Tag Archives: Finance

Paradoxe de Grossman et Stiglitz


Pour le cinquième cours à l’X, sur les asymétries d’information, les slides sont en ligne, ainsi que les énoncés des exercices. Je ferais PC l’après midi, salle 75, bâtiment Paul Levy. Sinon la page maintenue par Alfred Galichon se trouve ici. Petit complément sur le paradoxe de Grossman et Stiglitz, étudié en exercice (i.e. si un marché est efficient du point de vue de l’information, autrement dit toute l’information pertinente est contenue dans les prix de marché, alors aucun agent n’est incité à acquérir de l’information sur laquelle sont fondés les prix),

Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) argued that because information is costly, prices cannot perfectly reflect the information which is available, since if it did, those who spent resources to obtain it would receive no compensation, leading to the conclusion that an informationally efficient market is impossible.” Sewell (2006)

” Second, perfect efficiency is an unrealistic benchmark that is unlikely to hold in practice. Even in theory, as Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) have shown, abnormal returns will exist if there are costs of gathering and processing information. These returns are necessary to compensate investors for their information-gathering and information-processing expenses, and are no longer abnormal when these expenses are properly accounted for. In a large and liquid market, information costs are likely to justify only small abnormal returns, but it is difficult to say how small, even if such costs could be measured precisely.” Campbell, Lo and MacKinlay (1997), page 24

” Grossman (1976) and Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) go even further. They argue that perfectly informationally efficient markets are an impossibility, for if markets are perfectly efficient, the return to gathering information is nil, in which case there would be little reason to trade and markets would eventually collapse. Alternatively, the degree of market inefficiency determines the efforrt investors are willing to expend to gather and trade on information, hence a non-degenerate market equilibrium will arise only when there are sufficient profit opportunities, i.e., inefficiencies, to compensate investors for the costs of trading and information-gathering. The profits earned by these industrious investors may be viewed as economic rents that accrue to those willing to engage in such activities.” Lo and MacKinlay (1999), pages 5-6

Article de l’Argus: assurance versus finance

Pour compléter le dernier paragraphe de l’article de l’Argus de l’assurance, sur la comparaison entre la finance et l’assurance

  • en assurance on étudie les pertes, alors qu’en finance, on s’intéresse aux rendements ou aux gains. Mathématiquement c’est très proche (au signe près), mais comme l’ont noté Daniel Kahneman et Amos Tversky (papier), les gains et les pertes, ce n’est pas du tout pareil…

  • pour reprendre l’expression de Pierre Devolder, si l’assurance valorise dans un monde réel (sous probabilité historique), la finance valorise dans un monde “virtuel” (d’où les nombreux probabilités dites risques neutres)
  • enfin, si l’on s’intéresse aux problèmes d’optimisation, on notera que dans la littérature financière, on cherche à maximiser les gains moyens, sous une contrainte de risque, alors que dans la littérature actuarielle, c’est généralement le problème dual qui est considéré, à savoir minimiser le risque global sous contrainte de rendement moyen.

Pricing catastrophe options in incomplete markets

The paper on the pricing of catastrophe options just appeared in the Proceedings of the Actuarial and Financial Mathematics Conference.

In complete markets, pricing financial products is easy (at least from a theoretical point of view). In incomplete markets (e.g. when the underlying process has jumps with random size, such as an insurance loss process), the price is no longer unique. So on the one hand, it becomes difficult to provide a tractable price of insurance-linked derivatives. On the other hand, when facing catastrophic losses, using the pure premium as a price might not be relevant (e.g. for solvency issues). Both financial market and (re)insurance industry have proposed techniques to price identical hedging products that can be related (e.g. Esscher transform and more generally distorted risk measures in insurance, Gerber-Shiu transform in finance). In this paper, we focus on indifference utility techniques, assuming that stock prices have jumps,related to major catastrophic losses, and thus, partial hedging should then be possible.

La conférence cette année se tiendra les 5 et 6 février (site) a Bruxelles.