IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00679667.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Global Equilibrium Asset Pricing Model with Home Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Bruno Solnik

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, HKUST - Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)

  • Luo Zuo

    (MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

We develop a global equilibrium asset pricing model assuming that investors suffer from foreign aversion, a preference for home assets based on familiarity. Using a utility formulation inspired by regret theory, we derive closed-form solutions. When the degree of foreign aversion is high in a given country, investors place a high valuation on domestic equity, which results in a low expected return. Thus, the model generates the simple prediction that a country's degree of home bias and the expected return of its domestic assets should be inversely related. Our predicted relation between the degree of home bias and a country's expected return has the opposite sign predicted by models that assume some form of market segmentation. Using International Monetary Fund portfolio data, we find that expected returns are negatively related to home bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruno Solnik & Luo Zuo, 2012. "A Global Equilibrium Asset Pricing Model with Home Preference," Post-Print hal-00679667, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00679667
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1361
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hill, Brian & Michalski, Tomasz, 2018. "Risk versus ambiguity and international security design," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 74-105.
    2. Wallmeier, Martin & Iseli, Christoph, 2022. "Home bias and expected returns: A structural approach," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    3. Huang, Yuqin & Qiu, Huiyan & Wu, Zhiguo, 2016. "Local bias in investor attention: Evidence from China's Internet stock message boards," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(PA), pages 338-354.
    4. Riella, Gil & Teper, Roee, 2014. "Probabilistic dominance and status quo bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 288-304.
    5. Cheng, Xiu & Long, Ruyin & Chen, Hong & Yang, Jiahui, 2019. "Does social interaction have an impact on residents’ sustainable lifestyle decisions? A multi-agent stimulation based on regret and game theory," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Qin, Jie, 2020. "Regret-based capital asset pricing model," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Mishra, Anil V., 2016. "Foreign bias in Australian-domiciled mutual fund holdings," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 101-123.
    8. David Hillier & Tiago Loncan, 2019. "Stock market integration, cost of equity capital, and corporate investment: Evidence from Brazil," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 25(1), pages 181-206, January.
    9. Michael Nwogugu, 2020. "Regret Theory And Asset Pricing Anomalies In Incomplete Markets With Dynamic Un-Aggregated Preferences," Papers 2005.01709, arXiv.org.
    10. McAdam, Chris, 2020. "Are investors compensated for their sophistication and informedness for company takeovers – An Australian study," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    11. Korn, Olaf & Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2016. "Hedging with regret," CFR Working Papers 16-06, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    12. da Gama Batista, João & Massaro, Domenico & Bouchaud, Jean-Philippe & Challet, Damien & Hommes, Cars, 2017. "Do investors trade too much? A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 18-34.
    13. Purkayastha, Anish & Kumar, Vikas, 2021. "Internationalization through foreign listing: A review and future research agenda," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(3).
    14. Dodd, Olga & Frijns, Bart, 2015. "Cross-listing decisions and the foreign bias of investors," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 160-166.
    15. Mishra, Anil V., 2017. "Foreign bias in Australia's international equity holdings," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 41-54.
    16. Martijn Boermans & Ian Cooper & Piet Sercu & Rosanne Vanpée, 2022. "Foreign bias in equity portfolios: Informational advantage or familiarity bias?," Working Papers 742, DNB.
    17. Korn, Olaf & Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2019. "Hedging with regret," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 192-205.
    18. Arpita Agnihotri & Saurabh Bhattacharya, 2017. "Corporate Name Change and the Market Valuation of Firms: Evidence from an Emerging Market," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 73-90, January.
    19. Dlugosch, Dennis & Wang, Mei, 2022. "Ambiguity, ambiguity aversion and foreign bias: New evidence from international panel data," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    20. Roee Teper, 2010. "Probabilistic Dominance and Status Quo Bias," Working Paper 5864, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    21. Cakici, Nusret & Zaremba, Adam, 2023. "Misery on Main Street, victory on Wall Street: Economic discomfort and the cross-section of global stock returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    22. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2020. "Portfolio allocation problems between risky and ambiguous assets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 63-79, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00679667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.