Marty Weitzman is smarter than I am …This is brilliant. I should have seen this. I should have seen this sixteen years ago. I almost saw this sixteen years ago.Weitzman’s idea1 is the replace the sample distributions of returns on equity and debt with reasonable Bayesian subjective distributions. These have much fatter tails, allowing for a higher risk premium, lower risk free rate and higher volatility, in the context of a socially optimal market outcome. Here are some of the reasons why this is important
My immediate reaction is the same as Brad’s. Something like this has occurred to me too, but I’ve never thought hard enough or cleverly enough about it how to work it out properly. This is a very impressive achievement, and Marty Weitzman is very, very smart (which we already knew).
My second reaction is a little more sceptical. Some previous attempts at resolving the equity premium have focused on the tails of the distribution, and the possibility of catastrophic loss. Tthe problem was that it was difficult to describe an outcome where the return on equity was large and negative, but bonds were still a safe asset. The various catastrophic examples cited, such as hyperinflation, revolution and nuclear war all failed in this respect.
Applying the same reasoning to Weitzman’s argument, we need to consider whether there is a reasonable model of a stable capitalist economy, with functional financial markets, that produces a negative long-run rate of growth in outptu per person. The only one I can imagine is based on resource exhaustion, and I can’t really see belief (positive probability weight) in such a model being widespread enough to generate the observed equity premium. With less confidence, I’d assert that there are pretty good technological reasons to rule out a sustained rate of productivity growth (embodied and disembodied) of more than 5 per cent, for countries that are already at the frontier. The maximum sustainable rate of growth of output per person cannot be much above this.
I haven’t been able to check the math, but I doubt that a complete Bayesian explanation of the equity premium puzzle can be obtained if the prior distribution on the long-run rate of growth is bounded in this way.
My third reaction is eclectic. My general view is that there is no one explanation of the equity premium, but a set of problems with the standard consumption-based model of asset pricing (CCAPM) that interact to produce results radically different from those of the model. Making expectations Bayesian rather than classical will amplify the effects of any other deviation in the model, and therefore fit neatly into this story.
1 The only version of the paper I’ve seen so far is a PDF file in which the maths has not come through. But I think I’ve got the basic idea.
whether there is a reasonable model of a stable capitalist economy, with functional financial markets, that produces a negative long-run rate of growth in outptu per person.
I think that the “representative agent” model, intrinsic to this reasoning, doesn’t make a ton of sense.
I’m most interested in the effect of this piece on the sociology of the econometrics profession. To my mind, it’s been known for ages that Bayesian approaches are vastly more suited to a whole raft of economics problems than classical statistics, but somehow, nobody can be bothered to use or teach them as standard. A high-profile article showing (to more or less devastating effect) how misuse of the classical version of the linear regression model led to untold wasted effort and needless puzzlement would be a most salutary paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense).
kimmitt, I’m no fan of representative agent models and ex post heterogeneity is an important part of my preferred approach to the puzzle, developed by Greg Mankiw who is now Bush’s economic advisor.
DD, I agree entirely.
John, DD, Standard operating procedure in economics I’m afraid. Massive amounts of effort without the slightest regard for the prospectivity of the vein one is working in. Thus we have whole fields that take decades of hard work to fizzle out into the dismal non-result that was predicted by those who thought sensibly about their prospectivity from the start - like strategic trade theory for instance. That’s not to say that all areas are like this, they’re not, but its infuriating to see how ubiquitous the mountaneers approach is. I used the techniques “because they were there”, not because it seemed plausible that they’d yield a worthwhile result. Oh well.
John, tracking back to your earlier comments on the implications of the equity premium puzzle, you seem to limit the idea of govt participation in the economy to ownership of enterprises. There’s also share investment, which the govt can hold at arms length in a portfolio. Like you, what got me started thinking in this way was not the theory but observing the RBA doing something that Tobin spoke of - participating in markets so as to make them more rational. I am thinking of the RBA’s contrarian behaviour on the foreign exchange markets during the 1980s in particular. This was very benign. It smoothed peaks and troughs in the foreign exchange markets (improving their efficiency) and it made a pot of money for the Government. It stopped making so much money I think at around the time it came up with a very different additional strategy of ‘smoothing and testing’ (which may be sensible but seems pretty bereft of any well thought through theoretical foundation to me).
I have always thought there was a case for governments doing this more broadly in other markets. I’ve argued elsewhere that governments could do something similar by holding more debt and equity and also varying their exposure in a contrarian and countercyclical direction.
John, you ask for a situation where stocks could land up doing rather worse than bonds that is not absurd.
You may not believe it is realistic, but an example of this would be capture of firms by management that is so complete that the bulk of profits are siphoned off as salary, bonuses etc, leaving miniscule dividends or retained profits, but while all laws continue to be followed, in particular bonds are repaid fully and on schedule.
As I said, it’s now arguable as to whether this will happen, and what roadblocks might occur along the way, but I don’t think it’s outright ludicrous.
Simon Grant and I looked at share ownership in the context of social security
Grant, S. and Quiggin, J. (2002), ‘The risk premium for equity: implications for Clinton’s proposed diversification of the social security fund’, American Economic Review 92(5), 1104-15.
On Maynard’s idea I agree that there are various possibilities of redistribution. These have very different implications from those of the case when negative returns on equity result from negative output growth.
To be honest, I have a lot of sympathy for Maynard’s point. I’ve never believed that there is any such thing as a risk-free asset (it’s always seemed to me to be a phrase rather like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence). I seem to remember that one of the earliest posts on D^2D had a competition for anyone who could name something that was a genuinely risk-free asset. I also seem to remember that Michael Froomkin won it, but I never sent him his prize, thus teaching the world a lesson about risk or something.
John, could you provide a link to that PDF? ‘twould be much appreciated.
“With less confidence, I’d assert that there are pretty good technological reasons to rule out a sustained rate of productivity growth (embodied and disembodied) of more than 5 per cent, for countries that are already at the frontier. The maximum sustainable rate of growth of output per person cannot be much above this.”
Interesting; I’d say quite the opposite. Considering that much productivity today is the productivity of machines, not people, and that automation engineers are bcoming more and more successful at “closing the loop”, (Look at the phenomnenon of “lights out” factories.) it’s entirely plausible that in the relatively near future productivity in a great deal of the industrial economy won’t be tied to human labor. A rate of growth based solely on raw materials and energy contraints could, for at least a short while, exceed 100% per year.
But “sustained”? No, I suppose not, unless we got off planet. “Sustained” high rates of growth would run up against the limits of energy and the Earth’s heat budget fairly quickly. A typical “S” curve of growth as seen all the time in biology is more plausible.
Brett, the problem here is that the activities where automation is feasible are, in most cases, shrinking relative to national income. Meanwhile, activities like health care are growing.
This occurs because, mostly, own-price elasticities are less than one.
This is a near-final version of the Grant-Quiggin paper. As I mentioned, I don’t have access to a proper version of the Weitzman paper yet.
“My general view is that there is no one explanation of the equity premium, but a set of problems with the standard consumption-based model of asset pricing (CCAPM)” - This standpoint seems safe enough. Consider the alternative: because of shortcomings in the basic description of uncertainty, economists have for decades failed to describe such basic entities in the economy as the approximate levels of asset returns (and what else…). An impressing display of smartness?
John:
Will you post a link when the Weitzman paper comes online?
I’m sure we’d all love to read it.
Otherwise I’ll trot down to the U of T campus and bug Henry for a copy. :-)
John,
I agree with your assessment that the equity premium puzzle is most likely caused by several factors. What bothers me about the Weitzman paper, and the blogosphere reaction to it, is that he is far from the first one to introduce model and / or parameter uncertainty into the consumption CAPM in a Bayesian framework. I am a corporate finance person, not an asset pricer, but I vividly remember sitting in seminars by Lubos Pastor and Rob Stambaugh at least six or seven years ago in which they presented models along these line. They even incorporated Bayesian learning into their models, at least if my memory doesn’t fail me. Also, Nick Baberis job market paper had a simple model of optimal portfolio choice under parameter uncertainty. I haven’t read the Weitzman paper yet, but my guess right now is that this is a case of somebody blissfully unaware of the literature in a field (that is not his) doing some work that has been done long before, and people who are equally unfamiliar with the field getting all excited because it is the first time they hear about the result.
Dirk, both Brad DeLong and I have published articles on the equity premium in major journals. I’ve even written a (so far unpublished), survey article. Describing us as “equally unfamiliar with the field” doesn’t seem entirely accurate.
The literature on the equity premium is gigantic, and no-one nowadays can be aware of every paper. In addition, as I point out in my post, it’s well-known that the basic idea has been tried before, most obviously by Riesz - Weitzman’s innovation is in having a fully Bayesian approach. I will chase the papers you mention, however.
John,
I apologize if I sounded disrespectful, I actually read your survey arcticle with Simon Grant (if that’s the one you mean) a few months ago and learned a lot from it. There was a lot of talk about both Bayesian learning and robust control approaches to tackling the equity premium puzzle in the Harvard Econ department when I did my PhD there (1997-2002), with John Campbell and Gary Chamberlain encouraging students to work along these lines. Nicholas Baberis had graduate just before I arrived and gone to Chicago, but came back as a visitor and taught asset pricing to us in my seond year. His job market paper on optimal portfolio choice under parameter uncertainty was published in the Journal of Finance in 2000. His modelling approach was really simple, but other people have by now added a lot of technical bells and whistles. A little later than Barberis, Lubos Pastor was doing his PhD at Wharton under Rob Stambaugh and worked on both model and parameter uncertainty. Lubos Pasor went to Chicago and you should be able to find his papers on this webpage there, including a very relevant paper written with Stambaugh.
John,
I apologize if I sounded disrespectful, I actually read your survey arcticle with Simon Grant (if that’s the one you mean) a few months ago and learned a lot from it. There was a lot of talk about both Bayesian learning and robust control approaches to tackling the equity premium puzzle in the Harvard Econ department when I did my PhD there (1997-2002), with John Campbell and Gary Chamberlain encouraging students to work along these lines. Nicholas Baberis had graduated just before I arrived and gone to Chicago, but came back as a visitor and taught asset pricing to us in my seond year. His job market paper on optimal portfolio choice under parameter uncertainty was published in the Journal of Finance in 2000. His modelling approach was really simple, but other people have by now added a lot of technical bells and whistles. A little later than Barberis, Lubos Pastor was doing his PhD at Wharton under Rob Stambaugh and worked on both model and parameter uncertainty. Lubos Pasor went to Chicago and you should be able to find his papers on this webpage there, including a very relevant paper written with Stambaugh.
Thanks Dirk and sorry if I was a little touchy.
I downloaded the Pastor-Stambaugh paper on structural breaks from NBER, which looks interesting and relevant, but doesn’t seem to discuss the implied degree of risk aversion.Is that the one you meant?
Baberis also sounds interesting, though, as you say, slightly tangential. I’ll chase it as soon as I get some free time.
John,
I mostly meant the earlier paper by Pastor and Stambaugh, I think from 1999, and Lubos Pastor’s job market paper, published in 2000. But instead on relying on the bad memory of someone who has not really been thinking about these papers for years, I walked across the hall and talked to some people who actually have a clue. Here is the recommended reading list I received for Bayesian models related to the equity premium puzzle: Anything by Kandel and Stambaugh, especially their 1996 JF paper. Anything by Brennan and Xia, especially their 2001 JME paper. Pietro Veronesi (1999 RFS). Lewellen and Shanken (2002 JF). Bansal and Yaron (2004, forthcoming JF). I do not know how complete this list is, but I think it confirms my impression that Weitzman is probably not the first one to apply Bayesian methods to optimal portfolio selection and / or the related equilibrium models.
Dan/John,
I have a question (since I don’t know all that much about the Equity gap literature).
Almost all of the papers or discussions I see focus on the fact that the “average rate of return” for equities is too high. Isn’t average rate of return the wrong thing to be measuring because we are dealing with products not sums?
As an extreme case, suppose 1 year I have a 200% return, and the next year I have a -100% return, then my average rate of return is 50%, despite me having no money at all. The measurement should be the expected value of the log of 1 + the return (E log (1+r)) rather than Er. Of course, this doesn’t take into account time preference as easily but it does demonstrate that average rate of return will overestimate actual return (Jensen’s inequality gives it generally).
I thought the intent of the post was to introduce some new vocabulary words, and they are some doozies. I’m about one-third the way through.
All I can say about that guy- he needs to get out more.
Jason; yes, absolutely, but it turns out that even if you calculate it correctly, the problem is still there.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review