基于疏忽的最优投资决策

中国管理科学 ›› 2014, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (1): 29-36.

基于疏忽的最优投资决策

冉朝^1,2, 王源昌¹

1. 云南师范大学数学学院, 云南昆明 650092;
2. 济源市统计局, 河南济源 459000

收稿日期:2011-11-01 修回日期:2012-11-07 出版日期:2014-01-20 发布日期:2014-01-20
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目（71163046）

The Optimal Investment Decision to the Inattentive Behaviour

RAN Zhao^1,2, WANG Yuan-chang¹

1. School of Mathematics Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650092, China;
2. Jiyuan Municipal Bureau of Statistics, Jiyuan 459000, China

Received:2011-11-01 Revised:2012-11-07 Online:2014-01-20 Published:2014-01-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 研究存在获得、吸收和处理信息的成本时代表性消费者的最优消费和投资决策问题，结果显示成本的存在意味着消费者仅选择在特定时间更新其决策，且在两相邻决策日间保持疏忽。这种理性疏忽的行为特征将直接影响投资决策，进而产生有限参与、处置行为和高储蓄率等现象。模型明确了成本、财富水平等因素对于投资者的消费、投资决策的影响途径及程度，为如何针对不同投资群体合理引导其消费、投资行为以及健全资本市场机制、完善多元化金融服务体制提供了具有可操作性的理论依据和政策建议。同时通过比对相关研究结果，侧面论证了中国市场主要以短期疏忽投资者为主，为研究摩擦市场中的资产价格异动及信息时滞下的政策效应提供了新的视角。

关键词: 疏忽, 有限关注, 投资决策, 处置行为, 家庭金融

Abstract: Consumption and investment decisions of agents in the presence of costs of acquiring, absorbing and processing information are studied in this paper. As the optimal decision, the agents will choose to adjust their plans at a pre-set date and keep inattentive between the adjustment. The rational inattentive behavior will directly affect the investment decision, and makes an interpretation to the limited participation, disposition effect and the high saving rate in the household's decision-making. It makes clear about the ways and degree of the effect to the investors' decision-making by the factors as costs and wealth etc., and provides a feasible theoretical basis and policy suggestions to how to guide rational behavior of different investors, improve the capital market mechanism, and perfect the diversified financial service system. At the same time, compared to the related research results, it can be found that investors in the domestic market are mainly being short-term inattentive investors, which provides a new way to study the price movements and the effect of policy under information delay.

Key words: inattentive, limited attention, investment decision, disposition effect, household finance

中图分类号:

F832.48

冉朝, 王源昌. 基于疏忽的最优投资决策[J]. 中国管理科学, 2014, 22(1): 29-36.

RAN Zhao, WANG Yuan-chang. The Optimal Investment Decision to the Inattentive Behaviour[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2014, 22(1): 29-36.

参考文献

[1] Ameriks J, Zeldes S P. How do household portfolio shares vary with age? [R]TIAA-CREF Working paper, Columbia Business School, 2004.
[2] Mitchell O S, Mottola G R, Utkus S P, et al. The inattentive participant: Portfolio trading behavior in 401(k) plans[R]. Working paper, Pension Research Council, 2006.
[3] Constantinides G M. Capital market equilibrium with transactions costs[J].Journal of Political Economy, 1986, (94):842-862.
[4] 吴卫星, 汪勇祥, 梁衡义.过度自信、有限参与和资产价格泡沫[J].经济研究, 2006, (4):115-127.
[5] Duffie D, Sun T S. Transactions costs and portfolio choice in a discrete-continuous -time setting[J]. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 1990, 14(1):35-51.
[6] Abel A B, Eberly J C, Panageas S. Optimal inattention to the stock market with information costs and transactions costs[R].NBER Working paper, 2009.
[7] Alvarez F, Guiso L, Lippi F. Durable consumption and asset management with transaction and observation costs[R]. NBER Working paper, 2010.
[8] Alvarez F, Lippi F, Paciello L. Optimal price setting with observation and menu costs[R]. NBER Working paper, 2010.
[9] Allen F, Gale D. Limited market participation and volatility of asset prices[J]. The American Economic Review, 1994, (84):933-955.
[10] Vissing-Jorgensen A. Towards an explanation of household portfolio choice heterogeneity: Nonfinancial income and participation cost structures[R]. NBER Working Paper, 2002.
[11] Sims C A. Implications of rational inattention[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics, 2003, 50 (3):665-690.
[12] Moscarini G. Limited information capacity as a source of inertia[J]. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 2004, 28(10):2003-2035.
[13] Lynch A W. Decision frequency and synchronization across agents: Implications for aggregate consumption and equity return[J].Journal of Finance, 1996, 51(4):1479-1497.
[14] Gabaix X, Laibson D. The 6D bias and the equity premium puzzle[J]. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2001, (16): 257-312.
[15] Bacchetta P, Wincoop E. Infrequent portfolio decisions: A solution to the forward discount puzzle[J]. American Economic Review, 2010, 100(3): 870-904.
[16] Mankiw N, Reis R. Sticky information versus sticky prices: A proposal to replace the new keynesian phillips curve[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2002, 117(4):1295-1328.
[17] Mankiw N G, Reis R. Sticky information: A model of monetary nonneutrality and structural slumps[R]. NBER Working Paper, 2001.
[18] Reis R. Inattentive consumers[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics, 2006, 53:1761-1800.