The pricing kernel is an important link between economics and finance. In standard models of financial economics, it is proportional to the aggregate marginal utility in the economy. We first show that none of the three standard assumptions (completeness, risk aversion, and correct beliefs) is needed for the pricing kernel to be generally decreasing. If at least one of the three assumptions is violated, the pricing kernel can have increasing parts. We explain the economic principles that lead to an increasing part in the pricing kernel and compare the resulting pricing kernels with the empirical pricing kernel estimated in Jackwerth (2000, Rev. Financ. Stud., 13, 433–451).

The purpose of this paper is to explain why some markets for financial products take off while others vanish as soon as they have emerged. To this end, we model an infinite sequence of CAPM-economies in which financial products can be used for insurance purposes. Agents' participation in these financial products, however, is restricted. Consecutive stage economies are linked by a mapping (“transition function”) which determines the next period's participation structure from the preceding period's participation. The transition function generates a dynamic process of market participation which is driven by the percentage of informed traders and the rate at which a new asset is adopted. We then analyse the evolutionary stability of stationary equilibria. In accordance with the empirical literature on financial innovation, it is obtained that the success of a financial innovation, a mutation, depends on a sufficiently high trading volume, marketing, and new and differentiated hedging opportunities. In particular, a set of complete markets forming a stationary equilibrium is robust with respect to any further financial innovation while this is not necessarily true for a set of incomplete markets.

In a dynamic general equilibrium model, we derive conditions for a mutual fund separation property by which the savings decision is separated from the asset allocation decision. With logarithmic utility functions, this separation holds for any heterogeneity in discount factors, while the generalization to constant relative risk aversion holds only for homogeneous discount factors but allows for any heterogeneity in endowments. The logarithmic case provides a general equilibrium foundation for the growth-optimal portfolio literature. Both cases yield equilibrium asset pricing formulas that allow for investor heterogeneity, in which the return process is endogenous and asset prices are determined by expected discounted relative dividends. Our results have simple asset pricing implications for the time series as well as the cross section of relative asset prices. It is found that on data from the Dow Jones Industrial Average, a risk aversion smaller than in the logarithmic case fits best.

We apply a new and innovative approach to communicating risks associated with financial products that should support investors in making better investment decisions. In our experiments, participants are able to gain “simulated experience” by random sampling of a previously described return distribution. We find that simulated experience considerably improves participants’ understanding of the underlying risk–return profile and prompts them to reconsider their investment decisions and to choose riskier financial products without regretting their higher risk-taking behavior afterwards. This method of experienced-based learning has high potential for being integrated into real-world applications and services.

Contains fulltext : 199743.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

We adapt the design of four experimental studies on retirement decision-making and conduct replications with a larger online sample from the broader population. We replicate most of the main effects of the original studies. In particular, we confirm that consumption decisions are less efficient when subjects need to borrow from the future than when they need to save from the present. When subjects collect retirement benefits as lump sum instead of annuities, they choose to retire later, as suggested by the original study. We also confirm that savings are higher when they are incentivized with matching contributions than when incentivized with tax rebates. However, when faced with varying survival risks, subjects in our replication make only partial adjustments to spending paths when ambiguity is reduced. We also propose a further experimental research agenda in related topics and discuss practical issues on subject recruitment, attrition, and redesign of complex tasks.