Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle reconsidered

Benartzi and Thaler [The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (1995) 73–92] offer a quasi-rational explanation for the equity premium puzzle. We reconsider their methodology and, making a simple modification to it, find that their analysis is not robust.     

中国人口老龄化变化趋势及完善养老保险体制的研究

本文利用全国人口普查和经常性统计的有关资料，在不同的人口政策目标参数假设下，根据中国人口预测系统（CPPS）和人口生命表对今后45年中国人口老龄化的变化趋势进行了分析和预测。根据预测结果，通过较全面系统地分析中国社会养老保险体制的现状，指出了其存在的问题，特别是在中国人口老龄化快速发展趋势冲击下已经出现及可能出现的问题。在此基础上，提出了几点具有可操作性的改革和完善养老保险体制、退休及人口生育等方面的政策建议。     

地洼学说基本理论的形成与发展

地洼学说是由著名地质学家陈国达教授创立的。从创立至今,经过我国及其他一些国家地质工作者的长期辛勤劳动,使之日臻完善,并形成了在国内外有影响的地质科学理论。近35年的实践证明,这一理论对生产实践具有重要的指导作用。地洼学说的形成,是陈国达教授应用科学的思想方法在地质科学道路上大胆创新、不断探索的结果。地质工作所涉及的研究领域非常广泛而复杂,它更需要科学的、系统的理论来指导。我们学习和研究地洼学说的形成过程和创新精神,除了它的应用价值外,其理论意义特别是科学的思想方法也是值得我们很好学习和借鉴的。     

Prospect theory in the wild: how good is the nonexperimental evidence for prospect theory?

ABSTRACT

Prospect theory is widely thought to be one of the best-confirmed accounts of human decision-making under risk. There are numerous claims in the literature that various kinds of nonexperimental, observational evidence provide strong support for prospect theory. We investigate the veracity of these claims using a set of philosophy of science morals and a careful delineation of models of choice under risk, focussing on the extant versions of prospect theory and their various components. We challenge the claim that prospect theory is well supported because it explains the equity premium puzzle. In addition, we analyse a major international survey thought to support prospect theory and argue that the support is questionable, both for statistical reasons and because the evidence itself is mixed. Our analyses highlight some important ideas in the philosophy of science and caution against strong claims about support for prospect theory that rely on nonexperimental, observational evidence.     

理性选择向非理性选择转化的行为分析

本文针对不确定条件下的人类选择行为提出一个新的可供研究的观点:人的非理性选择在很大程度上是由理性选择转化而来的。文章首先简要评说了早期行为经济学的动物实验和认知心理学,认为人的选择行为是理性和非理性的同构;继而,通过解析丹尼尔·卡尼曼等人创立的前景理论所蕴涵的理性向非理性选择转化的思想,构建了这种转化的抽象模型;最后,作为对本文分析观点的一种联系实际的论证,研究了金融市场中的非理性选择以说明这种转化现象的客观存在。本文的分析可视为对行为经济学非理性选择理论之深邃见解的一种挖掘。     

Exploring the boundaries of the framing effect: The moderating roles of disparate expected values and perceived costs of judgmental errors

Framing effects on retail store choice decisions were investigated in four experiments. Subjects preferred the store that guaranteed (a sure option) good prices (experiment 1), product availability (experiment 2), or a rebate (experiment 3) when consequences were framed in terms of gains; subjects preferred the risky option when consequences were framed in terms of losses. Consistent with fuzzy-trace theory, framing effects were reduced when the expected values of options were disparate in a direction that disfavored sure gain or probabilistic loss options (experiment 2) and when the perceived costs of committing a judgmental error were high (experiment 3). Experiment 4 shows that the moderating effects of disparate expected values and costs of judgment errors generalize to within-subject designs.     

The consumption–investment decision of a prospect theory household: A two-period model

This study extends the literature on portfolio choice under prospect theory preferences by introducing a two-period life cycle model, where the sufficiently loss averse household decides on optimal consumption and investment in a portfolio with one risk-free and one risky asset. The optimal solution depends primarily on whether the household’s present value of the consumption reference levels is below, equal to, or above the present value of its endowment income. Reference levels below the endowment income are associated with the self-enhancement motive. In this case, the household avoids relative losses in consumption in any present or future state of nature (good or bad). As a result the degree of loss aversion does not directly affect optimal consumption and risk taking activity. Reference levels equal to the endowment income are associated with the belonging motive. An example would be a household comparing to others that belong to the same social class. In this case the household’s optimal consumption is the reference consumption and the household will not invest in the risky asset. Finally, reference levels above the endowment income are associated with the self-improvement motive (or high aspirations). For such high reference levels, households cannot avoid experiencing a relative loss in consumption, either now or in the future. As a result, loss aversion directly affects consumption and risky investment.     

Keep up with the winners: Experimental evidence on risk taking,asset integration,and peer effects

The paper reports the result of an experimental game on asset integration and risk taking. We find some evidence that winnings in earlier rounds affect risk taking in subsequent rounds, but no evidence that real life wealth outside the experiment affects risk taking. Controlling for past winnings, participants receiving a low endowment in a round engage in more risk taking. We test a ‘keeping-up-with-the-Joneses’ hypothesis and find that subjects seek to keep up with winners, though not necessarily with average earnings. Overall, the evidence suggests that risk taking tracks a reference point affected by social comparisons.     

When does a service guarantee work? The roles of the popularity of service guarantees and firm reputation

Despite substantial research on service guarantees in the literature, little study has examined how the popularity of service guarantees (SG) in a particular industry affects the effectiveness of SGs. Through four studies, the authors demonstrate an interactive effect between the market-level factor (the popularity of SGs) and the firm-level factor (firm reputation) in affecting consumer's responses to a travel agency's actions in (not) offering an SG. When offering SGs is popular in a given market, consumers perceive a loss from the absence of SGs, and a high-reputation agency will outperform a low-reputation agency in consumer service evaluation when neither agencies offer SGs. However, if both agencies provide guarantees, the SG offered by the high-reputation agency does not necessarily lead to greater service evaluation than that offered by the low-reputation agency. The results reverse when offering SGs is rare in the market, as consumers perceive a gain from the presence of SGs.