1 / 11

The Equity Premium Puzzle Revisited (by the Behavioralists)

The Equity Premium Puzzle Revisited (by the Behavioralists). Economics 437. Barberis and Huang, April, 2006 “The Loss Aversion/Narrow Framing Approach to the Equity Premium Puzzle”. Nicholas Barberis, Prof of Economics, Yale Teaches course on Behavioral Finance at Yale

burke
Télécharger la présentation

The Equity Premium Puzzle Revisited (by the Behavioralists)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Equity Premium Puzzle Revisited (by the Behavioralists) Economics 437

  2. Barberis and Huang, April, 2006“The Loss Aversion/Narrow Framing Approach to the Equity Premium Puzzle” • Nicholas Barberis, Prof of Economics, Yale • Teaches course on Behavioral Finance at Yale • Barberis is a “dyed in the wool” behavioralist

  3. The “Mehra Prescott” Problem • The very high equity premium, 4.6% in MP, 1985 is not consistent with • Most reasonable estimates of risk aversion (it implies extremely high risk aversion on the part of market participants) • Yet, attitudes toward large gambles, would suggest very low equity premiums • So, can the answer be found by introducing a new utility function that can somehow reconcile these matters?

  4. Consider the following: • Choice 1 • A. Sure gain of $ 240 • B. 25% chance of $ 1,000 and 75% chance of zero • Choice 2 • A. Sure loss of $ 750 • B. 75% chance to lose $ 1,000 and 25% chance to lose nothing

  5. Most people choose A, D • Choice 1 • A. Sure gain of $ 240 • B. 25% chance of $ 1,000 and 75% chance of zero • Choice 2 • C. Sure loss of $ 750 • D. 75% chance to lose $ 1,000 and 25% chance to lose nothing But A & D mean 25% chance to win $ 240 and 75% chance to lose $ 760 B& C mean 25% chance to win $ 250 and 75% chance to lose $ 750

  6. Choosing B & C means • Narrow Framing • Each choose was treated independently (not in a combined fashion) • MPT treats choices as “combined” not independently • Suppose losses in stocks are treated differently than losses in other parts of wealth • Could this explain the equity premium puzzle but also explain reasonable risk attitudes toward large gambles?

  7. Imagine the following utility function Up to the plus sign, this is a pretty typical utility function After the plus sign: stock market Gains and Losses Enter the picture With v rising more slowly with gains, falling much quicker with losses

  8. Condition L • An individual with wealth of $ 75,000 should not pay a premium higher than $ 15,000 to avoid a 50:50 chance of losing or gaining $25,000 • Most utility functions that satisfy this condition will lead to very small equity risk premiums • The utility function early will normally satisfy this condition as well as be consistent with 4.6% equity risk premiums.

  9. What Causes Narrow Framing? • Regret • We will remember that specific stock loss • Accessibility • We are just too lazy to combine things • These lead to different time patterns

  10. Review for Final • All Readings All Lectures • Three Main Themes • Noise Trading and Limits to Arbitrage • Anomalies • Serial Correlation • Final will also cover lectures since 2nd mid term • Written as a two hour final, but you will have three hours

  11. End

More Related