1 / 8

Investments , Wed. April 8, ’09

Investments , Wed. April 8, ’09. Practical stuff: External forces (this time the admin’) means that Tuesday April 21 is turned in ”unsupervised tuition”. You’ll get Hand-In #2 to work on. And we’ll make it up from 8-9 on April 23 + 24.

cjames
Download Presentation

Investments , Wed. April 8, ’09

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Investments, Wed. April 8, ’09 Practical stuff: • External forces (this time the admin’) means that Tuesday April 21 is turned in ”unsupervised tuition”. You’ll get Hand-In #2 to work on. And we’ll make it up from 8-9 on April 23 + 24. • I have posted two old exams and answers on the homepage. (This is the sum total in existence.)

  2. Today: Shape’s Chapter 4. Focus: Pricing relations. If Chapter 3 looked like standard microeconomics to you, then Chapter 4 looks like standard asset pricing (though probably not to you). But again, the fact that we get specific adds considerable twists.

  3. One way to express what the CAPM says: All investor returns depend only on the market return. And the dependence is linear. In Case 6 we’ll see both these conclusions fail!

  4. We start by looking at a bigger, more realistic financial market: • 10 states(scenarios; telling names); note how there are one 5 ”market states” (the intepretation is clear here; it isn’t always). • 5 assets (index funds; ”ditto”) • 2 agents (investors; ”ditto”)

  5. The non-dependence problem is caused by incompleteness: Not all simple state claims are traded. We will show that in a complete(d) market, investor returns do depend solely (and positively) on the market return (~aggregate consumption).

  6. First, we’ll do it with APSIM; Case 7. Second, we’ll do it mathematically/logically; Sharpe 4.4-4.8. Third, we will go to incomplete models 4.9+ and start a journey towards pricing relations, formulas. ”Can we get CAPM?” (Yes – and/but that’s not all.)

  7. Sharpe’s Sections 4.11 & 4.12 If there is a functional relationship (over scenarios) between price per chance and market return, R_M, then there exists (an economically meaniningful) pricing kernel, f, and we get (as pure algebra) the relation E(R_i) – r = b(i,M; f) (E(R_M) - r), where b(i,M;f) = cov(R_i,f)/cov(R_M,f).

  8. Economically meaningful means that there is a good chance that it will work well for the pricing of new securities, even in incomplete markets. Looks like CAPM to the casual observer. It’s not quite, because we need to know more about the exact nature of the functional relationship to get something really useful: • Linear -> std. CAPM (Shaprpe 4.15-16) • Log-linear -> power CAPM (Sharpe 4.17)

More Related