I present a new approach to the dynamic portfolio and consumption problem of an investor who worries about model uncertainty (in addition to market risk) and seeks robust decisions along the lines of Anderson, Hansen, and Sargent (2002). In accordance with max-min expected utility, a robust investor insures against some endogenous worst case. I first show that robustness dramatically decreases the demand for equities and is observationally equivalent to recursive preferences when removing wealth effects. Unlike standard recursive preferences, however, robustness leads to environment-specific “effective” risk aversion. As an extension, I present a closed-form solution for the portfolio problem of a robust Duffie-Epstein-Zin investor. Finally, robustness increases the equilibrium equity premium and lowers the risk-free rate. Reasonable parameters generate a 4% to 6% equity premium.

I present a new approach to the dynamic portfolio and consumption problem of an investor who worries about model uncertainty (in addition to market risk) and seeks robust decisions along the lines of Anderson, Hansen, and Sargent (2002). In accordance with max-min expected utility, a robust investor insures against some endogenous worst case. I first show that robustness dramatically decreases the demand for equities and is observationally equivalent to recursive preferences when removing wealth effects. Unlike standard recursive preferences, however, robustness leads to environment-specific "effective" risk aversion. As an extension, I present a closed-form solution for the portfolio problem of a robust Duffie-Epstein-Zin investor. Finally, robustness increases the equilibrium equity premium and lowers the risk-free rate. Reasonable parameters generate a 4% to 6% equity premium.

[We study whether option-implied jump risk premia can explain the high observed level of credit spreads. We use a structural jump-diffusion firm value model to assess the level of credit spreads generated by option-implied jump risk premia. Prices and returns of equity index and individual options are used to estimate the jump parameters. We further calibrate the model to historical information on default risk and the equity premium. The results show that incorporating option-implied jump risk premia brings predicted credit spread levels much closer to observed levels. The introduction of jumps also helps to improve the fit of the volatility of credit spreads and equity returns.]

This article solves a realistically calibrated life cycle model of consumption and portfolio choice with non-tradable labor income and borrowing constraints. Since labor income substitutes for riskless asset holdings, the optimal share invested in equities is roughly decreasing over life. We compute a measure of the importance of human capital for investment behavior. We find that ignoring labor income generates large utility costs, while the cost of ignoring only its risk is an order of magnitude smaller, except when we allow for a disastrous labor income shock. Moreover, we study the implications of introducing endogenous borrowing constraints in this incomplete-markets setting.

We study whether option-implied jump risk premia can explain the high observed level of credit spreads. We use a structural jump-diffusion firm value model to assess the level of credit spreads generated by option-implied jump risk premia. Prices and returns of equity index and individual options are used to estimate the jump parameters. We further calibrate the model to historical information on default risk and the equity premium. The results show that incorporating option-implied jump risk premia brings predicted credit spread levels much closer to observed levels. The introduction of jumps also helps to improve the fit of the volatility of credit spreads and equity returns.

This article solves a realistically calibrated life cycle model of consumption and portfolio choice with non-tradable labor income and borrowing constraints. Since labor income substitutes for riskless asset holdings, the optimal share invested in equities is roughly decreasing over life. We compute a measure of the importance of human capital for investment behavior. We find that ignoring labor income generates large utility costs, while the cost of ignoring only its risk is an order of magnitude smaller, except when we allow for a disastrous labor income shock. Moreover, we study the implications of introducing endogenous borrowing constraints in this incomplete-markets setting.