The case for property in the long run: a cointegration test

The benefits of property in the mixed asset portfolio has been the subject of a number of studies both in the UK and around the world. The traditional way of investigating this issue is to use MPT with the results suggesting that Property should play a significant role in the mixed asset portfolio. These results are not without criticism and generally revolve around quality and quantity of the property data series. To overcome these deficiencies this paper uses cointegration methodology which examines the longer term time series behaviour of various asset markets using a very long run desmoothed data series. Using a number of different cointegration tests, both pair-wise and multivariate, the results show, in unambiguous terms, that there is no contemporous cointegration between the major asset classes Property, Equities and Bonds. The implications of which are that Property does indeed have a risk reducing place to play in the long-run strategic mixed-asset portfolio. A result of particular relevance to institutions such as pension funds and life insurance companies who would wish to hold investments for the long-term.

Rational speculative bubbles: an empirical investigation of the London Stock Exchange

In recent years, a sharp divergence of London Stock Exchange equity prices from dividends has been noted. In this paper, we examine whether this divergence can be explained by reference to the existence of a speculative bubble. Three different empirical methodologies are used: variance bounds tests, bubble specification tests, and cointegration tests based on both ex post and ex ante data. We find that, stock prices diverged significantly from their fundamental values during the late 1990's, and that this divergence has all the characteristics of a bubble.

A comparison of tests of non-linear cointegration with an application to the predictability of US interest rates using the term structure

We test whether there are nonlinearities in the response of short- and long-term interest rates to the spread in interest rates, and assess the out-of-sample predictability of interest rates using linear and nonlinear models. We find strong evidence of nonlinearities in the response of interest rates to the spread. Nonlinearities are shown to result in more accurate short-horizon forecasts, especially of the spread.

Testing for non-stationarity and cointegration allowing for the possibility of a structural break: an application to EuroSterling interest rates

In this paper we examine the order of integration of EuroSterling interest rates by employing techniques that can allow for a structural break under the null and/or alternative hypothesis of the unit-root tests. In light of these results, we investigate the cointegrating relationship implied by the single, linear expectations hypothesis of the term structure of interest rates employing two techniques, one of which allows for the possibility of a break in the mean of the cointegrating relationship. The aim of the paper is to investigate whether or not the interest rate series can be viewed as I(1) processes and furthermore, to consider whether there has been a structural break in the series. We also determine whether, if we allow for a break in the cointegration analysis, the results are consistent with those obtained when a break is not allowed for. The main results reported in this paper support the conjecture that the ‘short’ Euro-currency rates are characterised as I(1) series that exhibit a structural break on or near Black Wednesday, 16 September 1992, whereas the ‘long’ rates are I(1) series that do not support the presence of a structural break. The evidence from the cointegration analysis suggests that tests of the expectations hypothesis based on data sets that include the ERM crisis period, or a period that includes a structural break, might be problematic if the structural break is not explicitly taken into account in the testing framework.

Reviewing the sustainability/stationarity of current account imbalances with tests for bounded integration

We investigate for 26 OECD economies whether their current account imbalances to GDP are driven by stochastic trends. Regarding bounded stationarity as the more natural counterpart of sustainability, results from Phillips–Perron tests for unit root and bounded unit root processes are contrasted. While the former hint at stationarity of current account imbalances for 12 economies, the latter indicate bounded stationarity for only six economies. Through panel-based test statistics, current account imbalances are diagnosed as bounded non-stationary. Thus, (spurious) rejections of the unit root hypothesis might be due to the existence of bounds reflecting hidden policy controls or financial crises.

The lottery-panel task for bi-dimensional parameter-free elicitation of risk attitudes

We propose first, a simple task for the eliciting attitudes toward risky choice, the SGG lottery-panel task, which consists in a series of lotteries constructed to compensate riskier options with higher risk-return trade-offs. Using Principal Component Analysis technique, we show that the SGG lottery-panel task is capable of capturing two dimensions of individual risky decision making i.e. subjects’ average risk taking and their sensitivity towards variations in risk-return. From the results of a large experimental dataset, we confirm that the task systematically captures a number of regularities such as: A tendency to risk averse behavior (only around 10% of choices are compatible with risk neutrality); An attraction to certain payoffs compared to low risk lotteries, compatible with over-(under-) weighting of small (large) probabilities predicted in PT and; Gender differences, i.e. males being consistently less risk averse than females but both genders being similarly responsive to the increases in risk-premium. Another interesting result is that in hypothetical choices most individuals increase their risk taking responding to the increase in return to risk, as predicted by PT, while across panels with real rewards we see even more changes, but opposite to the expected pattern of riskier choices for higher risk-returns. Therefore, we conclude from our data that an “economic anomaly” emerges in the real reward choices opposite to the hypothetical choices. These findings are in line with Camerer's (1995) view that although in many domains, paid subjects probably do exert extra mental effort which improves their performance, choice over money gambles is not likely to be a domain in which effort will improve adherence to rational axioms (p. 635). Finally, we demonstrate that both dimensions of risk attitudes, average risk taking and sensitivity towards variations in the return to risk, are desirable not only to describe behavior under risk but also to explain behavior in other contexts, as illustrated by an example. In the second study, we propose three additional treatments intended to elicit risk attitudes under high stakes and mixed outcome (gains and losses) lotteries. Using a dataset obtained from a hypothetical implementation of the tasks we show that the new treatments are able to capture both dimensions of risk attitudes. This new dataset allows us to describe several regularities, both at the aggregate and within-subjects level. We find that in every treatment over 70% of choices show some degree of risk aversion and only between 0.6% and 15.3% of individuals are consistently risk neutral within the same treatment. We also confirm the existence of gender differences in the degree of risk taking, that is, in all treatments females prefer safer lotteries compared to males. Regarding our second dimension of risk attitudes we observe, in all treatments, an increase in risk taking in response to risk premium increases. Treatment comparisons reveal other regularities, such as a lower degree of risk taking in large stake treatments compared to low stake treatments and a lower degree of risk taking when losses are incorporated into the large stake lotteries. Results that are compatible with previous findings in the literature, for stake size effects (e.g., Binswanger, 1980; Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Silvestre, 1999; Hogarth & Einhorn, 1990; Holt & Laury, 2002; Kachelmeier & Shehata, 1992; Kühberger et al., 1999; B. J. Weber & Chapman, 2005; Wik et al., 2007) and domain effect (e.g., Brooks and Zank, 2005, Schoemaker, 1990, Wik et al., 2007). Whereas for small stake treatments, we find that the effect of incorporating losses into the outcomes is not so clear. At the aggregate level an increase in risk taking is observed, but also more dispersion in the choices, whilst at the within-subjects level the effect weakens. Finally, regarding responses to risk premium, we find that compared to only gains treatments sensitivity is lower in the mixed lotteries treatments (SL and LL). In general sensitivity to risk-return is more affected by the domain than the stake size. After having described the properties of risk attitudes as captured by the SGG risk elicitation task and its three new versions, it is important to recall that the danger of using unidimensional descriptions of risk attitudes goes beyond the incompatibility with modern economic theories like PT, CPT etc., all of which call for tests with multiple degrees of freedom. Being faithful to this recommendation, the contribution of this essay is an empirically and endogenously determined bi-dimensional specification of risk attitudes, useful to describe behavior under uncertainty and to explain behavior in other contexts. Hopefully, this will contribute to create large datasets containing a multidimensional description of individual risk attitudes, while at the same time allowing for a robust context, compatible with present and even future more complex descriptions of human attitudes towards risk.