2016
DOI: 10.1111/fire.12098
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Epstein–Zin Model with Liquidity Extension

Abstract: In this paper, we extend the Epstein–Zin model with liquidity risk and assess the extended model's performance against the traditional consumption pricing models. We show that liquidity is a significant risk factor, and it adds considerable explanatory power to the model. The liquidity‐extended model produces both a higher cross‐sectional R2 and a smaller Hansen and Jagannathan distance than the traditional consumption‐based capital‐asset pricing model and the original Epstein–Zin model. Overall, we show that … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 88 publications
(353 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding international evidence, the standard world CCAPM has also been extended to consider world habit models, cross-country consumption heterogeneity, incomplete markets, etc. The conventional consumption risk models have been extended to incorporate other risks such as inflation (Shi et al, 2017) and liquidity (Liu et al, 2016). For comprehensive reviews of consumption-based asset pricing in general, see Campbell (2003), Mehra (2012), Ludvigson (2013) and Breeden et al (2015).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding international evidence, the standard world CCAPM has also been extended to consider world habit models, cross-country consumption heterogeneity, incomplete markets, etc. The conventional consumption risk models have been extended to incorporate other risks such as inflation (Shi et al, 2017) and liquidity (Liu et al, 2016). For comprehensive reviews of consumption-based asset pricing in general, see Campbell (2003), Mehra (2012), Ludvigson (2013) and Breeden et al (2015).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%