Financial Economics: Risk Sharing and Asset Pricing in General Equilibrium c
|
|
- Kevin Fletcher
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 / 170 Contents Financial Economics: Risk Sharing and Asset Pricing in General Equilibrium c Lutz Arnold University of Regensburg
2 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy 5. The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications 7. Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing 9. Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model 12. Time and uncertainty 13. Equilibrium and the fundamental equations of asset pricing 14. Fundamental value Appendix. Incomplete markets 2 / 170
3 3 / Introduction 1. Introduction
4 4 / Introduction This course in financial economics addresses two main questions. Efficiency: does trade in financial assets lead to an efficient allocation of the economy s risks? Asset pricing: what determines asset asset prices? Does price reflect fundamental value? To answer these questions, we approach the field of financial economics from the perspective of general equilibrium theory.
5 5 / Introduction Results in this field come at two strikingly different levels of mathematical difficulty: Almost all results require only very basic math. Examples include the first welfare theorem with financial markets the fundamental equations of asset pricing in two-period and multi-period setups the shareholder unanimity theorem the Modigliani-Miller theorem the CAPM the efficient markets hypothesis.
6 6 / Introduction Some results, which assert the existence of certain entities, are very hard to prove and require the use of separating hyperplane or fixed point theorems. Examples include existence of equilibrium the 2nd welfare theorem (for any Pareto-optimal allocation, there exist endowments and prices such that the allocation and the prices are an equilibrium) the fundamental theorem of asset pricing (in the absence of arbitrage opportunities, there exist state prices that can be used to price assets). These slides focus on the former set of results. A second set of slides Financial Economics: Risk Sharing and Asset Pricing in General Equilibrium II c summarizes the latter set of results and the necessary math.
7 7 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy EFFICIENT RISK SHARING
8 8 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy 2. Two-period two-state model
9 9 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Endowment economy with I consumers i = 1, 2,..., I, one (physical) good, two periods, t and t + 1, two states s = 1, 2 with probabilities π s (π s > 0, 2 s=1 π s = 1).
10 10 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Endowments: y i t, y i t+1,1, y i t+1,2. Preferences: utility functions U i (c i t, ci t+1,1, ci t+1,2 ) (Ui : R 3 + R). The only assumption we place on the U i s is that they are strictly increasing.
11 11 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy When it comes to asset pricing, we assume a time-separable expected utility function: with U i (c i t, c i t+1,1, ci t+1,2 ) = ui (c i t) + β i positive discounting (0 < β i < 1), u i : R + R twice differentiable, 2 π s u i (ct+1,s i ). s=1 (u i ) (c) > 0 > (u i ) (c) for all c > 0, and (u i ) (0) =. But that s inessential for much of the equilibrium analysis.
12 12 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy The model is simple to the point of triviality. That doesn t mean that it s easy to analyze, however! It offers deep insights into the nature of general equilibrium, its welfare properties, and efficient risk bearing.
13 13 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Literature: Mas-Colell, Andreu, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green, Microeconomic Theory, Oxford University Press (1995), Chapters 16, 19. Magill, Michael, and Martine Quinzii, Theory of Incomplete Markets, MIT (2002), Section 6.
14 14 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy 3 Efficient risk sharing: contingent-commodity markets
15 15 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy To begin with, ignore financial markets. Suppose there are contingent-commodity markets (CCMs). In these markets, claims to the delivery of one unit of the consumption good contingent upon the realization of state s are traded at price q t+1,s. If s does not materialize, nothing is delivered. spot market q t t t +1, 1 t +1, 2 q t+1,1 q t+1,2 = delivery of one unit of the commodity
16 2. Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy q = (q t, q t+1,1, q t+1,2 ): price vector y i = (yt i, y t+1,1 i, y t+1,2 i ): i s endowment vector c i = (ct i, ci t+1,1, ci t+1,2 ): i s consumption vector. Given that the U i s are strictly increasing, we can restrict attention to q R Without further comment, we let ci R 3 + (and analogously when we consider the model with more than two states). i s budget constraint is: q(c i y i ) 0. Convention: the product of two vectors is the scalar product! In equilibrium, due to strictly increasing utility, the budget equations will hold as equalities. 16 / 170
17 17 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Definition: An allocation (c i ) I i=1 is feasible if I c i i=1 I y i. i=1 An allocation is Pareto-optimal if it is feasible and there is no other feasible allocation (c i ) I i=1 such that U i (c i ) U i (c i ) for all i with strict inequality for at least one i.
18 18 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Definition: An allocation (c i ) I i=1 and a price vector q are an equilibrium with CCMs (ECCM) if c i maximizes U i subject to the individual s budget constraint for all consumers i and markets clear: I c i = i=1 I y i. i=1
19 19 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Theorem (1st Welfare Theorem with CCMs): Let ((c i ) I i=1, q) be an ECCM. Then (ci ) I i=1 is Pareto-optimal. Proof: Suppose not. Then there is (c i ) I i=1 which is feasible and Pareto-superior. Pareto-superiority implies qc i qc i for all i with strict inequality for at least one i. This is because otherwise i could have afforded a better consumption bundle than c i (use is made of strictly increasing utility).
20 20 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy So I I qc i > qc i. i=1 i=1 Feasibility of the allocation (c i ) I i=1 requires I i=1 ci I hence I I qc i qy i. i=1 i=1 i=1 yi,
21 21 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy The fact that ((c i ) I i=1, q) is an equilibrium (i.e., I i=1 ci = I i=1 yi ) implies I qc i = i=1 I qy i. i=1 Taking stock, we get a contradiction: I qy i i=1 I qc i > i=1 I qc i = i=1 I qy i. i=1 Q.E.D.
22 22 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy As usual in non-monetary micro models, we can arbitrarily normalize one price (e.g., q t = 1) without affecting the equilibrium allocation or the equilibrium relative prices. Theorem (irrelevance of price normalization): If ((c i ) I i=1, q) is an ECCM, then ((ci ) I i=1, λq) is an ECCM for any λ > 0. Proof: Markets clear by construction. (λq)(c i y i ) 0 if, and only if, q(c i y i ) 0. That is, the budget set remains the same after multiplying all the prices by a constant, so the optimal c i also remains the same. Q.E.D.
23 23 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Two other important theorems are: Existence of equilibrium: An ECCM exists. 2nd Welfare Theorem: For any Pareto-optimal allocation (c i ) I i=1, there exists endowments (yi ) I i=1 and a price vector q such that ((c i ) I i=1, q) is an ECCM The proofs of these theorems require additional (convexity, continuity, and boundary) assumptions and the use of a fixed point theorem and a separating hyperplane theorem, respectively, and can be found in the slides Financial Economics: Risk Sharing and Asset Pricing in General Equilibrium II c.
24 24 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy The analysis is unchanged if one interprets the three commodities as three goods traded in spot markets at a given point in time. Hence, the 1st Welfare Theorem above is in essence a reinterpretation of the standard theorem for non-contingent commodity markets. It shows that the standard analysis of trade at a point in time without uncertainty carries over to intertemporal trade in the presence of risk. Two drawbacks of the model are are: In reality, futures markets exist for very few commodities (energy, oil, wheat, metals, etc.), and even in those markets delivery is most often not state-contingent. If we allowed for different consumption goods, the number of CCMs (S times the number of different physical goods) would be large. In what follows, we replace CCMs with financial markets.
25 25 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Literature: Mas-Colell, Andreu, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green, Microeconomic Theory, Oxford University Press (1995), Chapter 19. Magill, Michael, and Martine Quinzii, Theory of Incomplete Markets, MIT (2002), Section 7.
26 26 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy 4 Efficient risk sharing: finance economy
27 27 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy The CCM economy achieves Pareto-optimal risk sharing as CCMs allow state-contingent consumption plans. We now assume that the only goods markets are (usual) spot markets: the price is paid on delivery. The spot price is normalized to unity. There are no CCMs. Financial markets (FMs) serve the same purpose as CCMs (indirectly): they allow the state-contingent transfer of purchasing power which can then be used to buy goods.
28 28 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy There are a risky and a safe asset, also called asset 1 and asset 2, respectively. The risky asset trades at prices p t at t and pays a dividend a t+1,1 = 1 in state 1 and a t+1,2 = 0 in state 2 at date t + 1. The safe asset trades at price 1/(1 + r t+1 ) and pays one unit of income in either state at date t + 1. By buying 1/(1 + r t+1 ) units of the safe asset and (short-) selling one unit of the risky asset, one gets nothing in state 1 and one unit of income in state 2. The financial market is complete, in that it is possible to buy purchasing power for the different states. t t +1, 1 t +1, 2 spot market 1 p t spot market 1 spot market 1 1+r t+1 p t 1
29 29 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Let z1 i denote consumer i s investment in the risky asset and zi 2 his purchases of the safe asset and z i = (z1 i, zi 2 ). His budget constraints are: c i t y i t p t z i r t+1 z i 2 c i t+1,1 y i t+1,1 + zi 1 + zi 2 c i t+1,2 y i t+1,2 + zi 2.
30 30 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Definition: An allocation (c i ) I i=1, asset holdings (zi ) I i=1, and a price vector (p t, r t+1 ) are an equilibrium with FMs (EFM) if c i and z i maximize U i subject to the individual s budget constraints for all consumers i and markets clear: and I c i = i=1 I i=1 I z i = 0. i=1 y i
31 31 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Consider an ECCM. Without loss of generality (as the absolute price level is indeterminate), set q t = 1. By buying one unit of the risky asset, one gets the purchasing power needed to buy one unit of the good in state 1. If p t = q t+1,1, this costs the same amount of money as one unit of contingent commodity 1 in the ECCM. By buying one unit of the safe asset and short-selling the risky asset, one gets the purchasing power needed to buy one unit of the good in state 2. If r t+1 = q t+1,1 + q t+1,2, this costs the same amount of money as one unit of contingent commodity 2 in the ECCM.
32 32 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Theorem (ECCM and EFM): Let (c i ) I i=1 and q with q t = 1 be an ECCM. Let p t = q t+1,1 Let r t+1 = q t+1,1 + q t+1,2. ( ) ( ) z1 i = ct+1,1 i y t+1,1 i ct+1,2 i y t+1,2 i z i 2 = ci t+1,2 y i t+1,2. Then ((c i, z i ) I i=1, (p t, r t+1 )) is an EFM.
33 2. Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Proof: To prove the theorem we have to show that c i and z i maximize i s utility and markets clear. Let B i denote the set of affordable consumption vectors c i for consumer i with CCMs given equilibrium CCM prices q, and let B i denote the set of affordable consumption vectors c i in the finance economy given the asset prices in the theorem. To prove that c i maximizes utility in the finance economy, it suffices to show that c i B i B i. That is, c i is affordable, and there is no better consumption vector in B i, because it would have been chosen in the CCM economy. c i B i B i 33 / 170
34 34 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy We first prove c i B i. The choice of the portfolio z i in the theorem implies that i can afford the same date-t + 1 consumption levels as in the ECCM. The question is whether he can also afford ct i. Since c i satisfies the CCM budget constraint with equality, we have q(c i y i ) = 0. Using the asset prices and the equations for i s portfolio in the theorem, this can be rewritten as ( ) t yt i ) + p t (z1 i + zi 2 ) + 1 p t z2 i 1 + r = 0. t+1 (c i Rearranging terms shows that the date-t budget constraint is satisfied. This proves c i B i.
35 35 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy To prove B i B i, suppose c i B i, i.e., c i and some z i satisfy the finance economy budget constraints. Using the pricing formulas in the theorem, the date-t budget constraint becomes c i t y i t q t+1,1 (z i 1 + zi 2 ) q t+1,2z i 2. From the date-t + 1 budget constraints, z i 1 + zi 2 ci t+1,1 y i t+1,1 and z i 2 ci t+1,2 y i t+1,2. So c i t y i t q t+1,1 (c i t+1,1 y i t+1,1 ) q t+1,2(c i t+1,2 y i t+1,2 ), i.e., q(c i y i ) 0. Thus, c i B i implies c i B i. That is, B i B i.
36 36 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy It remains for us to show that markets clear. For the goods markets, this holds true by construction. For the asset markets, this follows immediately upon summing the individuals asset demands in the theorem: I i=1 zi = 0. Q.E.D. The equilibrium allocation (c i ) I i=1 is Pareto optimal, as it is identical to the allocation in the CCM economy. So a 1st Welfare Theorem follows immediately from the theorem that relates an EFM to an ECCM: if an EFM replicates an ECCM, then the equilibrium allocation is Pareto optimal. The theorem does not rule out that there are other EFMs, which do no replicate an ECCM and with a Pareto-nonoptimal allocation. In what follows, without further mention, we consider only EFMs which replicate an ECCM.
37 37 / Two-period two-state model 3. Efficient risk sharing 1: contingent commodity markets 4. Efficient risk sharing: finance economy Literature: Mas-Colell, Andreu, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green, Microeconomic Theory, Oxford University Press (1995), Chapter 19. Magill, Michael, and Martine Quinzii, Theory of Incomplete Markets, MIT (2002), Section 8.
38 38 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications CONSUMPTION-BASED ASSET PRICING
39 39 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications 5 The fundamental equations of asset pricing
40 40 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications The central idea in consumption-based asset pricing is to exploit the necessary optimality conditions which characterize consumer choice in a market equilibrium. So we consider an EFM and derive its implications for asset prices. To do so, we now consider the time-separable expected utility function: U i (c i t, c i t+1,1, ci t+1,2 ) = ui (c i t) + β i 2 π s u i (ct+1,s i ) s=1 with (u i ) (c) > 0 > (u i ) (c) for all c > 0 and (u i ) (0) =. Let a t+1 denote the payoff of the risky asset (i.e., a t+1,1 = 1 or a t+1,2 = 0).
41 41 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Consider individual i s utility maximization problem. The budget constraints hold with equality. Substituting for the consumption levels ct i, ci t+1,1, and ci t+1,2 yields the following problem: ( max : u i y i z i t p t z1 i 1 [ z2 )+β ( )] i i E t u i yt+1 i 1 + r + a t+1z1 i + zi 2. t+1 The optimality conditions can be written as: [ p t = E t β i (ui ) (ct+1 i ) ] (u i ) (ct i) a t r t+1 = E t [ β i (ui ) (c i t+1 ) (u i ) (c i t ) These equations relate the asset prices to individual i s marginal utility function and his consumption levels. As such, these are not remarkable asset pricing formulas. ].
42 42 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications The reason why they do yield interesting implications is that they can be used to express asset pricing without reference to individual-specific variables. To see this, note that individual i s MRS between consumption at t and consumption in state s at t + 1 is determined by That is: du i = (u i ) (c i t)dc i t + π s β i (u i ) (c i t+1,s )dci t+1,s = 0. MRS i t,t+1,s = dci t dc i t+1,s = π s β i (ui ) (c i t+1,s ) (u i ) (c i t ).
43 43 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Theorem (Equality of MRSs when the allocation is Pareto-optimal): Let (c i ) I i=1 be a Pareto-optimal allocation. Then for each s, for all i and i. MRS i t,t+1,s = MRSi t,t+1,s Proof: Suppose for s = 1 or s = 2 the MRSs of individuals i and i are different. Without loss of generality, let MRSt,t+1,s i > MRSi t,t+1,s. That is, i has a stronger preference for consumption in s at t + 1 than i.
44 44 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Let 0 < dc i t+1,s = dci t+1,s dct i = MRSi t,t+1,s + MRSi t,t+1,s dct+1,s i 2 = dci t. The resulting allocation is feasible. Then du i (u i ) (ct i) = MRSi t,t+1,s MRSi 2 t,t+1,s dc i t+1,s > 0 du i (u i ) (ct i ) = MRSi t,t+1,s MRSi 2 This contradicts Pareto-optimality. t,t+1,s dc i t+1,s > 0. Q.E.D.
45 45 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Theorem (The fundamental equations of asset pricing): Let the utility function be given by U i (c i t, c i t+1,1, ci t+1,2 ) = ui (c i t) + β i 2 π s u i (ct+1,s i ), s=1 where u i is twice differentiable, with (u i ) (c) > 0 > (u i ) (c) for all c > 0 and (u i ) (0) =. Then, at an EFM with a Pareto optimal allocation there exists a stochastic discount factor (SDF) M t,t+1,s such that p t = E t ( Mt,t+1 a t+1 ) r t+1 = E t (M t,t+1 ).
46 46 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Proof: Since the MRSs MRS i t,t+1,s = π sβ i (ui ) (c i t+1,s ) (u i ) (c i t ) are uniform across individuals, so is M t,t+1,s MRSi t,t+1,s π s = β i (ui ) (c i t+1,s ) (u i ) (c i t ) The assertion then follows immediately from the necessary optimality conditions for the individuals utility maximization problems. Q.E.D.
47 47 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Future returns are discounted weakly (M t,t+1,s is high) if consumption is low in state s. Future returns are discounted heavily (M t,t+1,s is low) if consumption is high in s. That is, the SDF takes care that returns are valued according to whether they provide a hedge against low consumption. Notice that what makes this an asset pricing theory is the underlying general equilibrium model, which ensures that the MRSs are uniform, so that a single SDF exists which can be used to discount payoffs.
48 48 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Notice the difference between the stochastic discount factor p t = E t (SDF a t+1 ) and a common, non-stochastic, discount factor DF where DF = p t = DF E t (a t+1 ), r t+1 + risk premium. The next section brings the two ways of discounting closer together.
49 49 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Literature: Cochrane, John F., Asset Pricing, 2nd Edition, Princeton University Press (2005), Chapter 1.
50 50 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications 6 Applications
51 51 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications The fundamental equations of asset pricing look quite different from standard asset pricing formulas. This section shows that they can be rearranged such that they become much more similar. For now, the asset pricing formulas we derive apply only to the risky asset with payoff 1 in state 1 and 0 in state 2. Later on, we will see that they generalize to assets with arbitrary payoff vectors and to a multi-period model. In that multi-period model, the risky asset can be resold at date t + 1, so the date-t + 1 value of the asset is the sum of the resale price p t+1 and the dividend a t+1. We replace a t+1 with p t+1 + a t+1 here, so that the asset pricing formulas apply later too, where for now p t+1 = 0.
52 52 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Application 1: Covariance Define σ M,p+a as the covariance between the SDF and the risky asset s return: σ M,p+a E t [M t,t+1 (p t+1 + a t+1 )] E t (M t,t+1 )E t (p t+1 + a t+1 ). Then p t = E t (M t,t+1 )E t (p t+1 + a t+1 ) + σ M,p+a = E t(p t+1 + a t+1 ) 1 + r t+1 + σ M,p+a. That is, the asset price is the expected payoff discounted at the riskless rate plus a risk adjustment, and the risk adjustment is simply the covariance of its return with the SDF. The risky asset is expensive if the SDF is high (i.e., consumption is low) in state 1, in which it pays off.
53 53 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Application 2: Systematic risk Let R t+1 = p t+1 + a t+1 p t 1 denote the rate of return on the risky asset. Then, using σ M,p+a = p t σ M,R, E t (R t+1 ) r t+1 = (1 + r t+1 )σ M,R. The risky asset s risk premium is proportional to the covariance between its returns and the SDF (its systematic risk).
54 54 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Application 3: Idiosyncratic risk If the asset s payoff is uncorrelated with the SDF, then the asset does not pay a risk premium, irrespective of how volatile its returns are: E t (R t+1 ) r t+1 = 0 if σ M,R = 0.
55 55 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Application 4: beta Another way to write the fundamental pricing equation for the risky asset is where σ 2 M E t (R t+1 ) r t+1 = β E t (M t,t+1 ), β = σ M,R σm 2. That is, (analogously to the CAPM) the asset s risk premium is the product of a non-asset specific market term and its beta.
56 56 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Application 5: Random walk Contrary to what has been assumed so far, assume the agents are risk-neutral: u i (c i ) = c i. Consider a short time interval, in which discounting doesn t play a role (β i = 1) and the asset doesn t pay a dividend (a t+1 = 0). The fundamental equation for the risky asset becomes: E t (p t+1 p t ) = 0. The asset price is a random walk.
57 57 / The fundamental equations of asset pricing 6. Applications Literature: Cochrane, John F., Asset Pricing, 2nd Edition, Princeton University Press (2005), Chapter 1.
58 58 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing COMPLETE MARKETS
59 59 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing 7 Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing
60 7. Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing The restriction to S = 2 states is immaterial for most of the analysis. Let S 2. State s occurs with probability π s (π s > 0, S s=1 π s = 1). Define q = (q t, q t+1,1,..., q t+1,s ): price vector y i = (yt i, y t+1,1 i,..., y t+1,s i ): i s endowment vector c i = (ct i, ci t+1,1,..., ci t+1,s ): i s consumption vector. U i is defined over c i (U i : R S+1 + R). The whole analysis of the CCM economy goes through without any modification. 60 / 170
61 61 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing The financial market in the two-state economy in Section 4 is complete in that it is possible to transfer income to a specific state s (= 1, 2) by forming a suitable portfolio. Assume that there are financial products, called Arrow securities (ASs), which do so directly: for each state s (= 1,..., S), there is an AS that costs p s at t and entitles the owner to the payment of one unit of income in s at t + 1 (and nothing in any other state).
62 62 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing As in Section 4, the goods prices are set equal to unity in both periods. Consumer i s budget constraints can be written as: c i t y i t S p s z s i s=1 c i t+1,s y i t+1,s zi s, s = 1,..., S. Let p = ( p 1,..., p S ) denote the vector of AS prices and z i = ( z 1 i,..., zi S ) i s AS holdings. In our one-good model, AS markets are almost the same as CCMs: they allow the purchase of the purchasing power required to purchase the good in one single state.
63 63 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Definition: An allocation (c i ) I i=1, AS holdings ( zi ) I i=1, and a vector of AS prices p are an equilibrium with a complete set of ASs (ECAS) if (c i, z i ) maximizes U i subject to the individual s budget constraints for all consumers i and markets clear: I c i = i=1 I i=1 I z i = 0. i=1 y i
64 64 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Consider an ECCM with q t = 1 (which entails no loss of generality because of the irrelevance of price normalization). Theorem (ECAS and ECCM): Let ((c i ) I i=1, q) be an ECCM, p s = q t+1,s, s = 1,..., S, and z s i = ct+1,s i y t+1,s i, s = 1,..., S. Then ((c i, z i ) I i=1, p) is an ECAS. The former condition says that the cost of buying the purchasing power needed to buy one unit of the good in the spot market if state s occurs is the same as the cost of buying the delivery in the CCM. The second condition says that the portfolio finances the ECCM consumption vector.
65 65 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Proof: The proof works exactly like the proof of the 1st Welfare Theorem for the two-state finance economy. We have to show that c i maximizes i s utility and markets clear. To prove that c i maximizes utility given ECAS prices, it suffices to show that c i B i B i, where B i is the set of affordable consumption vectors c i for consumer i with CCMs given equilibrium CCM prices q and B i is the set of affordable consumption vectors c i with a complete set of ASs given the ECAS prices. That is, c i is affordable, and there is no better consumption vector in B i, because it would have been chosen in the CCM economy. c i B i B i
66 66 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing To prove c i B i, notice that the fact that i chooses c i at the ECCM implies q(c i y i ) = 0. Substituting for q from the former condition of the theorem (and q t = 1) yields c i t y i t + S s=1 p s (c i t+1,s y i t+1,s ) = 0. As stipulated by the theorem, let consumer i choose the portfolio z s i = ct+1,s i y t+1,s i, s = 1,..., S. From the preceding equation, c i t y i t = S p s z s. i s=1 The latter two equations show that c i B i.
67 67 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing To prove B i B i, suppose c i B i, i.e., c i and some portfolio z i satisfy the S + 1 budget constraints. Substituting for z i s from the latter S constraints into the period-t budget constraint yields c i i y i t S p s (ct+1,s i y t+1,s i ). s=1 The former condition of the theorem and q t = 1 yield q(c i y i ) 0. So c i B i. The fact that c i B i c i B i proves B i B i.
68 7. Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Goods market clearing in the CCM economy implies goods market clearing in the economy with ASs: I c i = i=1 I y i. i=1 From the second condition of the theorem, I z s i = i=1 I i=1 (c i t+1,s y i t+1,s ) } {{ } =0 So the AS markets also clear: I z i = 0. i=1 = 0, s = 1,..., S. Q.E.D. 68 / 170
69 69 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Next, we consider a less peculiar asset structure. There are K assets k = 1,..., K with prices p k in t and payoff a sk in state s at t + 1. The payoffs are summarized in the payoff matrix A = a a 1K..... a S1... a SK. The k-th column gives asset k s payoffs in the S states, the s-th row gives the K assets payoffs in state s. The set of assets is exogenously given there is no financial engineering.
70 70 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Let z = (z 1,..., z K ) denote a portfolio. Az = a a 1K..... a S1... a SK z 1. z K = K k=1 a 1kz k. K k=1 a Skz k gives the payoffs generated the portfolio in the S states. Definition: The financial market is complete if A contains S linearly independent payoff vectors. Market completeness implies that for all x R S, there is z such that Az = x. Let the assets be ordered such that the first S payoff vectors (k = 1,..., S) are independent. Then for all x R S, there is z = (z 1,..., z S, 0,..., 0) such that Az = x.
71 71 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing In theory, the condition for market completeness is not too demanding: it can be shown that it is fulfilled if there is one asset with a different payoff in each state of nature and it is possible to write put or call options on this asset. Giving up the matrix notation, the condition can be written as K a sk z k = x s, s = 1,..., S. k=1
72 72 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Consumer i s budget constraints become: c i t y i t c i t+1,s y i t+1,s K k=1 K p k zk i k=1 a sk zk i, s = 1,..., S.
73 73 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Let p = (p 1,..., p K ) denote the asset price vector. Definition: An allocation (c i ) I i=1, asset holdings (zi ) I i=1, and a vector of asset prices p are an equilibrium with complete financial markets (ECFM) if the financial market is complete, (c i, z i ) maximizes U i subject to the individual s budget constraints for all consumers i and markets clear: I c i = i=1 I i=1 I z i = 0. i=1 y i
74 74 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Theorem (ECFM and ECAS): Let ((c i, z i ) I i=1, p) be an ECAS. Let p k = S p s a sk, k = 1,..., K. s=1 Suppose the financial market is complete, and for all i = 1,..., I, let z i = (z i 1,..., z i S, 0,..., 0) denote a solution to S k=1 a sk z i k Then ((c i, z i ) I i=1, p) is an ECFM. = zi s, s = 1,..., S.
75 75 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Proof: Let B i denote the set of affordable consumption vectors c i for i given ECAS prices p, and let B i denote the set of affordable consumption vectors c i for i with complete financial markets. We show that c i B i B i. That is, i can afford c i, and there cannot be a consumption vector he likes better, because he would have chosen it in the ECAS.
76 76 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing The fact that i chooses (c i, z i ) in the ECAS implies that it satisfies his budget constraints for the AS economy with equality: c i t y i t = S s=1 p s z i s c i t+1,s y i t+1,s = zi s, s = 1,..., S. The existence of the portfolio z i in the theorem is implied by market completeness. This portfolio reproduces the payoffs of the ASs portfolio. Substituting the formula for z s i in the theorem into these constraints and using the pricing formula in the theorem and zk i = 0 for k = S + 1,..., K in the first constraint proves that the budget equations for the economy with CFMs are satisfied. This proves c i B i.
77 77 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Suppose c i B i. That is, there is a portfolio z i (not necessarily with zero holdings of assets k = S + 1,..., K ) such that (c i, z i ) satisfies c i t y i t c i t+1,s y i t+1,s K k=1 K p k zk i k=1 a sk zk i, s = 1,..., S. Let z s i = K k=1 a skzk i. Using this and the pricing formula in the theorem, it follows that (c i, z i ) satisfies the budget equations for the economy with ASs. That is, c i B i. This proves B i B i.
78 7. Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Obviously, the goods markets clear. As for the asset markets, let zk = I i=1 zi k. Asset market clearing in the economy with ASs implies So 0 = I i=1 z i s = I S i=1 k=1 a a 1S z a S1... a SS a sk z i k z S = = S k=1 a sk zk, s = 1,..., S. S k=1 a 1kz k. S k=1 a Skz k = From linear independence of the S payoff vectors in the matrix, it follows that the only solution to this system of equations is (z1,..., z S ) = (0,..., 0). zi k = 0 for k = S + 1,..., K implies that the other asset markets also clear. Q.E.D. 78 / 170
79 79 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing 8 Complete markets: Asset pricing
80 80 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Using the utility function U i = u i (c i t) + β i S s=1 π s u i (c i t+1,s ), we can also generalize the fundamental asset pricing equations to the S-states case.
81 81 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing To do so, start with the economy with ASs: ) S U i = u (y S i t i p s z s i + β i π s u i (yt+1,s i + zi s). s=1 s=1 Necessary optimality conditions: (u i ) (ct) p i s + β i π s (u i ) (ct+1,s i ) = 0 or p s = π s β i (ui ) (c i t+1,s ) ( u i ) (c i t ) = π s M t,t+1,s where the SDF M t,t+1 is defined as before. One need not make use of Pareto optimality in oder to prove that M t,t+1 is uniform across individuals i.
82 82 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Let ã s denote the random payoff of AS s, i.e., 1 in state s and 0 in all other states. Then p s = s s π s M t,t+1,s 0 + π s M t,t+1,s 1 or simply p s = E t (M t,t+1 ã s ). This generalizes the fundamental pricing formula for a risky asset.
83 83 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Now consider the economy with a complete set of FMs. From the pricing rule p k = S s=1 p s a sk, we get p k = S π s M t,t+1,s a sk s=1 or, letting a k denote the random payoff of asset k:
84 84 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Theorem (The fundamental equations of asset pricing): Let the utility function be given by U i = u i (c i t) + β i S s=1 π s u i (c i t+1,s ), where u i is twice differentiable, with (u i ) (c) > 0 > (u i ) (c) for all c > 0 and (u i ) (0) =. Then at an ECFM prices obey p k = E t ( Mt,t+1 a k ) and, in particular, p k = E t (M t,t+1 ) for a safe asset with a sk = 1 for all s = 1,..., S.
85 85 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing It follows that the applications in Section 6 go through without any modification in the economy with more than two states and assets with arbitrary payoff vectors. Define q s (1 + r t+1 )M t,t+1,s π s. Then the pricing equation can be rewritten as p k = S s=1 q sa sk 1 + r t+1. That is, the q s s can be interpreted as risk-neutral probabilities: the price of the asset is its discounted expected value, where the q s s are used to calculate the expectation.
86 86 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing An important property of the ECAS and the ECFM is that there are no arbitrage opportunities, i.e., it is not possible to form a portfolio that has non-positive cost and has a non-negative payoff in all states with one inequality strict. This is obvious for the economy with ASs. A portfolio that has a positive payoff in some state costs something. A portfolio with negative cost has a short position in some AS and, hence, a negative payoff in some state.
87 87 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Turning to the economy with CFMs, we formalize the definition above: Definition: Asset prices p are arbitrage-free if there is no portfolio z R K such that pz 0, Az 0, and either Az 0 or pz < 0. Theorem (Arbitrage-freeness of the ECFM): ECFM prices are arbitrage-free.
88 88 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Proof: From the first two conditions and the pricing formula for p k, K a sk z k 0, s = 1,..., S, and k=1 S p s s=1 K k=1 a sk z k 0. If Az 0, then one of the former equalities is strict, which contradicts the latter inequality. If pz < 0, then K k=1 a skz k must be negative for some s, which contradicts the former set of inequalities. Q.E.D.
89 89 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Another important theorem is: The fundamental theorem of asset pricing: If asset prices p > 0 are arbitrage-free, then there exist non-negative state prices p = ( p 1,..., p S ) such that p k = S p s a sk, k = 1,..., K. s=1 The proof requires the use of a separating hyperplane theorem and can be found in the slides Financial Economics: Risk Sharing and Asset Pricing in General Equilibrium II c.
90 90 / Complete markets: Efficient risk sharing 8. Complete markets: Asset pricing Literature: Magill, Michael, and Martine Quinzii, Theory of Incomplete Markets, MIT (2002), Section 10.
91 91 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model FIRMS
92 92 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model 9 Stock market economy
93 93 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model The aim of this section is to show that the results for the exchange economy carry over to a model with firms. This also allows addressing questions about shareholder aims and capital structure. For simplicity, we don t consider production decisions, but take firms outputs as exogenously given.
94 94 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model There are J firms j = 1,..., J with exogenous outputs ỹ j t+1,s in state s in period t + 1. The firms are 100 percent owned by the consumers i and (for now) don t issue debt. x% of firm j s shares entitle the holder to x% of the firm s revenue ỹ j t+1,s in any period-t + 1 state s. Consumer i is endowed with a share θ ij in firm j, where θ ij 0 and I θ i=1 ij = 1 for all j. In period t, consumers have endowments yt i production., and there s no
95 95 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model There are markets for the shares and for a complete set of ASs. The value of firm j as of time t is denoted v j t and the vector of firm values as v = (vt 1,..., v t J ). i s post trade share holdings are denoted θ ij. We also write θ i = (θ i1,..., θ ij ), θ i = ( θ i1,..., θ ij ), and y = y t y t+1,1. y t+1,s I i=1 y i t J = j=1 ỹ j t+1,1. J j=1 ỹ j t+1,s. We call this a stock market economy (SME) and analyze it by comparing it to the exchange economy with ASs.
96 96 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model The SME budget constraints read: c i t y i t c i t+1,s zi s + S p s z s i s=1 J j=1 J j=1 (θ ij θ ij )v j t θ ij ỹ j t+1,s, s = 1,..., S.
97 9. Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model Definition: An allocation (c i ) I i=1, AS holdings ( zi ) I i=1, shareholdings (θ i ) I i=1, a vector of AS prices p, and a vector of firm values v are an equilibrium of the stock market economy (ESME) if (c i, z i, θ i ) maximizes U i subject to the individual s budget constraints for all consumers i and markets clear: I c i = y i=1 I z i = 0 i=1 I θ i = 1. i=1 97 / 170
98 98 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model Theorem (ESME and ECAS): Let (c i, z i ) I i=1 and p be an ECAS of the exchange economy with endowments and let y i t+1,s = J j=1 v j t = θ ij ỹ j t+1,s, s = 1,..., S, i = 1,..., I, S s=1 p s ỹ j t+1,s, j = 1,..., J. Then (c i, z i, θ i ) I i=1 and ( p, v) are an ESME.
99 99 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model That is, given arbitrage-free pricing of the payoffs generated by the firms, the SME behaves like the exchange economy in which individuals are endowed with what their initial shareholdings are worth. Proof: Let B i be the set of consumption vectors attainable in the SME. As usual by now, we show c i B i B i.
100 100 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model The fact that i chooses (c i, z i ) in the ECAS implies that it satisfies the budget constraints of the exchange economy with a complete set of ASs with equality: c i t y i t = S s=1 p s z i s c i t+1,s y i t+1,s = zi s. Using the definition of yt+1,s i in the theorem, it follows that (c i, z i, θ i ) satisfies the SME budget constraints, i.e., c i B i.
101 101 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model Let c i B i. That is, there are z i and θ i such that the SME budget constraints hold. Let z i be given by z i s = z i s + Then (c i, z i ) B i. J (θ ij θ ij )ỹ j t+1,s, s = 1,..., S. j=1
102 102 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model The fact that the period-t budget constraint is satisfied follows from the period-t budget constraint for the SME and the definition of v j t in the theorem: c i t y i t = = = S p s z s i s=1 S p s z s i s=1 S s=1 J j=1 (θ ij θ ij )v j t J (θ ij θ ij ) j=1 p s z i s + S p s z s i. s=1 S p s ỹ j t+1,s s=1 J (θ ij θ ij )ỹ j t+1,s j=1
103 103 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model The period-t + 1 budget constraints also hold: c i t+1,s z i s + = z i s + c i t+1,s y i t+1,s z i s. J θ ij ỹ j t+1,s j=1 J θ ij ỹ j t+1,s j=1 = z i s + y i t+1,s So c i B i and B i B i. The validity of the market clearing conditions in the SME is obvious. Q.E.D.
104 104 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model So the SME behaves essentially like the exchange economy considered before. So if an ESME replicates an ECAS which in turn replicates a ECCM, then the ESME allocation c is Pareto-optimal, since it coincides with the EECM allocation, which is Pareto-optimal due to the 1st welfare theorem. Households do not trade shares at the ESME in the theorem. There are other ESMEs, with trade in shares, however:
105 105 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model Theorem (ESME with trade in shares): Let ((c i, z i, θ i ) I i=1, p, v) be an ESME. Suppose household i changes his stock demands by dθ i = (dθ i1,..., dθ ij ) (not necessarily small) and his AS demands by d z i s = J ỹ j t+1,s dθij, j=1 where I i=1 dθij = 0 for all j. Then ((c i, z i + dz i, θ i + dθ i ) I i=1, p, v) is also an ESME. Proof: From the budget constraints, these asset reallocations do not affect consumption. So if (c i, z i, θ i ) maximizes utility, so does (c i, z i + dz i, θ i + dθ i ). Markets clear. Q.E.D.
106 106 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model Shareholders in the SME are unanimous with regard to what the firms they own shares in should do: maximize value. (Caveat: firms do nothing in the model considered here, as production plans and outputs are exogenous. So we formulate the assertion accordingly.) Theorem (Shareholder Unanimity): An increase in v j t expands the budget set of each individual i with θ ij > 0. Proof: Substituting for z i s from the period-t + 1 budget constraints into the period-t budget constraint yields
107 107 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model c i t y i t = S J p s ct+1,s i θ ij ỹ j t+1,s s=1 S J p s ct+1,s i + s=1 j=1 j=1 θ ij S s=1 J j=1 p s ỹ j t+1,s }{{} (θ ij θ ij )v j t J j=1 (θ ij θ ij )v j t = S J p s ct+1,s i + s=1 j=1 θ ij v j t. =v j t So if v j t rises, the budget sets of the initial shareholders (individuals i with θ ij > 0 expand). Q.E.D.
108 108 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model 10 The Modigliani-Miller theorem
109 109 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model The Modigliani-Miller (MM) theorem states that the division of a firm s cash flow between different kinds of financial claims (i.e., its capital structure) is irrelevant for its value. This section proves a much more general version of the MM theorem (due to Stiglitz, 1969), which proves that firms capital structure is irrelevant for real economic activity in general finance is a veil. In doing so, we neglect the issue of investment finance, i.e., how the choice of different financial instruments affects investment activity (as is well known, capital structure is not irrelevant in this regard in the presence of information asymmetries).
110 110 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model Without uncertainty, the value of a firm s payments to stockholders (ỹ j t+1 bj t ) and creditors (bj t ) at t + 1 is ỹ j t+1 /(1 + r), where r is the safe interest rate. This is the same as in the case of no debt because the present value debt is zero.
111 111 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model With uncertainty, let a single firm j take on debt b j. The value of the firm s payments to stockholders (ỹ j t+1,s bj t ) and creditors (b j t ) at t + 1 is S p s (ỹ j t+1,s bj t ) + p bb j t. s=1 Since the price of debt is this coincides with v j t = p b = S p s, s=1 S p s ỹ j t+1,s, s=1 the value of the unlevered firm.
112 112 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model Now the general case. Let b j t denote the debt issued by firm j. b j t is exogenous, so we can discuss the effects of exogenous changes in the firms capital structure. Let bt i denote the debt held by individual i. Shares θ ij in j entitle the holder to a fraction θ ij of the proceeds of j s debt issue p b b j t, in addition to the same share in its profits (in a model with investment this would translate into a reduction in the contributions to the investment outlays). We rule out bankruptcy: ỹ j t+1,s bj t, s = 1,..., S, j = 1,..., J. This means that any two firms debt obligations are perfect substitutes for the consumers. We call this the stock and debt economy (SDE).
113 113 / Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model i s budget constraints become c i t y i t S p s z s i s=1 c i t+1,s zi s + J j=1 (θ ij θ ij )v j t p bb i t + J θ ij (ỹ j t+1,s bj t ) + bi t, j=1 J θ ij p b b j t where v j t is the value at which the shares of firm j trade in the stock market. j=1
114 9. Stock market economy 10. The Modigliani-Miller theorem 11. The Capital Asset Pricing Model Definition: An allocation (c i ) I i=1, AS holdings ( zi ) I i=1, shareholdings (θ i ) I i=1, debt holdings (bi t )I i=1, a vector of AS prices p, a vector of firm values v, and a price of debt p b are an equilibrium of the stock and debt economy (ESDE) if (c i, z i, θ i, b i t ) maximizes Ui subject to the individual s budget constraints for all consumers i and markets clear: I c i = y i=1 I z i = 0 i=1 I θ i = 1 i=1 I bt i = i=1 J b j t. j=1 114 / 170
General Equilibrium under Uncertainty
General Equilibrium under Uncertainty The Arrow-Debreu Model General Idea: this model is formally identical to the GE model commodities are interpreted as contingent commodities (commodities are contingent
More informationLecture 8: Introduction to asset pricing
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON Paul Klein Office: Murray Building, 3005 Email: p.klein@soton.ac.uk URL: http://paulklein.se Economics 3010 Topics in Macroeconomics 3 Autumn 2010 Lecture 8: Introduction
More information4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS
4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS Marek Rutkowski School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney Semester 2, 2016 M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 1 / 87 General Single-Period
More informationMATH 5510 Mathematical Models of Financial Derivatives. Topic 1 Risk neutral pricing principles under single-period securities models
MATH 5510 Mathematical Models of Financial Derivatives Topic 1 Risk neutral pricing principles under single-period securities models 1.1 Law of one price and Arrow securities 1.2 No-arbitrage theory and
More information3.2 No-arbitrage theory and risk neutral probability measure
Mathematical Models in Economics and Finance Topic 3 Fundamental theorem of asset pricing 3.1 Law of one price and Arrow securities 3.2 No-arbitrage theory and risk neutral probability measure 3.3 Valuation
More informationRadner Equilibrium: Definition and Equivalence with Arrow-Debreu Equilibrium
Radner Equilibrium: Definition and Equivalence with Arrow-Debreu Equilibrium Econ 2100 Fall 2017 Lecture 24, November 28 Outline 1 Sequential Trade and Arrow Securities 2 Radner Equilibrium 3 Equivalence
More informationMartingale Pricing Theory in Discrete-Time and Discrete-Space Models
IEOR E4707: Foundations of Financial Engineering c 206 by Martin Haugh Martingale Pricing Theory in Discrete-Time and Discrete-Space Models These notes develop the theory of martingale pricing in a discrete-time,
More informationLecture 8: Asset pricing
BURNABY SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY BRITISH COLUMBIA Paul Klein Office: WMC 3635 Phone: (778) 782-9391 Email: paul klein 2@sfu.ca URL: http://paulklein.ca/newsite/teaching/483.php Economics 483 Advanced Topics
More informationLecture Notes: November 29, 2012 TIME AND UNCERTAINTY: FUTURES MARKETS
Lecture Notes: November 29, 2012 TIME AND UNCERTAINTY: FUTURES MARKETS Gerard says: theory's in the math. The rest is interpretation. (See Debreu quote in textbook, p. 204) make the markets for goods over
More informationLecture 2: Stochastic Discount Factor
Lecture 2: Stochastic Discount Factor Simon Gilchrist Boston Univerity and NBER EC 745 Fall, 2013 Stochastic Discount Factor (SDF) A stochastic discount factor is a stochastic process {M t,t+s } such that
More informationDepartment of Economics The Ohio State University Final Exam Answers Econ 8712
Department of Economics The Ohio State University Final Exam Answers Econ 8712 Prof. Peck Fall 2015 1. (5 points) The following economy has two consumers, two firms, and two goods. Good 2 is leisure/labor.
More informationSlides III - Complete Markets
Slides III - Complete Markets Julio Garín University of Georgia Macroeconomic Theory II (Ph.D.) Spring 2017 Macroeconomic Theory II Slides III - Complete Markets Spring 2017 1 / 33 Outline 1. Risk, Uncertainty,
More informationMicroeconomics of Banking: Lecture 3
Microeconomics of Banking: Lecture 3 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO Oct. 9, 2015 Review of Last Week Consumer choice problem General equilibrium Contingent claims Risk aversion The optimal choice, x = (X, Y ), is
More informationThe text book to this class is available at
The text book to this class is available at www.springer.com On the book's homepage at www.financial-economics.de there is further material available to this lecture, e.g. corrections and updates. Financial
More information1 Asset Pricing: Replicating portfolios
Alberto Bisin Corporate Finance: Lecture Notes Class 1: Valuation updated November 17th, 2002 1 Asset Pricing: Replicating portfolios Consider an economy with two states of nature {s 1, s 2 } and with
More informationPricing theory of financial derivatives
Pricing theory of financial derivatives One-period securities model S denotes the price process {S(t) : t = 0, 1}, where S(t) = (S 1 (t) S 2 (t) S M (t)). Here, M is the number of securities. At t = 1,
More informationAnswers to Microeconomics Prelim of August 24, In practice, firms often price their products by marking up a fixed percentage over (average)
Answers to Microeconomics Prelim of August 24, 2016 1. In practice, firms often price their products by marking up a fixed percentage over (average) cost. To investigate the consequences of markup pricing,
More informationBasic Arbitrage Theory KTH Tomas Björk
Basic Arbitrage Theory KTH 2010 Tomas Björk Tomas Björk, 2010 Contents 1. Mathematics recap. (Ch 10-12) 2. Recap of the martingale approach. (Ch 10-12) 3. Change of numeraire. (Ch 26) Björk,T. Arbitrage
More information( 0) ,...,S N ,S 2 ( 0)... S N S 2. N and a portfolio is created that way, the value of the portfolio at time 0 is: (0) N S N ( 1, ) +...
No-Arbitrage Pricing Theory Single-Period odel There are N securities denoted ( S,S,...,S N ), they can be stocks, bonds, or any securities, we assume they are all traded, and have prices available. Ω
More informationNo-arbitrage Pricing Approach and Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing
No-arbitrage Pricing Approach and Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing presented by Yue Kuen KWOK Department of Mathematics Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 1 Parable of the bookmaker Taking
More informationNotes on Syllabus Section VI: TIME AND UNCERTAINTY, FUTURES MARKETS
Economics 200B UCSD; Prof. R. Starr, Ms. Kaitlyn Lewis, Winter 2017; Syllabus Section VI Notes1 Notes on Syllabus Section VI: TIME AND UNCERTAINTY, FUTURES MARKETS Overview: The mathematical abstraction
More informationCharacterization of the Optimum
ECO 317 Economics of Uncertainty Fall Term 2009 Notes for lectures 5. Portfolio Allocation with One Riskless, One Risky Asset Characterization of the Optimum Consider a risk-averse, expected-utility-maximizing
More informationUncertainty in Equilibrium
Uncertainty in Equilibrium Larry Blume May 1, 2007 1 Introduction The state-preference approach to uncertainty of Kenneth J. Arrow (1953) and Gérard Debreu (1959) lends itself rather easily to Walrasian
More information1 Rational Expectations Equilibrium
1 Rational Expectations Euilibrium S - the (finite) set of states of the world - also use S to denote the number m - number of consumers K- number of physical commodities each trader has an endowment vector
More informationECON FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College Fall 2017 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International
More informationChapter 8: CAPM. 1. Single Index Model. 2. Adding a Riskless Asset. 3. The Capital Market Line 4. CAPM. 5. The One-Fund Theorem
Chapter 8: CAPM 1. Single Index Model 2. Adding a Riskless Asset 3. The Capital Market Line 4. CAPM 5. The One-Fund Theorem 6. The Characteristic Line 7. The Pricing Model Single Index Model 1 1. Covariance
More informationFundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics
Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics Ram Singh October 4, 015 This Write-up is available at photocopy shop. Not for circulation. In this write-up we provide intuition behind the two fundamental theorems
More informationECON FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College Spring 2018 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International
More informationMathematics in Finance
Mathematics in Finance Robert Almgren University of Chicago Program on Financial Mathematics MAA Short Course San Antonio, Texas January 11-12, 1999 1 Robert Almgren 1/99 Mathematics in Finance 2 1. Pricing
More informationECON 581. Introduction to Arrow-Debreu Pricing and Complete Markets. Instructor: Dmytro Hryshko
ECON 58. Introduction to Arrow-Debreu Pricing and Complete Markets Instructor: Dmytro Hryshko / 28 Arrow-Debreu economy General equilibrium, exchange economy Static (all trades done at period 0) but multi-period
More informationNotes on Intertemporal Optimization
Notes on Intertemporal Optimization Econ 204A - Henning Bohn * Most of modern macroeconomics involves models of agents that optimize over time. he basic ideas and tools are the same as in microeconomics,
More informationMicroeconomics of Banking: Lecture 2
Microeconomics of Banking: Lecture 2 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO September 25, 2015 A Brief Look at General Equilibrium Asset Pricing Last week, we saw a general equilibrium model in which banks were irrelevant.
More information1 Appendix A: Definition of equilibrium
Online Appendix to Partnerships versus Corporations: Moral Hazard, Sorting and Ownership Structure Ayca Kaya and Galina Vereshchagina Appendix A formally defines an equilibrium in our model, Appendix B
More informationIntro to Economic analysis
Intro to Economic analysis Alberto Bisin - NYU 1 The Consumer Problem Consider an agent choosing her consumption of goods 1 and 2 for a given budget. This is the workhorse of microeconomic theory. (Notice
More information1 Answers to the Sept 08 macro prelim - Long Questions
Answers to the Sept 08 macro prelim - Long Questions. Suppose that a representative consumer receives an endowment of a non-storable consumption good. The endowment evolves exogenously according to ln
More information3 Arbitrage pricing theory in discrete time.
3 Arbitrage pricing theory in discrete time. Orientation. In the examples studied in Chapter 1, we worked with a single period model and Gaussian returns; in this Chapter, we shall drop these assumptions
More information1 Dynamic programming
1 Dynamic programming A country has just discovered a natural resource which yields an income per period R measured in terms of traded goods. The cost of exploitation is negligible. The government wants
More informationLECTURE 2: MULTIPERIOD MODELS AND TREES
LECTURE 2: MULTIPERIOD MODELS AND TREES 1. Introduction One-period models, which were the subject of Lecture 1, are of limited usefulness in the pricing and hedging of derivative securities. In real-world
More informationIncome and Efficiency in Incomplete Markets
Income and Efficiency in Incomplete Markets by Anil Arya John Fellingham Jonathan Glover Doug Schroeder Richard Young April 1996 Ohio State University Carnegie Mellon University Income and Efficiency in
More informationConsumption- Savings, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Pricing
Finance 400 A. Penati - G. Pennacchi Consumption- Savings, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Pricing I. The Consumption - Portfolio Choice Problem We have studied the portfolio choice problem of an individual
More informationMacroeconomics and finance
Macroeconomics and finance 1 1. Temporary equilibrium and the price level [Lectures 11 and 12] 2. Overlapping generations and learning [Lectures 13 and 14] 2.1 The overlapping generations model 2.2 Expectations
More informationCourse Handouts - Introduction ECON 8704 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS. Jan Werner. University of Minnesota
Course Handouts - Introduction ECON 8704 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Jan Werner University of Minnesota SPRING 2019 1 I.1 Equilibrium Prices in Security Markets Assume throughout this section that utility functions
More informationConsumption and Asset Pricing
Consumption and Asset Pricing Yin-Chi Wang The Chinese University of Hong Kong November, 2012 References: Williamson s lecture notes (2006) ch5 and ch 6 Further references: Stochastic dynamic programming:
More informationRamsey s Growth Model (Solution Ex. 2.1 (f) and (g))
Problem Set 2: Ramsey s Growth Model (Solution Ex. 2.1 (f) and (g)) Exercise 2.1: An infinite horizon problem with perfect foresight In this exercise we will study at a discrete-time version of Ramsey
More informationProblem set 5. Asset pricing. Markus Roth. Chair for Macroeconomics Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz. Juli 5, 2010
Problem set 5 Asset pricing Markus Roth Chair for Macroeconomics Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz Juli 5, 200 Markus Roth (Macroeconomics 2) Problem set 5 Juli 5, 200 / 40 Contents Problem 5 of problem
More informationArrow-Debreu Equilibrium
Arrow-Debreu Equilibrium Econ 2100 Fall 2017 Lecture 23, November 21 Outline 1 Arrow-Debreu Equilibrium Recap 2 Arrow-Debreu Equilibrium With Only One Good 1 Pareto Effi ciency and Equilibrium 2 Properties
More informationMicroeconomic Theory August 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program
Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2013 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationHedonic Equilibrium. December 1, 2011
Hedonic Equilibrium December 1, 2011 Goods have characteristics Z R K sellers characteristics X R m buyers characteristics Y R n each seller produces one unit with some quality, each buyer wants to buy
More informationINTRODUCTION TO ARBITRAGE PRICING OF FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES
INTRODUCTION TO ARBITRAGE PRICING OF FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES Marek Rutkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science Warsaw University of Technology 00-661 Warszawa, Poland 1 Call and Put Spot Options
More informationChapter 2 Equilibrium and Efficiency
Chapter Equilibrium and Efficiency Reading Essential reading Hindriks, J and G.D. Myles Intermediate Public Economics. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 005) Chapter. Further reading Duffie, D. and H. Sonnenschein
More informationELEMENTS OF MATRIX MATHEMATICS
QRMC07 9/7/0 4:45 PM Page 5 CHAPTER SEVEN ELEMENTS OF MATRIX MATHEMATICS 7. AN INTRODUCTION TO MATRICES Investors frequently encounter situations involving numerous potential outcomes, many discrete periods
More informationArrow Debreu Equilibrium. October 31, 2015
Arrow Debreu Equilibrium October 31, 2015 Θ 0 = {s 1,...s S } - the set of (unknown) states of the world assuming there are S unknown states. information is complete but imperfect n - number of consumers
More information2.1 Mean-variance Analysis: Single-period Model
Chapter Portfolio Selection The theory of option pricing is a theory of deterministic returns: we hedge our option with the underlying to eliminate risk, and our resulting risk-free portfolio then earns
More informationFin 501: Asset Pricing Fin 501:
Lecture 3: One-period Model Pricing Prof. Markus K. Brunnermeier Slide 03-1 Overview: Pricing i 1. LOOP, No arbitrage 2. Forwards 3. Options: Parity relationship 4. No arbitrage and existence of state
More informationDiscussion Paper Series. Short Sales, Destruction of Resources, Welfare. Nikos Kokonas and Herakles Polemarchakis
Discussion Paper Series Short Sales, Destruction of Resources, Welfare Nikos Kokonas and Herakles Polemarchakis This paper has been published in The Journal of Mathematical Economics, Volume 67 December
More informationStandard Risk Aversion and Efficient Risk Sharing
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Standard Risk Aversion and Efficient Risk Sharing Richard M. H. Suen University of Leicester 29 March 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86499/ MPRA Paper
More informationCompetitive Outcomes, Endogenous Firm Formation and the Aspiration Core
Competitive Outcomes, Endogenous Firm Formation and the Aspiration Core Camelia Bejan and Juan Camilo Gómez September 2011 Abstract The paper shows that the aspiration core of any TU-game coincides with
More information1 Two Period Exchange Economy
University of British Columbia Department of Economics, Macroeconomics (Econ 502) Prof. Amartya Lahiri Handout # 2 1 Two Period Exchange Economy We shall start our exploration of dynamic economies with
More informationFinance: A Quantitative Introduction Chapter 7 - part 2 Option Pricing Foundations
Finance: A Quantitative Introduction Chapter 7 - part 2 Option Pricing Foundations Nico van der Wijst 1 Finance: A Quantitative Introduction c Cambridge University Press 1 The setting 2 3 4 2 Finance:
More informationEquilibrium Asset Returns
Equilibrium Asset Returns Equilibrium Asset Returns 1/ 38 Introduction We analyze the Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model (ICAPM) of Robert Merton (1973). The standard single-period CAPM holds when
More informationPartial privatization as a source of trade gains
Partial privatization as a source of trade gains Kenji Fujiwara School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University April 12, 2008 Abstract A model of mixed oligopoly is constructed in which a Home public firm
More informationEconomia Financiera Avanzada
Economia Financiera Avanzada José Fajardo EBAPE- Fundação Getulio Vargas Universidad del Pacífico, Julio 5 21, 2011 José Fajardo Economia Financiera Avanzada Prf. José Fajardo Two-Period Model: State-Preference
More informationEquilibrium Corporate Finance: Makowski meets Prescott and Townsend
Equilibrium Corporate Finance: Makowski meets Prescott and Townsend Alberto Bisin NYU Piero Gottardi EUI October 20, 2011 Guido Ruta University of Bologna Abstract We study a general equilibrium model
More informationECON FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College Fall 2017 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International
More informationA. Introduction to choice under uncertainty 2. B. Risk aversion 11. C. Favorable gambles 15. D. Measures of risk aversion 20. E.
Microeconomic Theory -1- Uncertainty Choice under uncertainty A Introduction to choice under uncertainty B Risk aversion 11 C Favorable gambles 15 D Measures of risk aversion 0 E Insurance 6 F Small favorable
More informationFinancial Economics Field Exam January 2008
Financial Economics Field Exam January 2008 There are two questions on the exam, representing Asset Pricing (236D = 234A) and Corporate Finance (234C). Please answer both questions to the best of your
More informationCONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL MONETARY POLICY WITH ENDOGENOUS COLLATERAL CONSTRAINTS
CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL MONETARY POLICY WITH ENDOGENOUS COLLATERAL CONSTRAINTS Abstract. In this paper we consider a finite horizon model with default and monetary policy. In our model, each asset
More informationECON Micro Foundations
ECON 302 - Micro Foundations Michael Bar September 13, 2016 Contents 1 Consumer s Choice 2 1.1 Preferences.................................... 2 1.2 Budget Constraint................................ 3
More informationConsumption-Savings Decisions and State Pricing
Consumption-Savings Decisions and State Pricing Consumption-Savings, State Pricing 1/ 40 Introduction We now consider a consumption-savings decision along with the previous portfolio choice decision. These
More informationOne-Period Valuation Theory
One-Period Valuation Theory Part 2: Chris Telmer March, 2013 1 / 44 1. Pricing kernel and financial risk 2. Linking state prices to portfolio choice Euler equation 3. Application: Corporate financial leverage
More informationGMM Estimation. 1 Introduction. 2 Consumption-CAPM
GMM Estimation 1 Introduction Modern macroeconomic models are typically based on the intertemporal optimization and rational expectations. The Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) is an econometric framework
More informationLECTURE NOTES 3 ARIEL M. VIALE
LECTURE NOTES 3 ARIEL M VIALE I Markowitz-Tobin Mean-Variance Portfolio Analysis Assumption Mean-Variance preferences Markowitz 95 Quadratic utility function E [ w b w ] { = E [ w] b V ar w + E [ w] }
More informationFinancial Mathematics III Theory summary
Financial Mathematics III Theory summary Table of Contents Lecture 1... 7 1. State the objective of modern portfolio theory... 7 2. Define the return of an asset... 7 3. How is expected return defined?...
More informationLecture 2 General Equilibrium Models: Finite Period Economies
Lecture 2 General Equilibrium Models: Finite Period Economies Introduction In macroeconomics, we study the behavior of economy-wide aggregates e.g. GDP, savings, investment, employment and so on - and
More informationOn the 'Lock-In' Effects of Capital Gains Taxation
May 1, 1997 On the 'Lock-In' Effects of Capital Gains Taxation Yoshitsugu Kanemoto 1 Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113 Japan Abstract The most important drawback
More informationIntroducing nominal rigidities. A static model.
Introducing nominal rigidities. A static model. Olivier Blanchard May 25 14.452. Spring 25. Topic 7. 1 Why introduce nominal rigidities, and what do they imply? An informal walk-through. In the model we
More informationFoundations of Asset Pricing
Foundations of Asset Pricing C Preliminaries C Mean-Variance Portfolio Choice C Basic of the Capital Asset Pricing Model C Static Asset Pricing Models C Information and Asset Pricing C Valuation in Complete
More informationOn Existence of Equilibria. Bayesian Allocation-Mechanisms
On Existence of Equilibria in Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms Northwestern University April 23, 2014 Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms In allocation mechanisms, agents choose messages. The messages determine
More informationNon replication of options
Non replication of options Christos Kountzakis, Ioannis A Polyrakis and Foivos Xanthos June 30, 2008 Abstract In this paper we study the scarcity of replication of options in the two period model of financial
More informationMacro (8701) & Micro (8703) option
WRITTEN PRELIMINARY Ph.D EXAMINATION Department of Applied Economics Jan./Feb. - 2010 Trade, Development and Growth For students electing Macro (8701) & Micro (8703) option Instructions Identify yourself
More informationOn the Lower Arbitrage Bound of American Contingent Claims
On the Lower Arbitrage Bound of American Contingent Claims Beatrice Acciaio Gregor Svindland December 2011 Abstract We prove that in a discrete-time market model the lower arbitrage bound of an American
More informationECON FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College Spring 2018 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International
More informationDepartment of Mathematics. Mathematics of Financial Derivatives
Department of Mathematics MA408 Mathematics of Financial Derivatives Thursday 15th January, 2009 2pm 4pm Duration: 2 hours Attempt THREE questions MA408 Page 1 of 5 1. (a) Suppose 0 < E 1 < E 3 and E 2
More informationPh.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2015
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2015 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationConsumption and Portfolio Choice under Uncertainty
Chapter 8 Consumption and Portfolio Choice under Uncertainty In this chapter we examine dynamic models of consumer choice under uncertainty. We continue, as in the Ramsey model, to take the decision of
More informationAggregation with a double non-convex labor supply decision: indivisible private- and public-sector hours
Ekonomia nr 47/2016 123 Ekonomia. Rynek, gospodarka, społeczeństwo 47(2016), s. 123 133 DOI: 10.17451/eko/47/2016/233 ISSN: 0137-3056 www.ekonomia.wne.uw.edu.pl Aggregation with a double non-convex labor
More informationLecture 5 Theory of Finance 1
Lecture 5 Theory of Finance 1 Simon Hubbert s.hubbert@bbk.ac.uk January 24, 2007 1 Introduction In the previous lecture we derived the famous Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) for expected asset returns,
More informationGame Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012
Game Theory Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 22 COOPERATIVE GAME THEORY Correlated Strategies and Correlated
More informationChoice. A. Optimal choice 1. move along the budget line until preferred set doesn t cross the budget set. Figure 5.1.
Choice 34 Choice A. Optimal choice 1. move along the budget line until preferred set doesn t cross the budget set. Figure 5.1. Optimal choice x* 2 x* x 1 1 Figure 5.1 2. note that tangency occurs at optimal
More informationSYSM 6304: Risk and Decision Analysis Lecture 6: Pricing and Hedging Financial Derivatives
SYSM 6304: Risk and Decision Analysis Lecture 6: Pricing and Hedging Financial Derivatives M. Vidyasagar Cecil & Ida Green Chair The University of Texas at Dallas Email: M.Vidyasagar@utdallas.edu October
More informationAn Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model
I. Assumptions Finance 400 A. Penati - G. Pennacchi Notes on An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model These notes are based on the article Robert C. Merton (1973) An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing
More information5. COMPETITIVE MARKETS
5. COMPETITIVE MARKETS We studied how individual consumers and rms behave in Part I of the book. In Part II of the book, we studied how individual economic agents make decisions when there are strategic
More informationsequence economies S000097
S000097 A sequence economy is a general equilibrium model including markets at a sequence of dates, reopening over time. It is alternative to the Arrow Debreu model with a full set of futures markets where
More informationGraphs Details Math Examples Using data Tax example. Decision. Intermediate Micro. Lecture 5. Chapter 5 of Varian
Decision Intermediate Micro Lecture 5 Chapter 5 of Varian Decision-making Now have tools to model decision-making Set of options At-least-as-good sets Mathematical tools to calculate exact answer Problem
More informationLecture 1 Definitions from finance
Lecture 1 s from finance Financial market instruments can be divided into two types. There are the underlying stocks shares, bonds, commodities, foreign currencies; and their derivatives, claims that promise
More informationFrom Discrete Time to Continuous Time Modeling
From Discrete Time to Continuous Time Modeling Prof. S. Jaimungal, Department of Statistics, University of Toronto 2004 Arrow-Debreu Securities 2004 Prof. S. Jaimungal 2 Consider a simple one-period economy
More informationMacroeconomics. Lecture 5: Consumption. Hernán D. Seoane. Spring, 2016 MEDEG, UC3M UC3M
Macroeconomics MEDEG, UC3M Lecture 5: Consumption Hernán D. Seoane UC3M Spring, 2016 Introduction A key component in NIPA accounts and the households budget constraint is the consumption It represents
More informationPhD Qualifier Examination
PhD Qualifier Examination Department of Agricultural Economics May 29, 2014 Instructions This exam consists of six questions. You must answer all questions. If you need an assumption to complete a question,
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DIRECT OR INDIRECT TAX INSTRUMENTS FOR REDISTRIBUTION: SHORT-RUN VERSUS LONG-RUN. Emmanuel Saez
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DIRECT OR INDIRECT TAX INSTRUMENTS FOR REDISTRIBUTION: SHORT-RUN VERSUS LONG-RUN Emmanuel Saez Working Paper 8833 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8833 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC
More informationd. Find a competitive equilibrium for this economy. Is the allocation Pareto efficient? Are there any other competitive equilibrium allocations?
Answers to Microeconomics Prelim of August 7, 0. Consider an individual faced with two job choices: she can either accept a position with a fixed annual salary of x > 0 which requires L x units of labor
More information