The standard models of consumer behavior under uncertainty are the expected utility model and the mean-variance model. As with any models involving unobservables one might well ask about the empirical content of these hypotheses: what restrictions on observed behavior do these models impose? How can one test observed behavior for consistency with these models? How can one recover the underlying utility function and forecast behavior in new situations?

Normatively oriented approaches to decision making under uncertainty occupy a major portion of the literature of decision analysis. Among the proposed approaches, the Von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility (EU) theory has been the most prominent model of rational choice despite some controversies that surround this model with respect to its descriptive ability as well as the plausibility of utility assessment in actual decision situations [6], [10]. Although most applications of the EU model have been concerned with decisions involving monetary outcomes, its scope is not limited to any particular class of consequences. The basic appeal of the model is attributable partly to its generality in this regard, and, more importantly, to the apparent reasonableness of its preferential axioms.

Corporate investment in an economy without a complete set of contingent claims markets has the characteristic of a public good in the sense that the stockholders’ consumption planscannot be separated from, but depend on, the specific investment plans of the firms. Drèze [4] has shown that a constrained Pareto optimal (CPO) allocation of investment in a stock market economy must satisfy a generalization of the Samuelson [24] condition for efficient production of public goods: the investment plan should maximize a weighted sum of the stockholders’ personal valuations of future output minus current input cost. However, except for those special cases in which CPO investment plans are unanimously supported by stockholders (see [17], [20], and [2]), the theory of the firm in incomplete markets lacks a suitable maximization criterion. Although the Drèze-Samuelson condition is a most appealing candidate, it is not unanimously preferred by stockholders, each of whom prefers that his or her own valuation of future output receives all the weight in the investment decision. Furthermore, the application of the Drèze-Samuelson condition depends on the correct revelation of stockholders’ preferences, which, in the absence of special inducements, cannot be expected from economic agents.

The question of whether security return distributions have a finite or an infinite variance has been debated for many years. The possibility that the security return-generating process actually has an infinite variance is particularly vexing since it implies that all statistical techniques and theoretical frameworks utilizing the second (or higher) moment are invalid. While this is clearly not a disaster—alternatives do exist—much of the work which has been done in the field of finance has assumed the existence of the second moment. It is, therefore, important to determine whether or not the security return distribution actually has a finite variance.

The past two decades have seen a proliferation of mathematically sophisticated portfolio selection models. Of these, the mean variance (MV), expected utility, and growth optimal (GO) models have received the bulk of attention.

Marc R. Reinganum, A New Empirical Perspective on the CAPM, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 16, No. 4, Proceedings of 16th Annual Conference of the Western Finance Association, June 18-20, 1981, Jackson Hole, Wyoming (Nov., 1981), pp. 439-462

Hans R. Stoll, Commodity Futures and Spot Price Determination and Hedging in Capital Market Equilibrium, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 4, Proceedings of 14th Annual Conference of the Western Finance Association, June 21-23, 1979 (Nov., 1979), pp. 873-894

James R. Follain, Jr., A Study of the Demand for Housing by Low Versus High Income Households, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 4, Proceedings of 14th Annual Conference of the Western Finance Association, June 21-23, 1979 (Nov., 1979), pp. 769-782

In many circles the Mean Variance Capital Asset Pricing Model (MV CAPM) is synonymous with the theory of capital asset pricing. But in a single-period discrete-time model which explicitly recognizes the existence of limited liability the derivation of the MV CAPM, if it is to be consistent with the von Neumann-Morgenstern postulates of rational behavior, must be based on the assumption that all investors have quadratic utility functions. This assumption in turn implies that risky assets are inferior goods. However, if we turn to the broader class of linear risk tolerance (LRT) utility functions, for which the separation property holds, other simple two-mutual-fund CAPMs can be derived. The power utility LRT CAPMs are of particular interest as they are consistent with risky assets being normal goods.

When a unit of a multinational corporation requires short-term funding, it normally has the opportunity to obtain funds from a number of different sources, both internal and external to the country where these funds will be deployed. The possibility exists for borrowing in a currency other than the local currency of the borrowing unit. The purpose of this paper is to find the optimal currency source or sources for such a loan, when the borrowing unit can enter the forward exchange market for a term equivalent to the time to maturity of the loan.