DOCSLIB.ORG

The Mincer Equation and Beyond1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Mincer Equation and Beyond1 Chapter 7 EARNINGS FUNCTIONS, RATES OF RETURN AND TREATMENT EFFECTS: THE MINCER EQUATION AND BEYOND1 JAMES J. HECKMAN Department of Economics, University of Chicago, 1126 East 59th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA e-mail: [email protected] LANCE J. LOCHNER Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Street N, London, ON, N6A 5C2, Canada e-mail: [email protected] PETRA E. TODD Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 20 McNeil, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA e-mail: [email protected] Contents Abstract 310 Keywords 310 1. Introduction 311 2. The theoretical foundations of Mincer’s earnings regression 315 2.1. The compensating differences model 315 2.2. The accounting-identity model 316 Implications for log earnings–age and log earnings–experience profiles and for the inter- personal distribution of life-cycle earnings 318 1 Heckman is Henry Schultz Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and Distinguished Professor of Science and Society, University College Dublin. Lochner is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Western Ontario. Todd is Professor of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania. The first part of this chapter was prepared in June 1998. It previously circulated under the title “Fifty Years of Mincer Earnings Regressions”. Heckman’s research was supported by NIH R01-HD043411, NSF 97-09-873, NSF SES-0099195 and NSF SES-0241858. We thank Christian Belzil, George Borjas, Pedro Carneiro, Flavio Cunha, Jim Davies, Reuben Gronau, Eric Hanushek, Lawrence Katz, John Knowles, Mario Macis, Derek Neal, Aderonke Osikominu, Dan Schmierer, Jora Stixrud, Ben Williams, Kenneth Wolpin, and participants at the 2001 AEA Annual Meeting, the Labor Studies Group at the 2001 NBER Summer Institute, and participants at Stanford University and Yale University seminars for helpful comments. Our great regret is that Sherwin Rosen, our departed friend and colleague, who thought long and hard about the issues discussed in this chapter could not give us the benefit of his wisdom. Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 1 Edited by Eric A. Hanushek and Finis Welch © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved DOI: 10.1016/S1574-0692(06)01007-5 308 J.J. Heckman et al. 3. Empirical evidence on the Mincer model 320 4. Estimating internal rates of return 327 4.1. How alternative specifications of the Mincer equation and accounting for taxes and tuition affect estimates of the internal rate of return (IRR) 330 4.2. Accounting for uncertainty in a static version of the model 338 5. The internal rate of return and the sequential resolution of uncertainty 342 6. How do cross-sectional IRR estimates compare with cohort-based estimates? 358 7. Accounting for the endogeneity of schooling 364 7.1. Estimating the mean growth rate of earnings when ri is observed 367 7.2. Estimating the mean growth rate when ri is not observed 369 7.3. Adding selection bias 369 7.4. Summary 370 8. Accounting systematically for heterogeneity in returns to schooling: What does IV estimate? 370 8.1. The generalized Roy model of schooling 374 8.2. Defining treatment effects in the generalized Roy model and relating them to true rates of return 381 8.3. Understanding why IV estimates exceed OLS estimates of the schooling coefficient 386 8.4. Estimating the MTE 390 8.5. Evidence from the instrumental variables literature 392 8.6. The validity of the conventional instruments 403 8.7. Summary of the modern literature on instrumental variables 406 9. Estimating distributions of returns to schooling 407 Example 1. Access to a single test score 413 Example 2. Two (or more) periods of panel data on earnings 415 10. Ex ante and ex post returns: Distinguishing heterogeneity from uncertainty 417 10.1. A generalized Roy model 418 10.2. Identifying information sets in the Card model 420 10.3. Identifying information sets 422 10.4. An approach based on factor structures 424 10.5. More general preferences and market settings 428 10.6. Evidence on uncertainty and heterogeneity of returns 429 10.6.1. Identifying joint distributions of counterfactuals and the role of costs and ability as determinants of schooling 430 10.6.2. Ex ante and ex post returns: Heterogeneity versus uncertainty 437 10.6.3. Ex ante versus ex post 438 10.7. Extensions and alternative specifications 441 10.8. Models with sequential updating of information 441 11. Summary and conclusions 442 Appendix A: Derivation of the overtaking age 446 Appendix B: Data description 448 Census data 448 Current Population Survey (CPS) data 449 Ch. 7: Earnings Functions, Rates of Return and Treatment Effects 309 Tuition time series 449 Tax rate time series 449 Appendix C: Local linear regression 450 Tests of parallelism 451 References 451 310 J.J. Heckman et al. Abstract Numerous studies regress log earnings on schooling and report estimated coefficients as “Mincer rates of return”. A more recent literature uses instrumental variables. This chapter considers the economic interpretation of these analyses and how the availabil- ity of repeated cross section and panel data improves the ability of analysts to estimate the rate of return. We consider under what conditions the Mincer model estimates an ex post rate of return. We test and reject the model on six cross sections of U.S. Cen- sus data. We present a general nonparametric approach for estimating marginal internal rates of return that takes into account tuition, income taxes and forms of uncertainty. We also contrast estimates based on a single cross-section of data, using the synthetic cohort approach, with estimates based on repeated cross-sections following actual co- horts. Cohort-based models fitted on repeated cross section data provide more reliable estimates of ex post returns. Accounting for uncertainty affects estimates of rates of return. Accounting for se- quential revelation of information calls into question the validity of the internal rate of return as a tool for policy analysis. An alternative approach to computing economic rates of return that accounts for sequential revelation of information is proposed and the evidence is summarized. We distinguish ex ante from ex post returns. New panel data methods for estimating the uncertainty and psychic costs facing agents are reviewed. We report recent evidence that demonstrates that there are large psychic costs of schooling. This helps to explain why persons do not attend school even though the financial re- wards for doing so are high. We present methods for computing distributions of returns ex ante and ex post. We review the literature on instrumental variable estimation. The link of the estimates to the economics is not strong. The traditional instruments are weak, and this literature has not produced decisive empirical estimates. We exposit new methods that interpret the economic content of different instruments within a unified framework. Keywords rate of return to schooling, internal rate of return, uncertainty, psychic costs, panel data, distribution JEL classification:C31 Ch. 7: Earnings Functions, Rates of Return and Treatment Effects 311 1. Introduction Earnings functions are the most widely used empirical equations in labor economics and the economics of education. Almost daily, new estimates of “rates of return” to school- ing are reported, based on numerous instrumental variable and ordinary least squares estimates. For many reasons, few of these estimates are true rates of return. The internal rate of return to schooling was introduced as a central concept of human capital theory by Becker (1964). It is widely sought after and rarely obtained. Under certain conditions which we discuss in this chapter, high internal rates of return to ed- ucation relative to those of other investment alternatives signal the relative profitability of investment in education. Given the centrality of this parameter to economic policy making and the recent interest in wage inequality and the structure of wages, there have been surprisingly few estimates of the internal rate of return to education reported in the literature and surprisingly few justifications of the numbers that are reported as rates of return. The reported rates of return largely focus on the college–high school wage differential and ignore the full ingredients required to obtain a rate of return. The re- cent instrumental variable literature estimates various treatment effects which are only loosely related to rates of return. In common usage, the coefficient on schooling in a regression of log earnings on years of schooling is often called a rate of return. In fact, it is a price of schooling from a hedonic market wage equation. It is a growth rate of market earnings with years of schooling and not an internal rate of return measure, except under stringent conditions which we specify, test and reject in this chapter. The justification for interpreting the coefficient on schooling as a rate of return derives from a model by Becker and Chiswick (1966). It was popularized and estimated by Mincer (1974) and is now called the Mincer model.1 This model is widely used as a vehicle for estimating “returns” to schooling quality,2 for measuring the impact of work experience on male–female wage gaps,3 and as a basis for economic studies of returns to education in developing countries.4 It has been estimated using data from a variety of countries and time periods. Recent studies in growth economics use the Mincer model to analyze the relationship between growth and average schooling levels across countries.5 Using the same type of data and the same empirical conventions employed by Mincer and many other scholars, we test the assumptions that justify interpreting the coefficient on years of schooling as a rate of return. We exposit the Mincer model, showing con- ditions under which the coefficient in a pricing equation (the “Mincer” coefficient) is 1 See, e.g., Psacharopoulos (1981), Psacharopoulos and Patrinos (2004) and Willis (1986) for extensive surveys of Mincer returns.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MPFD Lesson 2B: Meeting Financial Goals—Rate of Return
    Unit 2 Planning and Tracking Lesson 2B: Meeting Financial Goals—Rate of Return Rule 2: Have a Plan. Financial success depends primarily on two things: (i) developing a plan to meet your established goals and (ii) tracking your progress with respect to that plan. Too often peo - ple set vague goals (“I want to be rich.”), make unrealistic plans, or never bother to assess the progress toward their goals. These lessons look at important financial indicators you should understand and monitor both in setting goals and attaining them. Lesson Description Students are shown the two ways investments can earn a return and then calculate the annual rate of return, the real rate of return, and the expected rate of return on various assets. Standards and Benchmarks (see page 49) Grade Level 9-12 Concepts Appreciation Depreciation Expected rate of return Inflation Inflation rate Rate of return Real rate of return Return Making Personal Finance Decisions ©2019, Minnesota Council on Economic Education. Developed in partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Permission is granted to reprint or photocopy this lesson in its entirety for educational purposes, provided the user credits the Minnesota Council on Economic Education. 37 Unit 2: Planning and Tracking Lesson 2B: Meeting Financial Goals—Rate of Return Compelling Question How is an asset’s rate of return measured? Objectives Students will be able to • describe two ways that an asset can earn a return and • determine and distinguish among the rate of return on an asset, its real rate of return, and its expected rate of return.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wisdom of the Robinhood Crowd
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE WISDOM OF THE ROBINHOOD CROWD Ivo Welch Working Paper 27866 http://www.nber.org/papers/w27866 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 September 2020, Revised December 2020 The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2020 by Ivo Welch. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. The Wisdom of the Robinhood Crowd Ivo Welch NBER Working Paper No. 27866 September 2020, Revised December 2020 JEL No. D9,G11,G4 ABSTRACT Robinhood (RH) investors collectively increased their holdings in the March 2020 COVID bear market, indicating an absence of panic and margin calls. Their steadfastness was rewarded in the subsequent bull market. Despite unusual interest in some “experience” stocks, their aggregated consensus portfolio (likely mimicking the household-equal-weighted portfolio) primarily tilted towards stocks with high past share volume and dollar-trading volume. These were mostly big stocks. Both their timing and their consensus portfolio performed well from mid-2018 to mid-2020. Ivo Welch Anderson School at UCLA (C519) 110 Westwood Place (951481) Los Angeles, CA 90095-1482 and NBER [email protected] The online retail brokerage company Robinhood (RH) was founded in 2013 based on a business plan to make it easier and cheaper for small investors to participate in the stock and option markets.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Empirical Asset Pricing Approach By
    AN OVERVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL ASSET PRICING APPROACH BY Dr. GBAGU EJIROGHENE EMMANUEL TABLE OF CONTENT Introduction 1 Historical Background of Asset Pricing Theory 2-3 Model and Theory of Asset Pricing 4 Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM): 4 Capital Asset Pricing Model Formula 4 Example of Capital Asset Pricing Model Application 5 Capital Asset Pricing Model Assumptions 6 Advantages associated with the use of the Capital Asset Pricing Model 7 Hitches of Capital Pricing Model (CAPM) 8 The Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT): 9 The Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) Formula 10 Example of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory Application 10 Assumptions of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory 11 Advantages associated with the use of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory 12 Hitches associated with the use of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) 13 Actualization 14 Conclusion 15 Reference 16 INTRODUCTION This paper takes a critical examination of what Asset Pricing is all about. It critically takes an overview of its historical background, the model and Theory-Capital Asset Pricing Model and Arbitrary Pricing Theory as well as those who introduced/propounded them. This paper critically examines how securities are priced, how their returns are calculated and the various approaches in calculating their returns. In this Paper, two approaches of asset Pricing namely Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) as well as the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) are examined looking at their assumptions, advantages, hitches as well as their practical computation using their formulae in their examination as well as their computation. This paper goes a step further to look at the importance Asset Pricing to Accountants, Financial Managers and other (the individual investor).
    [Show full text]
  • Dividend Valuation Models Prepared by Pamela Peterson Drake, Ph.D., CFA
    Dividend valuation models Prepared by Pamela Peterson Drake, Ph.D., CFA Contents 1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. The basic model .......................................................................................................................... 1 3. Non-constant growth in dividends ................................................................................................. 5 A. Two-stage dividend growth ...................................................................................................... 5 B. Three-stage dividend growth .................................................................................................... 5 C. The H-model ........................................................................................................................... 7 4. The uses of the dividend valuation models .................................................................................... 8 5. Stock valuation and market efficiency ......................................................................................... 10 6. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 10 7. Index ........................................................................................................................................ 11 8. Further readings .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Factor Models a (Linear) Factor Model Assumes That the Rate of Return of an Asset Is Given By
    1Factor Models The Markowitz mean-variance framework requires having access to many parameters: If there are n risky assets, with rates of return ri,i=1, 2,...,n, then we must know 2 − all the n means (ri), n variances (σi ) and n(n 1)/2covariances (σij) for a total of 2n + n(n − 1)/2 parameters. If for example n = 100 we would need 4750 parameters, and if n = 1000 we would need 501, 500 parameters! At best we could try to estimate these, but how? In fact, it is easy to see that trying to estimate the means, for example, to a workable level of accuracy is almost impossible using historical (e.g., past) data over time.1 What happens is that the standard deviation of our estimate is too large (for example larger than the estimate itself), thus rendering the estimate worthless. One can bring the standard deviation down only by increasing the data to go back to (say) over ahundred years! To see this: If we want to estimate expected rate of return over a typical 1-month period we could take n monthly data points r(1),...,r(n) denoting the rate of return over individual months in the past, and then average 1 n r(j). (1) n j=1 This estimate (assuming independent and identically distributed (iid) returns over months) has a mean√ and standard deviation given by r, σ/ n respectively, where r and σ denote the true mean and standard deviation over 1-month. If, for example, a stock’s yearly expected rate of return is 16%, then the monthly such rate is r =16/12=1.333% = 0.0133.
    [Show full text]
  • The Underpricing of Ipos on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius
    The underpricing of IPOs on the stock exchange of Mauritius Article Accepted Version Agathee, U. S., Sannassee, R. V. and Brooks, C. (2012) The underpricing of IPOs on the stock exchange of Mauritius. Research in International Business and Finance, 26. pp. 281- 303. ISSN 0275-5319 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2012.01.001 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/26244/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2012.01.001 Publisher: Elsevier All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Research in International Business and Finance. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Research in International Business and Finance, 26.2 (2012), DOI: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2012.01.001 € The Underpricing of IPOs on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius Ushad Subadar Agathee Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 3: Stocks Did You Know? in the Short Term, Stock Prices Are Volatile
    CHAPTER 3: Stocks Did You Know? In the short term, stock prices are volatile. But over time, the total return on stocks has historically exceeded that of any other class of assets. One dollar invested in stocks in 1802 would have grown to $8.8 million by 2003, in bonds to $16,064, in treasury bills to $4,575, and in gold to $19.75. Across the board, the average compound after-inflation rate of return on stocks during that period was 6.80% per year, a rate of return that has remained remarkably steady over time.3 What Is Stock? A share of stock is a piece of shared ownership in a business, whether it’s a small company with a private group of owners, or a public corporation, like Facebook or Nike, with millions of shares available for purchase. Suppose that a company has 10,000 issued shares and you own 1,000 of them. This would mean you own 10% of the company as a shareholder. Most people consider purchasing some type of stock as part of their long-term investment plans. In simple terms, investors make money by buying stock for one price and selling it for a higher price some time down the road. By selling their stock after it has increased in value, investors earn a capital gain. Another way to make money in stocks is when companies pay dividends, which are periodic payments made to shareholders, based on a portion of the company’s profits. Career Link Almost all careers in the financial services industry require strong mathematical skills.
    [Show full text]
  • The Post-IPO Performance in the PRC
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI College of Business Faculty Publications College of Business 2019 The Post-IPO Performance in the PRC Zhang Hanbing Jeffrey E. Jarrett Xia Pan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 14, No. 11; 2019 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Post-IPO Performance in the PRC Zhang Hanbing1, Jeffrey E. Jarrett2 & Xia Pan3 1 Macau University of Science and Technology, China 2 University of Rhode Island, USA 3 Wake Forest University, USA Correspondence: Jeffrey E. Jarrett, University of Rhode Island, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Received: August 14, 2019 Accepted: September 12, 2019 Online Published: October 14, 2019 doi:10.5539/ijbm.v14n11p109 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v14n11p109 Abstract The long-run underperformance of IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) is one of the three “New Issues Puzzles” It indicates that if investors buy IPOs and hold for more than three years they will get negative abnormal returns It is necessary to examine the long-run performance of IPOs in China because it benefits how to enhance the efficiency of IPOs market and provides insight of emerging market This paper empirically examines the performance for three years after listing of 76 Shanghai Stock Exchange IPOs form 2002 to 2007, the matched company as the benchmark, the matched company comes from the same industry and similar circulated stock value with listed companies. First it computes the long-run excess returns of the IPOs with types of models.
    [Show full text]
  • What Rate of Return Can We Expect Over the Next Decade?
    What rate of return can we expect over the next decade? March 2017 Jesper Rangvid* Abstract I evaluate how a range of stock market predictors have captured fluctuations in long-term (10 years) US real stock returns during the 1891-2016 period. Two predictors stand out: (i) the cyclical-adjusted earnings yield (CAPE) and (ii) the ‘sum of the parts’, in this case the sum of the dividend yield, GDP growth, and mean reversion in the stock price-GDP multiple. I use CAPE and the ‘sum of the parts’ to calculate time-series estimates of expected returns on stocks throughout history. Currently, real returns from stocks are expected to be low over the coming decade. Together with expected low real returns from bonds, this implies expected low returns from a typical equally-weighted stock/bond portfolio. I briefly discuss implications of low expected returns. Key words: Stock return predictors. Expected real returns. Low interest rates. Consequences of low returns. JEL classification: G11; G12. * Copenhagen Business School, email: [email protected]. The author thanks Jordan Brooks, Antti Ilmanen, Stig V. Møller, Lasse Pedersen, and seminar participants at CBS for useful comments, and PeRCent (Pension Research Center, CBS) for support. 1. Introduction What should we expect stocks and bonds to return over the next decade? The answer to this question has important implications for private investors who think about how much to put aside for long-term savings (e.g., retirement savings), for the asset-allocation decisions of long-term investors (both individual investors and professional asset managers, e.g., pension funds), and for societies at large that strive to achieve economic outcomes where individuals do not face significantly lower income streams during retirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Return™
    Fact Sheet: Morningstar® Investor Return™ Investor Benefits Morningstar now calculates investor returns (also Total return measures the percentage change in 3 Complements total return and known as dollar-weighted returns) for open-end mutual price for a fund, assuming the investor buys and holds provides a different view of investors’ experience in a fund. funds and exchange-traded funds to capture how the fund over the time period, reinvests distributions, the average investor fared in a fund over a period of and does not make any additional purchases or sales. In 3 Reveals whether investors time. Investor return incorporates the impact of this example, the one-year total return is 0%, because do a good job timing their fund purchases and sales. cash inflows and outflows from purchases and sales the fund price was the same at the beginning and end of and the growth in fund assets. the year and there were no distributions. 3 Indicates whether the fund is serving investors’ long-term Background However, the total return of 0% does not reflect what interests. Investors often suffer from poor timing and poor this investor experienced. This investor contributed a total planning. Investors know they should hold diversified of $200 to yield a net of $150 at the end of the year. portfolios, but many chase past performance and end up buying funds too late or selling too soon. For In this case, a better measure of investor experience example, many investors abandoned their value is investor return, which shows how this investor funds and purchased growth funds in the late 1990s fared over time, factoring in the cash flows from pur- right before the market bubble burst.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculating Rate of Return Students Calculate the Rate of Return to Measure an Investment’S Performance and Answer Questions About Investing
    BUILDING BLOCKS TEACHER GUIDE Calculating rate of return Students calculate the rate of return to measure an investment’s performance and answer questions about investing. Learning goals KEY INFORMATION Big idea Building block: Rate of return is a common way to measure and Executive function compare the growth of investments. Financial knowledge and decision-making skills Essential questions Grade level: High school (9–12) § What is rate of return? Age range: 13–19 § How does rate of return help you determine how well investments have performed? Topic: Save and invest (Investing) Objectives School subject: CTE (Career and technical education), English or § Understand how rate of return helps measure language arts, Math investments’ performance Teaching strategy: Personalized § Use a simple rate of return formula to instruction, Simulation calculate investments’ gains or losses Bloom’s Taxonomy level: Apply What students will do Activity duration: 45–60 minutes § Calculate the rate of return for a range of investments. STANDARDS § Share their thoughts on topics related to investing. Council for Economic Education Standard V. Financial investing Jump$tart Coalition Investing – Standard 1 To find this and other activities, go to: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consumerfinance.gov/teach-activities 1 of 6 Winter 2020 Preparing for this activity □ Print copies of all student materials for each student, or prepare for students to access them electronically. □ While it’s not necessary, completing the “Investigating investing” activity before
    [Show full text]
  • A Model of Competitive Stock Trading Volume Jiang Wang
    A Model of Competitive Stock Trading Volume Jiang Wang iMassachzcsetts Institute of Technology A model of competitive stock trading is developed in which investors are heterogeneous in their information and private investment op- portunities and rationally trade for both informational and nonin- formational motives. I examine the link between the nature of heter- ogeneity among investors and the behavior of trading volume and its relation to price dynamics. It is found that volume is positively correlated with absolute changes in prices and dividends. I show that informational trading and noninformational trading lead to different dynamic relations between trading volume and stock re- turns. I. Introduction Trading volume plays a minor role in conventional models of asset prices (e.g., Merton 1973; Lucas 1978). Part of this is justified under the representative agent paradigm. When the asset market is com- plete and there exists a representative agent, the resulting allocation is optimal and asset prices are determined purely by the aggregate risk.' Trading in the market only reflects the allocation of the aggre- I thank Andrew Alford, Bruce Grundy, Chi-fu Huang, Paul Pfleiderer, and Deborah Lucas and seminar participants at Cornell University, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology, Princeton University, University of Alberta, University of British Columbia, University of California at Berkeley, University of Chicago, and University of Pennsyl- vania for helpful comments. I also thank JosC Scheinkman (the editor) and an anony- mous referee for valuable suggestions. The support from the Nanyang Technological University Career Development Assistant Professorship and the International Finan- cial Services Research Center at MIT is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]