IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind

  • Zimper, Alexander

This paper studies a Lucas (1978) fruit-tree economy under the assumption that the agents are Choquet expected utility (CEU) rather than standard expected utility decision makers. More specifically, the agents' non-additive beliefs about the economy's dividend payment process are modeled as neo-additive capacities so that the agents' decision behavior emphasizes the best, respectively worst, possible economic scenarios. In contrast to existing models of Lucas-type economies with ambiguity averse agents (Epstein and Wang, 1994), which ensure dynamic consistency through heavy restrictions on admissible ambiguity attitudes, my approach gives up dynamic consistency to the effect that quite general ambiguity attitudes become admissible. As the main formal result I establish the existence of a unique stationary equilibrium price function for this CEU Lucas economy. As the main economic insight I obtain that a representative agent who is rather preoccupied with the worst case scenario gives rise to a lower risk-free rate and a higher equity premium than predicted by the original expected utility Lucas economy. This difference is the greater the more surprising the economic information is that the agent receives.

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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016518891100220X
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control.

Volume (Year): 36 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 610-628

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:dyncon:v:36:y:2012:i:4:p:610-628
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jedc

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. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2001. "Recursive Multiple-Priors," RCER Working Papers 485, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  2. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2006. "Dynamic Choice Under Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 1430, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  3. Narayana R. Kocherlakota, 1996. "The Equity Premium: It's Still a Puzzle," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 42-71, March.
  4. Simon Grant & John Quiggin, 2003. "Public Investment and the Risk Premium for Equity," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 70(277), pages 1-18, February.
  5. Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "Testing and Characterizing Properties of Nonadditive Measures through Violations of the Sure-Thing Principle," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 1039-59, July.
  6. Alexander Zimper & Alexander Ludwig, 2009. "On attitude polarization under Bayesian learning with non-additive beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 181-212, October.
  7. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 223-50, July-Aug..
  8. Wakker, Peter & Tversky, Amos, 1993. " An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 147-75, October.
  9. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
  10. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
  11. John Y. Campbell, 2002. "Consumption-Based Asset Pricing," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1974, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  12. Epstein, Larry G, 1999. "A Definition of Uncertainty Aversion," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 579-608, July.
  13. Lars Hansen & Thomas Sargent & Thomas Tallarini, . "Robust Permanent Income and Pricing," GSIA Working Papers 1997-51, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
  14. R. Mehra & E. Prescott, 2010. "The equity premium: a puzzle," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1401, David K. Levine.
  15. Liu, Hening, 2011. "Dynamic portfolio choice under ambiguity and regime switching mean returns," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 623-640, April.
  16. Bidarkota, Prasad V. & Dupoyet, Brice V., 2007. "The impact of fat tails on equilibrium rates of return and term premia," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 887-905, March.
  17. Bidarkota, Prasad V. & Dupoyet, Brice V. & McCulloch, J. Huston, 2009. "Asset pricing with incomplete information and fat tails," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1314-1331, June.
  18. Jurgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2006. "Updating Choquet Beliefs," Discussion Papers 0607, Exeter University, Department of Economics.
  19. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians learn their way out of ambiguity?," Working Papers 240, Economic Research Southern Africa.
  20. Grant, Simon & Chateauneuf, A. & Eichberger, J., 2002. "Choice under Uncertainty with the Best and Worst in Mind: Neo-additive Capacities," Working Papers 2002-10, Rice University, Department of Economics.
  21. Grant Simon & Quiggin John, 2005. "What Does the Equity Premium Mean?," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 2(4), pages 1-7, September.
  22. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-68, December.
  23. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
  24. Sarin, Rakesh K & Wakker, Peter, 1992. "A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1255-72, November.
  25. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1991. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Discussion Papers 924, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  26. Tokat, Yesim & Rachev, Svetlozar T. & Schwartz, Eduardo S., 2003. "The stable non-Gaussian asset allocation: a comparison with the classical Gaussian approach," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 937-969, April.
  27. Cesaltina Pacheco Pires, 2002. "A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-152, September.
  28. Paolo Ghirardato, 2002. "Revisiting Savage in a conditional world," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 83-92.
  29. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
  30. Nicholas Barberis & Richard Thaler, 2002. "A Survey of Behavioral Finance," NBER Working Papers 9222, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  31. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 1999. "E-Capacities and the Ellsberg Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 107-138, April.
  32. Cohen, M. & Gilboa, I. & Jaffray, J.Y. & Schmeidler, D., 2000. "An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(02), pages 123-133, June.
  33. Jianjun Miao & Neng Wang, 2004. "Risk, Uncertainty, and Option Exercise," Boston University - Department of Economics - The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers Series dp-136, Boston University - Department of Economics.
  34. Epstein, Larry G & Wang, Tan, 1994. "Intertemporal Asset Pricing Under Knightian Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 283-322, March.
  35. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
  36. Epstein Larry G. & Le Breton Michel, 1993. "Dynamically Consistent Beliefs Must Be Bayesian," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-22, October.
  37. Mehra, Rajnish & Prescott, Edward C., 2003. "The equity premium in retrospect," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 889-938 Elsevier.
  38. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
  39. Hansen, Lars Peter & Sargent, Thomas J. & Turmuhambetova, Gauhar & Williams, Noah, 2006. "Robust control and model misspecification," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 45-90, May.
  40. Bidarkota, Prasad V. & McCulloch, J. Huston, 2003. "Consumption asset pricing with stable shocks--exploring a solution and its implications for mean equity returns," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 399-421, January.
  41. Lucas, Robert E, Jr, 1978. "Asset Prices in an Exchange Economy," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(6), pages 1429-45, November.
  42. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
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.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:dyncon:v:36:y:2012:i:4:p:610-628. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.