Information evaluation problem, Knowledge, Decision making

Since the early work of Durand (1941), there has been considerable interest in using quantitative models of consumer credit behavior for credit-granting decisions. Most models are based on the concept of “scoring” by use of weights usually determined as statistically significant coefficients of some linear statistical model, frequently the linear discriminant model. It is the purpose of this note, however, to propose maximum likelihood estimation of the logit model as an alternative, and to compare the two models in a “scoring experiment.”

The unique characteristic of a foreign asset is that the real purchasing power of the cash flows from the asset depends on the exchange rate prevailing on the conversion date. A naive view is that this dependence exposes foreign assets to exchange risk proportional to the volatility of the exchange rate and, other things equal, makes foreign assets much riskier than domestic ones. Anothe extreme is that for nonmonetary foreign assets, purchasing power parity (PPP) causes exchange rates to move inversely todifferential inflation rates, thereby eliminating exchange risk. Aliber and others maintain that a similar argument applies to foreign monetary assets. The international Fisher effect (IFE) causes the exante equilibrium return on all default-free monetary assets, measured in the domestic currency, to be the same regardless of the currency denomination of the instrument. The fact is, however, that PPP and IFE cannot be expected to hold instantaneously throughout time, but only on average over time. Consequently, although foreign assets may promise the same expected return as domestic assets, they will have a higher variance of return as seen by domestic investors. To justify the holding of foreign assets by a domestic investor, one must introduce portfolio considerations, the possibility of consumption expenditures denominated in the foreign currency, heterogeneous expectations, or market imperfections.

The well known Sharpe-Lintner-Mossin capital asset pricing model (CAPM) assumes the existence of stability in the price level so that the market price of risk (MPR) measured in nominal terms is the same for all risky assets in an equilibrium market. Friend, Landskroner and Losq [5, hereafter F-L-L] have recently shown that CAPM measured in nominal terms understates the MPR if an uncertain inflation is expected and if a covariance between the rate of return on the market and the rate of inflation is positive (p. 1287).

The expected market return is a number frequently required for the solution of many investment and corporate finance problems, but by comparison with other financial variables, there has been little research on estimating this expected return. Current practice for estimating the expected market return adds the historical average realized excess market returns to the current observed interest rate. While this model explicitly reflects the dependence of the market return on the interest rate, it fails to account for the effect of changes in the level of market risk. Three models of equilibrium expected market returns which reflect this dependence are analyzed in this paper. Estimation procedures which incorporate the prior restriction that equilibrium expected excess returns on the market must be positive are derived and applied to return data for the period 1926–1978. The principal conclusions from this exploratory investigation are: (1) in estimating models of the expected market return, the non-negativity restriction of the expected excess return should be explicity included as part of the specification: (2) estimators which use realized returns should be adjusted for heteroscedasticity.

This paper examines the question of whether long-term or short-term interest rates should appear in investment demand functions. Three basic models are examined. The first involves a distribution of time lags required to complete investment projects; the second is based on a simple adjustment-costs model; and the third incorporates uncertainty and risk aversion. The major conclusion is that, except for some special cases which are probably quite unrealistic, both long-term and short-term interest rates affect investment demand.

Journal Article Optimal Policies in Dual Economies Get access Kaushik C. Basu Kaushik C. Basu Delhi School of Economics Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 95, Issue 1, August 1980, Pages 187–196, https://doi.org/10.2307/1885356 Published: 01 August 1980

This paper argues that Keynes's concession on the finance demand for liquidity provides the key for the reconciliations of the liquidity preference theory to the loanable funds theory and of the stock approach with the flow approach. On many practical issues, Robertson is shown to be right, and Keynes wrong. It also shows that the modern arch-critic of Keynes, Friedman, is himself under Keynes's influence in relying exclusively upon the stock (or portfolio) approach to the neglect of the influences of flow decisions on the money demand. His attempt to combine Keynes and Fisher is shown not workable.