Generalized Multi-Factor Commodity Spot Price Modeling through Dynamic Cournot Resource Extraction Models

Similar documents
Stochastic modelling of electricity markets Pricing Forwards and Swaps

The stochastic calculus

On modelling of electricity spot price

M5MF6. Advanced Methods in Derivatives Pricing

Insider trading, stochastic liquidity, and equilibrium prices

Tangent Lévy Models. Sergey Nadtochiy (joint work with René Carmona) Oxford-Man Institute of Quantitative Finance University of Oxford.

Linearity-Generating Processes, Unspanned Stochastic Volatility, and Interest-Rate Option Pricing

Lecture 8: The Black-Scholes theory

SPDE and portfolio choice (joint work with M. Musiela) Princeton University. Thaleia Zariphopoulou The University of Texas at Austin

An Analytical Approximation for Pricing VWAP Options

Parameters Estimation in Stochastic Process Model

What Can Rational Investors Do About Excessive Volatility and Sentiment Fluctuations?

Lecture Note 8 of Bus 41202, Spring 2017: Stochastic Diffusion Equation & Option Pricing

Leverage Effect, Volatility Feedback, and Self-Exciting MarketAFA, Disruptions 1/7/ / 14

13.3 A Stochastic Production Planning Model

Rohini Kumar. Statistics and Applied Probability, UCSB (Joint work with J. Feng and J.-P. Fouque)

M.I.T Fall Practice Problems

Operational Risk. Robert Jarrow. September 2006

Modeling Commodity Futures: Reduced Form vs. Structural Models

Lecture 4. Finite difference and finite element methods

IEOR E4703: Monte-Carlo Simulation

1 Dynamic programming

BIRKBECK (University of London) MSc EXAMINATION FOR INTERNAL STUDENTS MSc FINANCIAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, MATHEMATICS AND STATIS- TICS

Growth Opportunities, Investment-Specific Technology Shocks and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns

θ(t ) = T f(0, T ) + σ2 T

BACHELIER FINANCE SOCIETY. 4 th World Congress Tokyo, Investments and forward utilities. Thaleia Zariphopoulou The University of Texas at Austin

( ) since this is the benefit of buying the asset at the strike price rather

Pricing and hedging with rough-heston models

Reading: You should read Hull chapter 12 and perhaps the very first part of chapter 13.

Semi-Markov model for market microstructure and HFT

Rough volatility models: When population processes become a new tool for trading and risk management

Convenience Yield-Based Pricing of Commodity Futures

A Classification Study of Carbon Assets into Commodities

Portability, salary and asset price risk: a continuous-time expected utility comparison of DB and DC pension plans

Hedging Credit Derivatives in Intensity Based Models

Utility Indifference Pricing and Dynamic Programming Algorithm

Supplementary online material to Information tradeoffs in dynamic financial markets

Implementing an Agent-Based General Equilibrium Model

Economathematics. Problem Sheet 1. Zbigniew Palmowski. Ws 2 dw s = 1 t

Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Theory

Continuous Time Finance. Tomas Björk

The Term Structure of Interest Rates under Regime Shifts and Jumps

Fourier Space Time-stepping Method for Option Pricing with Lévy Processes

Sparse Wavelet Methods for Option Pricing under Lévy Stochastic Volatility models

High Frequency Trading in a Regime-switching Model. Yoontae Jeon

MSc Financial Engineering CHRISTMAS ASSIGNMENT: MERTON S JUMP-DIFFUSION MODEL. To be handed in by monday January 28, 2013

Extended Libor Models and Their Calibration

Extended Libor Models and Their Calibration

A Real Options Model to Value Multiple Mining Investment Options in a Single Instant of Time

Equilibrium Exhaustible Resource Price Dynamics

Stochastic volatility modeling in energy markets

Multiname and Multiscale Default Modeling

Large Deviations and Stochastic Volatility with Jumps: Asymptotic Implied Volatility for Affine Models

Conditional Density Method in the Computation of the Delta with Application to Power Market

Risk Neutral Measures

Equity correlations implied by index options: estimation and model uncertainty analysis

Errata, Mahler Study Aids for Exam 3/M, Spring 2010 HCM, 1/26/13 Page 1

Optimally Thresholded Realized Power Variations for Lévy Jump Diffusion Models

Sensitivity Analysis on Long-term Cash flows

Estimating Market Power in Differentiated Product Markets

Advanced Topics in Derivative Pricing Models. Topic 4 - Variance products and volatility derivatives

Understanding Predictability (JPE, 2004)

Analytical formulas for local volatility model with stochastic. Mohammed Miri

Investors Attention and Stock Market Volatility

Quasi-Convex Stochastic Dynamic Programming

Investigation of Dependency between Short Rate and Transition Rate on Pension Buy-outs. Arık, A. 1 Yolcu-Okur, Y. 2 Uğur Ö. 2

Continous time models and realized variance: Simulations

A Two Factor Forward Curve Model with Stochastic Volatility for Commodity Prices arxiv: v2 [q-fin.pr] 8 Aug 2017

Control Improvement for Jump-Diffusion Processes with Applications to Finance

Pricing Convertible Bonds under the First-Passage Credit Risk Model

1.1 Basic Financial Derivatives: Forward Contracts and Options

Two and Three factor models for Spread Options Pricing

Stochastic Volatility Modeling

Spot/Futures coupled model for commodity pricing 1

Pricing of Futures Contracts by Considering Stochastic Exponential Jump Domain of Spot Price

Real Options and Game Theory in Incomplete Markets

Stochastic Finance 2010 Summer School Ulm Lecture 1: Energy Derivatives

Optimal investments under dynamic performance critria. Lecture IV

(A note) on co-integration in commodity markets

Option pricing in the stochastic volatility model of Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard

International Monetary Theory: Mundell Fleming Redux

The investment game in incomplete markets

Leverage Effect, Volatility Feedback, and Self-Exciting Market Disruptions 11/4/ / 24

Disaster risk and its implications for asset pricing Online appendix

Stochastic Volatility

Additional Notes: Introduction to Commodities and Reduced-Form Price Models

Anumericalalgorithm for general HJB equations : a jump-constrained BSDE approach

Monte Carlo Simulation of Stochastic Processes

Optimal Securitization via Impulse Control

Robust Portfolio Decisions for Financial Institutions

Polynomial processes in stochastic portofolio theory

Illiquidity, Credit risk and Merton s model

Chapter 9 Dynamic Models of Investment

Supplemental Materials for What is the Optimal Trading Frequency in Financial Markets? Not for Publication. October 21, 2016

Deterministic Income under a Stochastic Interest Rate

25857 Interest Rate Modelling

Exam Quantitative Finance (35V5A1)

Credit Risk : Firm Value Model

Forward Dynamic Utility

THE MARTINGALE METHOD DEMYSTIFIED

Transcription:

Generalized Multi-Factor Commodity Spot Price Modeling through Dynamic Cournot Resource Extraction Models Bilkan Erkmen (joint work with Michael Coulon) Workshop on Stochastic Games, Equilibrium, and Applications to Energy & Commodities Markets Fields Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada August 28, 2013

Background

Background Commodity contracts exhibit certain empirical regularities: mean-reversion and convenience yield in spot prices, backwardation, contango and decreasing volatility term structure (Samuelson Effect) in futures prices

Background Commodity contracts exhibit certain empirical regularities: mean-reversion and convenience yield in spot prices, backwardation, contango and decreasing volatility term structure (Samuelson Effect) in futures prices There is a significant body of literature on commodity price modeling that attempts to capture these empirical observations

Background Commodity contracts exhibit certain empirical regularities: mean-reversion and convenience yield in spot prices, backwardation, contango and decreasing volatility term structure (Samuelson Effect) in futures prices There is a significant body of literature on commodity price modeling that attempts to capture these empirical observations Modeling efforts are broadly categorized into two groups:

Background Commodity contracts exhibit certain empirical regularities: mean-reversion and convenience yield in spot prices, backwardation, contango and decreasing volatility term structure (Samuelson Effect) in futures prices There is a significant body of literature on commodity price modeling that attempts to capture these empirical observations Modeling efforts are broadly categorized into two groups: 1. Reduced-form models that characterize the spot price as the solution to an SDE: Schwartz 1997, Schwartz & Smith 2000, Hilliard & Reis 1998

Background Commodity contracts exhibit certain empirical regularities: mean-reversion and convenience yield in spot prices, backwardation, contango and decreasing volatility term structure (Samuelson Effect) in futures prices There is a significant body of literature on commodity price modeling that attempts to capture these empirical observations Modeling efforts are broadly categorized into two groups: 1. Reduced-form models that characterize the spot price as the solution to an SDE: Schwartz 1997, Schwartz & Smith 2000, Hilliard & Reis 1998 2. Structural models that explicitly capture the supply - demand intraction, market mode (monopoly, oligopoly or competitive) and other economic dynamics: Sundaresan 1984, Reinganum & Stokey 1985, Dockner et al. 2001, Sircar et al. 2009

Research Motivation While reduced-form and structural models are somehow connected (economic intuition underlying both types of models is similar), there does not appear to be an attempt to formally unite them. The research motivation for this work is this absence of investigation into the precise relationship between reduced form and structural models of commodity prices.

Literature Review (1/2) Schwartz 1997 reviews multi-factor commodity spot price models:

Literature Review (1/2) Schwartz 1997 reviews multi-factor commodity spot price models: One-factor exponential Ornstein-Uhlenbeck mean-reverting model for the commodity spot price: ds t = κ (µ ln (S t)) S tdt + σs tdz t

Literature Review (1/2) Schwartz 1997 reviews multi-factor commodity spot price models: One-factor exponential Ornstein-Uhlenbeck mean-reverting model for the commodity spot price: ds t = κ (µ ln (S t)) S tdt + σs tdz t Two-factor model w/ stochastic convenience yield: ds t = (µ δ t) S tdt + σ 1 S tdzt 1 dδ t = κ (α δ t) dt + σ 2 dzt 2 where dzt 1dZ t 2 = ρdt.

Literature Review (1/2) Schwartz 1997 reviews multi-factor commodity spot price models: One-factor exponential Ornstein-Uhlenbeck mean-reverting model for the commodity spot price: ds t = κ (µ ln (S t)) S tdt + σs tdz t Two-factor model w/ stochastic convenience yield: ds t = (µ δ t) S tdt + σ 1 S tdzt 1 dδ t = κ (α δ t) dt + σ 2 dzt 2 where dzt 1dZ t 2 = ρdt. Three-factor model w/ stochastic convenience yield and interest rates: ds t = (r t δ t) S tdt + σ 1 dzt 1 dδ t = κ (ˆα δ t) dt + σ 2 dzt 2 dr t = α (m r) dt + σ 3 dzt 3 where dzt 1dZ t 2 = ρ 1 dt, dzt 2dZ t 3 = ρ 2 dt and dzt 1dZ t 3 = ρ 3 dt.

Literature Review (2/2)

Literature Review (2/2) Schwartz & Smith 2000 proposes a two factor model w/o a stochastic convenience yield term: S t = exp (χ t + γ t) dχ t = κχ tdt + σ χdz χ t dγ t = µ γdt + σ γdz γ t where dz χ t dz γ t = ρ χγdt. This model is shown to be equivalent to the two-factor model proposed in Schwartz 1997 under linear transformations of the parameters.

Literature Review (2/2) Schwartz & Smith 2000 proposes a two factor model w/o a stochastic convenience yield term: S t = exp (χ t + γ t) dχ t = κχ tdt + σ χdz χ t dγ t = µ γdt + σ γdz γ t where dz χ t dz γ t = ρ χγdt. This model is shown to be equivalent to the two-factor model proposed in Schwartz 1997 under linear transformations of the parameters. Hilliard & Reis 1998 extends Schwartz 1997 three-factor model to include jump-diffusion in the commodity spot price in addition to stochastic convenience yield and interest rates. ds t = (µ δ t) dt + σ S dwt S + κdq t S t ) where log (1 + κ) N (log (1 + E [κ]) ω2 2, ω2 and (q t) t 0 is a Poisson counter with intensity λ.

Contribution to Literature This work makes two major contributions to literature:

Contribution to Literature This work makes two major contributions to literature: 1. Help establish a connection between reduced-form and structural models by endogenously deriving generalized forms of the Schwartz 1997 one-factor and Schwartz & Smith 2000 two-factor models from a simple stochastic dynamic Cournot resource extraction model.

Contribution to Literature This work makes two major contributions to literature: 1. Help establish a connection between reduced-form and structural models by endogenously deriving generalized forms of the Schwartz 1997 one-factor and Schwartz & Smith 2000 two-factor models from a simple stochastic dynamic Cournot resource extraction model. 2. Generalize the Cournot model to an arbitrary number of players, N, allowing to derive monopoly, oligopoly and competitive market modes.

Model Assumptions Key assumptions underlying the simple model include:

Model Assumptions Key assumptions underlying the simple model include: Single common-property resource stock

Model Assumptions Key assumptions underlying the simple model include: Single common-property resource stock Costless extraction of resource

Model Assumptions Key assumptions underlying the simple model include: Single common-property resource stock Costless extraction of resource No storage

Model Assumptions Key assumptions underlying the simple model include: Single common-property resource stock Costless extraction of resource No storage Intertemporally additive discounted utility

Model Assumptions Key assumptions underlying the simple model include: Single common-property resource stock Costless extraction of resource No storage Intertemporally additive discounted utility Discounted log() utility maximizing behavior by players

Model Assumptions Key assumptions underlying the simple model include: Single common-property resource stock Costless extraction of resource No storage Intertemporally additive discounted utility Discounted log() utility maximizing behavior by players Existence of an inverse demand function (also called the market price function) that maps total quantity extracted by all players to a price

Model Assumptions Key assumptions underlying the simple model include: Single common-property resource stock Costless extraction of resource No storage Intertemporally additive discounted utility Discounted log() utility maximizing behavior by players Existence of an inverse demand function (also called the market price function) that maps total quantity extracted by all players to a price Homogenous resource and hence no product differentiation

Model Definitions (1/2) Model definitions:

Model Definitions (1/2) Model definitions: There are N players

Model Definitions (1/2) Model definitions: There are N players Let X t be the resource stock and ɛ t be the demand shock at time t

Model Definitions (1/2) Model definitions: There are N players Let X t be the resource stock and ɛ t be the demand shock at time t Let qt i be the resource extracted by player i at time t, then a strategy U i for player i defined as U i : (X t, ɛ t) qt i where qi t Xt t [0, ) is a Markov strategy as it only depends on the current value of the state vector and let U i be the set of such Markov strategies for player i

Model Definitions (1/2) Model definitions: There are N players Let X t be the resource stock and ɛ t be the demand shock at time t Let qt i be the resource extracted by player i at time t, then a strategy U i for player i defined as U i : (X t, ɛ t) qt i where qi t Xt t [0, ) is a Markov strategy as it only depends on the current value of the state vector and let U i be the set of such Markov strategies for player i Resource stock is not perfectly measurable, i.e. there is continuous uncertainty regarding the actual stock level, and there are randomly occurring randomly sized jumps in the resource supply, characterizing the evolution of the resource stock as: dx t = ( ) N U i (X t, ɛ t) i=1 ( ) dt + σ X X tdw t + e θt 1 X tdn t where (N t) t 0 is a Poisson process with rate γ that is independent of (W t) t 0. Letting T 1, T 2,... be the arrival times of the Poisson process, the sequence of θ T1, θ T2,... is i.i.d. and θ Ti N (µ θ, σ θ ) i

Model Definitions (2/2)

Model Definitions (2/2) As long term demand for the resource is linked to stable consumption levels, demand shocks are temporary in nature and should be mean-reverting, characterizing the demand shock process (ɛ t) t 0 as a mean-zero OU process: where dw tdz t = ρdt dɛ t = αɛ tdt + σ ɛdz t

Model Definitions (2/2) As long term demand for the resource is linked to stable consumption levels, demand shocks are temporary in nature and should be mean-reverting, characterizing the demand shock process (ɛ t) t 0 as a mean-zero OU process: where dw tdz t = ρdt dɛ t = αɛ tdt + σ ɛdz t The market price function is given by p ( qt 1,..., ) ( N qn t = i=1 qi t ) 1 with p/ q i t < 0

Model Definitions (2/2) As long term demand for the resource is linked to stable consumption levels, demand shocks are temporary in nature and should be mean-reverting, characterizing the demand shock process (ɛ t) t 0 as a mean-zero OU process: where dw tdz t = ρdt dɛ t = αɛ tdt + σ ɛdz t The market price function is given by p ( qt 1,..., ) ( N qn t = i=1 qi t ) 1 with p/ q i t < 0 The profit function is given by π ( q i t, p) = pq i t with π/ qi t > 0

Problem Formulation Player i s value function Jt i at time t is defined as: [ ( ) ] Jt i (x, ɛ) = E e rs U i (X s, ɛ s) exp (ɛ s) log N t j=1 U ds X t = x, ɛ t = ɛ j (X s, ɛ s) s.t. dx t = ( ) N ( ) U i (X t, ɛ t) dt + σ X X tdw t + e θt 1 X tdn t i=1 dɛ t = αɛ tdt + σ ɛdz t, dw tdz t = ρdt Since (W t) t 0 and (Z t) t 0 are correlated, we can define a new Brownian motion ( ) W t that is independent of both (Wt) t 0 and (Zt) t 0 and represent t 0 dz t = ρdw t + ( 1 ρ 2) 1/2 d Wt. The objective of player i is to find optimal strategy Ui such that: Jt i ( x, ɛ U i, U i ) ( J i t x, ɛ Ui, U i ) Ui U i and t where U i = (U 1,..., U i 1, U i+1,..., U N ). ( ) We define Vt i t x, ɛ Ui, U i as the optimal value function for player i.

Solution Overview We take the stochastic dynamic programming approach and write the HJB equation for player i s optimal value function Vt i (x, ɛ) at time t: [ ( )] sup G Vt i (x, ɛ) rv i U i (x, ɛ) exp (ɛ) t (x, ɛ) + log U i U i U i (x, ɛ) + = 0 N j=1,j i U j (x, ɛ) where G is the infinitesimal generator. For brevity, drop the function parameters x, ɛ, then G Vt i is given by PIDE: G Vt i = N U i Uj V t i V i t αɛ x ɛ + 1 2 Vt i 2 x 2 σ2 X x2 j=1,j i + 1 2 Vt i 2 ɛ 2 σ2 ɛ + 2 Vt i [ ] x ɛ σ X σ ɛρx + γe Vt i + V i t where V i t + = Vt ( xe θ, ɛ θ t = θ ) accounting for the jump. We proceed with the solution by fixing and differentiating the HJB equation w.r.t. U i and then looking for a symmetric solution of the type U i = U j i, j [1,..., N].

Symmetric Nash Equilibrium Solution

Symmetric Nash Equilibrium Solution The optimal value function of player i is: Vt i (x, ɛ) = 1 ( ) 1 r 2 N σ2 X 4r 2 + γ µ θ 2r 2 + 1 ( 2r log x r ) N 2 (2N 1) + ɛ α + r

Symmetric Nash Equilibrium Solution The optimal value function of player i is: Vt i (x, ɛ) = 1 ( ) 1 r 2 N σ2 X 4r 2 + γ µ θ 2r 2 + 1 ( 2r log x r ) N 2 (2N 1) + ɛ α + r The Markov optimal extraction strategy is: U i (x, ɛ) = rx 2N 1 N which is independent of the demand uncertainty ɛ.

Symmetric Nash Equilibrium Solution The optimal value function of player i is: Vt i (x, ɛ) = 1 ( ) 1 r 2 N σ2 X 4r 2 + γ µ θ 2r 2 + 1 ( 2r log x r ) N 2 (2N 1) + ɛ α + r The Markov optimal extraction strategy is: U i (x, ɛ) = rx 2N 1 N which is independent of the demand uncertainty ɛ. The law of motion of the resource stock under optimal extraction behavior by players is: ( ) dx t = r (2N 1) X tdt + σ X X tdw t + e θt 1 X tdn t

Symmetric Nash Equilibrium Solution The optimal value function of player i is: Vt i (x, ɛ) = 1 ( ) 1 r 2 N σ2 X 4r 2 + γ µ θ 2r 2 + 1 ( 2r log x r ) N 2 (2N 1) + ɛ α + r The Markov optimal extraction strategy is: U i (x, ɛ) = rx 2N 1 N which is independent of the demand uncertainty ɛ. The law of motion of the resource stock under optimal extraction behavior by players is: ( ) dx t = r (2N 1) X tdt + σ X X tdw t + e θt 1 X tdn t The law of motion of the spot price of the resource is: ( αɛ t + 1 2 r (2N 1) + 1 2 σ2 ɛ 1 2 σɛσ X ρ + 3 8 σ2 X dp t p t = ) dt ( σ ɛρ 1 ) 2 σ ( X dw t + σ ɛ 1 ρ 2 ) ( ) 1/2 d Wt + e 2 1 θt 1 dn t ( ) where Wt and (Wt) t 0 are independent Brownian motions. t 0

Key Results (1/2) Derivation of generalized Schwartz 1997 one-factor model If you assume in the Dynamic Cournot model that there is no supply-side uncertainty and the only uncertainty is that of demand uncertainty, then we pick the parameters σ X = 0, θ t = 0 t and ρ = 0. Then, based on the solutions on the prior page, X t = x 0 exp ( rt (2N 1)), with X 0 = x 0 ( ( p t = (rx 0 (2N 1)) 1/2 exp rt N 1 ) ) + ɛ t 2 ( dp t = αɛ t + 1 p t 2 r (2N 1) + 1 ) 2 σ2 ɛ dt + σ ɛd W t Rewriting ɛ t in terms of p t and then plugging into expression for dp t/p t Dynamic Cournot model : dp t = α (µ (t) log (p t)) p tdt + σ ɛp td W t Schwartz one-factor model : ds t = κ (µ log (S t)) S tdt + σs tdz t where µ (t) = r ( N 1 2 ) ( 1 α + t) + σ2 ɛ 2α 1 2 log (rx 0 (2N 1)).

Key Results (2/2) Derivation of generalized Schwartz & Smith 2000 two-factor model Taking a detour and looking at the Schwartz & Smith 2000 model, S t = exp (χ t + γ t) dχ t = κχ tdt + σ χdz χ t dγ t = µ γdt + σ γdz γ t, dz χ t dz γ t = ρdt Comparing law of motion of S t to p t from the dynamic Cournot model, dp t p t = ds t S t = dχ t + dγ t + 1 2 (dχt)2 + dχ tdγ t + 1 2 (dγt)2 [ αɛ tdt + σ ɛ (ρdw t + ( 1 ρ 2) 1/2 d W t )] }{{} [( 1 + 2 µ X + 1 4 σ2 X dχ t = κχ t dt+σ χdz χ t ) dt 12 σ X dw t ] }{{} dγ t =µ γ dt+σ γ dz γ t [( ) ] + e 1 2 θt 1 dn t } {{ } additional jump term [ 1 + 8 σ2 X dt }{{} 1 (dγt )2 2 [ ] 1 + 2 σ2 ɛ dt }{{} 1 (dχt )2 2 ] + [ 1 2 σ X σ ɛρdt ] } {{ } dχ t dγ t

Limitations of Model and Further Research

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs The model does not consider any storage

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs The model does not consider any storage The model does not explicitly consider storage

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs The model does not consider any storage The model does not explicitly consider storage The log() utility allows for easy decoupling of optimization terms and analytical tractability

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs The model does not consider any storage The model does not explicitly consider storage The log() utility allows for easy decoupling of optimization terms and analytical tractability Further Research

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs The model does not consider any storage The model does not explicitly consider storage The log() utility allows for easy decoupling of optimization terms and analytical tractability Further Research Allowing for semi-private resource stocks

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs The model does not consider any storage The model does not explicitly consider storage The log() utility allows for easy decoupling of optimization terms and analytical tractability Further Research Allowing for semi-private resource stocks Extending the model for geographically dispersed resource stocks and increasing cost of extraction for farther sources

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs The model does not consider any storage The model does not explicitly consider storage The log() utility allows for easy decoupling of optimization terms and analytical tractability Further Research Allowing for semi-private resource stocks Extending the model for geographically dispersed resource stocks and increasing cost of extraction for farther sources R&D effects and technological improvement

Limitations of Model and Further Research Limitations The most obvious limitation of the model is that it considers a single common-property resource stock that is accessible by all players The model does not consider any extraction costs The model does not consider any storage The model does not explicitly consider storage The log() utility allows for easy decoupling of optimization terms and analytical tractability Further Research Allowing for semi-private resource stocks Extending the model for geographically dispersed resource stocks and increasing cost of extraction for farther sources R&D effects and technological improvement Fitting and empirical analysis of the structural model