微观基础。     

基于投资者异质性信念的证券定价模型——对我国股票市场价格的实证检验

投资者异质性信念的相互作用影响着证券价格，证券市场上的各种证券需求与供给关系,往往表现为投资者各种不同信念的对抗和交融。本文以悲观信念（看多）和乐观信念（看空）之间的相互作用为例，研究了异质性信念对资产均衡定价的影响，并以我国股票市场的机构投资者信念为对象进行了实证检验，得出我国股票市场投资者信念与证券价格相互作用的结论。本文的建议是在投资过程中，准确分析市场中投资者的异质性信念结构，尤其是资金雄厚的机构投资者的信念结构至关重要。     

Prospect theory for stock markets: Empirical evidence with time-series data

Based on the loss aversion model of asset pricing, this paper explores empirical evidence on the prospect theory for stock markets with time-series data. The analysis, using a state-space model, shows that previous gains and losses may have asymmetric effects on investment behavior, pointing to the possibility of break-even effects ignored by asset-pricing models using prospect theory.     

Empirical Asset Pricing: Eugene Fama,Lars Peter Hansen,and Robert Shiller

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for 2013 was awarded to Eugene Fama, Lars Peter Hansen, and Robert Shiller for their contributions to the empirical study of asset pricing. Some observers have found it hard to understand the common elements of the laureates' research, preferring to highlight areas of disagreement among them. In this paper, I argue that empirical asset pricing is a coherent enterprise, which owes much to the laureates' influential contributions, and that important themes in the literature can best be understood by considering the laureates in pairs. Specifically, after summarizing modern asset‐pricing theory using the stochastic discount factor as an organizing framework, I discuss the following: the joint hypothesis problem in tests of market efficiency, which is as much an opportunity as a problem (Fama and Hansen); patterns of short‐ and long‐term predictability in asset returns (Fama and Shiller); and models of deviations from rational expectations (Hansen and Shiller). I conclude by reviewing the ways in which the laureates have already influenced the practice of finance, and how they might influence future innovations.     

Asset pricing with adaptive learning

We study the extent to which self-referential adaptive learning can explain stylized asset pricing facts in a general equilibrium framework. In particular, we analyze the effects of recursive least squares and constant gain algorithms in a production economy and a Lucas type endowment economy. We find that (a) recursive least squares learning has almost no effects on asset price behavior, since the algorithm converges relatively fast to rational expectations, (b) constant gain learning may contribute towards explaining the stock price and return volatility as well as the predictability of excess returns in the endowment economy but (c) in the production economy the effects of constant gain learning are mitigated by the persistence induced by capital accumulation. We conclude that in the context of these two commonly used models, standard linear self-referential learning does not resolve the asset pricing puzzles observed in the data.     

异质信念资产定价研究

从随机游走、行为金融到混沌，从现代资产定价理论、行为资产定价理论到异质信念资产定价理论，3种学说和3种定价理论同时存在干当今资本市场的研究中，它们分别从不同方面、不同视角解释了资产价格的波动。本文的研究理清了3种重要定价理论之间的关系：理性与有限理性，线性与非线性，价格波动的外在机制与内在机制，为人们进一步研究资产定价理论提供了清晰的脉络。     

行为公设与资产定价理论

资产定价理论的核心是行为公设,行为公设是对人的行为的公理化概括,资产定价理论是行为公设在资产选择问题上的具体应用。资产定价理论的正确性在现实中经受检验,当资产定价理论被现实证明存在缺陷时,最终必然追溯到行为公设上。资产定价理论与行为公设之间存在着因果和反馈关系,行为公设为因,资产定价理论为果,同时资产定价理论对行为公设作出反馈。要消除资产定价理论对实际结果的偏离,最终必然落实到行为公设上,因此必须加强对行为公设的研究。     

金融资产收益率波动预测——基于我国股票市场跳跃行为研究

金融资产收益率波动是资产定价和金融风险管理的核心部分,而跳跃是收益率波动中的重要组成部分。基于修正Z-检验,本文检测识别我国股市波动中跳跃行为,并且研究了跳跃的时序特征,统计结果表明,在市场大波动时期,和连续成份相比,跳跃对于波动率具有极其重要的贡献。建立包含跳跃的已实现波动率非齐次自回归模型,在波动模型中纳入滞后绝对日收益率和杠杆效应预测股指收益率波动。实证分析结果显示,对于短期的波动预测,包含跳跃和两种影响因素的波动模型表现最好,然而对于提前1月的长期预测,跳跃和连续波动成份分离模型预测明显优于其它模型,这些事实说明跳跃对股指波动率预测具有重要的影响,好坏消息对波动率非对称性具有短期显著影响,而对长期水平的波动率预测影响不显著。     

A flexible approach to estimate the equity premium

In this article, we estimate the risk aversion for households accounting for their lifetime consumption risk. Households take into account the overall lifetime uninsured consumption risk when optimizing their resources, which based on micro data varies across households. Thus, representing households’ consumption by merging cross-sectional micro data into the single Euler equation (the common approach for estimating risk aversion based on consumption-based asset pricing theory) may be too rough an approximation, leading to biased results with respect to risk aversion. Our results suggest that consumption-based asset pricing models that were rejected in several studies do in fact fit the data when we account for households’ lifetime consumption risk. This finding also has implications for long-run aggregate consumption-based asset pricing models.     

Euler equation errors

The standard, representative agent, consumption-based asset pricing theory based on CRRA utility fails to explain the average returns of risky assets. When evaluated on cross-sections of stock returns, the model generates economically large unconditional Euler equation errors. Unlike the equity premium puzzle, these large Euler equation errors cannot be resolved with high values of risk aversion. To explain why the standard model fails, we need to develop alternative models that can rationalize its large pricing errors. We evaluate whether four newer theories at the vanguard of consumption-based asset pricing can explain the large Euler equation errors of the standard consumption-based model. In each case, we find that the alternative theory counterfactually implies that the standard model has negligible Euler equation errors. We show that the models miss on this dimension because they mischaracterize the joint behavior of consumption and asset returns in recessions, when aggregate consumption is falling. By contrast, a simple model in which aggregate consumption growth and stockholder consumption growth are highly correlated most of the time, but have low or negative correlation in severe recessions, produces violations of the standard model's Euler equations and departures from joint lognormality that are remarkably similar to those found in the data.     

Viewpoint: Option prices, preferences, and state variables

Abstract.  This paper surveys recent developments in the theory of option pricing. The emphasis is on the interplay between option prices and investors' impatience and their aversion to risk. The traditional view, steeped in the risk‐neutral approach to derivative pricing, has been that these preferences play no role in the determination of option prices. However, the usual lognormality assumption required to obtain preference‐free option pricing formulas is at odds with the empirical properties of financial assets. The lognormality assumption is easily reconcilable with those properties by the introduction of a latent state variable whose values can be interpreted as the states of the economy. The presence of a covariance risk with the state variable makes option prices depend explicitly on preferences. Generalized option pricing formulas, in which preferences matter, can explain several well‐known empirical biases associated with preference‐free models such as that of Black and Scholes (1973) and the stochastic volatility extensions of Hull and White (1987) and Heston (1993) .