How do investors' expectations drive asset prices?



where by tr {■} we denote the trace of a 2 × 2-matrix and by (∙, ■) the inner
product of the Euclidean space R2. Hence, we have for 0
t T

0 = ut(t,x) ʌɑ(t, x) xtx2ux 1(t, x) — λ^2(t, x) σv(t,x) ux2(t,x')
+ j (-H-'d "ʃ (t,x) + (σv(t,x))2 ux2x2(t,x^ + b(t,x) ux(tt,x)
u(T,x) = xt
.

We jump directly to Step ⅛, omitting Step 3: We define Yt = u(t,Xt) and
Zt = στ (t, Xt,u(t, Xt)) у u(t,Xt), then (X,Y, Z) is an adapted solution of
(11) and (12).                                                                

Theorem 1 shows the close relationship between the asset price process
and the information process. Given the information process and the pricing
kernel Theorem 1 establishes a characterization of the asset price process
as a function of the information process and the pricing kernel. The drift
of the asset price process is governed by the market price of risk
λt and
the diffusion of the asset price process
Zt. The diffusion Zt depends on the
information process
It itself, on the volatility process of It, i.e. σ1t, and on
the first derivatives w.r.t.
xt and X2 of the function characterizing the asset
p
rice: ⅛ & i, σ1t ),    (t, It, σ1t ). Thus, with Theorem 1 we have an explicit

representation of the asset price process in terms of the information process
and the pricing kernel for a 2-dimensional market model. The application of
Theorem 1 to п-dimensional market models is straight forward.

It is obvious from Theorem 1 that the drift of the asset price process
depends on the volatility of the information process. Thus, empirical stud-
ies implicitly assuming non stochastic volatility of the information process
may find unexplainable variations in the drift. Further, neglecting stochastic
volatility of the information process leads to only one risk premium in the
asset price process, i.e.
σY = 0 provides Zt2 = = 0.

To gain some better understanding of the implications of Theorem 1 in
the remainder of this section we discuss the case when all the coefficients are
only functions in t. Thus, with this assumption equation (10) simplifies to

0 = ut(t,x1,x2) λ^1 ( (t) x1x2ux 1(t,x1,x2)                  (13)

λ^( (t) σy(t) ux2(t,x1,x2)

+ 2 ^xlx2 uχtχt(t,x1,x2 ) + v (t))2
u
a¾a¾
(t, xl, X-)^

+b(t) ux2(t,X1,X2) ,   0 tT,

u(T, x) = x1

16



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Industrial districts, innovation and I-district effect: territory or industrial specialization?
3. Learning-by-Exporting? Firm-Level Evidence for UK Manufacturing and Services Sectors
4. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN TENNESSEE ON WATER USE AND CONTROL - AGRICULTURAL PHASES
5. Public infrastructure capital, scale economies and returns to variety
6. The name is absent
7. Robust Econometrics
8. PEER-REVIEWED FINAL EDITED VERSION OF ARTICLE PRIOR TO PUBLICATION
9. ADJUSTMENT TO GLOBALISATION: A STUDY OF THE FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY IN EUROPE
10. Can genetic algorithms explain experimental anomalies? An application to common property resources