Asset price bubbles referring to the asset price (especially the stock and real estate prices) are gradually upward deviated by the production of product and service, and employment and income level. The real economy determines the intrinsic value of the corresponding price, and often leads to market price callback quickly, which make the economic phenomena of the economic growth to a halt.
Asset price bubbles exist in whether and how to generate, this is the key of the related literature to discuss. At this point, opinions are varying. According to the basic conclusion, combination can be divided into two broad categories: typically thought is that there is no asset price bubbles, such as the standard explanation of new classical economics, information asymmetry theory of interpretation and the interpretation of the efficient market hypothesis, etc. Another kind is on the contrary, someone thinks that the market inevitably exists in the asset price bubbles and production price bubbles, like the Asset Prices Company Manager Manipulation theory, the Theory of Dynamic Game Theory and so on.
The asset price bubbles research has formed four kinds of important points of view. One point is that capital recovery referring to the period in a given equal recovery initial capital invested or pays off the debt owed by the value of the index. In the calculation of the amount of capital recovery that the inverse operation of annuity present value, capital recovery factor is the reciprocal of annuity present value coefficient. Another point is that people hate to lose their own things, and their intuition thinking system will be difficult to accept this. Generally speaking, the degree of losing something which makes you sad is double affection of getting the same things to make you happy. With professional terms, we call this phenomenon "loss aversion". The next point is speculative price bubble and ex post rational stock price. The finally point is Greater Fool Theory which refers to the capital markets (such as stock market, futures market): people ignore something of real value and are willing to pay high prices to purchase, because they are expected to there will be a bigger fool paying a higher price from them.
2. Four Factors四大因素
2.1Certainty Equivalent and Gambles
The effect of adding a sure gain to the preference for a risky gamble is considered to be evaluated by weight(Yutaka Matsushita,2012)[1].A certainty equivalent of every gamble is decomposed into the addition of a sure gain and a conditional certainty equivalent.
For a consumer, there is no difference between getting a certain gain and taking a gamble to gain more. Different choices are made by risk lovers and risk averters. People differ in how much they are willing to take risks, and what kind of stakes are worth taking a risk for(on net).
Investments must pay a risk premium to compensate investors for the possibility that they may not get their money back. If an investor has a choice between a U.S. government bond paying 3% interest and a corporate bond paying 8% interest, and he chooses the government bond, which the payoff is the certainty equivalent. The company would need to offer this particular investor a potential return of more than 8% on its bonds, to convince him to buy. Thus, a company seeking investors can use the certainty equivalent as a basis for determining how much more it needs to pay, to convince investors to consider the riskier option. The certainty equivalent will vary, because each investor has a unique risk tolerance.
2.2Loss aversion and myopic loss aversion
People hate to lose their own things, and their intuition thinking system will be difficult to accept this. Generally speaking, the degree of losing something to make you sad is double to get the same things to make you happy. With professional terms, we call this phenomenon "loss aversion"[2].
Let's look at a simple experiment. See Kahneman (1991), Carnegie (1991) and Taylor (1991) in 1991[3]. Half of the students of the university in a class each got a coffee cup with Alma mater, crest, and then the experiment required students who didn’t get the cup carefully take a look at the others just get the cup. Later, the experiment required students to get the cup to sell the glass to the students who didn't get the cup. Finally, in the business before, the students were asked to answer "under the condition of the following each price, are you willing to buy or sell this cup". As a result, the owner of the cup is willing to sell the price of the cup is about want to buy the cup twice as many students are willing to pay a price. This experiment has been carried out dozens of times, without thousands of cup, and the result is almost always the case. That is to say: once I had a cup, I won't give it up easily; and if I am not the cup, I'm in no hurry to spend money to buy. This shows that people's items.
The gambling can also measure the degree of "loss aversion". Asking wether a person would be willing to bet, for example, flip a coin, if the face is up so he wins some money, if the tails he loses $100. So how much is the "money" to make a person interested? For most people, the answer is about $200. This means, winning $200 in happiness can offset just lost $100. (Weisberg, R. W 1994)[4]
"Loss aversion" is easy to make the person produces inertia is a strong desire to maintain the status. If someone does not want to incur losses because he is not willing to give up some things, he would refuse to transactions. In another experiment, one half of the students in class still get the coffee cup, and the other students get a big piece of chocolate. The price of coffee and chocolate is roughly similar, so before getting the two things, students showed their equal and possessive desire. However, once they got their own things, when we ask for the things they will hand into another, only 10% of people are willing to do so.
Therefore, the role of "loss aversion" is, in fact, a kind of cognitive booster. It tries to stop people from changing the existing status, even if the change is very helpful to them.
2.3Speculative price bubble and ex post rational stock price
The financial world, many people may not know, the earliest speculative boom in human history is triggered by tulips. The price of the peak, a tulip even equates to a high income family's wealth. Crazy about future prices continuing to rise, people inevitably pushed the tulip market into the abyss. Since then, the speculation in financial markets, gold, stocks, futures take turns to be speculative; one of the most representatives is probably in the 70s to 70s "junk bonds". But all roads lead to Rome. There is always a day after the bursting of the last(Carnegie 1964).[5]
Speculative bubbles do not agree with the basic economic variables of the exchange rate movement, and the movement has the nature of self-reinforcing. Speculative bubbles can be divided into rational speculative bubbles and irrational speculative bubbles, both of which have in common is that values the role of expectations, the difference is that: the former is expectation hypothesis as the basic premise, while the latter is to deny the rational expectations hypothesis as the starting point. (Svenson, O. 1979)[6]
After the tulip bubble burst, the financial history of speculative bubbles emerges in endlessly. One of the most sensational stories is the "junk bond king-Michael Milken (1990) speculation of junk bonds.
2.4Greater Fool Theory and Speculation
Greater Fool Theory(John Maynard Keynesl 1964)[8] refers to the high prices to buy stocks. For example, once the market is advancing to the profitable, they will sell quickly. This operation strategy is usually called “fool won” in the market, so can only apply in the rising stock market.
EG1hao
