Recent empirical evidence supports the view that the income process has an individual-specific growth rate component [Baker, M., 1997. Growth-rate heterogeneity and the covariance structure of life-cycle earnings. Journal of Labor Economics 15, 338-375; Guvenen, F., 2007b. Learning your earning: Are labor income shocks really very persistent? American Economic Review 97, 687-712; Huggett, M., Ventura, G., Yaron, A., 2007. Sources of life-cycle inequality. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania]. Moreover, the individual-specific growth component may be stochastic. Motivated by these empirical observations, I study an individual's optimal consumption-saving and portfolio choice problem when he does not observe his income growth. As in standard income fluctuation problems, the individual cannot fully insure himself against income shocks. In addition to the standard income-risk-induced precautionary saving demand, the individual also has learning-induced precautionary saving demand, which is greater when belief is more uncertain. With constant unobserved income growth, changes in belief are not predictable. However, with stationary stochastic income growth, belief is no longer a martingale. Mean reversion of belief reduces hedging demand on average and in turn mitigates the impact of estimation risk on consumption-saving and portfolio decisions.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.