Liquidity might come at cost: The role of heterogeneous preferences☆
Section snippets
The economic setting
Assume a single bond and a single risky asset trade in frictionless financial markets under information symmetry. The riskless bond has a price and it yields a constant rate of return r, following the process:
The risky asset is an open-ended mutual fund that holds the market portfolio of stocks. It is a claim on the aggregate dividend, , generated by an exogenous process:where both and are given constants. The stock has an exogenously-given standard
The motivation to trade
This section is devoted to deriving optimal intertemporal trade by each investor type, aiming to express volume and liquidity in closed form. Bilateral trading volume emerges in our setup through agent heterogeneity, measured by the dispersion of RRAs about the market price of (variance) risk. The formal derivation is based on (20), where two mutually-exclusive optimal rebalancing strategies imply conditional buy or sell orders for shares; conditional on the direction of price change (see
The determinants of volume
These building blocks allow the exploration of the ways volume and liquidity vary with key parameters. Our first step is deriving closed-form expressions for optimal rebalancing of volume between t and t + dt by each investor type, C and T (henceforth, “trade plans”). Trade plans differ from bilateral volume, as the latter is the minimum between the two trade plans, in absolute terms.
Calibration and simulation procedures
In this section, we explain the procedures and parameters we use to construct the simulated markets. The simulations allow us to explore both time series and cross-sectional implications of heterogeneity. Unlike the previous analysis, here we construct the 16 RRA combinations (“markets”) by creating an RRA_factor, aiming to focus attention on less extreme RRA levels. The factor starts at 0.975 and declines 39 BPS from one combination to the next, until it equals 0.39. Because our RRAs must
Cross-sectional predictions for sharpe ratio variability
In this section, we return to the debate on the role that changes in heterogeneity play in causing variations in Sharpe ratio. We explore how the Sharpe ratio and its volatility vary along a cross-section of heterogeneity. In Xiouros and Zapatero (2010) and Chan and Kogan (2002), Sharpe ratio variability necessarily increases with heterogeneity, which is measured as the variance across agents' RRAs. Because we measure trade as the smaller (in absolute terms) between both trade plans, trade is
Cross-sectional predictions for turnover and liquidity
In this section, we explore how levels and volatilities of turnover and liquidity vary across levels of heterogeneity. All time-series simulations are conducted in a way similar to the previous analysis, except that in these analyses the averages and medians are measured across 100 sample paths of 250 periods in each market state. The results incorporate the market-specific that was computed recursively until convergence. Prediction 4 explores the linkages between heterogeneity and market
Conclusions
In this paper, we analyze the extent to which heterogeneity motivates trade in an asset pricing model under information symmetry with time-separable, power utilities. Two uniquely defined investors have RRAs that bracket the market price of risk, where heterogeneity is measured by the dispersion between both RRAs. Investors’ optimal portfolio rules imply intertemporal bilateral trade, thus average RRA in the market changes stochastically, but is perfectly correlated with expected stock returns.
References (45)
- et al.
Asset pricing with liquidity risk
J. Financ. Econ.
(2005) Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects
J. Financ. Market.
(2002)- et al.
The illiquidity premium: international evidence
J. Financ. Econ.
(2015) - et al.
Dividend yields and expected stock returns
J. Financ. Econ.
(1988) - et al.
Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds
J. Financ. Econ.
(1993) - et al.
The speed of stock price discovery
J. Financ. Intermediation
(2013) Dynamic liquidity in endowment economies
J. Financ. Econ.
(2006)Volume, liquidity, and liquidity risk
J. Financial Econ.
(2008)- et al.
The empirical risk–return relation: a factor analysis approach
J. Financ. Econ.
(2007) - et al.
The equity premium: a puzzle
J. Monetary Econ.
(1985)
Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model
J. Econ. Theor.
Economy with heterogeneous investors
J. Financ. Econ.
Investor heterogeneity, asset pricing and volatility dynamics
J. Econ. Dynam. Contr.
Trading mechanisms and stock returns: an empirical investigation
J. Finance
Trading is hazardous to your wealth: the common stock investment performance of individual investors
J. Finance
Turnover: liquidity or uncertainty?
Manag. Sci.
The effect of introducing a non-redundant derivative on the volatility of stock-market returns when agents differ in risk aversion
Rev. Financ. Stud.
Asset prices with heterogeneity in preferences and beliefs
Rev. Financ. Stud.
An analysis of the Amihud illiquidity premium
Rev. Asset Pricing Stud.
By force of habit: a consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior
J. Polit. Econ.
A variance decomposition for stock returns
Econ. J.
Stock prices, earnings, and expected dividends
J. Finance
Cited by (7)
The impact of retail investor sentiment on the conditional volatility of stocks and bonds: Evidence from the Tel-Aviv stock exchange
2024, International Review of Economics and FinancePrice discovery in the small and in the large: Momentum and reversal, bubbles, and crashes
2020, Journal of Financial MarketsTHE EVALUATION OF FUNDAMENTAL METHODS EFFECTIVENESS ON THE RUSSIAN STOCK MARKET
2022, Relacoes Internacionais no Mundo AtualOSCILLATOR STRATEGIES APPLICATION IN STOCK MOVEMENT PREDICTION ON THE RUSSIAN FINANCIAL MARKET: EFFICIENCY ISSUES
2022, Relacoes Internacionais no Mundo AtualAn automated financial indices-processing scheme for classifying market liquidity regimes
2021, International Journal of Control
- ☆
We thank Yakov Amihud, Gideon Saar (the Editor), Fernando Zapatero, and two anonymous referees for valuable suggestions and insights. We are indebted also to Zvi Afik, Doron Avramov, Scott Cederburg, David Feldman, Dan Galai, Arieh Gavious, Eugene Kandel, Michel Robe, Itzhak Venezia, and Zvi Wiener. We thank participants of the Midwest Economic Theory Conference, Lansing, MI, the Far Eastern Meeting of the Econometric Society, Beijing, and the Finance Department Research Seminar at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. We assume full responsibility for any remaining errors. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the position of the Israel Securities Authority.