Loss aversion,asymmetric market comovements,and the home bias

Loss aversion has been used to explain why a high equity premium might be consistent with plausible levels of risk aversion. The intuition is that the first-order-different utility impact of wealth gains and losses leads loss-averse investors to behave similarly to investors with high risk aversion. But if so, should those agents not perceive larger gains from international diversification than standard expected-utility investors with plausible levels of risk aversion? They might not, because comovements in international stock markets are asymmetric: correlations are higher in market downturns than in upturns. This asymmetry dampens the gains from diversification relatively more for loss-averse investors. We analyze the portfolio problem of such an investor who has to choose between home and foreign equities in the presence of asymmetric comovement in returns. Perhaps surprisingly, in the context of the home bias puzzle we find that loss-averse investors behave similarly to those with standard expected-utility preferences and plausible levels of risk aversion. We argue that preference specifications that appear to perform well with respect to the equity premium puzzle should be subjected to this “test”.     

Preference heterogeneity and asset prices: An exact solution

We introduce a general equilibrium model of a multi-agent, pure-exchange economy and find a set of conditions that enable us to obtain explicit closed-form solutions to the equilibrium interest rate, stock price, risk premium and stock market volatility when investors have heterogenous risk aversions. Because the market is dynamically complete, full risk sharing obtains and a representative agent can be constructed, though the risk aversion of this agent fluctuates over time with the state of the economy, as the relative wealth distribution of the individual investors changes. We show that preference heterogeneity can cause asset prices to be significantly more volatile than the underlying dividends and that it can lead to leverage-like effects in volatility, in the sense that volatility increases after stock-market declines.     

Myopic loss aversion and stock investments: An empirical study of private investors

Myopic loss aversion was suggested by Benartzi and Thaler (1995) as an explanation for the equity premium puzzle. Its main prediction is that loss averse investors, who evaluate their investment performance too frequently and therefore often observe small losses on their stock portfolios, would invest too little in equity. We investigate the link between myopic loss aversion and actual investment decisions of individual investors, using survey data. Our results are consistent with the predictions of Benartzi and Thaler. Higher myopic loss aversion is associated with lower stock investment as a share of total assets. Investors tend to evaluate their stock portfolio performance too often, which contributes to the prevalence of myopic loss aversion. The effect of myopia is most apparent when investors both evaluate their portfolios frequently and trade stocks regularly.     

How loss averse are investors in financial markets?

We investigate loss aversion in financial markets using a typical asset allocation problem. Our theoretical and empirical results show that investors in financial markets are more loss averse than assumed in the literature. Moreover, loss aversion changes depending on market conditions; investors become far more loss averse during bull markets than during bear markets, indicating their more profound disutility for losses when others enjoy gains. Contrary to most previous results, we find that investors are more sensitive to changes in losses than changes in gains.     

Age‐Dependent Increasing Risk Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle

We introduce a new preference structure—age‐dependent increasing risk aversion (IRA)—in a three‐period overlapping generations model with borrowing constraints, and examine the behavior of equity premium in this framework. We find that IRA preferences generate results that are more consistent with U.S. data for the equity premium, level of savings and portfolio shares, without assuming unreasonable levels of risk aversion. We find that the relative difference between the two risk aversions (how much more risk‐averse old agents are relative to the middle‐aged) matters more than the average risk aversion in the economy (how much more risk‐averse both cohorts are). Our findings are robust with respect to a number of model generalizations.     

RISK PREMIUM EFFECTS ON IMPLIED VOLATILITY REGRESSIONS

This article provides new insights into the sources of bias of option implied volatility to forecast its physical counterpart. We argue that this bias can be attributed to volatility risk premium effects. The latter are found to depend on high‐order cumulants of the risk‐neutral density. These cumulants capture the risk‐averse behavior of investors in the stock and option markets for bearing the investment risk that is reflected in the deviations of the implied risk‐neutral distribution from the normal distribution. We show that the bias of implied volatility to forecast its corresponding physical measure can be eliminated when the implied volatility regressions are adjusted for risk premium effects. The latter are captured mainly by the third‐order risk‐neutral cumulant. We also show that a substantial reduction of higher order risk‐neutral cumulants biases to predict their corresponding physical cumulants is supported when adjustments for risk premium effects are made.     

On the systematic volatility of unpriced earnings

Some important puzzles in macro finance can be resolved in a model featuring systematically varying volatility of unpriced shocks to firms? earnings. In the data, the correlation between corporate debt and stock market valuations is low. The model accounts for this via the opposing effect of unpriced earnings risk on levered debt and equity prices. The model also explains the low (or nonexistent) risk-reward relation for the market portfolio of levered equity via the opposing effects of unpriced and priced uncertainty (both components of stock volatility) on the levered equity risk premium. Versions of the model calibrated to empirical measures of both types of fundamental risk can quantitatively substantiate these explanations. Variation in residual earning dispersion accounts for a significant fraction of observed disagreement between debt and equity valuations and of realized stock volatility. The implication that the two components of risk should forecast the levered equity risk premium with opposite signs is also supported in the data. The results are a notable advance for risk-based asset pricing.     

Disagreement and asset prices

How do differences of opinion affect asset prices? Do investors earn a risk premium when disagreement arises in the market? Despite their fundamental importance, these questions are among the most controversial issues in finance. In this paper, we use a novel data set that allows us to directly measure the level of disagreement among Wall Street mortgage dealers about prepayment speeds. We examine how disagreement evolves over time and study its effects on expected returns, return volatility, and trading volume in the mortgage-backed security market. We find that increased disagreement is associated with higher expected returns, higher return volatility, and larger trading volume. These results imply that there is a positive risk premium for disagreement in asset prices. We also show that volatility in and of itself does not lead to higher trading volume. Instead, only when disagreement arises in the market is higher uncertainty associated with more trading. Finally, we are able to distinguish empirically between two competing hypotheses regarding how information in markets gets incorporated into asset prices. We find that sophisticated investors appear to update their beliefs through a rational expectations mechanism when disagreement arises.     

Volatility risk and the value premium: Evidence from the French stock market

This paper documents that systematic volatility risk is an important factor that drives the value premium observed in the French stock market. Using returns on at-the-money straddles written on the CAC 40 index as a proxy for systematic volatility risk, I document significant differences between volatility factor loadings of value and growth stocks. Furthermore, when markets are classified into expected booms and recessions, volatility factor loadings are also time-varying. When expected market risk premium is above its average, i.e. during expected recessions, value stocks are seen riskier than their growth counterparts. This implies in bad times, investors shift their preferences away from value firms. Instead they use growth stocks as hedges against deteriorations in their wealth during those times. The findings are in line with the predictions of rational asset pricing theory and support a “flight-to-quality” explanation.     

Climate risk: The price of drought

We document a significant positive relation between drought risk and the cost of equity capital. Our estimation shows that the cost of equity capital is 92 basis points higher for firms affected by severe drought conditions. We provide evidence that when firms are affected by droughts, firms with higher local institutional holdings exhibit a higher cost of equity capital. This result supports the well-known local bias of institutional investors, and suggests that diversification cannot fully eliminate the loss in wealth caused by droughts. Consistent with theoretical predictions, we find that drought duration and drought intensity further increase a firm's risk premium. However, for firms with diversified cash flows/investments, geographically dispersed business operations, and high cash holdings, the impact of drought on the expected return is significantly lessened. Overall, our findings show that investors require a higher rate of returns on firms affected by droughts and offer implications on how firms can mitigate the impact of droughts on their cost of capital.     

Managerial Preference,Asymmetric Information,and Financial Structure

If firm performance affects managers' wealth or reputation, preferences of managers dominate firms' financing decisions. When information about real asset investment is symmetric, managers finance exclusively with equity. If managers know more about asset quality than do investors and if managers are sufficiently risk averse, they signal high-quality projects with debt. Increases in collateral value decrease risky debt use. Increases in interest rates that do not change productive opportunities increase debt use. The explanation for these and further results is based on underpricing of equity and overpricing of debt at the margin.     

Stochastic risk premiums,stochastic skewness in currency options,and stochastic discount factors in international economies

We develop models of stochastic discount factors in international economies that produce stochastic risk premiums and stochastic skewness in currency options. We estimate the models using time-series returns and option prices on three currency pairs that form a triangular relation. Estimation shows that the average risk premium in Japan is larger than that in the US or the UK, the global risk premium is more persistent and volatile than the country-specific risk premiums, and investors respond differently to different shocks. We also identify high-frequency jumps in each economy but find that only downside jumps are priced. Finally, our analysis shows that the risk premiums are economically compatible with movements in stock and bond market fundamentals.     

Robust general equilibrium under stochastic volatility model

This paper studies the implications of model uncertainty under stochastic volatility model for equilibrium asset pricing. We derive the equilibrium equity premium and risk-free rate in a pure-exchange economy with one representative agent who is averse not only to risk but also to model uncertainty. The results show that robustness increases the equilibrium equity premium while lowers the risk-free rate.     

Risk,uncertainty, and asset prices

We identify the relative importance of changes in the conditional variance of fundamentals (which we call “uncertainty”) and changes in risk aversion in the determination of the term structure, equity prices, and risk premiums. Theoretically, we introduce persistent time-varying uncertainty about the fundamentals in an external habit model. The model matches the dynamics of dividend and consumption growth, including their volatility dynamics and many salient asset market phenomena. While the variation in price–dividend ratios and the equity risk premium is primarily driven by risk aversion, uncertainty plays a large role in the term structure and is the driver of countercyclical volatility of asset returns.     

An Equilibrium Model of Rare-Event Premia and Its Implication for Option Smirks

This article studies the asset pricing implication of impreciseknowledge about rare events. Modeling rare events as jumps inthe aggregate endowment, we explicitly solve the equilibriumasset prices in a pure-exchange economy with a representativeagent who is averse not only to risk but also to model uncertaintywith respect to rare events. The equilibrium equity premiumhas three components: the diffusive- and jump-risk premiums,both driven by risk aversion; and the "rare-event premium,"driven exclusively by uncertainty aversion. To disentangle therare-event premiums from the standard risk-based premiums, weexamine the equilibrium prices of options across moneyness or,equivalently, across varying sensitivities to rare events. Wefind that uncertainty aversion toward rare events plays an importantrole in explaining the pricing differentials among options acrossmoneyness, particularly the prevalent "smirk" patterns documentedin the index options market.     

Heterogeneous Beliefs, Speculation, and the Equity Premium

Agents with heterogeneous beliefs about fundamental growth do not share risks perfectly but instead speculate with each other on the relative accuracy of their models' predictions. They face the risk that market prices move more in line with the trading models of competing agents than with their own. Less risk‐averse agents speculate more aggressively and demand higher risk premiums. My calibrated model generates countercyclical consumption volatility, earnings forecast dispersion, and cross‐sectional consumption dispersion. With a risk aversion coefficient less than one, agents' speculation causes half the observed equity premium and lowers the riskless rate by about 1%.     

Illiquidity Risk in Non-Listed Funds: Evidence from REIT Fund Exits and Redemption Suspensions

Managerial incentives are skewed in non-listed funds under finite horizons. Compensation structures are only indirectly related to shareholder wealth maximization when share prices are unobservable. Liquidity options for investors are limited in the absence of an exchange listing. Using a hand-collected database for public non-listed REITs, an empirical sequence considers the impact of management compensation contracts on equity fundraising and success in capital deployment. Evidence is provided that high asset management fees and high acquisition fees diminish managerial success at generating revenue from invested capital. Successful revenue flows are deterministic factor in the level of distributions paid and the likelihood of achieving a fund exit. Closing the gate on share redemption plans is synchronized with the slowdown in new equity flows. Retail investors are insensitive to maligned compensation structures that heighten illiquidity risk, even when observable in the prospectus.     

The aggregate cost of equity underdiversification

We analyze equity diversification of all retail investors in a country (Denmark). We find that underdiversification is pervasive. We calculate the nationwide aggregate loss due to underdiversification and express it in absolute and expected‐return terms. The aggregate loss is large. We find that investors with low education, low income, and low wealth are more likely to underdiversify. Despite better diversification, the larger fraction of the aggregate loss nevertheless adheres to the top of the income/wealth distribution. Finally, our results indicate that underdiversification arises because investors have limited information about the benefits of diversification.     

Unconventional monetary policy announcements and risk aversion: evidence from the U.S. and European equity markets

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the role of unconventional monetary policy announcements on risk aversion – as proxied by the variance premium – by using panel data analysis. The objective of this empirical analysis is to investigate the risk-taking channel of monetary policy for the major European and U.S. equity markets by studying the impact that the announcements of an unconventional monetary policy has on market uncertainty and risk perception. By measuring the difference between risk-neutral and realised and conditional variance, we estimate the variance premium, which captures the impact that pricing concerns have on the prices of options. The empirical analysis indicates that easing monetary policies can significantly reduce the variance premium. In addition, we examine the risk premium structure across markets to determine the potential differences in investors’ risk aversion.     

Will investors change their superannuation fund given the choice?

A large number of Australian investors have been granted the right to choose where their superannuation fund contributions will be invested, but it is difficult to ascertain whether investors will exercise this choice. Although expected‐utility‐maximizing investors might tend to change their fund once given the choice, loss averse investors would favour the status quo. Using a survey of over 1600 Australian investors, conducted by FinaMetrica in early 2005, we find support for inertia (status quo) in our sample suggesting that, with respect to superannuation choice, individual Australian investors are loss averse.