经济学和金融学的关系

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

很多金融教材比如Baxter&Rennie，Bjork都有一种倾向想要说明金融学和经济学是不同的，无套利分析和一般均衡是不一样的，国内的学者比如宋逢明也是赞成这种观点的，我想可能不同的人对这个问题都有不同的理解吧，引述asset pricing领域的著名学者的几段话。cochrane                 financial markets and the real economyMany financial economists dismiss macroeconomic approaches to asset pricing becauseportfolio-based models “work better” — they provide smaller pricing errors. This dismissalof macroeconomics by financial economists is just as misguided as the dismissal of financeby macroeconomists. First, a good part of the better performance of portfolio-based models simply reflectsRoll’s (1977) theorem: We can always construct a reference portfolio that perfectly fits allasset returns: the sample mean-variance efficient portfolio. The only content to empiricalwork in asset pricing is what constraints the author put on his fishing expedition toavoid rediscovering Roll’s theorem. The instability of many “anomalies” and the changingpopularity of different factor models (Schwert 2003) lends some credence to this worry.The main fishing constraint one can imagine is that the factor portfolios are in factmimicking portfolios for some well-understood macroeconomic risk. Fama (1991) famouslylabeled the ICAPM and similar theories “fishing licenses,” but his comment cuts in both directions.Yes, current empirical implementations do not impose much structure from theory,but no, you still can’t fish without a license. For example, momentum has yet to acquire thestatus of a factor despite abundant empirical success, because it has been hard to come upwith stories that it corresponds to some plausible measure of the marginal utility of wealth.Second, much work in finance is framed as answering the question whether markets are“rational” and “efficient” or not. No amount of research using portfolios on the right handside can ever address this question. The only possible content to the “rationality” questionis whether the “hunger” apparent in asset prices — the discount factor, marginal value ofwealth, etc. — mirrors macroeconomic conditions correctly. If Mars has perfectly smoothconsumption growth, then prices that are perfectly “rational” on volatile Earth would be“irrational” on Mars. Price data alone cannot answer the question, because you can’t tellfrom the prices which planet you’re on. In sum, the program of understanding the real, macroeconomic risks that drive assetprices (or the proof that they do not do so at all) is not some weird branch of finance; it isthe trunk of the tree. As frustratingly slow as progress is, this is the only way to answer thecentral questions of financial economics, and a crucial and unavoidable set of uncomfortablemeasurements and predictions for macroeconomics.

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：金融学 经济学 Measurements consumption Predictions 经济学 金融学 provide errors better

看过一本很薄的FINANCE教材（忘记作者了）,将Finance定义为不确定条件下的资产价格决定问题，i.e.，the pricing of asset under uncertainty。个人觉得很精辟。

economics》financial economics》finance

在econ中普遍使用效用函数和均衡概念

在finecon中，也有效用函数，不过已经开始金融的部份了，对asset开始定价

  其定价原理是人的optimal choice： 约束条件是self－financing，然后进行人的效用最大化；得到的结果是人的均衡（人选择资产的均衡）

在finance中，就没有人的效用函数了，不再从人的选择最优化的角度考虑了。而是从资产自身的“均衡”来考虑了。不过一般不说“均衡”而是称为asset no－arbitrage；这样发展出来一些非常深刻金融学基本定理，一直到1998年才差不多完成

敝人的一点感受而已，，，

Since Fama-French's three factor model came into being, less efforts were spent on exotic-preference general equilibrium.

以下是引用remlus在2008-4-14 15:43:00的发言：

Since Fama-French's three factor model came into being, less efforts were spent on exotic-preference general equilibrium.

从金融经济学中，得到人的效用均衡的时候，也能得到资产的均衡价格；但是有效用处理起来很不实用

所以，直接从资产的无套利来考虑，方便而且直接？

金融经济学一般还是在经济系下，被认为是经济的一个方向

金融学么，一般就是设在商学院下了