リスクとリターンの実証分析―行動ファイナンスによるアプローチ― 新関 三希代

Similar documents
Stepwise Chow Test * Chow Test Chow Test Stepwise Chow Test Stepwise Chow Test Stepwise Chow Test Riddell Riddell first step second step sub-step Step

autocorrelataion cross-autocorrelataion Lo/MacKinlay [1988, 1990] (A)

082_rev2_utf8.pdf

カルマンフィルターによるベータ推定( )

OECD Benartzi and Thaler Brown et al. Mottla and Utkus Rooiji et al. Atkinson et al. MacFarland et al. Elton et al. Tang et al. Benartzi and Thaler Br

わが国企業による資金調達方法の選択問題

日本の高齢者世帯の貯蓄行動に関する実証分析


..,,...,..,...,,.,....,,,.,.,,.,.,,,.,.,.,.,,.,,,.,,,,.,,, Becker., Becker,,,,,, Becker,.,,,,.,,.,.,,

03.Œk’ì

山形大学紀要

23_02.dvi

IMES Discussion Paper Series 98-J


Ł\”ƒ1PDFŠp

fiúŁÄ”s‘ê‡ÌŁª”U…−…X…N…v…„…~…A…•‡Ì ”s‘ê™´›ß…−…^†[…fiŠ‚ª›Âfl’«


2 I- I- (1) 2 I- (2) 2 I- 1 [18] I- I-. 1 I- I- Jensen [11] I- FF 3 I- FF CAPM n ( i = 1,..., n) M t R i,t, i = 1,..., n R M,t ( ) R i,t = r i

株式保有構成と企業価値 ─コーポレート・ガバナンスに関する一考察─

untitled

橡AIMRモノグラフ(荻島).PDF

Title ベンチャー企業の研究開発支出の決定要因 日本と台湾の事例を中心に Author(s) 蘇, 顯揚 Citation 經濟論叢 (1996), 158(1): Issue Date URL Right

_16_.indd


平成○○年度知能システム科学専攻修士論文

1 1 1 [2000]

untitled

合理的個人VS

ipod Walkman Sony Apple ipod Sony Apple ipod Walkman Sony Walkman Walkman ipod


GDPギャップと潜在成長率

早稲田大学現代政治経済研究所 ダブルトラック オークションの実験研究 宇都伸之早稲田大学上條良夫高知工科大学船木由喜彦早稲田大学 No.J1401 Working Paper Series Institute for Research in Contemporary Political and Ec

<93638CB48FBA8E6C2E696E6464>

...v..&.{..&....

時間割引:双曲割引と弱加法性

濱田弘潤 : 多角化企業の利潤分析 77 多角化企業の利潤分析 多角化ディスカウントの寡占理論による説明 * 濱田弘潤 (diversification discount) Keywords: JEL classifications: D43, L13, L22, G

66-1 田中健吾・松浦紗織.pwd

59-1・2 鳥居昭夫・春日教測 .pwd

Microsoft Word - Šv”|“Å‘I.DOC

dvi



Web Stamps 96 KJ Stamps Web Vol 8, No 1, 2004

行動経済学 第5巻 (2012)

%,, % %......

企業倒産とマクロ経済要因

産業・企業レベルデータで見た日本の経済成長.pdf

ヒストリカル法によるバリュー・アット・リスクの計測:市場価格変動の非定常性への実務的対応

,.,.,,. [15],.,.,,., , 1., , 1., 1,., 1,,., 1. i

206“ƒŁ\”ƒ-fl_“H„¤‰ZŁñ


Winter 図 1 図 OECD OECD OECD OECD 2003

BB 報告書完成版_修正版) doc

橡計画0.PDF

aragciv54mac.dvi

雇用不安時代における女性の高学歴化と結婚タイミング-JGSSデータによる検証-

Jorgenson F, L : L: Inada lim F =, lim F L = k L lim F =, lim F L = 2 L F >, F L > 3 F <, F LL < 4 λ >, λf, L = F λ, λl 5 Y = Const a L a < α < CES? C

A Study on Throw Simulation for Baseball Pitching Machine with Rollers and Its Optimization Shinobu SAKAI*5, Yuichiro KITAGAWA, Ryo KANAI and Juhachi

Transcription:

373 51 1 1987 Niizeki 1998, 2005 1) 2005 2006 3 2003 I 1

52 374 58 3 Duffee 1995 Chen, Hong and Stein 2000 Black 1976 Chrisite 1982 Pindyck 1984 French, Schwert and Stambaugh 1987 Poterba and Summers 1986 Hong and Stein 1999

375 53 Chen, Hong and Stein 2000 2) Kahneman and Tversky 1979 von Neumann and Morgenstern 1944 2001 7 11 2005 8 31 225 6 2 2002 Daniel Kahneman

54 376 58 3 225 2 Kahneman and Tversky 1979 Prospect Theory Risky Prospects Expected Utility Theory

377 55 Positive Prospects Negative Prospects Certainty Effect A B 3) Positive Prospects A B 1 A 80 4,000 A=(4000,0.8) B 100 3,000 B=(3000,1) 2 A 20 4,000 A=(4000,0.2) B 25 3,000 B=(3000,0.25) Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 1 B 2 A 4) Negative Prospects 3 Kahneman and Tversky 1979 0 4 x u(x) u(0)=0 1 B u(3000) / u(4000)>4 / 5 2 1 A B 1 / 4 A u(3000) / u(4000)<4 / 5

56 378 58 3 3 A 80 4,000 A=( 4000,0.8) B 100 3,000 B=( 3000,1) 4 A 20 4,000 A=( 4000,0.2) B 25 3,000 B=( 3000,0.25) Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 3 A 4 B Positive Prospects Reflection Effect S Value Function :v(x) v r x v(x)

379 57 v x Reference Point r v(x) x>0 concave x<0 convex : r (x>0) (v) r v (x)<0 x<0 v (x)>0 5) 1 A B (v) 5 A 25 6,000 A=(6000,0.25) B 25 4,000 25 2,000 B=(4000,0.25;2000,0.25) 6 A 25 6,000 A=( 6000,0.25) B 25 4,000 25 2,000 B=( 4000,0.25; 2000,0.25) Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 5 B 6 A π(0.25) π(0.25)v(6000)<π(0.25)[v(4000)+v(2000)] π(0.25)v( 6000)>π(0.25)[v( 4000)+v( 2000)] 5 r 0

58 380 58 3 π(0.25) v(6000)<v(4000)+v(2000) v( 6000)>v( 4000)+v( 2000) x>0 v(x) x 0 4,000 2,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 6,000 6) Disposition Effect Weber and Camerer, 1998 r r v(x) x>0 x<0 v (x) 6 1,500 1,500

381 59 Loss Aversiveness Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 Tversky and Kahneman, 1991 7), 2002 x y 2 x>y 7 A 50 x 50 x A=(x,0.5; x,0.5) B 50 y 50 y B=(y,0.5; y,0.5) B π(0.5)v(y)+π(0.5)v( y)>π(0.5)v(x)+π(0.5)v( x) π(0.5) v(y)+v( y)>v(x)+v( x) v( y) v( x)>v(x) v(y) y=0 v(x)< v( x) 1 v (x)< v ( x) x<0 7

60 382 58 3 v ( x) v (x) v(x) x<0 8) v ( x) x<0 9), 2002 10) 8 9 10 1995 225 1,380

383 61 225 r 0 3 1,450 6 88 (2006) 2006 5 1998 2005 11) 2001 11 55

62 384 58 3 43 2006 10 6 1 52,514.63 12 2 11,146.56 12 3 225 10,322.72 1 4 TOPIX 9,488.30 1 5 3 8,294.59 12 6 7,662.53 12 7 DIAM 7,584.80 12 8 7,139.34 12 9 TOPIX 6,926.58 1 10 225 6,501.70 1 2006 2006 5

385 63 1 12) 3 3 1 +317.6 1 2 +315.5 1 3 +313.9 1 4 JF JP +269.1 1 5 +266.9 1 6 +258.8 1 7 +252.5 1 8 +247.1 1 9 +245.8 1 10 +235.9 1 2006 2006 5 Certainty Effect 12 CML CML 6 6,000 4,000 2,000 5 4,000 2,000 6,000 v(x) Thaler, 1985

64 386 58 3 Disposition Effect v(x) 4 Kernel Regression Model Kernel Density Estimator 13) R t t 14) Z t DGP 1 z V t 1/2(z) 1/2 V t (z)=e R t 2 Z t =z (E R t Z t =z ) 2 1 1 2 (2) Kernel Regression Model f(x t ) 15) 13 Niizeki 1998 14 P t t P t 1 t 1 R t=log( P t/p t 1 ) 15 f(x t) Y t

387 65 Y t =f(x t )+v t, t=1,,t 2 Y t X t v t (iid) Kernel Density Estimate T 1 f(x) Th t=1 K(w t ) 3 w t =(x X t )/h 4 T h band-width 16) K(w t ) box smooth bump (5) Epanechnikov 17) K(w t ) 4 3 (1 w 2 t ) I( w t 1) 5 K (2) Y t X t 6 (m(x)) x Simonoff 1996 x Y t X t T m(x) (Y t 0 1 (x X t )) 2 K(w t ) t=1 6 16 h tradeoff Silverman (1986) 0.9T min(s,r/1.34) s R 17 smoothing Epanechnikov Silverman 1986

66 388 58 3 225 225 NIKKEI225 1 SOB PAT 225 NIK TOPIX TOP 18) 2 INB KOM 19) 2001 7 11 2005 8 31 1017 Date Index 225 2 2003 9 2 18 1 1 6 3 4 2 5 9 10 19 2 1 6 1

2001/7/11 2001/10/11 2002/1/11 2002/4/11 2002/7/11 2002/10/11 2003/1/11 2003/4/11 2003/7/11 2003/10/11 2004/1/11 2004/4/11 2004/7/11 2004/10/11 2005/1/11 2005/4/11 2005/7/11 Date NIK 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Index 2001/7/11 2001/10/11 2002/1/11 2002/4/11 2002/7/11 2002/10/11 2003/1/11 2003/4/11 2003/7/11 2003/10/11 2004/1/11 2004/4/11 2004/7/11 2004/10/11 2005/1/11 2005/4/11 2005/7/11 Date TOP 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Index NIKKEI225 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Index 2001/7/11 2001/11/11 2002/1/11 2002/3/11 Date 2001/9/11 2002/5/11 2002/7/11 2002/11/11 2003/1/11 2003/3/11 2002/9/11 2003/5/11 2003/7/11 2003/11/11 2003/9/11 2004/1/11 2004/3/11 2004/5/11 2004/7/11 2004/11/11 2004/9/11 2005/1/11 2005/3/11 2005/5/11 2005/7/11 389 67

58 3 2001/7/11 2001/10/11 2002/1/11 2002/4/11 2002/7/11 2002/10/11 2003/1/11 2003/4/11 2003/7/11 2003/10/11 2004/1/11 2004/4/11 2004/7/11 2004/10/11 2005/1/11 2005/4/11 2005/7/11 Date SOB 9,000 8,500 8,000 7,500 7,000 6,500 Index Date 2001/7/11 2001/10/11 2002/1/11 2002/4/11 2002/7/11 2002/10/11 2003/1/11 2003/4/11 2003/7/11 2003/10/11 2004/1/11 2004/4/11 2004/7/11 2004/10/11 2005/1/11 2005/4/11 2005/7/11 PAT 10,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Index 7,000 8,000 9,000 2001/7/11 2001/10/11 2002/1/11 2002/4/11 2002/7/11 2002/10/11 2003/1/11 2003/4/11 2003/7/11 2003/10/11 2004/1/11 2004/4/11 2004/7/11 2004/10/11 2005/1/11 2005/4/11 2005/7/11 Date INB 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Index 68 390

391 69 Index 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 KOM 2001/7/11 2001/10/11 2002/1/11 2002/4/11 2002/7/11 2002/10/11 2003/1/11 2003/4/11 2003/7/11 2003/10/11 2004/1/11 2004/4/11 2004/7/11 2004/10/11 2005/1/11 2005/4/11 2005/7/11 Date 225 NIKKEI225P NIKP TOPP SOBP PATP INBP KOMP Mean S.D. Corr Vol 10490.66 105196.3 105061.3 7941.835 7927.777 15847.97 11187.73 1159.066 11570.40 12159.46 251.9038 606.8454 7875.016 6063.295 1 0.999739 0.979173-0.654578-0.501792 0.657566 0.694929 5766 7164 43580 8989 75 17 Mean S. D. Corr Vol NIKKEI225P 225 NIKP 225 TOPP TOPIX SOBP PATP INBP KOMP 7 (1) Kernel Density Estimate

70 392 58 3 Mean Max Min S.D. V 1/2 NIKKEI225R NIKR TOPR SOBR PATR INBR KOMR 5.59E-06 0.057352-0.068645 0.014111 0.006003 4 20) 225 TOPIX 7.85E-06 0.057139-0.068714 0.014082 0.005992 2.51E-05 0.046149-0.065418 0.012209 0.005167 5.25E-05 0.021716-0.026493 0.005236 0.002258-0.000127 0.024523-0.026726 0.005745 0.002484 0.000482 0.026876-0.045934 0.005918 0.005470 0.000402 0.035836-0.047447 0.006073 0.005391 Mean Max Min S. D. V 1/2 NIKKEI225R 225 NIKR 225 TOPR TOPIX SOBR PATR INBR KOMR (2) Return 20 1

393 71 Volatility 1 P 21).012 NIKKEI225.010 Volatility.008.006.004.002.000.08.04.00.04.08 Return Volatility.012.010.008.006.004.002 NK.000.08.04.00.04.08 Return Volatility TOP.009.008.007.006.005.004.003.002.001.000.08.06.04.02.00.02.04.06 Return 225 21 V t 1/2= 0 + 1 R t+u t u t iid) 1

72 394 58 3.004 SOB.0030 PAT Volatility.003.002.001 Volatility.0025.0020.0015.0010.0005.000.03.02.01.00.01.02.03 Return.0000.03.02.01.00.01.02.03 Return.020 INB.020 KOM.016.016 Volatility.012.008 Volatility.012.008.004.004.000.06.04.02.00.02.04 Return.000.06.04.02.00.02.04 Return 1 P-value NIKKEI225R NIKR TOPR SOBR PATR INBR KOMR -0.003984 0.0125-0.003989 0.0123-0.003665 0.0722-2.83E-05 0.9786 0.000596 0.5835-0.002246 0.7490 0.022698 0.0038 1 V t 1/2= 0 1 R t+u t P-value P 4

395 73 1 22) Reflection Effect Disposition Effect 23) Kick 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 Kick 22 23

74 396 58 3 Risky Assets Riskless Assets 5

397 75 2001 7 11 2005 8 31 4 225 225 TOPIX 3 225

76 398 58 3

399 77 Blac k, F., (1976) Studies of Stock Price Volatility Changes, Proceedings of the 1976 meetings of the Business and Economics Statistics Section, American Statistical Association, pp.177-181. Che n, J., H. Hong, J. C. Stein, (2000) Forcasting Crashes: Trading Volume, Past Returns and Conditional Skewness in Stock Prices, NBER Working Paper, No.7687. Chri stie, A. A., (1982) The Stochastic Behavior of Common Stock Variances, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.10, pp.407-432. Duff ee, G. R., (1995) Stock Returns and Volatility: A Firm-level Analysis, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.37, pp.399-420. Fren ch, K. R., G. W. Schwert, and R. F. Stambaugh, (1987) Expected Stock Returns and Volatility, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.19, pp.3-29. Hon g, H., and J. C. Stein, (1999) Differences of Opinion, Rational Arbitrage and Market Crashes, NBER Working Paper, No.7376. Kah neman, D., and A. Tversky, (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, Vol.47, pp.263-291. Niiz eki, K. M., (1998) The Japanese Stock Rate of Return and Volatility: A Comparison of Methods to Estimate Volatilities, The Doshisha University Economic Review, Vol.55, pp.33-50. Pind yck, R. S., (1984) Risk, Inflation, and the Stock Market, American Economic Review, Vol.74, pp.335-351. Pote rba, J. M., and L. H. Summers, (1986) The Persistence of Volatility and Stock Market Fluctuations, American Economic Review, Vol.76, pp.1142-1151. Silve rman, B. W., (1986) Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, London: Chapman and Hall. Simonoff, J. S., (1996) Smoothing Methods in Statistics, New York: Springer-Verlag. Thal er, R.H., (1985) Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice, Marketing Science, Vol.4, pp.199-214. Tver sky, A., and D. Kahneman, (1991) Loss Aversion and Riskless Choice: A Reference

78 400 58 3 Dependent Model, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.6, pp.1039-1061. von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern, (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton : Princeton University Press. Web er, M., and C. Camerer, (1998) The Disposition Effect in Securities Trading: An Experimental Analysis, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol.33, pp.167-184., (2006) http://www.toushin.or.jp, H.P.., (2005) 225 6 2, pp.1-15., (2002).

401 79 The Doshisha University Economic Review Vol.58 No.3 Abstract Mikiyo Kii NIIZEKI, Empirical Tests between Risks and Returns: An Analysis with a Prospect Theory This paper investigates the correlation between the volatilities and the indices returns using daily data for Nikkei 225 and Japanese Open Stock Investment Trusts. Both a prospect theory and a nonparametric regression method are used to investigate a negative relationship between volatilities and returns. Three important features are found. First, the volatilities of both the Japanese stock index and the funds whose indices are connected with the stock market indices are found to depend negatively on the returns. This negative relationship is shown with a value function in the prospect theory. Second, the volatilities are not related to the returns of the funds with the monthly dividends and the funds whose returns are higher than the other funds. Third, the volatilities of the funds with the monthly dividends keep low levels at all the returns. This is a reason why the funds are the most popular.