The : Some Evidence from the Lab Cars Hommes CeNDEF, Amsterdam School of Economics University of Amsterdam Evolution and Market Beavior in Economics and Finance Scuola Superiore Sant Anna, Pisa, Italia, October 2-3, 29
Plan of the Talk Introduction & Motivation Expectations Hypothesis Learning to Forecast Experiments with Human Subjects Heuristics Switching Model Explaining the Experiments Conclusions about Rationality and Heterogeneity
Co-authors Experiments, past 1 years Joep Sonnemans, Jan Tuinstra, Henk vd Velden, Peter Heemeijer, Models explaining Experiments Mikhail Anufriev, William Brock, Thomas Lux New Experiments Te Bao, Tiziana Assenza, Domenico Massaro
Why are Expectations Important? economic decisions today depend upon expectations about the future state of the economy individuals learn from past mistakes and adapt their behavior accordingly an economy is an expectations feedback system any dynamic economic model depends crucially upon the expectations hypothesis
Questions about Expectations Hypothesis How do individuals form expectations and how do they learn and adapt their behaviour? How do individual forecasting rules interact at the micro level and which aggregate outcome do they co-create at the macro level? Will coordination occur, even when there is limited information, or will heterogeneity persist? When does learning enforce convergence to REE? Approach: Laboratory Experiments + Fit Model
Some Literature Related to this Talk Hommes, C.H. The : Some Evidence from the Lab, in preparation. Hommes, C.H. and Wagener, F.O.O. (29), Complex Evolutionary Systems in Behavioral Finance, In: T. Hens and K.R. Schenk-Hoppé (Eds.), Handbook of Financial Markets: Dynamics and Evolution, Elsevier, 29, 217-276. Hommes, C.H., Sonnemans, J., Tuinstra, J., and van de Velden, H., (25), Coordination of expectations in asset pricing experiments, Review of Financial Studies 18, 9-98. Heemeijer, P., Hommes, C.H., Sonnemans, J. and Tuinstra, J. (29), Price stability and volatility in markets with positive and negative expectations feedback, Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 152-172. Anufriev, M. and Hommes, C. Evolutionary Selection of Individual Expectations and Aggregate Outcomes, CeNDEF Working Paper, University of Amsterdam, September 29.
Rational Expectations Hypothesis (Muth, 1961) all agents are the same and forecast rationally agents use all available information expectations are model consistent and coincide on average with realizations (no systematic forecasting errors) Drawbacks: law of motion of the economy is unknown even if law of motion is known, RE requires unrealistically high computing abilities RE models at odds with empirical observations, especially laboratory experiments
Alternative View: Bounded Rationality agents use time series observations to form expectations agents learn and adapt their behavior as more observations become available sometimes convergence to REE, sometimes learning equilibria Drawbacks: wilderness of bounded rationality (too) many degrees of freedom, too many parameters seems particularly problematic when individual have heterogeneous expectations
Muth (1961) on Deviations from Rationality [emphasis added] Allowing for cross-sectional differences in expectations is a simple matter, because their aggregate affect is negligible as long as the deviation from the rational forecast for an individual firm is not strongly correlated with those of the others. key issues: are individual expectations coordinated? if so, do individuals coordinate on a rational or a boundedly rational aggregate outcome? This can be tested in Learning to Forecast Experiments
Cobweb Learning to Forecast Experiments (Hommes et al., Macroeconomic Dynamics 27) 1 1 9 8 8 6 7 6 4 5 4 2 3 2 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 5 1 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 5 PRICE_GROUP2 EXP21 EXP22 EXP23 EXP24 EXP25 EXP26 PRICE_GROUP3 EXP31 EXP32 EXP33 EXP34 EXP35 EXP36 stable: coordination on RE no aggregate effect 8 7 6 5 4 unstable: persistent heterogeneity excess volatility 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 5 1 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 5 PRICE_GROUP2 AVEXP2 PRICE_GROUP3 AVEXP3
Learning to Forecasts Laboratory Experiments individuals only have to forecast price, ceteris paribus, e.g. wit all other behavior assumed to be rational computerized trading yields market equilibrium price, consistent with benchmark model; in this talk cobweb model asset pricing model New Keynesian macro model advantage: clean data on expectations
Literature Learning to Forecasts Experiments OG-experiments: Marimon, Spear and Sunder (1993), Marimon and Sunder (1993, 1994, 1995) asset pricing experiments: Hommes et al. (25, 28) positive versus negative feedback experiments: Heemeijer et al. (29) macro experiments inflation/output: Adam (27), Pfajfar and Santoro (29), Assenza et al. (29) survey Duffy (28), Experimental Macroeconomics Challenge: universal theory of heterogeneous expectations Experimental Data: http://www1.fee.uva.nl/cendef
Learning to Forecast Experiments (Ctd) Subjects task and incentive forecasting a price for 5 periods better forecasts yield higher earnings Subjects know only qualitative information about the market price p t derived from equilibrium between demand and supply type of expectations feedback: positive or negative past information: at time t participant h can see past prices (up to p t 1 ), own past forecasts (up to p t,h ) and own earnings (up to e t 1,h ) Subjects do not know exact equilibrium equation, e.g. p t = f ( p e t+1 ) or p t = f ( p e t ) exact demand schedule of themselves and others number and forecasts of other participants
Example Computer Screen Experiment
Three Different Experimental Settings asset pricing experiment (with/without robot trader) two-period ahead positive feedback p t = 1 ( (1 n t ) pe t+1,1 + + pe ) t+1,6 + n t p f + ȳ + ε t 1 + r 6 positive versus negative feedback; one-period ahead p t = f (p e t ): positive feedback: linear, slope +.95; negative feedback: linear, slope.95. New Keynesian Macromodel: aggregate inflation and output depend on individual forecasts of both inflation and output (and monetary policy rule): (π t, y t ) = F(π e t+1, ye t+1 )
Asset Pricing Experiment Simulation Benchmarks 7 Rational Expectation simulated price fundamental 7 Naive Expectation simulated price fundamental 6 6 5 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 Period 4 1 2 3 4 5 Period 7 Sample Average Expectation simulated price fundamental 7 AR 2 Expectation simulated price fundamental 6 6 5 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 Period 4 1 2 3 4 5 Period
Asset Pricing Experiment (with Robot Trader) 7 fundamental price Group 2 experimental price 7 fundamental price Group 5 experimental price 6 6 Price 5 5 4 4 7 fundamental price Group 1 experimental price 7 fundamental price Group 6 experimental price 6 6 Price 5 5 4 4 Price Group 4 9 8 fundamental price experimental price 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 Group 7 7 fundamental price experimental price 6 5 4 1 2 3 4 5
2 Groups with (Almost) Monotonic Convergence prices, individual predictions and individual errors Group 2 Group 5 Price Price Predictions 35 2-2 Predictions 35 2-2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 Groups with Perpetual Oscillations prices, individual predictions and individual errors Group 1 Group 6 Price Price Predictions 35 5-5 Predictions 35 5-5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 Groups with Damping Oscillations prices, individual predictions and individual errors 9 Group 4 75 Group 7 Price 7 5 3 Price 1 Predictions 9 7 5 3 1 3-3 Predictions 75 1-1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Summary Results Asset Pricing Experiment Results are inconsistent with rational, fundamental forecasting One would like to explain: three qualitatively different patters (almost) monotonic convergence constant oscillations damping oscillations coordination of agents in their predictions no homogeneous expectations model fits these experiments need heterogeneous expectations model
Estimation of Individual Predictions...for the last 4 periods in converging groups agents use adaptive expectations p e t+1 = w p t 1 + (1 w) p e t often agents used simple linear rules anchor and adjustment rule p e t+1 = α + β 1 p t 1 + β 2 p t 2 e.g. (6 + p t 1 )/2 + (p t 1 p t 2 ) or LAA (p av t 1 + p t 1)/2 + (p t 1 p t 2 ) in particular trend-extrapolating rules p e t+1 = p t 1 + γ (p t 1 p t 2 ).4 γ 1.3
Heterogeneous Expectations Model Heuristics Switching Model agents choose from a number of simple forecasting heuristics adaptive learning: some parameters of the heuristics are updated over time, e.g. anchor average performance based reinforcement learning: agents evaluate the performances of all heuristics, and tend to switch to more successful rules; impacts are evolving over time
Four forecasting heuristics adaptive rule ADA p e 1,t+1 =. p t 1 +.35 p e 1,t weak trend-following rule WTR p e 2,t+1 = p t 1 +.4 (p t 1 p t 2 ) strong trend-following rule STR p e 3,t+1 = p t 1 + 1.3 (p t 1 p t 2 ) anchoring and adjustment heuristics with learnable anchor LAA p e 4,t+1 =.5 pav t 1 +.5 p t 1 + (p t 1 p t 2 )
Evolutionary Switching Brock and Hommes (1997), Anufriev and Hommes (29) performance measure of heuristic i is U i,t 1 = ( p t 1 p e i,t 1) 2 + η Ui,t 2 parameter η [, 1] the strength of the agents memory discrete choice model with asynchronous updating n i,t = δ n i,t 1 + (1 δ) exp(β U i,t 1 ) 4 i=1 exp(β U i,t 1) parameter δ [, 1] the inertia of the traders parameter β the intensity of choice
Stochastic Simulations (one step ahead forecast) Anufriev and Hommes (29) uses past experimental data same information as participants in experiments Parameters fixed at: β =.4, η =.7, δ =.9 initial fractions equal, i.e. n ht =.25 initial prices as in experiments
Group 5 (Convergence) experimental prices simulated prices, predictions and errors Parameters: β =.4, η =.7, δ =.9 Group 5 Fractions of 4 rules in the simulation for Group 5 Price 1 ADA WTR STR LAA simulation experiment ADA WTR STR LAA.8.6 Predictions 35 2-2.4.2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Group 6 (Constant Oscillations) experimental prices simulated prices, predictions and errors Parameters: β =.4, η =.7, δ =.9 Group 6 Fractions of 4 rules in the simulation for Group 2 Price 1 ADA WTR STR LAA simulation experiment ADA WTR STR LAA.8.6 Predictions 35 5-5.4.2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Group 7 (Damping Oscillations) experimental prices simulated prices, predictions and errors Parameters: β =.4, η =.7, δ =.9 75 Group 7 Price 1 Fractions of 4 rules in the simulation for Group 7 ADA WTR STR LAA Predictions 75 1-1 simulation experiment ADA WTR STR LAA.8.6.4.2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Asset Pricing Experiments without Fundamental Trader experimental prices simulated prices, predictions and errors Parameters: β =.4, η =.7, δ =.9 Price Predictions 1 8 6 4 2 1 8 6 4 2 Group 12 simulation experiment ADA WTR STR LAA 5-5 1 2 3 4 5 Fractions of 4 rules in the simulation for Group 12 1 ADA WTR STR LAA.8.6.4.2 1 2 3 4 5
Positive versus Negative Feedback Experiments Heemeijer et al. (JEDC 29); Te Bao, MPhil thesis, 29 negative feedback (strategic substitute environment) p t = 6 2 6 21 [ 1 6 pe ht ] 6] + ɛ t h=1 positive feedback (strategic complementarity environment) p t = 6 + 2 6 21 [ 1 6 pe ht 6] + ɛ t h=1 different types of shocks ɛ t : small resp. large permanent shocks common feature: same RE equilibrium only difference: sign in the slope of linear map +.95 vs.95
Negative vs. Positive Feedback Experiments Prices, Individual Predictions and Errors 8 NEGATIVE 8 POSITIVE Price 6 4 Price 6 4 Predictions 2 1 8 6 4 3 2-3 1 2 3 4 5 Predictions 2 1 8 6 4 3 2-3 1 2 3 4 5
Positive vs Negative Feedback; Small Shocks Heuristics Switching Model Simulations Parameters: β =.4, η =.7, δ =.9 Price Impacts of Heuristics 1 simulation experiment 1 ADA WTR STR LAA 8.8 6.6 4.4 2.2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Price Impacts of Heuristics 1 simulation experiment 1 ADA WTR STR LAA 8.8 6.6 4.4 2.2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Simulated and real market price in Group 8 under Positive Feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6 period simulation experiment 1.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 Simulated fractions of the 4 rules for Group 6 under Negative Feedback ADA WTR STR LAA 1 2 3 4 5 6 period 1.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 Simulated fractions of the 4 rules for Group 8 under Positive Feedback ADA WTR STR LAA 1 2 3 4 5 6 period Positive/Negative Feedback; Large Shocks 1 9 Simulated and real market price in Group 6 under Negative Feedback simulation experiment 8 7 6 price 5 fraction 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 period price fraction
Positive/Negative Feedback; Large Shocks Coordination & Price Discovery median absolute distance to RE fundamental price; median standard deviation of individual predictions 25 The median of the distance between the market price and RE negative feedback positive feedback 15 The median of the standard deviation negative feedback positive feedback 2 1 15 distance distance 1 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 period 1 2 3 4 5 6 period
New Keynesian Macro Model; Expectations on Inflation & Output Gap Assenza et al. (29), Session 11:B4 Explorations in Bounded Rationality
New Keynesian Macro Model: Simulations (Domenico Massaro) 1.5 4 experiment experiment simulation simulation 1 3.5.5 3 output inflation 2.5.5 2 1 1.5 1.5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 1.9 ADA WTR.9 ADA WTR.8 STR LAA.8 STR LAA.7.7.6.6.5.5.4.4.3.3.2.2.1.1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Concluding Remarks no homogeneous expectations model fits all experiments only in stable cobweb/negative feedback quick convergence to REE heterogeneity in expectations is crucial, because one model explains observed path dependence in same market environment different aggregate outcomes in different markets different forecasting behavior for different variables in one macro economy challenge: universal theory of heterogeneous expectations
Papers and Experimental Data suggestions most welcome! papers and experimental data can be obtained at CeNDEF website http://www1.fee.uva.nl/cendef Thank you very much!!
Other Asset Pricing Experiments Group 3 (Typing Error) and Fundamental p = 4 7 simulation experiment 1 ADA WTR STR LAA.8 6.6 5.4.2 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7 simulation experiment 1 ADA WTR STR LAA 6.8 5 4.6 3.4 2 1.2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
MSE one-step ahead forecast asset pricing experiments Specification Group 2 Group 5 Group 1 Group 6 Group 4 Group 7 Fundamental Prediction 18.37 11.797 15.226 8.959 291.376 22.47 naive.6.62 3.397 2.292 126.162 12.2 AAA 5.537 3.447 2.93.863 6.751 5.647 ADA.126.5 5.44 4.33 185.591 18.825 WTR.81.132 1.92 1.38 86.254 8.674 STR.6.612 2.792.767 81.523 13.663 LAA.433.434.427.63 6.25 5.564 4 heuristics (δ = 1).82.158 1.128. 62.8 6.683 4 heuristics (benchmark).66.13.426.266 4.766 a 4.148 4 heuristics (best fit).57.35..188 33.3 a 2.8151 β [, 1).99.99.1.99.13.23 η [, 1).63.98.99.1.82. δ [, 1].8...78.6.44 a Computed for β =.1, η =.7 and δ =.9.
New Keynesian Macro Model; Expectations on Inflation & Output Gap passive monetary policy (i.e. φ π = 1)