Computational Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 1–2, pp 3–20 | Cite as

Asset Price Dynamics When Behavioural Heterogeneity Varies



We build a model in which asset prices are expectationally driven and agents forecast future prices hinging on a combination of fundamental value, trend and inertia. The model has a unique steady state and we investigate its stability. In particular the amount of behavioural heterogeneity in the model is given by the number of intermediaries actually operating in the market: we are concerned with the effects that changing such number produces on the steady state in terms of stability. Assuming that the set of relevant intermediaries is sampled randomly we discuss the probability of having stability as a function of the market’s parameters and the number of such agents. Our simulations show that stability in the multi-agent setting does not require that conditions for stability in the representative agent case be met for every individual; so stability can arise even if some of the agents would not be compatible with it if they were the only ones operating in the market. The same goes for instability. Further, we find that stabilising (or destabilising) effects of heterogeneity are not uniform across the market’s essential characteristics, as captured by a given structural parameter: in fact we can identify a parametric region in which heterogeneity is stabilising and another in which it is destabilising.


Heterogeneous agents Expectations Stock market Behavioural finance Bounded rationality Middlemen 

JEL Classification

G12 D84 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beja A. and Goldman M.B. (1980). On the dynamic behavior of prices in disequilibrium. Journal of Finance 35: 235–248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benassy-Quére A., Larribeau S. and MacDonald R. (2003). Models of exchange rate expectations: how much heterogeneity?. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money 13: 113–136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biglaiser G. (1993). Middlemen as experts. RAND Journal of Economics 24(2): 212–223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branch W. (2004). The theory of rationally heterogeneous expectations: Evidence from survey data on inflation expectations. The Economic Journal 114: 592–621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brock W., Wagener F. and HommesC. (2005). Evolutionary dynamics in markets with many trader types. Journal of Mathematical Economics 41: 7–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colucci D. and Valori V. (2006). Ways of learning in a simple economic setting: A comparative approach. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 29: 653–670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Day R.H. and Huang W. (1990). Bulls, bears and market sheep. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 14: 299–329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egenter E., Lux T. and Stauffer D. (1999). Finite-size effects in Monte Carlo simulations of two stock market models. Physica A 268: 250–256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elliott G. and Ito T. (1999). Heterogeneous expectations and tests of efficiency in the yen/dollar forward exchange rate market. Journal of Monetary Economics 43(2): 435–456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fingleton J. (1997). Competition among middlemen when buyers and sellers can trade directly. Journal of Industrial Economics 45(4): 405–427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frankel, J. A., & Froot, K. A. (1990). The rationality of the foreign exchange rate. Chartists, fundamentalists and trading in the foreign exchange market. American Economic Review, 80(2), AEA Papers and Proceedings, 181–185.Google Scholar
  12. Hommes C., Sonnemans J., Tuinstra J. and van de Velden H. (2005). Coordination of expectations in asset pricing experiments. Review of Financial Studies 18(3): 955–980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang W. and Day R.H. (1993). Chaotically switching bear and bull markets: The derivation of stock price distributions from behavioral rules. In: Day, R.H. and Chen, P. (eds) Nonlinear dynamics and evolutionary economics, pp 169–182. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  14. Johri A. and Leach J. (2002). Middlemen and the allocation of heterogeneous goods. International Economic Review 43(2): 347–361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morris S. and Shin H. (2006). Inertia of forward-looking expectations. American Economic Review, AEA Papers and Proceedings 96(2): 152–157 Google Scholar
  16. Rust J. and Hall G. (2003). Middlemen versus market makers: A theory of competitive exchange. Journal of Political Economy 111(2): 353–403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vissing-Jorgensen, A. (2002). Towards an explanation of household portfolio choice heterogeneity: Nonfinancial income and participation cost structures. NBER Working Papers 8884.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DiMaDUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations