Advertisement

Empirical analysis of Swiss labor income dynamics

Abstract

Before the methodology established in the previous chapter can be applied and a life cycle model of portfolio choice adapted to the Swiss context can be derived to study the fundamental research objectives of chapter 2, an important finding of chapter 3 must be recalled: there, a review of earlier life cycle models of portfolio choice revealed that the investor’s labor income dynamics play a crucial role in determining optimal portfolio choice over the life cycle. Variations in the labor income process can account for substantial differences in life cycle asset holdings. Thus, it would e.g. not be appropriate to employ the age-earnings profiles and earnings variances estimated by Cocco et al. (2005) from US data to calibrate a model of Swiss second pillar employees here.

Keywords

Labor Income Portfolio Choice Life Cycle Model Variable Variable Description Life Cycle Asset 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See Mincer (1974), p. 91, or Polachek/Siebert (1993), p. 74.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See e.g. Lemieux (forthcoming), p. 12 or Lillard/Willis (1978), p. 985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See e.g. Polachek/ Siebert (1993), chapter 4.4 for extensions of the basic function.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    Cited indirectly through Sousa-Poza/ Henneberger (1998).Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Cited indirectly through Sousa-Poza/ Henneberger (1998).Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    It is a special case because the order of the MA process of our transitory component εit is zero as compared to the MA(2) process in Hall/ Mishkin (1982).Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    See e.g. Hayashi (1997), chapter 4.Google Scholar
  8. 16.
    In the absence of the normality assumption this estimator is still valid and can be viewed as a ‘Gaussian pseudo maximum likelihood estimator’. See Arellano (2003), pp. 71–72 for details.Google Scholar
  9. 17.
    See Arellano (2003), pp. 68–69.Google Scholar
  10. 19.
    See e.g. Hamilton (1994), p. 143.Google Scholar
  11. 20.
    See e.g. Lillard/ Weiss (1979).Google Scholar
  12. 23.
    Cocco et al. (2005), p. 528.Google Scholar
  13. 25.
    The fact that “bwu2” includes only allowances for children but not other public transfers (if applicable) might lead to a minimal upward bias in the risk faced by the investor. See Cocco et al. (2005), p. 528.Google Scholar
  14. 26.
    See Amemiya (1985), ch. 10 for this nomenclature.Google Scholar
  15. 29.
    See e.g. Schafer (1997), p. 148.Google Scholar
  16. 32.
    See Schafer (1997), p. 159.Google Scholar
  17. 33.
    See Schafer (1997), p. 160.Google Scholar
  18. 34.
    This example is taken from Little/ Rubin (1987), p. 112.Google Scholar
  19. 35.
    See Schafer (1997), p. 159.Google Scholar
  20. 36.
    See any basic text on mathematical statistics such as e.g. Mittelhammer (1996), pp. 207–210.Google Scholar
  21. 37.
    See Tanner/ Wong (1987), p. 530.Google Scholar
  22. 38.
    Schafer (1997), p. 109.Google Scholar
  23. 39.
    Schafer (1997), p. 109.Google Scholar
  24. 40.
    See Schafer (1997), p. 109.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008

Personalised recommendations