Dynamic hedging with stocastic differential utility

In this paper we study the dynamic hedging problem using three different utility specifications: stochastic differential utility, terminal wealth utility, and we propose a particular utility transformation connecting both previous approaches. In all cases, we assume Markovian prices. Stochastic differential utility, SDU, impacts the pure hedging demand ambiguously, but decreases the pure speculative demand, because risk aversion increases. We also show that consumption decision is, in some sense, independent of hedging decision. With terminal wealth utility, we derive a general and compact hedging formula, which nests as special all cases studied in Duffie and Jackson (1990). We then show how to obtain their formulas. With the third approach we find a compact formula for hedging, which makes the second-type utility framework a particular case, and show that the pure hedging demand is not impacted by this specification. In addition, with CRRA- and CARA-type utilities, the risk aversion increases and, consequently the pure speculative demand decreases. If futures price are martingales, then the transformation plays no role in determining the hedging allocation. We also derive the relevant Bellman equation for each case, using semigroup techniques.

Collateral or utility penalties ?

In a two-period economy with incomplete markets and possibility of default we consider the two classical ways to enforce the honor of financial commitments: by using utility penalties and by using collateral requirements that borrowers have to fulfill. Firstly, we prove that any equilibrium in an economy with collateral requirements is also equilibrium in a non-collateralized economy where each agent is penalized (rewarded) in his utility if his delivery rate is lower (greater) than the payment rate of the financial market. Secondly, we prove the converse: any equilibrium in an economy with utility penalties is also equilibrium in a collateralized economy. For this to be true the payoff function and initial endowments of the agents must be modified in a quite natural way. Finally, we prove that the equilibrium in the economy with collateral requirements attains the same welfare as in the new economy with utility penalties.

Consumption-wealth ratio and expected stock returns: evidence from panel data

This paper investigates the role of consumption-wealth ratio on predicting future stock returns through a panel approach. We follow the theoretical framework proposed by Lettau and Ludvigson (2001), in which a model derived from a nonlinear consumer’s budget constraint is used to settle the link between consumption-wealth ratio and stock returns. Using G7’s quarterly aggregate and financial data ranging from the first quarter of 1981 to the first quarter of 2014, we set an unbalanced panel that we use for both estimating the parameters of the cointegrating residual from the shared trend among consumption, asset wealth and labor income, cay, and performing in and out-of-sample forecasting regressions. Due to the panel structure, we propose different methodologies of estimating cay and making forecasts from the one applied by Lettau and Ludvigson (2001). The results indicate that cay is in fact a strong and robust predictor of future stock return at intermediate and long horizons, but presents a poor performance on predicting one or two-quarter-ahead stock returns.

Consumption-Wealth Ratio and Expected Stock Returns: Evidence from Panel Data on G7 Countries

Using the theoretical framework of Lettau and Ludvigson (2001), we perform an empirical investigation on how widespread is the predictability of cay {a modi ed consumption-wealth ratio { once we consider a set of important countries from a global perspective. We chose to work with the set of G7 countries, which represent more than 64% of net global wealth and 46% of global GDP at market exchange rates. We evaluate the forecasting performance of cay using a panel-data approach, since applying cointegration and other time-series techniques is now standard practice in the panel-data literature. Hence, we generalize Lettau and Ludvigson's tests for a panel of important countries. We employ macroeconomic and nancial quarterly data for the group of G7 countries, forming an unbalanced panel. For most countries, data is available from the early 1990s until 2014Q1, but for the U.S. economy it is available from 1981Q1 through 2014Q1. Results of an exhaustive empirical investigation are overwhelmingly in favor of the predictive power of cay in forecasting future stock returns and excess returns.