A Framework for CAPM with Heterogeneous Beliefs
The Sharpe–Lintner–Mossin (Sharpe 1964; Lintner 1965; Mossin 1966) Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) plays a central role in modern finance theory. It is founded on the paradigm of homogeneous beliefs and a rational representative agent. However, froma theoretical perspective this paradigmhas been criticized on a number of grounds, in particular concerning its extreme assumptions about homogeneous beliefs, information about the economic environment, and the computational ability on the part of the rational representative economic agent.
The impact of heterogeneous beliefs among investors on the market equilibrium price has been an important focus in the CAPM literature. A number of models with investorswho have heterogeneous beliefs have been previously studied.1 A common finding in this strand of research is that heterogeneous beliefs can affect aggregate market returns. However, the question remains as to how exactly does heterogeneity affect themarket risk of risky assets? In much of this earlier work, the heterogeneous beliefs reflect either differences of opinion among the investors2 or differences in information upon which investors are trying to learn by using some Bayesian updating rule.3 Heterogeneity has been investigated in the context of either CAPM–like mean–variancemodels (for instance, Lintner 1969; Miller 1977;Williams 1977; and Mayshar 1982) or Arrow–Debreu contingent claims models (as in Varian 1985;Abel 1989; 2002; and Calvet et al. 2004).
KeywordsAsset Price Risky Asset Capital Asset Price Model Market Portfolio Market Clearing Price
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
We are grateful to the participants at the WEHIA 2006 (Bologna), the COMPLEXITY 2006 (Aix-en-Provence), and MDEF08 (Urbino) for helpful comments and suggestions. Financial support for Chiarella and He from the Australian Research Council (ARC) under Discovery Grant (DP0773776) is gratefully acknowledged. Dieci acknowledges support from MIUR under the project PRIN-2004137559.
- Abel, A. (1989). Asset prices under heterogeneous beliefs: Implications for the equity premium (working paper 09-89). Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.Google Scholar
- Calvet, L., Grandmont, J.-M., & Lemaire, I. (2004). Aggregation of heterogeneous beliefs and asset pricing in complete financial markets (working paper 2004-12). CREST.Google Scholar
- Chiarella, C., Dieci, R., & Gardini, L. (2005). The dynamic interaction of speculation and diversification. Applied Mathematical Finance, 12(1), 17–52.Google Scholar
- Chiarella, C., Dieci, R., & He, X. (2006a). Aggregation of heterogeneous beliefs and asset pricing theory: A mean-variance analysis (Quantitative Finance Research Centre Working paper No. 186). University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
- He, X., & Shi, L. (2009). Portfolio analysis and Zero-Beta CAPM with Heterogeneous beliefs. (Quantitative Finance Research Centre Working paper No. 244). University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
- Hommes, C. (2006). Heterogeneous agent models in economics and finance. In L. Tesfatsion & K. L. Judd (Eds.), Agent-based computational economics, Handbook of computational economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1109–1186). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Huang, C.-F., & Litzenberger, R. (1988). Foundations for financial economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- LeBaron, B. (2006). Agent-based computational finance. In L. Tesfatsion & K. L. Judd (Eds.), Agent-based computational economics, Handbook of computational economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1187–1233). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Lux, T. (2004). Financial power laws: Empirical evidence, models and mechanisms. In C. Cioffi (Ed.), Power laws in the social sciences: Discovering complexity and non-equilibrium in the social universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Mayshar, J. (1982). On divergence of opinion and imperfections in capital markets. American Economic Review, 73, 114–128.Google Scholar
- Westerhoff, F. ( 2004). Multiasset market dynamics. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 8, 591–616.Google Scholar