Journal Article Possibilites d'Agregation de Fonctions de Production a Variables Capital et Main d'Oeuvre Get access A. Nataf A. Nataf Faculté des Sciences de Caen and CERMAP Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 34, Issue 2, April 1967, Pages 219–226, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296810 Published: 01 April 1967

This article will concern itself with the various techniques for selecting portfolios of securities. It should be made clear at the outset that a good portfolio is not just an amalgamation of a number of “good” stocks and bonds. Rather, it is an integrated whole, each security complementing the others. Thus, the investment manager must consider both the characteristics of the individual securities and the relationships between those securities. Until recently there was no comprehensive theoretical framework for the analysis of the latter aspect of the portfolio problem. Intuitive judgment and experience were the guidelines used by investment managers.

“Don't put all your eggs in one basket, ” is a familiar adage. Economists, such as Marschak, Markowitz, and Tobin, who work only with mean income and its variance, can give specific content to this rule—namely, putting a fixed total of wealth equally into independently, identically distributed investments will leave the mean gain unchanged and will minimize the variance.

The Markowitz analysis of efficient portfolio selection, which can be interpreted as solving the quadratic-programming problem of minimizing the variance of a normal variate subject to each prescribed mean value, easily can be generalized (in the special case of independently distributed investments) to the concave-programming problem of minimizing the “dispersion” of a stable Pareto-Lévy variate subject to each prescribed mean value. Some further generalizations involving interdependent distributions will also be presented here.

Haley's line of reasoning can be reconstructed in the following way. When a borrower incurs a liability (issues a bond) he should gauge any prospective asset purchase with the proceeds against an alternative fund use, the purchase of his own bond. If the proceeds realized from the bond are B, but if the borrower would willingly pay L to be free of the obligation, L becomes a relevant variable in the asset acceptance decision. If the discounted value of any asset exceeds L, borrowing to buy it will be subjectively wealth-enhancing, whether or not the discounted value exceeds B.

Journal Article Optimum Growth when Technology is Changing Get access J. A. Mirrlees J. A. Mirrlees Trinity College, Cambridge Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 34, Issue 1, January 1967, Pages 95–124, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296573 Published: 01 January 1967

Journal Article Piecemeal Policy in the Theory of Second Best Get access O. A. Davis, O. A. Davis Carnegie Institute of Technology Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar A. B. Whinston A. B. Whinston Purdue University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 34, Issue 3, July 1967, Pages 323–331, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296681 Published: 01 July 1967

Journal Article Uncertainty and the ”Expectations Hypothesis“ Get access H. A. John Green H. A. John Green University of Toronto Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 34, Issue 4, October 1967, Pages 387–398, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296557 Published: 01 October 1967

Liability, Deferred revenue, Breakage, Accrued expense