IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Habit, Long-Run Risks, Prospect? A Statistical Inquiry


  • Eric M. Aldrich
  • A. Ronald Gallant


We use recently proposed Bayesian statistical methods to compare the habit persistence asset pricing model of Campbell and Cochrane, the long-run risks model of Bansal and Yaron, and the prospect theory model of Barberis, Huang, and Santos. We improve these Bayesian methods so that they can accommodate highly nonlinear models such as the three aforementioned. Our substantive results can be stated succinctly: If one believes that the extreme consumption fluctuations of 1930–1949 can recur, although they have not in the last sixty years even counting the current recession, then the long-run risks model is preferred. Otherwise, the habit model is preferred. We reach this conclusion by undertaking two types of comparisons, relative and absolute, over two sample periods, 1930–2008 and 1950–2008, using real, annual, U.S. data on stock returns, consumption growth, and the price to dividend ratio. Comparisons are conducted using a trivariate series of all three, a bivariate series comprised of consumption growth and stock returns, and a univariate series of stock returns alone. The prior for each model is that the ergodic mean of the real interest rate be 0.896 within ±1 with probability 0.95 together with a preference for model parameters that are near their published values. The prospect theory model is not considered for the trivariate series because it puts all its mass on a two-dimensional subspace thereby violating the regularity conditions of the methods employed. For the trivariate series, in the relative comparison, the long-run risks model dominates the habit model over the 1930–2008 period, while the habit persistence model dominates the long-run risks model over the 1950–2008 period; in the absolute assessment, both models fail over both sample periods. Empirical results for the bivariate series are explored more completely because it has the most substantive relevance. For the bivariate series, in the relative comparison, the long-run risks model dominates over the 1930–2008 period, while the habit persistence model dominates over the 1950–2008 period; in the absolute assessment, the habit model fails in the 1930–2008 period and the prospect theory model fails in the 1950–2008 period. Out-of-sample, the models show interesting differences in their forecasts over the 2009–2013 horizon. In-sample, all three models track the conditional volatility of stock returns about the same. They differ mainly in how they track the conditional volatility of consumption growth and the conditional correlation between consumption growth and stock returns. For the univariate series and for both sample periods, the models perform about the same in the relative comparison and fit the series reasonably well in the absolute assessment. The main value of the univariate series is that the near equal performance of the three models permits exploration of methodological issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric M. Aldrich & A. Ronald Gallant, 2010. "Habit, Long-Run Risks, Prospect? A Statistical Inquiry," Working Papers 10-60, Duke University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:duk:dukeec:10-60

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Regina Betz & Stefan Seifert & Peter Cramton & Suzi Kerr, 2010. "Auctioning greenhouse gas emissions permits in Australia ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(2), pages 219-238, April.
    2. Cramton, Peter & Schwartz, Jesse A, 2000. "Collusive Bidding: Lessons from the FCC Spectrum Auctions," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 229-252, May.
    3. Sandro Brusco & Giuseppe Lopomo, 2009. "Simultaneous ascending auctions with complementarities and known budget constraints," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 38(1), pages 105-124, January.
    4. Kahn, Alfred E. & Cramton, Peter C. & Porter, Robert H. & Tabors, Richard D., 2001. "Uniform Pricing or Pay-as-Bid Pricing: A Dilemma for California and Beyond," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 70-79, July.
    5. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Peter Cramton & Marek Pycia & Marzena Rostek & Marek Weretka, 2014. "Demand Reduction and Inefficiency in Multi-Unit Auctions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1366-1400.
    6. Porter, David & Rassenti, Stephen & Shobe, William & Smith, Vernon & Winn, Abel, 2009. "The design, testing and implementation of Virginia's NOx allowance auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 190-200, February.
    7. Dallas Burtraw & Jacob Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Erica Myers & Karen Palmer & William Shobe, 2009. "Collusion in auctions for emission permits: An experimental analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 672-691.
    8. Anthony M. Kwasnica & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2001. "Collusion via Signaling in Multiple Object Auctions with Complementarities- An Experimental Test," Working Papers 200102, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    9. Cramton, Peter & Kerr, Suzi, 2002. "Tradeable carbon permit auctions: How and why to auction not grandfather," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 333-345, March.
    10. Gresik, Thomas A., 1991. "The efficiency of linear equilibria of sealed-bid double auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 173-184, February.
    11. Brian C. Murray & Richard G. Newell & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Balancing Cost and Emissions Certainty: An Allowance Reserve for Cap-and-Trade," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 84-103, Winter.
    12. Gjerstad, Steven & Dickhaut, John, 1998. "Price Formation in Double Auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-29, January.
    13. Cramton, Peter & Stoft, Steven, 2007. "Why We Need to Stick with Uniform-Price Auctions in Electricity Markets," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 26-37.
    14. Jaime F. Zender & James J.D. Wang, 2002. "Auctioning divisible goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 19(4), pages 673-705.
    15. Leslie Marx, 2006. "Economics at the Federal Communications Commission," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 29(4), pages 349-368, December.
    16. Burtraw, Dallas & Goeree, Jacob & Holt, Charles & Myers, Erica & Palmer, Karen & Shobe, William, 2010. "Price Discovery in Emissions Permit Auctions," Discussion Papers dp-10-32, Resources For the Future.
    17. Wilson, Robert B, 1985. "Incentive Efficiency of Double Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1101-1115, September.
    18. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Karen Palmer & William Shobe & Dallas Burtraw, 2010. "An Experimental Study of Auctions Versus Grandfathering to Assign Pollution Permits," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(2-3), pages 514-525, 04-05.
    19. Sushil Bikhchandani & Chi-fu Huang, 1993. "The Economics of Treasury Securities Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 117-134, Summer.
    20. Peter Cramton, 1997. "The FCC Spectrum Auctions: An Early Assessment," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 431-495, September.
    21. Robert C. Marshall & Leslie M. Marx, 2009. "The Vulnerability of Auctions to Bidder Collusion," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(2), pages 883-910.
    22. Joskow, Paul L & Schmalensee, Richard & Bailey, Elizabeth M, 1998. "The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 669-685, September.
    23. McAdams, David, 2007. "Adjustable supply in uniform price auctions: Non-commitment as a strategic tool," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 48-53, April.
    24. Back, Kerry & Zender, Jaime F., 2001. "Auctions of divisible goods with endogenous supply," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 29-34, October.
    25. Charles A. Holt & William Shobe & Dallas Burtraw & Karen Palmer & Jacob K. Goeree, 2007. "Auction Design for Selling CO2 Emission Allowances Under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative," Reports 2007-03, Center for Economic and Policy Studies.
    26. Brusco, Sandro & Lopomo, Giuseppe, 1999. "Collusion via signaling in open ascending auctions with multiple objects and complementarities," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6518, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    27. Satterthwaite, Mark A. & Williams, Steven R., 1989. "Bilateral trade with the sealed bid k-double auction: Existence and efficiency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 107-133, June.
    28. Catherine D. Wolfram, 1998. "Strategic Bidding in a Multiunit Auction: An Empirical Analysis of Bids to Supply Electricity in England and Wales," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(4), pages 703-725, Winter.
    29. R. Preston McAfee & John McMillan, 1996. "Analyzing the Airwaves Auction," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 159-175, Winter.
    30. Debra Israel, 2007. "Environmental participation in the U.S. sulfur allowance auctions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 373-390, November.
    31. Cason, Timothy N. & Plott, Charles R., 1996. "EPA's New Emissions Trading Mechanism: A Laboratory Evaluation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 133-160, March.
    32. Ali Hortaçsu & David McAdams, 2010. "Mechanism Choice and Strategic Bidding in Divisible Good Auctions: An Empirical Analysis of the Turkish Treasury Auction Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(5), pages 833-865.
    33. Carlo Cottarelli & Leonardo Bartolini, 1994. "Treasury Bill Auctions; Issues and Uses," IMF Working Papers 94/135, International Monetary Fund.
    34. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    35. Ellerman,A. Denny & Joskow,Paul L. & Schmalensee,Richard & Montero,Juan-Pablo & Bailey,Elizabeth M., 2005. "Markets for Clean Air," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521023894, March.
      • Ellerman,A. Denny & Joskow,Paul L. & Schmalensee,Richard & Montero,Juan-Pablo & Bailey,Elizabeth M., 2000. "Markets for Clean Air," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521660839, March.
    36. Lopomo Giuseppe & Marshall Robert C. & Marx Leslie M, 2005. "Inefficiency of Collusion at English Auctions," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-28, June.
    37. John McMillan, 1994. "Selling Spectrum Rights," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 145-162, Summer.
    38. Brusco, Sandro & Lopomo, Giuseppe & Marx, Leslie M., 2009. "The [`]Google effect' in the FCC's 700Â MHz auction," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 101-114, June.
    39. Sandro Brusco & Giuseppe Lopomo, 2004. "Simultaneous Ascending Bid Auctions with Privately Known Budget Constraints," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000373, UCLA Department of Economics.
    40. Back, Kerry & Zender, Jaime F, 1993. "Auctions of Divisible Goods: On the Rationale for the Treasury Experiment," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(4), pages 733-764.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Raymond Kan & Cesare Robotti, 2016. "The Exact Distribution of the Hansen–Jagannathan Bound," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1915-1943, July.
    2. Grammig, Joachim & Küchlin, Eva-Maria, 2017. "A two-step indirect inference approach to estimate the long-run risk asset pricing model," CFR Working Papers 17-01, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    3. Mengel F. & Peeters R.J.A.P., 2015. "Do markets encourage risk-seeking behaviour?," Research Memorandum 042, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    4. Grammig, Joachim & Küchlin, Eva-Maria, 2017. "A two-step indirect inference approach to estimate the long-run risk asset pricing model," CFS Working Paper Series 572, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    5. Favero, Carlo A. & Ortu, Fulvio & Tamoni, Andrea & Yang, Haoxi, 2016. "Implications of Return Predictability across Horizons for Asset Pricing Models," CEPR Discussion Papers 11645, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.


    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:duk:dukeec:10-60. 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: (Department of Economics Webmaster). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.