Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notes On Uncertainty and Macro!!!!
Notes On Uncertainty and Macro!!!!
Let’s …rst look at standard preferences –additive expected utility and de…ne
some notation. Time is discrete, t = 0; 1; :::T: At each t 0, an event zt is
drawn from a set t : A history, denoted z t is a collection of events up to an
including zt , i.e., e.g., fz0 ; z1 ; :::; zt g : The set of possible histories at t is t :
Let c (z t ) denote the vector of consumption goods (possibly including
service ‡ows and leisure) consumed in period t if z t is realized:Then, the
T
standard assumption is that for any t; preferences over fc (z t ) jz t 2 t gt=0
with associated probabilities p (z t ) can be represented by the function
X
T X X
T
t t t T t t t t
U c z jz 2 t=0
= p z u c z =E u c zt
t=0 zt 2 t t=0
then
T T
U c zt t=2
U c0 z t t=2
;
T T
i.e., if the sequence of consumption fc (z t )gt=2 is preferred over fc0 (z t )gt=2
at t = 1; it is preferred also at t = 2:
1
5. Risk matters only through second order e¤ects. E.g., suppose in period
t; there is a lottery with payo¤ x~ and E x~ > 0. Then all individuals
will prefer to hold a strictly positive amount of this lottery over having
a certain consumption level c. I.e., there is a k > 0 such that for all
k 2 0; k
E (u (c + k~x)) > u (c) :
To see this, let’s take the derivative of the left hand side w.r.t. k and
evaluate at k = 0:
@ (E (u (c + k~
x)))
jk=0 = u0 (c) E x~
@k
which is positive if E x~ > 0; regardless of riskaversion.
Empirical …ndings, introspection and lab experiments have all shown that
these implications are often invalidated.
2
p(zh )
growth state. The price of these lotteries, ph and pl are and the returns ph
p(zl )
and pl
respectively. Therefore,
u0 (c (zh )) p (zh )
ph =
u0 (ct )
u0 (c (zl )) p (zl )
pl =
u0 (ct )
u00 (c) ( 1) c 2
c = c =1 :
u0 (c) c 1
1
Setting p (zh ) = p (zl ) = 2
we have
1
(1 + g + )
ph = ;
2
1
(1 + g )
pl = :
2
A portfolio consisting of one each of the lotteries mimics perfectly the
safe one-period bond. The price of a bond is thus
pb = ph + pl
with a return,
1
rb = :
ph + pl
Let us now compute the return on a claim to next periods dividends –a
one-period share. A portfolio consisting of (1 + g + ) of the h lottery and
(1 + g ) of the l lottery exactly such a one period share.
The price of this risky portfolio is
pr = ph ((1 + g + )) + pl (1 + g )
3
and its expected return is therefore
1+g
rr =
ph ((1 + g + )) + pl (1 + g )
1+g
= 1 1
(1+g+ ) (1+g )
2
(1 + g + ) + 2
(1 + g )
2 (1 + g)
=
((1 + g + ) + (1 + g ) )
In this simple economy, the return on a normal share, i.e., a one that
gives rights to all future dividends is the same. Why? To see this, we recall
that the price of the share with CARA utility will be proportional to current
income/consumption. The price of the share will therefore be Pr ct . and the
return
Pr ct+1 + ct+1 (1 + Pr ) ct+1
= :
Pr c t Pr c t
From the Euler equation,
u0 (ct+1 ) (1 + Pr ) ct+1
Pr = E
u0 (ct ) ct
1 1
(ct (1+g+ ))
(ct (1 + g + )) + (ct (1+g2
2
))
(ct (1 + g ))
= (1 + Pr )
ct 1 ct
(1 + g + ) + (1 + g )
= (1 + Pr ) :
2
1 + Pr 2
=
Pr ((1 + g + ) + (1 + g ) )
4
around 1% over the last 100 years or so. Therefore
(1 + 0:018 + 0:036) 1
ph =
2
(1 + 0:018 0:036) 1
pl =
2
1
rb =
ph + pl
1 + 0:018
rr =
ph (1 + 0:018 + 0:036) + pl (1 + 0:018 0:036)
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
5
In reality, this ratio is
1
1:01
1+g 1:05
1:08
However, by plotting
" #
(1 + g + ) 1 + (1 + g ) 1
(1 + g + ) + (1 + g )
g=0:018; =0:036
against RRA = 1 ;
1.015
1.01
1.005
0.995
0.99
0.985
0 20 40 R 60 80 100
we see that it is very di¢ cult to get the right risk premium. In fact, in the
realistic case where > g; it is easy to bound the risk premium,
" # " #
1 1 1
(1 + g + ) + (1 + g ) (1 + g )
lim = lim
! 1 (1 + g + ) + (1 + g ) ! 1 (1 + g )
g<
1
= 1:0183:
1+g
The …st line comes from the fact that (1 + g ) goes to in…nity as
approach 1; while (1 + g + ) approach zero. Of course, with lower
growth and higher risk, the risk premium can get larger, but we are stuck
with data.
2. Too little risk-sharing
In a complete markets equilibrium where individuals have homothetic
preferences, e.g., CRRA, there should be full risk sharing. Consumption
6
growth should be perfectly correlated between individuals and everyone should
hold a share in a global portfolio of assets. This is not the case, obviously fric-
tions and asymmetric information may be one explanation. But sometimes
these explanations don’t seem to su¢ ce. An example is the home bias puzzle.
All around the world local investors hold unbalanced portfolios with to much
domestic assets. It is shown in the literature that expected returns could
increase a lot, without increasing risk by having more balanced portfolios,
containing more foreign assets. The explanation cannot be that information
is superior. Then, domestic holders should sometimes have more negative
information than foreign investors, in which case they should sell moving to
foreign ones, this we don’t see. Conversely, they should sometimes go short
abroad, having an investment share above unity at home, which we don’t see
either.
7
Other examples, people sometimes seems to pay to commit. They tend to
over-consume during the year, and, for example, ask their employer to keep
money for tax-payments at then en of the year or, say for big holidays.
First-order risk-aversion
With smooth preferences, people should as we have seen not care much
about small gambles. Big ones, on the other hand, are detrimental. In fact,
with CRRA coe¢ cient bigger than unity, su¢ ciently big losses can never
be compensated since U (ct ) is bounded from above but not from below.
For example, consider a lottery that gives a relative loss of x, forcing a
consumption loss of xc with p = 21 and otherwise gives consumption (1 + k) c.
For di¤erent values of x; how large must k be to compensate for so that
1 1
U (c) = U ((1 x) c) + U ((1 + k)c)
2 2
Here, I plot this k as a function of x for = 3; 4 and 6.
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
k1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1x 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
:To get people to behave like they do for small gambles, has to be so large
as to give unreasonable predictions for large gambles. In fact, sometimes no
upside can compensate for a su¢ ciently large but …nite downside. This fact
is due to that when CRRA coe¢ cient larger than 1, i.e., when < 0; utility
is bounded, since
c
< 0; 8c; < 0:
8
This means that we solving
c 1 ((1 x) c)
=
2
1
1 = (1 x)
2
1
x = 1 2
gives the largest possible downside that could be compensated by any upside.
In the graph, we see the maximum loss occuring with 50% chance that could
be compensated by any gain as a function of the level of riskaversion.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
2 4 6 8 10R 12 14 16 18 20
For = 11; x is as low as 6:1%: Would you refuse a 50/50 bet of loosing
25% of your lifetime income vs. getting the fortune of Bill Gates? If, not,
you cannot have absolute riskaversion above 3.4.
9
2 Non-additive recursive preferences
2.1 Aggregation over time
Now, disregard risk. In general, preferences can be described as a function
that associates a particular level of overall utility to any sequence of con-
sumption levels
U (c1 ; c2 :; ; ; cT ) U fct gT0
MRS is de…ned
@U (c1 ;c2 :;;;cT )
@ct+1
M RSt;t+1 @U (c1 ;c2 :;;;cT )
@ct
noting that this may depend onf c: For the time additive utility with constant
discounting, however, we have
X
T
t
U= u (ct )
t=s
with
(c)t;t+1 = 8c:
Koopman’s time aggregator
Assume preferences at all dates are represented by a time zero utility
function, so preferences are time consistent.
First notation,
tc fct ; ct+1 ; ct+2 ; ::::ct+1 g
Utility at time zero is
U (0 c) = U (c0; 1 c)
U (0 c) = V~ [c0 ; U1 (1 c)]
10
for an aggregator function V:and a function that gives the continuation utility
U1 (1 c) Choices over 1 c1 in particular, what maximizes U1 in some choice set,
does not depend on c0 : But the choice set can, of course, be a¤ected.
Now also assume future independence preferences over ct does not depend
on t+1 c: (Is this innocuous? Yes, clearly if c0 is a scalar, then more is just
better, but if c0 is a vector this is a restriction..One could prefer chicken
over …sh if one plans to eat a lot of …sh in the future. However, future
independence seems like a less strong assumption than history independence).
Now, we can write utility as
U (0 c) = V [u (c0 ) ; U1 (1 c)]
MRSt;t+1 is
@U (c1 ;c2 :;;;cT )
@ct+1 V2 [u (ct ) ; U (t+1 c)] V1 [u (ct+1 ) ; U (t+2 c)] u0 (ct+1 )
@U (c1 ;c2 :;;;cT )
=
V1 [u (ct ) ; U (t+1 c)] u0 (ct )
@ct
@u (ct ) 0 @U (t+1 c)
(1 + (u (ct )) U (t+1 c)) + (u (ct )) =0
@ct;i @ct;i
11
A bit more general, by not imposing future independence.
Note that here, preference over elements in ct may depend on U (t+1 c),
which matters if ct is a vector.
First order condition:
@u (ct ) @ (ct ) @U (t+1 c)
+ U (t+1 c) + (ct ) =0
@ct;i @ct;i @ct;i
Examples:
Growth and …scal policy (Dolmas and Wynne (1998)). Using Usawa
Envelope:
Giving
J 0 (kt ) = (u (ct )) J 0 (kt+1 ) f 0 (kt )
In a steady state
1= (u (ct )) f 0 (kt )
Compare this to the standard case
1 = f 0 (kt )
12
Now changes in g can a¤ect the steady state. To see this, consider
In this case, some steady states are unstable. In the right panel of the
…gure, the left steady state is unstable. A higher level of k increases u; and
more than the fall in f 0 : Therefore, > f 0 and individuals accumulates
capital. Here a reduction in g; could move the economy out of the unstable
equilibrium.
β (u ( f (k ss )− k ss − g '))
−1
β (u ( f (k ss )− k ss − g ))
−1
β (u ( f (k ss )− k ss − g '))
−1
f ' (k ss ) β (u ( f (k ss )− k ss − g ))
−1
f ' (k ss )
k ss k ss
0 0
< 0; g increases. > 0, g decreases.
Other examples is small open economies with a …xed interest rate, r The
steady state is
1 = (u (f (kss ) kss g)) r
0
With standard preferences no steady state exists generically. With <0
a unique one exists.
13
2.2 Aggregation over states
As in the intro, consider states (within a period) to be z 2 ; with an
associated probability measure p (z) : Utility is now
U fc (z)gz2
and since X
u( ) = p (z) u (c (z))
z2
we have !
X
1
(fc (z)g) = u p (z) u (c (z)) :
z2
So
1 X 1
= p (z) c (z)
z2
!1
X 1
= p (z) c (z)
z2
14
As we see, this generalizes standard utility by implying that the marginal
value of consumption in state z depends on consumption in other states
through their e¤ect on : An example of this is that people might care more
(or less) about consumption in states that provide less consumption than the
certainty equivalence (disappointment aversion). Notice the relative compar-
ison here. With concave utility, marginal utility in states with low consump-
tion is high, but independent of consumption in other states. This is not
necessarily the case here since consumption in state z; relative to depends
on consumption in all other states since they a¤ect :
We assume that M ( ; ) = (Why?), M1 > 0; M11 < 0 (…rst order
stochastic dominance and riskaversion). Often we want to maintain the linear
homogeneity of preferences like in CRRA.
M (kc; k ) = kM (c; )
Examples:
To show that the Chew-Dekel generalizes and includes e.g., CRRA pref-
erences: Note that if we set
1
c
M (c; ) = + (1)
we get
X c (z) 1
= p (z) +
z2
X
1
0 = p (z) c (z)
z2
X
1
= p (z) c (z)
z2
X
= p (z) (c (z) )
z2
!1
X
= p (z) c (z)
z2
15
Compare to (1). Now, we have
X c (z) c (z) 1
c (z)
= p (z) +
z2
X c (z) c (z) 1
c (z)
0 = p (z)
z2
X X
1
p (z) c (z) = p (z) c (z) c (z)
z2 z2
P
z2 p (z) c (z) c (z)
= P
z2 p (z) c (z)
p (z) c (z)
P p^ (z)
z2 p (z) c (z)
Consequently,
c1 c2
= c1 + c
c1 + c1 c1 + c1 2
For any constant k; indi¤erence curves then satisfy
c1 + c +
k= + 2
c1 + c2 c1 + c2
Plotting one together with standard utility we …nd these preferences produce
a higher level of riskaversion.
16
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
17
For any constant k: indi¤erence curves can be written as
8 1 1
< (1+ )12 c11 + 2 c21 1 if c1 < c2
(1+ ) 2 + 2 (1+ ) 2 + 2
k= 1
c (1+ ) 12 c2
: 2 1
1 1 + if c1 > c2
(1+ ) +2 2
(1+ ) 1 + 1
2 2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Here, it is important to notice the kink around unity. This is …rst or-
der risk-aversion. Individuals will be more averse to small risks than under
standard preferences.
Risk premia under Chew-Dekel Preferences.
De…ne the risk-premium R from
Let us consider two state case above. In the two cases of CRRA E utility
and weighted utility. Suppose c = c1 = 1 with prob 21 and c = c2 = 1 +
with prob. 12 : The shock is thus and is the standard deviation of c:
18
1
(1
) + (1 + )
Rs tan d = 1 Rs ( )
2
1
Rs (0) + Rs0 (0) + Rs00 (0) 2
2
2 1 3
(1 ) +(1+ )
6@ 1 2 7
= 6
4
7
5
@
=0
2 1 3
(1 ) +(1+ )
@2 1
16 2 7
+ 6 7 2
24 @ 2 5
=0
1 2
= (1 )
2
In the weighted expected utility, we have
1 !
+ +
(1 ) + (1 + )
Rwheigt = 1 Rw ( )
(1 ) + (1 + )
1
Rw (0) + Rw0 (0) + Rw0 (0) 2
2
2 +
1 3
(1 ) +(1+ ) +
6@ 1 (1 ) +(1+ ) 7
= 6
4
7
5
@
=0
2 + +
1 3
2 (1 ) +(1+ )
@ 1
16 (1 ) +(1+ ) 7
+ 6 7 2
24 @ 2 5
=0
1 2
= (1 2 )
2
In the disappointment aversion case, the …rst derivative is not going to
19
be zero, people are not locally riskneutral. Therefore,
1
!
(1 + ) (1 ) + (1 + )
Rdisapp = 1 Rd ( )
2+
1
Rd (0) + Rd0 (0) + Rd00 (0) 2
2
2 1 3
(1+ )(1 ) +(1+ )
6@ 1 2+ 7
= 6
4
7
5
@
=0
2 1 3
2 (1+ )(1 ) +(1+ )
@ 1
16 2+ 7
+ 6 7 2
24 @ 2 5
=0
1+ 2
= + 2 (1 )
2+ (2 + )2
The key here is the linear term.
tc
denotes a stochastic consumption stream starting from period t; i.e., ct ; c (zt+1 ) ; :::;
and denote
U (t c) Ut
The aggregator can be written
Ut = V (ct ; (Ut+1 ))
Note that we are now aggregating the direct utility of ct and the certainty
equivalent of the stochastic continuation payo¤ from t + 1 and onwards.
20
Thus, since at t; Ut+1 is stochastic (depending on the realization of zt+1 ), we
construct the period t + 1 certainty equivalent of this stochastic utility, i.e.,
(Ut+1 ).
If we use a standard expected utility certainty equivalent in (2), we get
what is typically called Kreps-Porteus utility (some times also Epstein-Zin,
although they often are associated with more general speci…cation of state
aggregation, a la Chew-Dekel). The key here is that we can now separate
risk-aversion, which is determined by the properties of ; from intertemporal
substitution, determined by V:
Let us use the CRRA speci…cation for ; so
1
(U ) = [EU ]
U2 = c (z2 )
Then,
1
U1 = [(1 ) c1 + c 2 ]
MRS is now,
@U1 @U1
M RSc1 ;c2 =
@c2 @c1
1
1 1 1
((1 ) c1 + c 2 ) c2
= 1
1
1 1
((1 ) c1 + c 2 ) (1 ) c1
1
c2
=
1 c1
21
as usual and
c1
@M RSc1 ;c2 c2 1
= IES =1 :
c1 c1
@ c2
M RS c2
U~1 = (1 ) c1 + c 2
and calculate
1
@ U~1 @ U~1 c2 1
c2
= = 1 =
@c2 @c1 (1 ) c1 1 c1
It should be clear from the aggregator
1
(c2 (z2 )) = [Ec (z2 ) ]
and
U1early = (U1 )
1
1 1 1 1
= ((1 ) c1 + c h ) + ((1 ) c1 + c h )
2 2
1
1 1
= ((1 ) c1 + ch ) + ((1 ) c1 + c h )
2 2
Compare this to the late resolution case. Then,
1
ch + cl
(U2 ) =
2
22
and !1
ch + cl
U1late = (1 ) c1 +
2
Comparing these, we see
U1early U1late
2 !1 3
1
1 1 ch + cl
= 4 ((1 ) c1 + ch ) + ((1 ) c1 + c l ) (1 ) c1 + 5
2 2 2
c1 =1
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
Here I plotted the di¤erence for = 12 and for < ; we see that early
resolution is preferred. Note that when < , risk aversion (1 ) is larger
than the inverse of intertemporal elasticity of substitution, so in a sense, it is
less costly to substitute between time periods than between states of nature.
Is this important?
With Kreps-Porteus preferences we can clearly get low interest rates if
individuals are facing little risk and high if they are facing large. But can we
get what we want when we have a representative household that prices both
risky and non-risky assets while having to bear reasonable amounts of risk
himself.
An example. Look at the case in the introduction; given c1
1
ch = c1 (1 + g + ) with prob 2
c2 = 1
cl = c1 (1 + g ) with prob 2
23
First, we note that Arrow-Debreu prices now have the property that the
price of an asset that pays out in state z = zh ; depends on consumption also
in the other state. This is clear from the expression of utility:
!1
ch + cl
U1 = (1 ) c1 +
2
(1 + g + ) + (1 + g ) 1 1
= (1 + g + ) + (1 + g )
2 (1 ) 2
With the risky asset we have
0 1
ch +cl ch +cl
@c B@ 2
(1 + g + ) @ 2
(1 + g )C
0 = pr (1 ) 1+ @ + A
@c1 @ch @cl
(1 + g + ) + (1 + g )
) pr = ((1 + g + ) + (1 + g ) )
2 (1 ) 2
Note that the ratio
pb (1 + g + ) 1 + (1 + g ) 1
=
pr (1 + g + ) + (1 + g )
24
is determined by risk aversion and exactly the same as in the standard case.
Therefore it seems as we have got little help from Kreps and Porteus. Not
entirely right. We have learnt that it is di¢ cult to get the risk premia by
assuming that stock market returns are fully determined by consumption
growth. Maybe this is not the way to go.
Suppose there is some other more stable income so that the share divi-
dend is more volatile than consumption. Say that the standard deviation of
consumption remains at while the standard deviation of dividends is x :
Then
pb (1 + g + ) 1 + (1 + g ) 1
=
pr (1 + g + ) 1 (1 + g + x ) + (1 + g ) 1
(1 + g x)
1.14
1.12
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
0.98
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
h i
(1+g+ ) 1 +(1+g ) 1
Targeting (1+g+ ) 1 (1+g+x )+(1+g ) 1
(1+g x) g=0:018; =0:036;x=4:5
= 1:05
yields = 11:1; i.e., a CRRA coe¢ cient of 10.
25
To also get the riskfree rate right, we need
1
pb =
1:01
with a reasonable value of : Setting
= :99 ) = 0:497 49
1
and using = 11:1; we solve
" #
(1 + g + ) + (1 + g ) 1 1
(1 + g + ) + (1 + g )
2 (1 ) 2
g=0:018; =0:036; =
1
we …nd = 0:34; so the intertemporal elasticity of substitution is 1 0:34 =
1:515: This is quite far away from the EU case where we would have IES= 1 ( 111:1) =
0:08: Producing an interest rate of
0" #
@ (1 + g + ) + (1 + g ) 1 1
(1 + g + ) + (1 + g )
2 (1 ) 2
g=0:018; =0:036;
where as above
u (c) = c
1
(W ) = [EW ]
26
and 1
V (u; ) = [(1 )u + ] : (3)
Conjecture that
W (A) = 1A
and
c= 2A
(W (At+1 )) = E 1 (1 ~
2 ) At Rt+1 = 1 (1 2 ) At
~ t+1
E R
1 At = (1 )( 2 At ) + 1 (1 2 ) At
~ t+1
E R
1
1
= (1 )( 2) + 1 (1 2)
~ t+1
E R At
1 = (1 )( 2) + 1 (1 2)
~ t+1
E R : (4)
@ (1 )( 2) + 1 (1
~
2 ) E Rt+1
=0 (5)
@ 2
27
Note here that increasing has a direct e¤ect on the expected return, so
it is not a mean preserving spread, i.e.,
2
~ = em+ 2 :
E R
Clearly, we here see that an increase in ; while keeping the mean of the
return constant, reduces the certainty equivalent, since 1 and more so
the smaller is : 1
= u1
Using this is formalution plus ut = ct = 2 At and (W (At+1 )) =
1 (1 2 ) At R with 2 = 1 in the Bellman equation gives
1 At = u1t t
= ((1 ) At )1 ( 1 At R)
= At ((1 ))1 ( 1 R)
= At exp ((1 ) ln (1 ) + ln 1 R)
1
1 = 1 ((1 )) ( R)
= (1 ) ( R) 1 > 0:
28
~ is log-normal
In which case we conclude that if R
2 1
W (A) = (1 ) em+ 2 A
and
c = (1 ) A:
In this case, high riskaversion or higher risk reduces welfare by reducing
the certainty equivalent return (high riskaversion means low ) but saving is
una¤ected. What happens if > 0? First we note that higher risk reduces
R and therefore tends to reduce 1 ; then, in (??) a lower R and lower 1
reduces (increases) the term ( 1 (1 2 ) R) if > (<) 0. In optimum,
this term must equal
1
2 1 2 (1 )
which is downward sloping since <1
1
d 2 1 2 (1 ) 1 1
= (1 ) 2 + < 0:
d 2 2
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
29
3 Ambiguity
Aversion to unknown odds, as is demonstrated in labs, e.g., the Ellsberg
paradox, is given axiomatic foundations by Gilboa and Schmeidler. They
show that reasonable axioms capturing such ambiguity averse behavior can
be represented by a sort of max min preferences. Suppose it is known
that there is a set of possible realizations of the state, z 2 with associated
consumption levels c (z) : Then, assume that the individual does not know
the probability distribution over these states, but he knows that this prob-
ability distribution belongs to a set : Call the elements of this set p being
particular possible probability distributions. An element p is thus a vector
of probabilities p (z) : Then, preferences are given by
X
U (fc (z)g) = min p (z) c (z) = min Ep c (z) :
p2 p2
z2
30
In this case, the relevant p0 s are the shares of red balls in urn 2. The
value of r; pins down ;being the interval 50100r ; 50+r
100
:
Given this, the value of urn 2 in a bet on red is
50 r 50 + r
= U (50) + U (0)
100 100
with the same value in a bet on black since in this case, we have
50 + r 50 r
U (0) + U (0):
100 100
Suppose now that there are two individuals, one owns an asset that gives
50 dollars with a probability p he knows is 50% but that he cannot verify this
knowledge to the other person. Otherwise it pays zero. The other person is
in the same position, he owns an asset that gives 50 dollars with probability
of p = :5 that he can not credibly verify. Suppose individuals consume 1+the
payo¤ from the asset and have log utility.
Under standard assumption including that both individuals assign a 50%
probability to the other’s urn. Individuals should share the risk and get a
payo¤ of
1 1 1
ln (51) + ln (26) + ln 1 = 2:612
4 2 4
If instead individuals have ambiguity aversion the probability of win-
ning in the "foreign" asset is p0 2 : How big share ! should he choose
to invest in the other persons asset. Given a p 2 ; the four states of the
world, fhigh; highg ; flow; highg ; fhigh; lowg ; flow; lowg happen with prob-
abilities, 12 p; 21 p; 12 (1 p) ;and 12 (1 p) : Given the symmetric nature of the
game, we focus on the case when the price of the "foreign" asset in terms
of the "domestic" is unity. Consumption, given ! is then 51; :1 + !50; 1 +
(1 !) 50; 1: The utility of the optimal portfolio is therefore
1 1 1 1
min max p ln (1 + 50) + p ln (1 + !50) + (1 p) ln (1 + (1 !) 50) + (1 p) ln 1
p2P ! 2 2 2 2
31
52p 1
!=
50
Of course, this is increasing in p: Note also that for p = 1=52; ! = 0 and
for p < 1=52; ! < 0: For example, if p = 0:01; ! 0:01;i.e., a short position
in the foreign asset. The short position implies that if the foreign asset pays
50, a payment from hom to abroad takes place.
Now, we have to pick p:To do this, we consider the maximized value, i.e.,
1 1 1
max p ln (1 + 51) + p ln (1 + !50) + (1 p) ln (1 + (1 !) 50)
! 2 2 2
1
= (p ln (51) + ln (52) + p ln (p) + (1 p) ln (1 p))
2
Let’s plot this, what we see at the this is increasing in p for p close to 0.5.
But, it is not monotone.
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
32
2.01
1.99
1.98
1.97
Suppose also individual the knows that the probability of there own produc-
tion being high is 0.5, while the set of possible probabilities for the other
countries production being high is 0:5 2 ; for 2 [ a; a] and that these
events are independent.
The agent decides how much to invest abroad !: Due to symmetry, the
relative price of the two assets, foreign and domestic production should be
33
one. The budget constraint is therefore for agent 1.
1 1 1 1
= ln 2 + ln 3 (ln 2) + + ln (1 + 4 ) + ln (1 4 ):
4 2 4 4
34
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
This is implies the important result that shortsales cannot occur. This
is in line with empirical evidence and is not the prediction of models with
asymmetric information.
Why is this? Note …rst that if ! = 0; the probability of success has no
e¤ect on utility. If ! is negative, a reduction in p actually increases welfare.
Why, the stream of payment from the foreign asset is
35
4 Time-inconsistency and temptation
Lab evidence discussed in the introduction shows preference reversal, quicker
discounting in for close time periods than for distant. Also preference for
commitment. People sometimes prefer to restrict their future behavior –
force themselves to save, hide the jar of cookies, not bring to much money
to the bar, and so on.
Evidence that hyperbolic discount factor represents time preference better
than geometric.
Two approaches:
36
Focus is on Markov equilibria, but other equilibria with trigger strate-
gies also exists. For example, a self "behaves" and does not overcon-
sume as long as previous selves has behaved well.
Markov equilibria can be strange or non-existent. Standard existence
theorems not applicable.
Example: Consumption and savings problem.
Suppose the agent has log period utility
X
1
s
Ut (t c) = ln (ct ) + ln (ct+s )
s=1
Note that the value of giving assets to the next self is depreciated by the
fact that self 0 knows that self 1 is going to overconsume in the eyes of self
0.
Now, we can guess that J has the form
J (at ) = A + b ln at
Given this, ct is the solution to the …rst order condition
1
0 = J 0 (r (at ct )) r
ct
1 b
= r
ct r (at ct )
at
) ct =
1+ b
37
Substituting this in (6) gives
at at
A + b ln at = ln + A + b ln r at
1+ b 1+ b
r b
= (1 + b) ln at + A + b ln ln (1 + b)
1+ b
This is satis…ed for all at iif
(1 + b) = b
1
) b=
1
implying
at 1
ct = 1 = at
1+ 1
1 (1 )
and A is
r 1
1
ln 1 (1 )
+ ln 1 (1 )
A= :
1
As we see, if < 1; consumption is higher and savings are lower than in
the time-consistent case, when the consumption rate is 1 :
Let’s now …nd the commitment solution if self 0 determines all consump-
tion values. In this case, we …rst calculate Jc (at ) ;which is the continua-
tion value when everything is determined by self 0. Note, however, that
future selves will agree with self zero on this. The di¤erence between the no-
commitment case is that now the continuation value maximizes the standard
Bellman equation without any : Thus, Jc must satisfy,
38
Substituting,
at 1
Ac + bc ln at = ln + Ac + bc ln rat 1
1 + bc 1 + bc
1 bc
Ac + bc ln at = ln at + ln + Ac + bc ln at + bc ln r
1 + bc 1 + bc
Giving
1
) bc = (1 + bc ) ; bc =
1
at
ct = = (1 ) at
1 + bc
1
!
1 1 1
Ac = ln 1 + Ac + ln r 1
1+ 1
1 1+ 1
= ln (1 ) + Ac + ln r
1
ln (1 )+ 1
ln r
) Ac =
1
As we see, the coe¢ cient on ln at+1 is the same in both cases, commitment
and no commitment. The di¤erence between the constants under no com-
mitment and commitment is negative, I think. The fact that the coe¢ cient
on ln at+1 is the same in Jc and J; implies that the marginal value of leaving
assets to self 1 is the same in both cases. Thus, consumption in period 0 is
independent of whether there is commitment or not. Note that two forces
here are a¤ecting the results. On the one hand, giving assets to self 1 under
no commitment has a lower value since he consumers too much in the eyes
of self 0. This reduces the incentive to save for self 0. On the other hand,
this leaves self 2, 3,... with too little consumption and the way only way self
0 can increase consumption of self 2,3,... is to save. This increases the value
of saving. Apparently, this two e¤ects cancel in the log utility case.
From period 1 and onwards, savings is higher under commitment.
>
1 (1 )
39
In the no commitment case, self 1 gets
ln (1 ) at+1 + Jc (r at+1 )
= ln (1 ) at+1 + bc ln (r at+1 ) + Ac
1 (1 )
= ln at+1 + ln (1 )+ ln r + Ac
1 1
Commitment gives extra value which is good also for self 1, but she cannot
control her consumption which reduces the value. For self 1, commitment
therefore be better than no commitment, also if it is done by self 1. For later
individuals, it may be even better with previous commitment since asset
levels are higher.
Two subperiods.
Second subperiod preferences de…ned over ordered pairs (A; x), where
A is a choice set and x 2 A is a choice (consumed).
Assumptions:
40
2. If y tempts x, then x does not tempt y.
3. The utility of a …xed choice is a¤ected by the choice set only
through its most tempting element.
A B)A A[B B:
41
Second period, preference are represented by
Interpretation:
U (~
x) + maxx~2A V (x) maxx~2A V (~
x) = U (~
x):
Neoclassical production.
General equilibrium.
42
With U (c1 ; c2 ) playing the role of U and V (c1 ; c2 ) the role of V , let the
temptation function V have a stronger preference for present consump-
tion. For example, let
and
V (c1 ; c2 ) = (u(c1 ) + u(c2 )) ;
with ; < 1.
Aggregate resource constraint given by
c1 + k2 = f (k1 )
c2 = f (k2 )
U (c1 ; c2 ) + V (c1 ; c2 )
43
c2 Competitive equilibrium
U(c1,c2)
U(c1,c2)+V(c1,c2)
V(c1,c2)
c1
Temptation
Best without temptation
Actual choice
which increases in :
The maximum temptation is
44
Interesting implication
Compare autarky, i.e., each individual runs his own machine. Then the
interest rate is not exogenous.
c2 Autarky
U(c1,c2)+V(c1,c2)
V(c1,c2)
c1
Temptation in comp. eq.
Temptation under autarky
Actual choice
45
Analysis: Vary and , while adjusting to keep the steady-state
interest rate constant.
Results:
Savings should be subsidized. But not much, and the welfare gains are
small (little reduction in temptation costs).
46
5 Habits
6 Topic 4. Habits
We have previously assumed history independence, meant to mean that the
marginal rate of substitution, evaluated at t between:
In the literature, the …rst case have been used to try to explain asset
market puzzles, i.e., why standard models have great problems explaining
the co-movements of prices and consumption. The third case is used to
explain, for example, cultural diversity.
To simplify, in particular in order to be able to specify recursive prefer-
ences, utility is assumed to be
X
1
j
Ut = u (ct+j ; t+j )
j=0
where
t = v (~
ct 1 ; c~t 2 ; :::~
ct n) ;
47
2. c~t s can denote the own previous consumption of the household, the
consumption of some reference group or some combination. If c~t s =
ct s (own consumption), we have what is called "internal habits" while
if it is the consumption of some reference group, it is called "external"
habit. Abel uses a geometric average
t cD 1
t 1 Ct
D
1 ;
where Ct 1 is aggregate consumption. Here = 0 gives the standard
model, 6= 0; and D = 1;gives the internal habit case and D = 0 the
external case.
3. History matters only though the habit function, i.e., through
v (~
ct 1 ; c~t 2 ; :::~
ct n)
48
Clearly, the …rst order condition is not a¤ected if D = 0: Suppose instead
D > 0: Then an increase in today’s consumption increases the habit. Sup-
pose this reduces utility, then this implies that there is a negative dynamic
e¤ect of consumption which will show up in a negative V2 : Therefore, the
term D vt+1
ct
V2 (At+1 ; vt+1 ) is positive and marginal utility of consump-
tion should be set higher in period t:
Consider the case of external habits, D = 0 . We have seen that in this
case, the FOC is the same as under no habits. Suppose …rst for simplicity
that
u (ct ; t ) = ln ct ln vt
Recall the solution strategy in the case when we expect that there can be
an analytical solution.
3. Solve for the choice variable that maximizes the RHS of the Bellman
equation given our guess on the value function.
4. Substitute your optimal choice variable into the RHS of the Bellman
equation to express the maximized RHS.
5. Verify that the Bellman equation is satis…ed for all values of the state
variables by …nding the unknown parameters.
If step 5 fails you have made an incorrect guess and must start with
another. However, most problems do not admit closed form solutions for the
value function in which case this approach is useless.
Now, we guess that the value function is
V (At ; vt ) = B1 ln At + B2 ln vt + B3
49
The FOC is
1 B1 r
=
ct At+1
1 B1
=
ct At c t
1
) ct = At ;
1 + B1
At+1 = (At ct ) r
B1
= rAt
1 + B1
Which we recognize well.
We also have
1
ct+1 = At+1
1 + B1
1 B1
= rAt
1 + B1 1 + B1
1 B1
= r (1 + B1 ) ct
1 + B1 1 + B1
B1
= rct
1 + B1
Substituting this into our guess gives
At
B1 ln At + B2 ln vt + B3 = ln ln vt + (B1 ln At+1 + B2 ln vt+1 + B3 )
1 + B1
At B1 r
= ln ln vt + B1 ln At + B2 ln vt+1 + B3
1 + B1 1 + B1
This cannot work unless we get rid of vt+1 in the RHS. To do this we note
that
vt+1 = Ct :
and in general equilibrium
B1
Ct = rCt 1
1 + B1
B1
Ct = r Ct 1
1 + B1
B1
vt+1 = r vt
1 + B1
50
Therefore,
At B1 r r B1
B1 ln At +B2 ln vt +B3 = ln ln vt + B1 ln At + B2 ln vt + B3
1 + B1 1 + B1 1 + B1
We solve this by equalizing the coe¢ cients on the di¤erent terms
B1 = (1 + B1 )
B2 = 1 + B2
B3 = (B1 + B2 ) ln B1 r (1 + B1 + B2 ) ln (1 + B1 ) + B3
1
B1 =
1
1
B2 =
1
Again using the FOC, we get
At
ct = = (1 ) At
1 + 11
51
Taking logs
0 = ln r ln ct+1 + ( (1 )) ln ct + (1 ) ln ct 1
(ln ct+1 ln ct ) = ln r (1 ) (ln ct ln ct 1 )
ln ct+1 ln ct = ln r
ln ct+1 ln ct gt+1
Then,
ln r (1 )
gt+1 = gt (7)
52
: : :
This can be analyzed by linearization. Suppose
rt+1 = ezt+1 r
where r = 1; giving a steady state of the economy.
Approximating around g = 0; z = 0,
(egt+1 ) ezt+1 r r gt+1 r + rzt+1
(1 )
(egt ) 1 + (1 ) gt
Giving
Et ( r gt+1 r + rzt+1 ) = 1 + (1 ) gt
(1 ) Et zt+1
Et gt+1 = gt + ;
which can provide interesting dynamics.
To understand the reason for the oscillatory behavior, it may be of help to
note that individuals with habits might prefer variations over time. Clearly,
when = 0; individuals are risk averse for > 0 and also averse to variations
over time. Consider instead the case when = 1: Assume that (individual
and aggregate) consumption is
c (1 + ") if t odd
ct =
c (1 ") else.
In this case, utility in even periods (multiplied by (1 ) for convenience)
is
1
1+"
ut =
1 "
and in odd
1
1 "
ut+1 =
1+"
we have
1 " 1 1
ut + ut+1 1+"
+ 1+"1 "
=
2 2
1 " 1 1
1+"
+ 1+"1 "
=
2
2 1 1 3 2 1 1 3
( 11+"" ) +( 11+"" ) 2 ( 11+"" ) +( 11+"" )
6d 2 7 "2 6
d 2 7
1 + "6
4
7
5 + 4 6 7
5
d" 2 d"2
"=0 "=0
2 2
= 1 + 2 (1 ) "
53
which is increasing in "2 :
1 ct 1 1 ct+1 1
Ut = + + V (At+2 ; vt+2 )
1 vt 1 vt+1
s.t. At+1 = (At ct ) rt+1 ; vt = ct 1 Ct1 1D
D
Therefore
!
1 1
@Ut 1 ct ct+1
= D
@ct ct t t+1
!
1 1 1
1 ct ct+1 t ct
= D
ct t ct t+1 t
!
1 1 1
1 ct ct+1 t
= 1 D
ct t ct t+1
54
implying
!
1 1 1
@Ut 1 ct ct+1 t
= 1 D (8)
@ct ct t ct t+1
!
1
1 xt+1
= ct t 1 D
xt
1
= ct t Ht+1
where
1
xt+1
Ht+1 1 D
xt
Clearly the marginal utility of consumption in t is increasing in Ht+1 :The
latter, in turn, is high when xt+1 is low relative to xt if > 0, and vice-versa
otherwise. So if growth is expected to be low between t and t + 1; and IES
is large ( > 0), this boosts the marginal utility of consumption. In other
words, an expectation of low growth has a negative e¤ect on savings. Note
that this goes against the standard smoothing results that if you expect low
income in the future, this strengthens the savings motive. Furthermore, in
asset market equilibrium, this e¤ect tends to reduce the price of assets, i.e.,
increasing the expected return.
Let us now …rst consider the case when D = 0: We will see that we can
get some interesting results for bond and asset returns.
When D = 0; Ht = 18t and @U t
@ct
= ct t 1 :The Euler equation implies
as usual
@Ut @Ut+1
= Et rt+1
@ct @ct+1
1
c
1 = Et rt+1 t+1 t+11
ct t
Now consider the endowment economy, where ct = yt and we de…ne
yt+1
xt+1 :
yt
Then, we have
1
c ( 1)
1 = Et rt+1 t+1 t+1
1 = Et rt+1 xt+1 xt
ct t
Now, consider a risky share that pays yt as dividend (the apple trees)
with price pr;t : The price of this asset must satisfy
pr;t+1 + yt+1
rr;t+1 = :
pr;t
55
Denoting the price-dividend ratio
pr;t
wt
yt
we can write
wt+1 yt+1 + yt+1
rr;t+1 = ;
wt yt
1 + wt+1
= xt+1 :
wt
Now, using this last expression for the return on stocks into the Euler
equation yields
( 1)
1 = Et rt+1 xt+1 xt
1 + wt+1 ( 1)
= Et xt+1 xt+1 xt
wt
( 1)
wt = xt Et (1 + wt+1 ) x1t+1 ;
since wt is known in t:
When growth rates are i.i.d., this can be calculated quite easily. In par-
ticular, we will show that the expression
1
Et (1 + wt+1 ) xt+1
for some A and verify that this satis…es the pricing equation (11).
Using our "guess", we have
( 1) ( 1) ( 1) 1
Axt = xt Et 1 + Axt+1 xt+1 ;
( 1)
A = Et 1 + Axt+1 x1t+1
( 1)+(1 )
= Et x1t+1 + Et Axt+1
1 (1 )(1 )
= Et xt+1 + Et Axt+1
Clearly, the RHS is a constant if growth rates are i.i.d. and we have
established that
( 1)
wt = Axt
56
where
Ex1
A =
1 Ex(1 )(1 )
To calculate the expected stock market return, we use
1 + wt+1
rr;t+1 = xt+1
wt
( 1)
1 + Axt+1
= ( 1)
xt+1
Axt
and
( 1)
1 + AEx
Et rr;t+1 = ( 1)
Ex
Axt
( 1)
1 + AEx
= ( 1)
Ex
Axt
As we see, the expected return is time dependent, despite the i.i.d. as-
sumption, provided 6= 0: Why?
Furthermore, if > 0; and < 1; the denominator decreases in xt and
yt
the expected return is thus higher when xt yt 1
is high. If > 1; the
opposite is true.
We can easily calculate the unconditional return, i.e., the average return
over time
1 + AEx ( 1)
Err = E Ex :
Ax ( 1)
In a similar fashion, the unconditional return on bonds is
Ex ( 1)
Erb =
(Ex )
Consider the special case when output growth x is lognormal, with mean
g and standard deviation :
Recall that then
1 2
Ex = eg+ 2 :
Furthermore, if ln x is normal, ln x = ln x is normal with mean g and
standard deviation :Thus,
2 2
g+
Ex = e 2 :
57
Now, let ln x be normally distributed with mean g and standard deviation
. Then,
(1 )2 2
Ex1 e(1 )g+ 2
A = = ))2 2
1 Ex(1 )(1 )
1 e(1 )(1 )g+
((1 )(1
2
( 1)
( 1) 1 + AEx
ln Err = ln Ex Ex
AEx ( 1)
2 2 !
1))2
( 1)g+( ( 1)) 2 2 eg+ 2 + Ae(1+ ( 1))g+(1+ ( 2
= ln e 2
A
and
Ex ( 1)
ln ERB rB = ln
(Ex )
( ( 1))2 2
!
( 1)g+
e 2
= ln 2 2
g+
e 2
( ( 1))2 2 2
= ( ( 1)) g + ln
2
Setting, = 0; = 0:036; g = 0:018; = :99 and plotting against rs and
rB against 1 ; we have the no habit case.
58
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 2 4 Relative Riskaversion
6 8 10 12
Average stockmarket return rS (solid line) and safe return rB against risk
aversion ( ): Standard utility ( = 0):
59
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 2 4 Relative riskaversion
6 8 10 12
Average stockmarket return rS (solid line) and safe return rB against risk
aversion ( ): Extrenal Habit ( = 1):
As we see, the stock market return quickly becomes very high as we reduce
:
60
Now, it is convenient to …nd an expression for
@Ut+1
@ct+1
@Ut
Et @ct
61
since wt is known in t:
From (10), we have
De…ne
( 1) 1
Jt Et (Ht+1 ) = 1 Dxt Et xt+1 :
Then we have
( 1) 1
xt Et (1 + wt+1 ) Jt+1 xt+1
wt = : (11)
Jt
We now need to …nd wt as a function of state variables (which are they?)
that satis…es (11).
When growth rates are i.i.d., this can be calculated quite easily. In par-
ticular, we will show that the expression
62
is constant at some value A, so that we can write
( 1)
Axt
wt =
Jt
for some A and verify that this satis…es the pricing equation (11).
Using our "guess", we have
( 1)
! !
( 1) ( 1)
Axt xt Ax t+1
= Et 1+ Jt+1 x1t+1
Jt Jt Jt+1
( 1)
! !
Axt+1 1
A = Et 1+ Jt+1 xt+1
Jt+1
1 ( 1)+(1 )
= Et Jt+1 xt+1 + Et Axt+1
(1 )(1 )
= Et Jt+1 x1t+1 + Et Axt+1
So
(1 )(1 )
A 1 Et xt+1 = Et Jt+1 x1t+1 (12)
Now, under the assumption of i.i.d. output (consumption) shocks,
we have
Jt = Et Ht+1
( 1)
= 1 Dxt Et x1t+1
( 1)
= 1 Dxt Ex1
so
( 1)
Jt+1 = 1 Dxt+1 Ex1
( 1)
Jt+1 x1t+1 1
= xt+1 1 Dxt+1 Ex1
63
Finally, use this in (12), and use the i.i.d. assumption to replace condi-
tional expectations
(1 )(1 )
A 1 Et xt+1 = Ex1 1 DE x(1 )(1 )
S pSt+1 + yt+1
Rt+1 =
pSt+
(1 + wt+1 ) xt+1
=
wt
and
( 1)
Axt+1
Et 1+ Jt+1
xt+1
S
Et Rt+1 =
wt
1+ ( 1)
Axt+1
Ex + Et Jt+1
= ( 1)
Axt
Jt
64
7 Loss-Aversion
Substantial amounts of lab-evidence suggests that individuals behave like if
the formed reference levels for consumption. Preferences over actual con-
sumption then depend in a particular way of consumption relative to this
reference level. Speci…cally, preferences are consistent with utility maximiza-
tion if
3. marginal utility is discretely larger below the reference level than what
it is above.
1. Individuals have a strict distaste also for abitrarily small gambles (be-
cause of the discontinuity).
2. Individuals are risk-lovers for losses. This means that they may prefer
a 50/50 bet of loosing x or nothing over a sure loss of x=2:
Kahneman & Tversky proposes
(c r) if c r
u (c r) =
( (c r)) else
65
and in lab-experiments …nds that = = 0:88; and = 2:25as in the
following graph1
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
66
Let r denote the reference level for consumption. Then, the expected
utility of the …rst strategy is
1 1
u (w r) + u (w r) + u (w 2x r)
2 2
1
0+0 (2x)
2
and for the second strategy is it
1 1 1 1 3
u w r x + u w+ x r + u w x r
2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 3
= x + x x
2 2 2 2
The di¤erence is
!
1 1 1 1 3
(2x) x + x x
2 2 2 2 2
!
1+
1 1 3 1
= (2) + + x x
2 2 2 2
Under the assumption a = ; this is positive if
!
1+
1 1 3 1
(2) + + > 0
2 2 2 2
1 1+
2 2 1 1
> 2 ;
2 +2 1
+ 2 3 4 2
2 2
Due to the convexity of utility in losses, its better to take a chance that
consumption might not need to be reduced below the reference point. In
other words, there is a tendency that consumption does not fall "unless it is
clear that it has to". Bowman et al documents such an asymmetry in U.S.
consumption data.
In a dynamic setting, a key issue is how reference points are formed.
Unfortunately, not much empirical evidence is collected regarding this issue.
Bowman et al assume r1 ; the reference point for period 1, is given and that
r2 = (1 ) r1 + c 1
If = 0; we have the case discussed above –static reference points. For
= 1; next periods reference points is completely determined by the previous
periods consumption. Here, we could think both of the case when the agent
internalize the e¤ect her consumption has on the reference point and the case
when she doesn’t (due to naivite or external reference points).
67
7.1 Loss-aversion as commitment (Hassler&Rodriguez
Mora)
Two types of rational and non-altruistic individuals, (poor) workers
and entrepreneurs, living in a two period OLG-setup.
As Köszegi and Rabin, we consider the case when reference points for
consumption are forward-looking. We can refrase reference points for
cosumption in terms of the corresponding tax-level, r :
r
We require t+1 to be in the set of equilibrium tax rates for t + 1.
68
7.1.1 Results
Under both backward and forward-looking reference points, there is a Markov
equilibrium with limited amounts of taxation. Dynamics di¤er between the
two cases.
The level of taxation in equilibrium depends inversely on on the degree
of loss-aversion.
Intuition: If people have reference points, implying that they feel "enti-
tled" to some return on their investments – if becomes politically costly to
go against this. If the entitlements are not too large, they will be satis…ed in
equilibrium.
69