scholarly journals Growth-Rate and Uncertainty Shocks in Consumption: Cross-Country Evidence

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emi Nakamura ◽  
Dmitriy Sergeyev ◽  
Jón Steinsson

We provide new estimates of the importance of growth-rate shocks and uncertainty shocks for developed countries. The shocks we estimate are large and correspond to well-known macroeconomic episodes such as the Great Moderation and the productivity slowdown. We compare our results to earlier estimates of “ long-run risks” and assess the implications for asset pricing. Our estimates yield greater return predictability and a more volatile price-dividend ratio. In addition, we can explain a substantial fraction of cross-country variation in the equity premium. An advantage of our approach, based on macroeconomic data alone, is that the parameter estimates cannot be viewed as backward engineered to fit asset pricing data. We provide intuition for our results using the recently developed framework of shock-exposure and shock-price elasticities. (JEL E21, E32, E44, G12, G35)

2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (9) ◽  
pp. 2680-2697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry G. Epstein ◽  
Emmanuel Farhi ◽  
Tomasz Strzalecki

Though risk aversion and the elasticity of intertemporal substitution have been the subjects of careful scrutiny, the long-run risks literature as well as the broader literature using recursive utility to address asset pricing puzzles has ignored the full implications of their parameter specifications. Recursive utility implies that the temporal resolution of risk matters and a quantitative assessment thereof should be part of the calibration process. This paper gives a sense of the magnitudes of implied timing premia. Its objective is to inject temporal resolution of risk into the discussion of the quantitative properties of long-run risks and related models. (JEL D81, G11, G12)


Author(s):  
Mathias S Kruttli

Abstract This article analyzes whether consumption-based asset pricing models improve the excess returns forecasts of a hypothetical investor with access to these models from 1947 onwards. The investor imposes economic constraints derived from asset pricing models as model-based priors on predictive regression parameters through a Bayesian framework. Three models are considered: habit formation, long-run risk, and prospect theory. The model-based priors generally perform better than priors that shrink the parameter estimates to the historical average model and priors that impose a positive equity premium. This analysis helps to assess the value of consumption-based asset pricing models to investors.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiguang (Gerald) Wang ◽  
Prasad V. Bidarkota

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (015) ◽  
pp. 1-71
Author(s):  
Chris Anderson ◽  

I analyze the implications of allowing consumers to make mistakes on the risk-return relationships predicted by consumption-based asset pricing models. I allow for consumption mistakes using a model in which a portfolio manager selects investments on a consumer's behalf. The consumer has an arbitrary consumption policy that could reflect a wide range of mistakes. For power utility, expected returns do not generally depend on exposure to single-period consumption shocks, but robustly depend on exposure to both long-run consumption and expected return shocks. I empirically show that separately accounting for both types of shocks helps explain the equity premium and cross section of stock returns.


2018 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 1061-1111 ◽  
Author(s):  
WALTER POHL ◽  
KARL SCHMEDDERS ◽  
OLE WILMS

Author(s):  
Kerry E. Back

Various models proposed to explain the equity premium or risk‐free rate puzzle are explained: external habits (Abel’s “catching up with the Joneses” model and the Campbell‐Cochrane model), rare disasters, Epstein‐Zin‐Weil utility, long run risks, and idiosyncratic uninsurable labor income risk. External habits allow the SDF to be variable without requiring high variability of consumption. The SDF for a representative investor with Epstein‐Zin‐Weil utility depends on consumption and the market return. It is most useful when the world is not IID, as in the long‐run risks model. With uninsurable labor income risk, there is no representative investor even if investors all have the same CRRA utility, and there is additional exibility to explain asset returns.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document