Finance and Stochastics

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 159–177 | Cite as

Asymmetric Information in Fads Models

Original Paper

Abstract

Fads models were introduced by Shiller (Am Econ Rev 71:421–436, 1981) and Summers (J Finance 41:591–601, 1986) as plausible alternatives to the efficient markets/constant expected returns assumptions. Under these models, logarithms of asset prices embody both a martingale component, with permanent shocks, and a stationary component, with temporary shocks. We study a continuous-time version of these models both from the point of view of informed agents, who observe both fundamental and market values, and from that of uninformed agents, who only observe market prices. We specify the asset price in the larger filtration of the informed agent, and then derive its decomposition in the smaller filtration of the uninformed agent using the Hitsuda representation of Gaussian processes. For uninformed agents we obtain a non-Markovian dynamics, which justifies the use of technical analysis in optimal trading strategies. For both types of agents, we solve the problem of maximization of expected logarithmic utility from terminal wealth, and obtain an explicit formula for the additional logarithmic utility of informed agents. Finally, we apply the decomposition result to the problem of testing the presence of fads from market data. An application to the NYSE-AMEX indices from the CRSP database shows that, if the fads component prevails, then the mean-reversion speed must be slow.

Keywords

Ornstein–Uhlenbeck Hitsuda representation Fads models Asymmetric information 

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2000)

60G15 62M07 45D05 91B84 

JEL Classifications

C15 C22 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amendinger J., Imkeller P., Schweizer M. (1998) Additional logarithmic utility of an insider. Stoch Proc Appl 75, 263–286MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baudoin F. (2002) Conditioned stochastic differential equations: theory, examples and application to finance. Stoch Proc Appl 100, 109–145MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell J.Y., Cochrane J.H. (1999) By force of habit: a consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. J Polit Econ 107, 205–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheridito P. (2001) Mixed fractional Brownian motion. Bernoulli 7, 913–934MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheridito, P. , Representations of Gaussian measures that are equivalent to Wiener measure. In: Séminaire de Probabilités XXXVII, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol 1382, pp. 81–89 Berlin Heidelberg New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corcuera J.M., Imkeller P., Kohatsu-Higa A., Nualart D. (2004) Additional utility of insiders with imperfect dynamical information. Finance Stoch 8, 437–450MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunford N., Schwartz J.T. (1988) Linear operators. Part II, Wiley Classics Library. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fama E.F. (1970) Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. J Finance 25, 383–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goll T., Kallsen J. (2003) A complete explicit solution to the log-optimal portfolio problem. Ann Appl Probab 13, 774–799MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hitsuda M. (1968) Representation of Gaussian processes equivalent to Wiener process. Osaka J Math 5, 299–312MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karatzas, I., Shreve, S.E. Brownian motion and stochastic calculus. In: Graduate texts in mathematics, 2nd edn. vol. 113. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer 1991Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karatzas I., Lehoczky J.P., Shreve S.E., Xu G.-L. (1991) Martingale and duality methods for utility maximization in an incomplete market. SIAM J Control Optim 29, 702–730MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kohatsu-Higa A. (2004) Enlargement of filtrations and models for insider trading. In: Akahori J., Ogawa S.,Watanabe S. (eds). Stochastic processes and applications to mathematical finance. World Scientifc, Singapore, pp. 151–165Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kramkov D., Schachermayer W. (1999) The asymptotic elasticity of utility functions and optimal investment in incomplete markets. Ann Appl Probab 9, 904–950MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    LeRoy S.F., Porter R.D. (1981) The present-value relation: tests based on implied variance bounds. Econometrica 49, 555–574MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pikovsky I., Karatzas I. (1996) Anticipative portfolio optimization. Adv App Probab 28, 1095–1122MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poterba J.M., Summers L.H. (1988) Mean reversion in stock prices: evidence and implications. J Financ Econ 22, 27–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Revuz, D., Yor, M. Continuous martingales and Brownian motion, In: Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 3rd edn. vol. 293. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer 1999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shiller R.J. (1981) Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends. Am Econ Rev 71, 421–436Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shiller R.J., Perron P. (1985) Testing the random walk hypothesis: power versus frequency of observation. Econ Lett 18, 381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smithies F. (1958) Integral equations. In: Cambridge tracts in mathematics and mathematical Physics, vol. 49. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Summers L. (1986) Does the stock market rationally reflect fundamental values. J Finance 41, 591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations