Saving rates and portfolio choice with subsistence consumption

We analytically show that a common across rich/poor individuals Stone-Geary utility function with subsistence consumption in the context of a simple two-asset portfolio-choice model is capable of qualitatively and quantitatively explaining: (i) the higher saving rates of the rich, (ii) the higher fraction of personal wealth held in risky assets by the rich, and (iii) the higher volatility of consumption of the wealthier. On the contrary, time-variant “keeping-up-with-the-Joneses” weighted average consumption which plays the role of moving benchmark subsistence consumption gives the same portfolio composition and saving rates across the rich and the poor, failing to reconcile the model with what micro data say. JEL Classification: G11, D91, E21, D81, D14, D1

Essays on redistributive policies and household finance with heterogeneous agents

The overall objective of the thesis is to investigate needs and incentives of all income/wealth groups in order to explore ways and means to remedy the excessive economic inequality. A closer examination of individual decisions across richer and poorer households allows us to recognize conflicts of wants, needs and values and subsequently to draw recommendations for future policies. The first chapter examines households' preferences over the redistribution of wealth resources. The preferences of voting households are restricted by agents' present and future resource constraints. The wealth resources vary over the business cycle, which affects the grounds for speculations of voting households. We augment the standard Real-Business-Cycle (RBC) model by the majority voting on lump-sum redistribution employing a balanced government budget. Our findings indicate that for the usual elasticity of labor supply both transfers' level and share of output are procyclical, with the procyclicality increasing in the discrepancy between richer and poorer households. In the second chapter we analytically demonstrate that all economic agents face subsistence costs that hinder economic and financial decisions of the poor. We find that the standard two-asset portfolio-selection model with a time-invariant subsistence component in the common-across agents Stone-Geary utility function is capable of explaining qualitatively and quantitatively three empirical regularities: (i) increasing saving rates in wealth, (ii) rising risky portfolio shares with wealth, (iii) more volatile consumption growth of the richer. On the contrary, "keeping-up-with-the-Joneses" utility with a time-varying weighted mean consumption produces identical saving rates and portfolio asset shares across richer and poorer agents, failing to match the micro data. Finally, in the third chapter we use Epstein-Zin-Weil recursive preferences altered to include subsistence costs, as this form of utility function enables trade-off between stability and safety. We pursue an analytical investigation of a more complex multi-asset portfolio-choice model with perfectly insurable labor risk and no liquidity constraints and find further support of the data evidence. If households' total resources are anticipated to increase over time, poorer agents can afford to gradually escape subsistence concerns by choosing lower saving rates and accepting only minor portfolio risks as their consumption hovers close to the subsistence needs. The calibration part of the model economy shows that analytical results can quantitatively reconcile the data, too.ESRC funded PhD fees. Recipient of Research scholarship by the University of Exeter

Analytical Guidance for Fitting Parsimonious Household-Portfolio Models to Data

Saving rates and household investment in stocks and business equity are all increasing in income and wealth. Introducing subsistence consumption to a common-across-households Epstein-Zin-Weil utility function is up to a quantitative explanation, in the context of stan- dardized parsimonious household-portfolio models with risky income. Closed forms in a sim- plified version of the model, with insurable labor-income risk and no liquidity constraints, reveal that if, (i) risky-asset returns are weakly correlated and, (ii) household resources are expected to grow over time, then poorer households can afford exiting subsistence concerns slowly by saving less and by taking less risk, while holding balanced portfolios

Saving rates and portfolio choice with subsistence consumption : [Version January 16, 2010]

We analytically show that a common across rich/poor individuals Stone-Geary utility function with subsistence consumption in the context of a simple two-asset portfolio-choice model is capable of qualitatively explaining: (i) the higher saving rates of the rich, (ii) the higher fraction of personal wealth held in stocks by the rich, and (iii) the higher volatility of consumption of the wealthier. On the contrary, time-variant "keeping-up with the Joneses" weighted average consumption playing the role of moving benchmark subsistence consumption gives the same portfolio composition and saving rates across the rich and the poor, failing to reconcile the model with what micro data say

The role of labor-income risk in household risk-taking

In fifteen European countries, China, and the US, stocks and business equity as a share of total household assets are represented by an increasing and convex function of income/wealth. A parsimonious model fitted to the data shows why background labor-income risk can explain much of this risk-taking pattern. Uncontrollable labor-income risk stresses middle-income households more because labor income is a larger fraction of their total lifetime resources compared with the rich. In response, middle-income households reduce (controllable) financial risk. Richer households, having less pressure, can afford more risk-taking. The poor take low risk because they avoid jeopardizing their subsistence consumption

Fitting Parsimonious Household Portfolio models to Data

US data and new stockholding data from fifteen European countries and China exhibit a common pattern: stockholding shares increase in household income and wealth. Yet, there is a multitude of numbers to match through models. Using a single utility function across households (parsimony), we suggest a strategy for fitting stockholding numbers, while replicating that saving rates increase in wealth, too. The key is introducing subsistence consumption to an Epstein-Zin-Weil utility function, creating endogenous risk-aversion differences across rich and poor. A closed-form solution for the model with insurable labor-income risk serves as calibration guide for numerical simulations with uninsurable labor-income risk

The role of labor-income risk in household risk-taking

In fifteen European countries, China, and the US, stocks and business equity as a share of total household assets are represented by an increasing and convex function of income/wealth. A parsimonious model fitted to the data shows why background labor- income risk can explain much of this risk-taking pattern. Uncontrollable labor-income risk stresses middle-income households more because labor income is a larger fraction of their total lifetime resources compared with the rich. In response, middle-income households re-duce (controllable) financial risk. Richer households, having less pressure, can afford more risk-taking. The poor take low risk because they avoid jeopardizing their subsistence consumption

Code and data files for "Saving Rates and Portfolio Choice with Subsistence Consumption"

Data and code to replicate results of the articles. Includes details about data.