nach oben

Mathematics and Financial Economics

Erschienen in:

01.09.2013

Financial market equilibria with heterogeneous agents: CAPM and market segmentation

verfasst von: Matteo Del Vigna

Erschienen in: Mathematics and Financial Economics | Ausgabe 4/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We consider a single-period financial market model with normally distributed returns and heterogeneous agents. Specifically, some investors are classical expected utility maximizers whereas some others follow cumulative prospect theory. Using well-known functional forms for the preferences, we analytically prove that a Security Market Line Theorem holds. This implies that capital asset pricing model is a necessary (though not sufficient) requirement in equilibria with positive prices. We prove that equilibria may not exist and we give explicit sufficient conditions for an equilibrium to exist. To circumvent the complexity arising from the interaction of heterogeneous agents, we propose a segmented-market equilibrium model where segmentation is endogenously determined.

Nächster Artikel Scale-invariant asset pricing and consumption/portfolio choice with general attitudes toward risk and uncertainty

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

I wish to thank the Editor for pointing this out during the revision process.

\(\mathbb{R }^N_{++}\) is short notation for \((0,+\infty )^N\). In this case, we mean that every asset is in strictly positive supply.

For a set \(A,\,\# A\) denotes the cardinality of \(A\).

We do not explicitly give a framing of loss aversion. The main reason is that LA is easy to explain using familiar language (“losses loom larger than gains”) but at the same time there is not a widespread accepted mathematical formulation. Common assumptions are \(u^h(y)+u^h(-y) < u^h(x)+u^h(-x)\) for \(y>x>0\) and \(\lim _{x \rightarrow 0} {u^{h}}^\prime (|x|)/\lim _{x \rightarrow 0} {u^h}^\prime (-|x|)>1\), which express LA for large and small stakes respectively. For an overview on LA and its implications, we refer the reader to [21, 33].

Tangency occurs between the MV frontiers obtained with and without the risk-free asset. In the first case, it is formed by two straight lines on the mean/standard deviation plane. On the contrary, it is an hyperbola when only risky assets are available (see [16]).

Depending on the preferences’ parameters, an optimal demand \(\Theta _M^{j \star }\) may not exist. In this case, we set \(\Theta _M^{j \star } = + \infty \).

For CPT investors, strict versions of the inequalities can not be obtained since specific choices of \(u^h\) and \(w^h_\pm \) lead to indifference between values of \(\Theta _M^h\). This happens for example in the Linear LA and in the CRRA case, as it will be shown later.

The Sharpe ratio of a security with expected return \(\mu \) and standard deviation \(\sigma \) is given by \(SR:=\tfrac{\mu - R_f}{\sigma }\).

Given the utility function \(u\), the Absolute Risk Aversion coefficient is defined as \(A(x):=- \frac{u^{\prime \prime }(x)}{ u^{\prime } (x)}\).

If \(q_M=0\), the return \(R_M=M/q_M\) is no more well defined. However, we can manipulate (9) to recover the CAPM using prices instead of returns.

We drop the superscripts when unnecessary.

Compare our Eq. (25) with the expression of \(g^i(q,\sigma )\) in the proof of Lemma 3 in [6]. In their notation, \(\sigma \) represents the standard deviation of the terminal wealth, equal to our \(\Theta _M^h \sigma _M\). The authors use condition (24) to prove the existence of an equilibrium in their Proposition 7. However, they do not check whether the resulting equilibrium price vector has strictly positive entries.

In the case of indifference with respect to her risky position, an ill-behaved trader could clear the market by acquiring the risky securities that the other participants are not willing to purchase. For example, this would make sense in a stock-exchange placing where unsold securities are bought by a single institution. On the other hand, it is hard to think of a portfolio manager or a household who is indifferent in bearing undefined risks. We will not deepen on this type of equilibria.

We could use a more general notion of segmented equilibrium where the group of participants coincide with that of well-behaved traders and the group of non-participants contains the ill-behaved traders. Unfortunately, it would prevent from obtaining explicit expressions in our results.

With the exception of the Swedish case in July 2009, when the Riksbank (the Swedish central bank) used negative interest rate on deposits at \(-25\) bp, nominal interest rates never become negative. However, real interest rates often go below zero, as it happened for Italian BoT (Italian treasury bonds) in September 2008 and for U.S. Tips (Treasury inflation protected securities) in October 2010. Interpreting \({R}_0\) and \({R}_1\) as real expected returns, we can incorporate inflation in our model.

For convenience, we do not explicitly write the arguments in the implicit functions. Clearly, each derivative has to be evaluated at equilibrium quantities.

Allingham, M.: Existence theorems in the capital asset pricing model. Econometrica 59(4), 1169–1174 (1991)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

Barberis, N., Huang, M.: Stocks as lotteries: the implications of probability weighting for security prices. Am. Econ. Rev. 98(5), 2066–2100 (2008)CrossRef

Bernard, C., Ghossoub, M.: Static portfolio choice under cumulative prospect theory. Math. Financ. Econ. 2(4), 277–306 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

Bertaut, C.C.: Stockholding behavior of U.S. households: evidence from the 1983–1989 survey of consumer finances. Rev. Econ. Stat. 80(2), 263–275 (1998)CrossRef

Chapman, D.A., Polkovnichenko, V.: First-order risk aversion, heterogeneity, and asset market outcomes. J. Finance 64(4), 1863–1887 (2009)CrossRef

De Giorgi, E.G., Hens, T., Levy, H.: CAPM equilibria with prospect theory preferences. Working Paper (2011). http://ssrn.com/abstract=420184

De Giorgi, E.G., Hens, T., Rieger, M.O.: Financial market equilibria with cumulative prospect theory. J. Math. Econ. 46(5), 633–651 (2010)

De Giorgi, E.G., Post, T.: Loss aversion with a state-dependent reference point. Manag. Sci. 57, 1094–1110 (2011)MATHCrossRef

De Giorgi, E.G., Post, T., Yalcin, A.: A concave security market line. Working Paper (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1800229

10.

Del Vigna, M.: A note on the existence of CAPM equilibria with homogenous cumulative prospect theory preferences. Decis. Econ. Finance (2013). doi:10.1007/s10203-012-0140-8

11.

Dimmock, S.G., Kouwenberg, R.: Loss-aversion and household portfolio choice. J. Empir. Finance 17(3), 441–459 (2010)CrossRef

12.

Fortin, I., Hlouskova, J.: Optimal asset allocation under linear loss aversion. J. Bank. Finance 35(11), 2974–2990 (2011)CrossRef

13.

Friend, I., Blume, M.E.: The demand for risky assets. Am. Econ. Rev. 65(5), 900–922 (1975)

14.

Haliassos, M., Bertaut, C.C.: Why do so few hold stocks? Econ. J. 105(432), 1110–1129 (1995)CrossRef

15.

He, X.D., Zhou, X.Y.: Portfolio choice under cumulative prospect theory: an analytical treatment. Manag. Sci. 57(2), 315–331 (2011)MATHCrossRef

16.

Ingersoll, J.E.: Theory of Financial Decision Making. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa (1987)

17.

Ingersoll, J.E.: Non-monotonicity of the Tversky–Kahneman probability-weighting function: a cautionary note. Eur. Financ. Manag. 14(3), 385–390 (2008)CrossRef

18.

Ingersoll, J.E.: Cumulative prospect theory and the representative investor. Working Paper (2011). SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1950337

19.

Jin, H., Zhou, X.Y.: Behavioral portfolio selection in continuous time. Math. Finance 18(3), 385–426 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

20.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263–291 (1979)MATHCrossRef

21.

Kobberling, V., Wakker, P.: An index of loss aversion. J. Econ. Theory 122(1), 119–131 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRef

22.

Köszegi, B., Rabin, M.: A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 71(4), 1133–1165 (2006)

23.

Levy, H.: Equilibrium in an imperfect market: a constraint on the number of securities in the portfolio. Am. Econ. Rev. 68(4), 643–658 (1978)

24.

Levy, M.: Conditions for a CAPM equilibrium with positive prices. J. Econ. Theory 137(1), 404–415 (2007)MATHCrossRef

25.

Lintner, J.: The valuation of risky assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Rev. Econ. Stat. 47(1), 13–37 (1965)CrossRef

26.

Mankiw, N.G., Zeldes, S.P.: The consumption of stockholders and nonstockholders. J. Financ. Econ. 29, 97–112 (1991)CrossRef

27.

Markowitz, H.: Risk adjustment. J. Account. Audit. Finance 5(1), 213–225 (1990)

28.

Mehra, R., Prescott, E.C.: The equity premium puzzle. J. Monet. Econ. 15(2), 145–161 (1985)CrossRef

29.

Merton, R.C.: A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. J. Finance 42(3), 483–510 (1987)CrossRef

30.

Mossin, J.: Equilibrium in a capital asset market. Econometrica 34(4), 768–783 (1966)CrossRef

31.

Nielsen, L.T.: Uniqueness of equilibrium in the classical capital asset pricing model. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 23(3), 329–336 (1988)CrossRef

32.

Nielsen, L.T.: Positive prices in CAPM. J. Finance 47(2), 791–808 (1992)CrossRef

33.

Schmidt, U., Zank, H.: What is loss aversion? J. Risk Uncertain. 30(2), 157–167 (2005)MATHCrossRef

34.

Sharpe, W.F.: Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J. Finance 19(3), 425–442 (1964)MathSciNet

35.

Sharpe, W.F.: Capital asset prices with and without negative holdings. J. Finance 46(2), 489–509 (1991)CrossRef

36.

Tobin, J.: Liquidity preference as behaviour towards risk. Rev. Econ. Stud. 25(2), 65–86 (1958)CrossRef

37.

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5(4), 297–323 (1992)

38.

Yaari, M.E.: The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 55(1), 95–115 (1987)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

Titel: Financial market equilibria with heterogeneous agents: CAPM and market segmentation
verfasst von: Matteo Del Vigna
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2013
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Mathematics and Financial Economics / Ausgabe 4/2013
Print ISSN: 1862-9679
Elektronische ISSN: 1862-9660
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11579-013-0102-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2013

Optimal investment with two-factor uncertainty

Acceptability indexes via -expectations: an application to liquidity risk

Dealing with the inventory risk: a solution to the market making problem

Scale-invariant asset pricing and consumption/portfolio choice with general attitudes toward risk and uncertainty

Utility maximization with a given pricing measure when the utility is not necessarily concave