Neuroeconomics: Why Economics Needs Brains

Neuroeconomics uses knowledge about brain mechanisms to inform economic theory. It opens up the “black box” of the brain, much as organizational economics opened up the theory of the firm. Neuroscientists use many tools—including brain imaging, behavior of patients with brain damage, animal behavior and recording single neuron activity. The key insight for economics is that the brain is composed of multiple systems which interact. Controlled systems (“executive function”) interrupt automatic ones. Brain evidence complicates standard assumptions about basic preference, to include homeostasis and other kinds of state‐dependence, and shows emotional activation in ambiguous choice and strategic interaction.     

DYNAMIC ASSET ALLOCATION AND CONSUMPTION CHOICE IN INCOMPLETE MARKETS*

We study the optimal investment and consumption problem of a CRRA investor when the drift and volatility of the stock are driven by a correlated factor. The myopic and non‐myopic components of the optimal portfolio process are characterised in terms of the market price of traded and non‐traded risk of the minimax martingale measure. We find that the optimal policies depend crucially on the nature of the agent, aggressive versus conservative, and the market incompleteness, improving versus deteriorating investment opportunities. Furthermore, we show that the original problem cannot be decomposed into a pure consumption and a pure terminal wealth problem, unless the market is complete.     

The price adjustment and lead-lag relations between stock returns: microstructure evidence from the Taiwan stock market

This paper investigates the price adjustment and lead-lag relations between returns on five size-based portfolios in the Taiwan stock market. It finds evidence that the price adjustment of small-stock portfolios is not slower than that of large-stock portfolios. Additionally, limited evidence supports a positive leading role of large-stock portfolio returns over small-stock portfolio returns. These two findings are substantially different from the results of previous research on developed markets.     

Understanding the Economic Factors Influencing Farm Policy Preferences

A survey conducted in Mississippi, Texas, Indiana, and Nebraska elicited producers' preferences for various farm policy changes. This permitted examination of the diversity of preferences that single-state studies have not allowed. Five policy choices, including deficiency payments, loan programs, crop insurance, export programs, and disaster payments were examined. Logit model results predicting producer preferences for each of the five dichotomous policy choices are reported. Explanatory variables based on expected utility theory such as risk aversion, price and yield variability, and price–yield correlation are significant in various models.     

Valuation, optimal asset allocation and retirement incentives of pension plans

We provide a framework in which we link the valuation and assetallocation policies of defined benefits plans with the lifetimemarginal productivity schedule of the worker and the pensionplan formula. In turn, we examine the retirement policies thatare implied by the primitives of the model and the value ofpension obligations. Our model provides an explicit valuationformula for a stylized defined benefits plan. The optimal assetallocation policies consist of the replicating portfolio independentof the pension liabilities. We show that the worker with retirewhen the ratio of pension benefits to current wages reachesa critical value which depends on the parameters of the pensionplan and the discount rate. Using numerical techniques we analyzethe feedback effect of retirement policies on the valuationof plans and on the asset allocation decisions.     

The economics of land transfer and title insurance

In the presence of uncertainty over the title of land (due to fraud or error), a legal system can protect either the current (innocent) owner, or a previous owner who claims title. The predominant system in the United States generally awards title to the latter in the event of legitimate claim. Thus, current owners frequently purchase title insurance to provide indemnification in the event of a loss. In contrast, the Torrens system awards title to the current owner, but provides for indemnification of any legitimate claimants. We evaluate these two systems and argue that if transaction costs are low, both promote efficient assignment of title (according to the Coase Theorem), but if transaction costs are high, the Torrens system is more likely to award title to the party that values it the most (namely, the current possessor).