09.07.2015 Views

Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

EXPECTATIONS AND STOCK MARKET PRICESequities generally depends on considerations over <strong>and</strong> aboveanticipated future prices <strong>and</strong>/or yields.These factors make it difficult to say much that is def<strong>in</strong>ite aboutthe relation between expectations <strong>and</strong> the course <strong>of</strong> equity prices. Infact, on the argument we have been develop<strong>in</strong>g, it is possible thatdivergent expectations about the future price <strong>of</strong> a share may lead toa correspond<strong>in</strong>g reduction <strong>in</strong> the diversity <strong>of</strong> op<strong>in</strong>ion about its‘correct’ value (if, for example, the impact <strong>of</strong> such expectations onequity valuations are <strong>of</strong>fset by changes <strong>in</strong> perceptions <strong>of</strong>, <strong>and</strong>attitudes towards, risk <strong>and</strong> ambiguity, liquidity, confidence <strong>and</strong> soon). We have accord<strong>in</strong>gly proposed that attention be directed athow heterogeneous market participants value a share, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gwith the situation <strong>in</strong> which both holders <strong>and</strong> non-holders arecontent with their current position on that share. This provides asensible po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> entry for the explanation <strong>of</strong> equity prices, that is,for an analysis that proceeds by beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g with exist<strong>in</strong>g equityprices <strong>and</strong> spell<strong>in</strong>g out the possible factors that give rise to <strong>and</strong>govern them. 18 One <strong>of</strong> these factors, clearly an important <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>tendom<strong>in</strong>ant one, is the divergence <strong>of</strong> expectations <strong>in</strong> Lachmann’ssense. We have merely taken the opportunity to draw attention to afew more.Notes1 Lachmann (1977:72). Clearly the def<strong>in</strong>iteness, scope <strong>and</strong> detail <strong>of</strong> the‘mental pictures’ he has <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d will depend on the situation <strong>in</strong> whichthey are arrived at, the relative importance <strong>of</strong> the ‘plan’ <strong>in</strong> the actor’sscheme <strong>of</strong> th<strong>in</strong>gs, as well as the <strong>in</strong>formation available to <strong>and</strong> thepowers <strong>of</strong> imag<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> the actor concerned. In the context <strong>of</strong> stockmarket transactions, <strong>and</strong> as the passage quoted <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troductionsuggests, the focus <strong>of</strong> attention will generally be on the return onequities, which depend on estimates <strong>and</strong> assessments <strong>of</strong> the possiblefactors that may affect the future flow <strong>of</strong> dividends <strong>and</strong> future prices.2 Lachmann is curiously reticent as regards the nature <strong>and</strong> structure <strong>of</strong>the expectations he has <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d even <strong>in</strong> his important essay on ‘Therole <strong>of</strong> expectations <strong>in</strong> economics as a social science’ (repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong>Lachmann 1977).3 Lachmann does not specify what he means by ‘forces’. We shallsubstitute the term ‘tendency’ where this will be understood as a causalpower that would br<strong>in</strong>g about some specified phenomenon undercerta<strong>in</strong> conditions (Lawson 1994a).4 Lachmann considers <strong>and</strong> rejects the ma<strong>in</strong> alternatives then available:Shackles (1949) theory <strong>of</strong> ‘potential surprise’ <strong>and</strong> the practice <strong>of</strong>reduc<strong>in</strong>g well-def<strong>in</strong>ed probability distributions to certa<strong>in</strong>tyequivalents. He would therefore presumably also reject the modern197

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!