Search results

We study the asset allocation of an investor with prospect theory (PT) preferences. First, we solve analytically the two-asset problem of the PT investor for one risk-free and one risky asset and find that loss aversion and the reference return affect differently less ambitious investors and more ambitious investors. Second, we empirically investigate the performance of a PT portfolio when diversifying among a stock market index, a government bond and gold, in Europe and the US. We focus on investors with PT preferences under different scenarios regarding the reference return and the degree of loss aversion and compare their portfolio performance with the performance of investors under CVaR, risk neutral, linear loss averse and in particular mean-variance (MV) preferences. We find that, in the US, PT portfolios significantly outperform (in terms of returns) mean-variance portfolios in the majority of cases. Also with respect to riskadjusted performance, PT investment outperforms MV investment in the US. Similar results, however, can not be observed in Europe. Finally, we analyze asymmetric effects along economic uncertainty and observe that PT investment leads to higher returns than MV investment in times of larger economic uncertainty, especially in the US.

We study the asset allocation of an investor with prospect theory (PT) preferences. First, we solve analytically the two-asset problem of the PT investor for one risk-free and one risky asset and find that loss aversion and the reference return affect differently less ambitious investors and more ambitious investors. Second, we empirically investigate the performance of a PT portfolio when diversifying among a stock market index, a government bond and gold, in Europe and the US. We focus on investors with PT preferences under different scenarios regarding the reference return and the degree of loss aversion and compare their portfolio performance with the performance of investors under CVaR, risk neutral, linear loss averse and in particular mean-variance (MV) preferences. We find that, in the US, PT portfolios signiffcantly outperform (in terms of returns) mean-variance portfolios in the majority of cases. Also with respect to riskadjusted performance, PT investment outperforms MV investment in the US. Similar results, however, can not be observed in Europe. Finally, we analyze asymmetric effects along economic uncertainty and observe that PT investment leads to higher returns than MV investment in times of larger economic uncertainty, especially in the US.

This paper offers two innovations for empirical growth research. First, the paper discusses principal components augmented regressions to take into account all available information in well-behaved regressions. Second, the paper proposes a frequentist model averaging framework as an alternative to Bayesian model averaging approaches. The proposed methodology is applied to three data sets, including the Sala-i-Martin et al. (2004) and Fernandez et al. (2001) data as well as a data set of the European Union member states' regions. Key economic variables are found to be significantly related to economic growth. The findings highlight the relevance of the proposed methodology for empirical economic growth research.

AbstractIn this paper we discuss the necessity for an indirect approach to assess the growth and convergence prospects of ten Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC10). Ongoing structural changes in these countries and the recent European Union membership of eight countries in the sample have to be taken into account in growth projections.Our indirect approach consists of basing growth projections for the CEEC10 on growth equations estimated for the incumbent EU member states. The study improves upon current practice in two ways. First, growth equations are estimated for the EU14 and not on a large heterogeneous panel that includes many countries unrelated to the CEEC10. Second, by means of a variety of equations and scenarios we assess the uncertainty inherent in such projections.We present growth‐rate and convergence time distributions. The mean convergence times are in line with previous findings. The growth‐rate and convergence time distributions are bi‐modal, reflecting the possibility of two distinct growth paths, depending upon economic policy choices.

In this paper we discuss the necessity for an indirect approach to assess the growth and convergence prospects of ten Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC10). The necessity for an indirect approach arises for two reasons. First, the ongoing structural changes in the transition economies imply that their growth process is not yet adequately described by the long-run growth forces as identified by (neoclassical) growth theory. Second, their upcoming European Union membership has to be taken into account in growth projections. The indirect approach proposed in this paper is to base the growth projections for the CEEC10 on growth equations estimated for the incumbent EU member states. Thus, in effect we propose a calibration approach. Our study differs from previous studies that employ an indirect approach in two ways. First, we estimate growth equations for the EU and not for a large world-wide country data set that contains many heterogeneous countries that are essentially unrelated to the CEECs. Second, we assess the uncertainty inherent in growth projections by estimating a variety of economically meaningful equations and by specifying a variety of plausible scenarios for the explanatory variables. This results in distributions of projected growth rates, which allow for an uncertainty analysis. Besides growth rate distributions also convergence times distributions are computed.

AbstractIn this paper we implement a real options model for the unit commitment problem of an electricity producing turbine in a liberalized market. The model accounts for various operating constraints of the turbine. Price uncertainty is captured by a mean reverting process with jumps and time‐varying means to account for seasonality. We demonstrate how the model can be used to value an electricity producing turbine, make profit‐maximizing commitment decisions and compute risk profiles of generating assets for risk management purposes.

We nowcast and forecast Austrian economic activity, namely real gross domestic product (GDP), consumption and investment, which are available at a quarterly frequency. While nowcasting uses data up to (and including) the quarter to be predicted, forecasting uses only data up to the previous quarter. We use a large number of monthly indicators to construct early estimates of the target variables. For this purpose we use different mixed-frequency models, namely the mixed-frequency vector autoregressive model according to Ghysels (2016) and mixed data sampling approaches, and compare their forecast and nowcast accuracies in terms of the root mean squared error. We also consider traditional benchmark models which rely only on quarterly data. We are particularly interested in whether explicitly considering different regimes improves the nowcast. Thus we examine regime-dependent models, taking into account business cycle regimes (recession/non-recession) or financial/economic uncertainty regimes (high/low uncertainty) driven by global and Austrian economic and financial uncertainty indicators. We find that taking explicit account of regimes clearly improves nowcasting, and different regimes are important for GDP, consumption and investment. While the recession/non-recession regimes seem to be important to nowcast GDP and consumption, high/low global financial uncertainty regimes are important to nowcast investment. Also, some variables seem to be important only in certain regimes, like tourist arrivals in the non-recession regime when nowcasting consumption, while other variables are important in both regimes, like order books in the high and low global financial uncertainty regimes when nowcasting investment. In addition, nowcasting indeed provides a value added to forecasting, and the new information available in the first month seems to be most important. However, sometimes also the forecast performs quite well, and then it mostly comes from a mixed-frequency model. So monthly information seems to be helpful also in forecasting, not only in nowcasting. Finally, we do not find a clear winner among the different mixed-frequency models.

We study the asset allocation of an investor with prospect theory (PT) preferences. First, we solve analytically the two-asset problem of the PT investor for one risk-free and one risky asset and find that loss aversion and the reference return affect differently less ambitious investors and more ambitious investors. Second, we empirically investigate the performance of a PT portfolio when diversifying among a stock market index, a government bond and gold, in Europe and the US. We focus on investors with PT preferences under different scenarios regarding the reference return and the degree of loss aversion and compare their portfolio performance with the performance of investors under CVaR, risk neutral, linear loss averse and in particular mean-variance (MV) preferences. We find that, in the US, PT portfolios signiffcantly outperform (in terms of returns) mean-variance portfolios in the majority of cases. Also with respect to riskadjusted performance, PT investment outperforms MV investment in the US. Similar results, however, can not be observed in Europe. Finally, we analyze asymmetric effects along economic uncertainty and observe that PT investment leads to higher returns than MV investment in times of larger economic uncertainty, especially in the US.

Financial constraints or economic needs, career development, psychological satisfaction as well as demographic and situational factors cause workers to seek more than one job while enjoying leisure time. In this paper we examine how a worker with prospect theory type of preferences allocates her time between leisure, a safe job and a risky job. Optimal time allocation for a sufficient loss averse worker depends on the reference level which in turn determines whether the worker is willing to experience relative losses or not. When the reference level is relatively low then the sufficiently loss averse worker will allocate some of her time to leisure and will hold both jobs in order to diversify risk and reduce income loss arising from the risky job. However, if the probability of a good state of nature is very high and the reference level is very low, the worker spends time only on leisure and the risky job while avoids the safe job. Loss aversion does not affect the optimal time allocation to the three activities as the time allocation results in avoiding relative losses for any state of nature. When the reference level is relative high, but not too high, the worker will allocate her time between both safe and risky jobs as well as to the leisure. Worker with very high reference level will avoid the safe job and will divide her time between the risky job and the leisure. In both cases the worker is willing to accept relative losses in the bad state of nature provided it is compensated with relative gains in the good state of nature. Here the allocation of time to the three activities depends on the degree of loss aversion. When the reference level is relatively low, but not too low, an increase in the reference level will reduce leisure time, reduce time in the risky job and increase time in the safe job. At very low reference levels, an increase in the reference level will result in the worker re-allocating her time from leisure to the risky job assuming the probability of a good state of nature is higher than a threshold. When the reference level is high the opposite effects are observed. We also examine other comparative statics including the effect of changes in the wage rate.

In this paper we examine capital income taxation of a reference dependent sufficiently loss averse investor in a two period portfolio choice model under full loss offset provisions. Capital income taxation with loss offset provisions has been found to stimulate risk taking in expected utility models under certain assumptions about attitudes towards risk but would such effect be found under prospect theory type of preferences? We observe that the impact of capital income taxation depends on investors' reference levels relative to their endowment income and thus we explore capital income taxation for different types of loss averse investors in terms of their ambition. We consider the less ambitious investors to be the ones with relatively low reference levels (they avoid relative losses in both periods) and more ambitious investors to be those with relatively high reference levels. We analyze two types of more ambitious investors: investors with higher time preference (who experience relative losses only in the second period under the bad state of nature) and investors with lower time preference (who experience relative losses only in the first period). We observe that capital income taxation stimulates current consumption in most cases which encourages risk taking, although the final outcome would depend on the investors' degree of risk aversion, the rate of time preference and the tax rate in relation to certain thresholds. Current consumption could be discouraged for some ambitious type of investors that have relatively high second period reference levels but not necessary first period reference levels. In summary, to determine the impact of capital income taxation on the decision variables the reference levels in relation to endowment income play the most significant role. Ignoring reference depended preferences can lead to different conclusions for investors reaction to capital income taxation. We also find certain type of investors whose happiness level increases with capital income taxation under full loss offset provisions.

We estimate new indices measuring financial and economic (in)stability in Austria and in the euro area. Instead of estimating the level of (in)stability in a financial or economic system we measure the degree of predictability of (in)stability, where our methodological approach is based on the uncertainty index of Jurado, Ludvigson and Ng (2015). We perform an impulse response analysis in a vector error correction framework, where we focus on the impact of uncertainty shocks on industrial production, employment and the stock market. We and that financial uncertainty shows a strong significantly negative impact on the stock market, for both Austria and the euro area, while economic uncertainty shows a strong significantly negative impact on the economic variables for the euro area. We also perform a forecasting analysis, where we assess the merits of uncertainty indicators for forecasting industrial production, employment and the stock market, using different forecast performance measures. The results suggest that financial uncertainty improves the forecasts of the stock market while economic uncertainty improves the forecasts of macroeconomic variables. We also use aggregate banking data to construct an augmented financial uncertainty index and examine whether models including this augmented financial uncertainty index outperform models including the original financial uncertainty index in terms of forecasting.