Working paper series / Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability
http://www.imfs-frankfurt.de/de/forschung/imfs-working-papers.html
Refine
Year of publication
- 2011 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Bayes-Lernen (1)
- Bayesian learning (1)
- Capital-Asset-Pricing-Modell (1)
- Deutschland (1)
- Landesbank (1)
- Restrukturierung (1)
- Sparkasse (1)
- adaptive learning (1)
- beliefs (1)
- controlled diffusions and jump processes (1)
Institute
46
This paper proposes a new approach for modeling investor fear after rare disasters. The key element is to take into account that investors’ information about fundamentals driving rare downward jumps in the dividend process is not perfect. Bayesian learning implies that beliefs about the likelihood of rare disasters drop to a much more pessimistic level once a disaster has occurred. Such a shift in beliefs can trigger massive declines in price-dividend ratios. Pessimistic beliefs persist for some time. Thus, belief dynamics are a source of apparent excess volatility relative to a rational expectations benchmark. Due to the low frequency of disasters, even an infinitely-lived investor will remain uncertain about the exact probability. Our analysis is conducted in continuous time and offers closed-form solutions for asset prices. We distinguish between rational and adaptive Bayesian learning. Rational learners account for the possibility of future changes in beliefs in determining their demand for risky assets, while adaptive learners take beliefs as given. Thus, risky assets tend to be lower-valued and price-dividend ratios vary less under adaptive versus rational learning for identical priors. Keywords: beliefs, Bayesian learning, controlled diffusions and jump processes, learning about jumps, adaptive learning, rational learning. JEL classification: D83, G11, C11, D91, E21, D81, C61
45
The European Monetary Union euro has done very well since its initiation. Price stability has been secured and the external value of the new currency is more than satisfactory. The confidence in it is also shown by its increasing use as a global reserve currency. It has been a stabilizing factor in the current crisis. The recent budgetary problems of some member states are principally not a problem of the Monetary Union. It is therefore in no way justified to speak of a "Euro-crisis". It is true, however, that the Monetary Union restricts the number of possibilities for member states to solve their financial problems but it does not eliminate them entirely that outside help would have become indispensible. The purchase of debt instruments of member states in financial distress by the ECB is questionable from an economic, and more important, from a legal point of view. The longer the duration, the less legally justifiable is it. Financial support for member states in severe financial distress might be acceptable as a temporary crisis resolution mechanism. A permanent support mechanism needs a basis in the primary law of the EU. The treatment of the risk of "sovereign" debt in the legal framework for financial institutions urgently needs improvement. Especially the capital requirements for credit institutions have to be adjusted.