Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Analysis and Equilibrium Asset Pricing with Heterogeneous Beliefs


Author Info

Registered author(s):


    The representative agent paradigm with homogeneous expectations has been the dominant framework for the development of theories in portfolio analysis, equilibrium asset pricing and derivative pricing. Homogeneous expectations is the major assumption underlining the most widely used financial models including the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Lucas’s general equilibrium model and the Black-Scholes option-pricing formula. These models are popular because of their clear economic intuition and simplicity. However, this paradigm fails to take into account the heterogeneity, bounded rationality and speculative behaviour of different agents in the economy, which results in models with predictions that lack empirical support. There exist several empirical inconsistencies; (i) The CAPM predicts all investors hold an efficient portfolio in equilibrium and every asset’s expected return is linearly related to the market portfolio by the asset’s beta. However, it has been found that investors underdiversify in some situations; furthermore, other factors including value, size, momentum and dispersion of analyst forecast also predict future returns, which contradicts CAPM. (ii) Lucas’ model predicts that the average equity premium should be proportional to relative risk aversion and covariance between equity return and aggregate consumption; however, the observed equity premium implies an implausibly high relative risk aversion. This is termed the equity premium puzzle. (iii) The Black-Scholes model of option pricing predicts that the implied volatility of option prices is independent of time to maturity and strike prices, but the implied volatility in real markets is observed to be skewed. This feature of option prices is called the volatility skew. Although the postulate of unbounded rationality has dominated economic modelling for several decades, empirical evidence, unconvincing justification of the assumption of unbounded rationality and investor psychology have led to the incorporation of heterogeneity in beliefs and bounded rationality into financial modelling. Heterogeneity can have profound consequences for the interpretation of empirical evidence and the formulation of economic policy. Heckman (2001), the 2001 Nobel Laureate in economics, said, “The most important discovery was the evidence on pervasiveness of heterogeneity and diversity in economic life. When a full analysis was made of heterogeneity in response, a variety of candidate averages emerged to describe the “average” person, and the longstanding edifice of the representative consumer was shown to lack empirical support.” The aim of this thesis is to use a framework of heterogeneous agents to examine the impact of heterogeneous beliefs on portfolio analysis and asset pricing and explore the potential to explain the observed phenomenon mentioned above. The agents have heterogeneous beliefs regarding future outcomes in the market and the belief of the “average” agent is characterised by the consensus belief. The thesis consists of three main components: • The impact of heterogeneous beliefs on the cross section of asset returns, the geometric tangency relation between the portfolio frontier and the capital market line, and the portfolio efficiency of investors’ subjectively optimal portfolios. This is the focus of Chapters 2 and 3. In Chapter 2, investors are assumed to have heterogeneous beliefs about asset payoffs while in Chapter 3 is based on the assumption of heterogeneous beliefs about the rates of return. We find that the tangency relation in the standard portfolio analysis does not hold in general and that adding a riskless asset in zero net supply can increase the marginal utility of the market in some situations. Subjectively optimal portfolios are mean-variance (MV) inefficient in general, depending on the various aspects of heterogeneity amongst investors. • The relationship between heterogeneity and market risk premium and risk-free rate. This is the focus of Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 considers a multi-asset economy in a static mean-variance framework and Chapter 5 considers a Lucas-type continuoustime general equilibrium model with one risky asset and one riskless asset. In a multi-asset economy, we find that various combinations of heterogeneity can increase the market risk premium and reduce the risk-free rate. The effect is significant in some cases and insignificant in others. In a pure exchange economy, we find that the impact of heterogeneity on the equity premium and interest rate can be magnified under a relative consumption framework. • The pricing of options under heterogeneous beliefs. Chapter 6 develops a binomial lattice to model investors’ subjective beliefs in a multi-period discrete time setting and provides an option-pricing formula under heterogeneous beliefs. The framework is able to replicate various patterns of the implied volatilities observed in the market and provides some economic intuitions and explanations. The three components together contribute to the growing literature of asset pricing under heterogeneous beliefs by improving the understanding of the impact of heterogeneity in preferences and beliefs on portfolio analysis and equilibrium asset prices.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    as in new window
    This book is provided by Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney in its series PhD Thesis with number 9 and published in 2010.

    Handle: RePEc:uts:finphd:9

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
    Phone: +61 2 9514 7777
    Fax: +61 2 9514 7711
    Web page:
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research



    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, 09.
    2. Wiggins, James B., 1987. "Option values under stochastic volatility: Theory and empirical estimates," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 351-372, December.
    3. Ning Sun & Zaifu Yang, 2003. "Existence of Equilibrium and Zero-Beta Pricing Formula in the Capital Asset Pricing Model with Heterogeneous Beliefs," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 4(1), pages 51-71, May.
    4. Williams, Joseph T., 1977. "Capital asset prices with heterogeneous beliefs," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 219-239, November.
    5. Phillippe Weil, 1997. "The Equity Premium Puzzle and the Risk-Free Rate Puzzle," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1833, David K. Levine.
    6. Rubinstein, Mark, 1974. "An aggregation theorem for securities markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 225-244, September.
    7. Rubinstein, Mark, 1976. "The Strong Case for the Generalized Logarithmic Utility Model as the Premier Model of Financial Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(2), pages 551-71, May.
    8. Sundaresan, Suresh M, 1989. "Intertemporally Dependent Preferences and the Volatility of Consumption and Wealth," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 2(1), pages 73-89.
    9. Alvaro Sandroni, 2000. "Do Markets Favor Agents Able to Make Accurate Predicitions?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1303-1342, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)



    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uts:finphd:9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Duncan Ford).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.