"People told me they thought I might win," Shiller told The Associated Press. "I discounted it. Probably hundreds have been told that."
Of the three winners, Fama was the first to expand the knowledge of how asset prices move. His work helped revolutionize investing by illustrating how hard it was to predict the movement of individual stock prices in the short run. It was a finding that spurred wider acceptance of index funds as an investment tool.
Shiller showed that in the long run, stock and bond markets tend to behave more irrationally than economic fundamentals would suggest. That encouraged the creation of institutional investors, such as hedge funds, that take bets on market trends.
In the late 1990s, Shiller argued the stock market was overvalued.
"And lo and behold, he was proven right" when the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, said Nobel committee secretary Peter Englund.
"He also predicted for a long time that the housing market was overvalued, and again he was proven right," Englund said. The U.S. housing market suffered a crash in 2007 that helped fuel the global financial crisis.
Englund said he believes the three laureates agree on the findings for which they were awarded, even though Fama and Shiller have different "interpretations of the real world."
"It's no secret that for Eugene Fama, the sort of null hypothesis is that markets work well and he is willing to believe that until he is proven otherwise, whereas for Robert Shiller, I think his null hypothesis is that there are periods of excessive optimism and pessimism," Englund said.
The Case-Shiller index, a leading measure of U.S. residential real estate prices, was developed by Shiller and Karl Case, a Wellesley College economist.
In the 1980s, Hansen developed a statistical method to better assess theories such as those of Fama and Shiller.
"These are three very different kinds of people, and the thing that unites them all is asset pricing," says David Warsh, who tracks academic economists on his Economic Principals blog.