Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2502.10101

What are Asset Price Bubbles? A Survey on Definitions of Financial Bubbles

Michael Heinrich Baumann·Anja Janischewski
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Financial bubbles and crashes have repeatedly caused economic turmoil notably but not only during the 2008 financial crisis. However, both in the popular press as well as scientific publications, the meaning of bubble is sometimes unspecified. Due to the multitude of bubble definitions, we conduct a systematic review with the following questions: What definitions of asset price bubbles exist in the literature? Which definitions are used in which disciplines and how frequently? We develop a system of definition categories and categorize a total of 122 papers from eleven research areas. Our results show that although one definition is indeed prevalent in the literature, the overall definition landscape is not uniform. Next to the mostly used definition as deviation from a present value of expected future cash flows, we identify several other definitions, which rely on price properties or other specifications of a fundamental value. This research contributes by shedding light on the possible variations in which bubbles are defined and operationalized.

Explore related subjects

econ.GNq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael Heinrich Baumann, Anja Janischewski. 2025-02-14. What are Asset Price Bubbles? A Survey on Definitions of Financial Bubbles. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10101

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The time interpretation of expected utility theory

Economic models often maximise expectation values of wealth or utility. In non-ergodic settings, these can differ from time-averages, so that maximising expected outcomes need not maximise – and can systematically reduce – long-run wealth or utility. Ergodicity economics highlights this problem and models individual agents as maximising wealth in the long run, known as growth optimality. Two instances where expected utility maximisation maps to growth optimality are known: linear utility does this for additive wealth dynamics; and logarithmic utility for multiplicative wealth dynamics. Here we show that the mapping holds more generally when the utility function coincides with the ergodicity transformation in the growth optimal model. This mapping offers a theoretical basis for choosing utility functions and suggests the testable hypothesis that wealth dynamics are predictive of risk preferences.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Monetary Regimes and Trade before the Classical Gold Standard: Evidence from the Latin Monetary Union

This paper reexamines the trade effects of the Latin Monetary Union (LMU), a 19th century agreement to standardize gold and silver coinage among several European countries. The LMU provides a useful setting for studying whether monetary arrangements fostered trade before the classical gold standard, when gold, silver, bimetallic, and paper regimes coexisted. Because some countries already shared other monetary standards, treating all non-member pairs as a single control group mixes pairs with and without alternative forms of monetary coordination. I classify pairs by standard and estimate the LMU effect relative to pairs without a common standard, bringing the comparison closer to those used in the literature on the gold standard and contemporary currency unions. The results suggest that the LMU increased trade between its members by approximately 30\% during its early years, when bimetallism was still credible. These effects subsequently faded, converging to zero by the end of the 1870s. More broadly, these findings also highlight the importance of accounting for the existing monetary regimes when estimating the trade effects of other international policies.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN↗