scholarly journals Effort, Idiosyncratic Risk and  Investment Under Uncertainty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
William S Taylor

<p>This thesis is based upon four very simple premises: 1. managers, not shareholders make the investment decisions for the firm; 2. managers do more than just say "yes" or "no" to investments, they can also exert effort that affects the payoff from investment; 3. executive compensation schemes can cause managers to hold more stock than is optimal for diversification purposes; and 4. many investments can be delayed and involve irreversible capital costs as well as uncertain payoffs. Combining these four premises gives the two central questions this thesis attempts to answer: 1. How does the level of managerial stock-ownership affect the investment decisions managers make for the firm? and 2. given the answer to (1), how does this affect the shareholder's decision to hire a manager? In this thesis I use a continuous time "Real Options" framework to answer these questions. The form of the utility function assumed for the manager has a huge impact on the tractability of the modelling. The assumption of Constant Relative Risk Aversion (CRRA) utility as opposed to Constant Absolute Risk Aversion (CARA) causes the manager's valuation of the cash  flow (the very first step of the modelling) to become wealth dependent. This in itself is an interesting issue, but it also poses interesting numerical issues and makes the later steps of the analysis intractable. Because of this we split the substantive analysis of this thesis into two parts. In the first we assume CARA utility in order to remove wealth dependence from the valuation and obtain a "clean path" to the end goal of a dynamic model of hiring, effort and irreversible investment. In the second we focus on CRRA utility thus allowing the manager's valuation to depend on his financial wealth. We then explain the resultant numerical issues, and the appropriate approach to their solution.</p>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
William S Taylor

<p>This thesis is based upon four very simple premises: 1. managers, not shareholders make the investment decisions for the firm; 2. managers do more than just say "yes" or "no" to investments, they can also exert effort that affects the payoff from investment; 3. executive compensation schemes can cause managers to hold more stock than is optimal for diversification purposes; and 4. many investments can be delayed and involve irreversible capital costs as well as uncertain payoffs. Combining these four premises gives the two central questions this thesis attempts to answer: 1. How does the level of managerial stock-ownership affect the investment decisions managers make for the firm? and 2. given the answer to (1), how does this affect the shareholder's decision to hire a manager? In this thesis I use a continuous time "Real Options" framework to answer these questions. The form of the utility function assumed for the manager has a huge impact on the tractability of the modelling. The assumption of Constant Relative Risk Aversion (CRRA) utility as opposed to Constant Absolute Risk Aversion (CARA) causes the manager's valuation of the cash  flow (the very first step of the modelling) to become wealth dependent. This in itself is an interesting issue, but it also poses interesting numerical issues and makes the later steps of the analysis intractable. Because of this we split the substantive analysis of this thesis into two parts. In the first we assume CARA utility in order to remove wealth dependence from the valuation and obtain a "clean path" to the end goal of a dynamic model of hiring, effort and irreversible investment. In the second we focus on CRRA utility thus allowing the manager's valuation to depend on his financial wealth. We then explain the resultant numerical issues, and the appropriate approach to their solution.</p>


1980 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Lippman ◽  
John J. McCall ◽  
Wayne L. Winston

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-159
Author(s):  
Joseph B. Kadane ◽  
Gaia Bellone

According to Mark Rubinstein (2006) ‘In 1952, anticipating Kenneth Arrow and John Pratt by over a decade, he [de Finetti] formulated the notion of absolute risk aversion, used it in connection with risk premia for small bets, and discussed the special case of constant absolute risk aversion.’ The purpose of this note is to ascertain the extent to which this is true, and at the same time, to correct certain minor errors that appear in de Finetti's work.


Author(s):  
Kerry E. Back

The portfolio choice model is introduced, and the first‐order condition is derived. Properties of the demand for a single risky asset are derived from second‐order risk aversion and decreasing absolute risk aversion. Optimal investments are independent of initial wealth for investors with constant absolute risk aversion. Optimal investments are affine functions of initial wealth for investors iwth linear risk tolerance. The optimal portfolio for an investor with constant absolute risk aversion is derived when asset returns are normally distributed. Investors with quadratic utility have mean‐variance preferences, and investors have mean‐variance preferences when returns are elliptically distributed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 891-921
Author(s):  
Yuval Heller ◽  
Amnon Schreiber

We study various decision problems regarding short‐term investments in risky assets whose returns evolve continuously in time. We show that in each problem, all risk‐averse decision makers have the same (problem‐dependent) ranking over short‐term risky assets. Moreover, in each problem, the ranking is represented by the same risk index as in the case of constant absolute risk aversion utility agents and normally distributed risky assets.


2008 ◽  
Vol 98 (5) ◽  
pp. 1922-1942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Shimer ◽  
Iván Werning

We study unemployment insurance for workers who sequentially sample job opportunities. We focus on the optimal timing of benefits and the desirability of allowing borrowing and saving. When workers have constant absolute risk aversion, a simple policy is optimal: a constant benefit during unemployment, a constant tax during employment, and free access to a riskless asset. With constant relative risk aversion, optimal policy involves nearly constant benefits; more elaborate policies offer minuscule welfare gains. We highlight two distinct policy roles: ensuring workers have sufficient liquidity to smooth their consumption; and providing unemployment subsidies to insure against uncertain spell duration. (JEL J65)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document