Author
Abstract
This paper explores whether changes in the age distribution have significant effects on financial markets that are rational and forward-looking. It presents a stationary overlapping generations model in which agents save for retirement while working, making a portfolio decision over risky equity and riskless bonds in zero net supply. The model features only aggregate uncertainty, a technology shock to production and random population growth, and is solved numerically using the parameterized expectations approach (PEA) following Den Haan and Marcet (1990). The methodology of Den Haan and Marcet (1994) is used to test the accuracy of the solution. Although agents' degree of risk aversion is constant over time, they invest as if increasingly risk averse with age: young workers short the riskless asset in order to hold equity, while old workers hold mostly the riskless asset. This portfolio behavior stems from an implicit holding of a nontradable asset, human capital. Using the PEA solution to simulate a baby boom-baby bust reveals that the return differential between equity and bonds rises significantly when boom turns to bust. At this point a large cohort of old workers trades with a smaller cohort of young workers, resulting in excess demand for the riskless asset, which pushes down the riskfree rate relative to the return on equity. There is thus cohort-specific demographic risk in financial markets that are rational and forward-looking, with returns to baby boomers significantly below steady state returns. The paper also demonstrates that a simple pay-as-you-go pension scheme fails to insure agents against this cohort-specific risk, concluding that only government can insure agents against it, by varying borrowing over time and thereby making transfers of wealth across non-overlapping generations.An appendix solves the model using a "projection" PEA, which uses a nonlinear equation solver to find the coefficients at which the approximating function equals the numerically computed conditional expectation. It compares the efficiency and accuracy of this solution method to that of the Monte Carlo PEA.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Other versions of this item:
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.