Implications of Keeping‐Up‐with‐the‐Joneses Behavior for the Equilibrium Cross Section of Stock Returns: International Evidence

This paper tests the cross‐sectional implications of “keeping‐up‐with‐the‐Joneses” (KUJ) preferences in an international setting. When agents have KUJ preferences, in the presence of undiversifiable nonfinancial wealth, both world and domestic risk (the idiosyncratic component of domestic wealth) are priced, and the equilibrium price of risk of the domestic factor is negative. We use labor income as a proxy for domestic wealth and find empirical support for these predictions. In terms of explaining the cross‐section of stock returns and the size of the pricing errors, the model performs better than alternative international asset pricing models.     

Generalized Disappointment Aversion and Asset Prices

We characterize generalized disappointment aversion (GDA) risk preferences that can overweight lower‐tail outcomes relative to expected utility. We show in an endowment economy that recursive utility with GDA risk preferences generates effective risk aversion that is countercyclical. This feature comes from endogenous variation in the probability of disappointment in the representative agent's intertemporal consumption‐saving problem that underlies the asset pricing model. The variation in effective risk aversion produces a large equity premium and a risk‐free rate that is procyclical and has low volatility in an economy with a simple autoregressive endowment‐growth process.     

Cautious Risk Takers: Investor Preferences and Demand for Active Management

Despite their mediocre mean performance, actively managed mutual funds are distinct from passive funds in their return distributions. Active value funds better hedge downside risk, while active growth funds better capture upside potential. Since such performance features may appeal to investors with tail‐overweighting preferences, we show that preferences for downside protection and upside potential estimated from the empirical pricing kernel can help explain active fund flows in the value and growth categories, respectively. This effect of investor risk preferences varies significantly with funds' downside‐hedging and upside‐capturing ability, with levels of active management, and across retirement and retail funds.     

Composition of wealth,conditioning information,and the cross-section of stock returns

Value stocks covary with aggregate consumption more than growth stocks during periods when financial wealth is low relative to consumption. However, the conditional value premium does not exhibit such countercyclical behavior. Consequently, a one-factor conditional consumption-based asset pricing model can be rejected without making any arbitrary assumptions on the dynamics of the price of risk or the conditional moments. Empirical evidence is somewhat more consistent with a consumption-based model augmented with an aggregate wealth growth factor, which can be motivated by either recursive preferences or relative wealth concerns.     

Time preference and capital asset pricing models

Results of the theory of individual optimal consumption-investment choice under uncertainty are extended to a class of intertemporally dependent preferences for consumption streams. These results are then used to show that with intertemporally dependent preferences, which are more realistic than the separable time-additive preference structure, Merton's (1973) multi-beta intertemporal capital asset pricing model is still valid, but it can no longer be collapsed to Breeden's (1979) single consumption-beta model.     

Disasters Implied by Equity Index Options

We use equity index options to quantify the distribution of consumption growth disasters. The challenge lies in connecting the risk‐neutral distribution of equity returns implied by options to the true distribution of consumption growth. First, we compare pricing kernels constructed from macro‐finance and option‐pricing models. Second, we compare option prices derived from a macro‐finance model to those we observe. Third, we compare the distribution of consumption growth derived from option prices using a macro‐finance model to estimates based on macroeconomic data. All three perspectives suggest that options imply smaller probabilities of extreme outcomes than have been estimated from macroeconomic data.     

Risks for the Long Run: A Potential Resolution of Asset Pricing Puzzles

We model consumption and dividend growth rates as containing (1) a small long‐run predictable component, and (2) 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.     

Information Quality and Long‐Run Risk: Asset Pricing Implications

I study the asset pricing implications of the quality of public information about persistent productivity shocks in a general equilibrium model with Kreps–Porteus preferences. Low information quality is associated with a high equity premium, a low volatility of consumption growth, and a low volatility of the risk‐free interest rate. The relationship between information quality and the equity premium differs from that in endowment economies. My calibration improves substantially upon the Bansal–Yaron model in terms of the moments of the wealth–consumption ratio and the return on aggregate wealth.     

Lazy Investors, Discretionary Consumption, and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns

When consumption betas of stocks are computed using year‐over‐year consumption growth based upon the fourth quarter, the consumption‐based asset pricing model (CCAPM) explains the cross‐section of stock returns as well as the Fama and French (1993) three‐factor model. The CCAPM's performance deteriorates substantially when consumption growth is measured based upon other quarters. For the CCAPM to hold at any given point in time, investors must make their consumption and investment decisions simultaneously at that point in time. We suspect that this is more likely to happen during the fourth quarter, given investors' tax year ends in December.     

A financial CCAPM and economic inequalities

This paper considers a wealth heterogeneous multi-agent (MA) financial pricing CCAPM model. It is based on the following observations: (a) A distinction between what agents are willing to pay for consumption and what they actually pay. The former is a function of a number of factors including the agent’s wealth and risk preferences and the latter is a function of all other agents’ aggregate consumption or equivalently, their wealth committed to consumption. (b) Unlike traditional pricing models that define a representative agent underlying the pricing model, this paper assumes that each agent is in fact ‘Cournot-gaming’ a market defined by all other agents. This results in a decomposition of an n-agents game into n games of two agents, one a specific agent and the other a synthetic agent (a proxy for all other agents), on the basis of which an equilibrium consumption price solution is defined. The paper’s essential results are twofold. First, a Martingale pricing model is defined for each individual agent expressing the consumer willingness to pay (his utility price) and the market price—the price that all agents pay for consumption. In this sense, price is unique defined by each agent’s ‘Cournot game’ Agents’ consumption are then adjusted accordingly to meet the market price. Second, the pricing model defined is shown to account for agents wealth distribution pointing out that all agents valuations are a function of their and others’ wealth, the information they have about each other and other factors which are discussed in the text. When an agent has no wealth or cannot affect the market price of consumption, then this pricing model is reduced to the standard CCAPM model while any agent with an appreciable wealth compared to other agents, is shown to value returns (and thus future consumption) less than wealth-poor agents. As a result, this paper will argue that even in a financial market with an infinite number of agents, if there are some agents that are large enough to affect the market price by their decisions, such agents have an arbitrage advantage over the poorer agents. The financial CCAPM MA pricing model has a number of implications, some of which are considered in this paper. Finally, some simple examples are considered to highlight the applicability of this paper to specific financial issues.     

Asset pricing with unforeseen contingencies

We investigate an economy of heterogeneous agents that cannot specify all exogenous welfare-relevant events and consequently view the impact of unforeseen contingencies as utility shocks. In this setting we characterize an appropriate market equilibrium concept when securities can trade only on demand- and price-contingent events. We establish the existence of an equilibrium for a class of parametric models in which aggregating taste shocks across agents can lead to nonconsumption pricing factors. To fit the stylized facts, (i) non consumption factors must dominate the pricing kernel and contribute to the variation of the wealth-consumption ratio, (ii) markets must be incomplete and the set of claims that are traded endogenously determined, (iii) agents’ preferences with respect to unforeseen contingencies must be non-expected utility, and, (iv) although non-consumption pricing factors can be conditionally uncorrelated with aggregate consumption shocks, they must be correlated with shocks to expected consumption growth.     

Uninsurable risk and financial market puzzles

We compare the empirical performances of three risk-sharing arrangements involving idiosyncratic skill shocks: (a) where individuals are unable to directly insure their consumption against individual-specific shocks, (b) where agents strike long-term insurance contract with financial intermediaries involving a truth revelation constraint as in Kocherlakota and Pistaferri (2009), (c) full risk sharing. Based on the widely accepted assumption of cross-sectional log-normality of individual consumption levels, we work out closed form expressions of the pricing kernels for (a) and (b). We put these three models to test four financial market anomalies, namely the equity premium, currency premium, risk-free rate, and consumption-real exchange rate puzzles simultaneously in an integrated framework. We find that the pricing kernel associated with (a) outperforms the other two models in terms of the produced estimates of the agent’s preference parameters and the model ability to predict the equity and currency premia, the risk-free rate, and the log growth in the exchange rate. However, the predictive ability is still far from satisfactory for all three models under scrutiny.     

Consumption growth predictability and asset prices

We derive and test a consumption-based intertemporal asset pricing model in which an asset earns a risk premium if it performs poorly when expected future consumption growth deteriorates. The predictability of consumption growth combined with the recursive preference delivers news about future consumption growth an additional risk factor, in addition to news about current consumption growth. We model the consumption growth dynamics using a vector autoregressive (VAR) structure with a set of instrumental variables commonly used for forecasting future economic growth. Our VAR estimation provides strong empirical support for future consumption growth predictability. The cross-sectional test shows that the model explains reasonably well the dispersion in average excess returns of 25 portfolios sorted on size and book-to-market, as well as 25 portfolios sorted on size and long-term return reversal. Growth stocks and long-term winners underperform value stocks and long-term losers, respectively, because growth stocks and long-term winners hedge adverse changes in the future consumption growth opportunities.     

Consumption risk and the cross-section of government bond returns

In this paper we provide a consumption-based explanation of risk in nominal US Treasury bond portfolios. We use a consumption-CAPM with Epstein–Zin–Weil recursive preferences. Our model introduces two sources of risk: uncertainty about current consumption (reflected in contemporaneous consumption growth) and uncertainty about prospects of consumption in a long run (reflected in innovations to expectations about future consumption growth). We use a novel approach to estimate pricing factors in our model: we employ a factor-augmented VAR model with common factors, extracted from a large panel of macroeconomic and financial data, as state variables. We find that the important source of risk in US bonds is related to uncertainty in prospects in future consumption and it induces a positive and significant risk premium. We find as well that covariance risk related to innovations in expectations about future consumption growth is greater for long term bond portfolios than for short term bond portfolios, which is consistent with a duration measure of risk and justifies why long term bonds require greater premium than short term bonds. Our model explains well the cross-sectional variation in average excess returns of bonds with different maturities over the period 1975–2011 and compares favorably with competing models.     

Housing,consumption and asset pricing

This paper considers a consumption-based asset pricing model where housing is explicitly modeled both as an asset and as a consumption good. Nonseparable preferences describe households’ concern with composition risk, that is, fluctuations in the relative share of housing in their consumption basket. Since the housing share moves slowly, a concern with composition risk induces low frequency movements in stock prices that are not driven by news about cash flow. Moreover, the model predicts that the housing share can be used to forecast excess returns on stocks. We document that this indeed true in the data. The presence of composition risk also implies that the riskless rate is low which further helps the model improve on the standard CCAPM.     

Empirically Effective Bond Pricing Model and Analysis on Term Structures of Implied Interest Rates in Financial Crisis

In his book (1993) Kariya proposed a government bond (GB) pricing model that simultaneously values individual fixed-coupon (non-defaultable) bonds of different coupon rates and maturities via a discount function approach, and Kariya and Tsuda (Financ Eng Japanese Mark 1:1–20, 1994) verified its empirical effectiveness of the model as a pricing model for Japanese Government bonds (JGBs) though the empirical setting was limited to a simple case. In this paper we first clarify the theoretical relation between our stochastic discount function approach and the spot rate or forward rate approach in mathematical finance. Then we make a comprehensive empirical study on the capacity of the model in view of its pricing capability for individual GBs with different attributes and in view of its capacity of describing the movements of term structures of interest rates that JGBs imply as yield curves. Based on various tests of validity in a GLS (Generalized Least Squares) framework we propose a specific formulation with a polynomial of order 6 for the mean discount function that depends on maturity and coupon as attributes and a specific covariance structure. It is shown that even in the middle of the Financial Crisis, the cross-sectional model we propose is shown to be very effective for simultaneously pricing all the existing JGBs and deriving and describing zero yields.     

Idiosyncratic Consumption Risk and the Cross Section of Asset Returns

This paper investigates the importance of idiosyncratic consumption risk for the cross‐sectional variation in asset returns. We find that besides the rate of aggregate consumption growth, the cross‐sectional variance of consumption growth is also a priced factor. This suggests that consumers are not fully insured against idiosyncratic consumption risk, and that asset returns reflect their attempts to reduce their exposure to this risk. The resulting two‐factor consumption‐based asset pricing model significantly outperforms the CAPM, and its performance compares favorably with that of the Fama–French three‐factor model.     

Asset Pricing with Garbage

A new measure of consumption, garbage, is more volatile and more correlated with stocks than the canonical measure, National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) consumption expenditure. A garbage‐based consumption capital asset pricing model matches the U.S. equity premium with relative risk aversion of 17 versus 81 and evades the joint equity premium‐risk‐free rate puzzle. These results carry through to European data. In a cross‐section of size, value, and industry portfolios, garbage growth is priced and drives out NIPA expenditure growth.     

Asset pricing and energy consumption risk

This paper proposes energy consumption in the US as a new measure for the consumption capital asset pricing model. We find that (i) industrial energy growth produces reasonable values for the relative risk aversion coefficient and the implied risk-free rate; (ii) compared to alternative consumption measures, industrial energy performs well in explaining the cross-sectional variation in stock returns with the lowest implied risk aversion and pricing errors; (iii) the industrial energy consumption risk model performs equally well as the Fama–French three-factor model in the cross-sectional asset pricing tests; and (iv) total energy consumption risk is priced in the presence of the Fama–French factor risks.     

Seasonality and Consumption-Based Asset Pricing

Most of the evidence on consumption-based asset pricing is based on seasonally adjusted consumption data. The consumption-based models have not worked well for explaining asset returns, but with seasonally adjusted data there are reasons to expect spurious rejections of the models. This paper examines asset pricing models using not seasonally adjusted aggregate consumption data. We find evidence against models with time-separable preferences, even when the models incorporate seasonality and allow seasonal heteroskedasticity. A model that uses not seasonally adjusted consumption data and nonseparable preferences with seasonal effects works better according to several criteria. The parameter estimates imply a form of seasonal habit persistence in aggregate consumption expenditures.