The certainty-equivalent method of evaluating risky investments has been widely discussed in the literature ([2], [5], [14, p. 356], [19], [20]) and consists of applying a multiplicative factor, αt, to each period's expected cash flow, μt, to produce a certainty-equivalent flow, αtμt. The certainty-equivalent flow is then discounted with the riskless rate of interest, αtμt/(l + i)t. Although there has been much discussion of αt, researchers have not derived explicit expressions for αt, relying instead on ad hoc graphs [24, p. 328] or arguments involving mean-variance indifference curves [2] which may not even exist ([4], [12], [22], [23]). In this paper, I will (1) provide a rigorous definition of αt, (2) derive formal expressions for a for αt three special cases, (3) discuss relationships between αt and σt, the standard deviation of the period t cash flow, (4) formally derive the period t risk-adjusted discount rate, kt, from assumptions concerning the decision maker's (d. m.'s) risk preferences and cash flow distribution, and (5) apply the preceding results to a specific problem involving calculation of the risk-adjusted present value of an uncertain cash flow stream.

The cost of capital concept has for some years permeated both finance theory and textbook treatments of capital structure and business investment decisions. This has been due, to a major extent, to the important works of Modigliani and Miller [10, 11] and Solomon [16], among others. In recent years, however, the concept has been the subject of some controversy. A number of authors have shown that the cost of capital, as usually computed, can produce errors except under highly restrictive assumptions and that there continues to be some debate over its proper definition and use. Our purpose in the present paper is to explicate more fully the source of the difficulties with the cost of capital and to suggest that, despite the initial usefulness of the concept, the field of finance would be better off now if it were relegated to history. Both the perfect and imperfect market cases will be considered. We propose that the term “cost of capital” be eliminated from textbooks and research papers and be replaced by superior concepts.

Many writers believe that minority-owned financial institutions can and should play an important role in aiding the economic development of minority communities. Indeed, economic theory describes a major role of financial institutions as gathering many relatively small deposits of households and other economic units, and combining these to support capital formation through lending for business and housing capital investment. The service which minority financial institutions can play may be magnified by the much-discussed inability of minority communities to obtain financing from nonminority financial institutions for business capital investment and–of more recent concern–for housing capital investment. The concept of pooling the savings of ghetto residents and putting the savings to work in financing the development of the inner city community may be sound in theory, but what does the empirical evidence indicate about its practical implementation?

Michael D. Joehnk, H. Russell Fogler, Charles E. Bradley, The Price Elasticity of Discounted Bonds: Some Empirical Evidence, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 559-566