Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Year: 400
1920’s
350
300
250
$
200
150
100
50
0
time
Dec 25 Dec 50
Pros’ dilemma
Classical Question
Main Literature
Keynes (1936) ⇒ bubble can emerge
¾ “It might have been supposed that competition between expert
professionals, possessing judgment and knowledge beyond that of the
average private investor, would correct the vagaries of the ignorant
individual left to himself.”
Friedman (1953), Fama (1965)
Efficient Market Hypothesis ⇒ no bubbles emerge
¾ “If there are many sophisticated traders in the market, they may cause
these “bubbles” to burst before they really get under way.”
Limits to Arbitrage
¾ Noise trader risk versus Synchronization risk
Shleifer & Vishny (1997), DSSW (1990 a & b)
Bubble Literature
¾ Symmetric information - Santos & Woodford (1997)
¾ Asymmetric information
Tirole (1982), Allen et al. (1993), Allen & Gorton (1993)
9
introduction
model setup
preliminary analysis
persistence of bubbles
public events
conclusion
12
Model setup
common action of κ arbitrageurs
sequential awareness
(random t0 with F(t0) = 1 - exp{-λt0}). pt
1/η
t
t0 t0 + ηκ t0+ η t0+ τ
0 random κ traders all traders bubble bursts
starting are aware of are aware of for exogenous
paradigm shift point the bubble the bubble reasons
- internet 90’s
- railways maximum life-span of the bubble τ
- etc.
13
Payoff structure
Cash Payoffs (difference)
¾ Sell ‘one share’ at t-∆ instead of at t.
pt-∆ e r∆ - pt
prior to the crash
where pt =
after the crash
introduction
model setup
Preliminary analysis
preemption motive - trigger strategies
sell out condition
persistence of bubbles
public events
conclusion
16
g−r
h(t|ti ) ≥ β ∗
introduction
model setup
preliminary analysis
persistence of bubbles
exogenous crashes
endogenous crashes
lack of common knowledge
public events
conclusion
18
Persistence of Bubbles
Proposition
Proposition 1:
2: Suppose .
¾ existence of a unique trading equilibrium
¾ traders begin attacking after a delay of
periods.
¾ bubble does not burst due to endogenous selling
prior to .
19
Sequential awareness
Distribution of t0+τ
Distribution of t0
(bursting of bubble if nobody attacks)
trader ti
ti - η ti t
since ti · t0 + η since ti ≥ t0
trader tj
tj - η tj t
trader tk
t
t0 tk t0+ τ
20
⇒ Bubble bursts at t0 + ηκ
when κ traders are aware of the bubble
Distribution of t0
Distribution of t0 + ηκ
λ/(1-e-ληκ)
ti - η ti - ηκ ti ti + ηκ t
⇒ Bubble bursts at t0 + ηκ
hazard rate of the bubble
h = λ/(1-exp{-λ(ti + ηκ - t)})
Distribution of t0
λ/(1-e-ληκ) Distribution of t0 + ηκ
ti - η ti - ηκ ti ti + ηκ t
Bubble bursts
for sure!
22
λ/(1-e-ληκ)
ti - η ti - ηκ ti ti + ηκ t
Bubble bursts
optimal time for sure!
to attack ti+τi ⇒ “delayed attack is optimal”
no “immediate attack” equilibrium!
23
_
lower bound: (g-r)/β > λ/(1-e-ληκ)
λ/(1-e-ληκ)
Endogenous crashes
Proposition 3: Suppose .
¾ ‘unique’ trading equilibrium.
¾ traders begin attacking after a delay of \tau*
periods.
¾ bubble bursts due to endogenous selling
pressure at a size of pt times
25
Endogenous crashes
⇒ Bubble bursts at t0 + ηκ + τ*
bubble appreciation
bubble size
_
lower bound: (g-r)/β > λ/(1-e-ληκ)
conjectured
attack
optimal
26
t0 t0 + ηκ t0 + η t0 + 2η t0 + 3η …
everybody everybody knows that everybody knows that
knows of the everybody knows of the everybody knows that
the bubble bubble …
everybody knows of
the bubble
κ traders
know of (same reasoning applies for κ traders)
the bubble
27
introduction
model setup
preliminary analysis
persistence of bubbles
synchronizing events
conclusion
28
introduction
model setup
preliminary analysis
persistence of bubbles
public events
conclusion
32
http://www.princeton.edu/~markus
36
data
empirical results
conclusion
37
Why Did Rational Speculation Fail to
Prevent the Bubble ?
1. Unawareness of Bubble
⇒ Rational speculators perform as badly as others when market collapses.
2. Limits to Arbitrage
¾ Fundamental risk
¾ Noise trader risk
¾ Synchronization risk
¾ Short-sale constraint
⇒ Rational speculators may be reluctant to go short overpriced stocks.
3. Predictable Investor Sentiment
¾ AB (2003), DSSW (JF 1990)
⇒ Rational speculators may want to go long overpriced stock and
try to go short prior to collapse.
38
empirical results
conclusion
39
Data
Hedge fund stock holdings
¾ Quarterly 13 F filings to SEC
¾ mandatory for all institutional investors
with holdings in U.S. stocks of more than $ 100 million
domestic and foreign
at manager level
¾ Caveats: No short positions
53 managers with CDA/Spectrum data
¾ excludes 18 managers b/c mutual business dominates
¾ incl. Soros, Tiger, Tudor, D.E. Shaw etc.
Hedge fund performance data
¾ HFR hedge fund style indexes
40
data
empirical results
did hedge funds ride bubble?
did hedge funds’ timing pay off?
conclusion
41
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Mar-98 Jun-98 Sep-98 Dec-98 Mar-99 Jun-99 Sep-99 Dec-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00
Fig. 2: Weight of NASDAQ technology stocks (high P/S) in aggregate hedge fund portfolio versus weight
in market portfolio.
42
0.60
Soros
0.40
Husic
Market Portfolio
0.20
Tiger
Omega
0.00
Mar-98 Jun-98 Sep-98 Dec-98 Mar-99 Jun-99 Sep-99 Dec-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00
Fig. 4a: Weight of technology stocks in hedge fund portfolios versus weight in
market portfolio
43
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
Jaguar Fund (Tiger)
-0.15
-0.20
Mar-98 Jun-98 Sep-98 Dec-98 Mar-99 Jun-99 Sep-99 Dec-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00
Fig. 4b: Funds flows, three-month moving average
44
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Quarters around Price Peak
Figure 5. Average share of outstanding equity held by hedge funds around price peaks
of individual stocks
45
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Mar-98 Jun-98 Sep-98 Dec-98 Mar-99 Jun-99 Sep-99 Dec-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00
Figure 6: Performance of a copycat fund that replicates hedge fund holdings in the
NASDAQ high P/S segment
46
Conclusion
Hedge funds were riding the bubble
¾ Short sales constraints and “arbitrage” risk
are not sufficient to explain this behavior.
Timing bets of hedge funds were well
placed. Outperformance!
¾ Rules out unawareness of bubble.
¾ Suggests predictable investor sentiment.
Riding the bubble for a while may have
been a rational strategy.
⇒ Supports ‘bubble-timing’ models