Chapter 42 Asset Pricing

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0722(07)00042-XGet rights and content

Publisher Summary

This chapter focuses on the process of asset pricing. In field studies, it is customary to reject the random walk theory by identifying drift in prices. The drift is to be explained in terms of compensation for risk using some equilibrium asset pricing model. An alternative would be to view drift as evidence that equilibration forces are at work, verify whether the drift points in the direction of a given asset pricing equilibrium, and whether it eventually leads markets to this equilibrium. In the experiments discussed in this chapter, the data can best be understood in this fashion. Experiments make it easier to identify the forces of equilibrium asset pricing theory, because almost all parameters can be controlled.

Section snippets

What the Theory Predicts

A major evolution in the theory of asset pricing took place over the last century.

  • (a)

    In 1900, Bachelier suggested the random walk hypothesis: price changes ought not to be predictable from past information (see Bachelier, 1900). In the 1960s and 1970s, this theory became known as the efficient markets hypothesis (Fama, 1970),1

The Empirical Question

Which of these two theories provides the more appropriate view of the workings of financial markets: the relatively agnostic random walk theory or the more stylized equilibrium asset pricing models?

To compare the two theories, one could search for violations of the random walk hypothesis (if any can be found) and prove that these violations can be understood in light of equilibrium asset pricing models.

In field studies, it is customary to reject the random walk theory by identifying drift in

What the Field Data Teach Us

There is plenty of evidence that it is hard to predict asset price changes, in support of the random walk theory. Still, there are well-documented violations (a number of them are reported in Lo and MacKinlay, 1999). Granted, the amount of predictability that is present in the field data is small, but they do not seem to be compensation for risk in any way equilibrium asset pricing models predict. Best known is the finding in Fama and French (1992) that the historical drift in prices across

What the Experiments Teach Us

Experiments make it easier to identify the forces of equilibrium asset pricing theory, because almost all parameters can be controlled (e.g., aggregate wealth, market portfolio, expectations).2

Figure 1 displays the evolution of transaction prices in a typical asset pricing experiment. Subjects were allocated three securities, two of which were risky. The payoff on

References (7)

  • M.L. Bachelier

    Théorie de la spéculation

    Annales de Ecole Normale

    (1900)
  • Peter Bossaerts et al.

    Basic principles of asset pricing theory: Evidence from large-scale experimental financial markets

    Review of Finance

    (2004)
  • W. Debondt et al.

    Does the stock market overreact?

    Journal of Finance

    (1985)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text