Knowledge that Transforms

Researchers and political analysts concerned with the inter-regional flow of mortgage funds have often pointed to the existence of yield differentials as prima facie evidence of misallocation of capital and national resources. Limited information and myopic lending horizons, with market imperfections reinforced by state laws and institutional segmentation, have been postulated. They are regarded as responsible for costly “frictions” in the export of capitalto the fast-growing, generally low-income, states, particularly those of the South. Both federal and state legislative action, intensified private arbitrage, and better secondary market facilities and instruments are then urged to improve inter-regional financial mediation to reduce or eliminate the yield differentials.

In two previous articles [11] and [12] a family of normative models of the individual's economic decision problem under risk was presented. At the same time, certain implications of these models with respect to individual behavior were deduced for a class of utility functions. This paper will show that these models also give rise to an induced theory of the formation and operation of firms under risk for the same class of utility functions.

This paper describes the development and testing of a model of bank portfolio selection that considers variability of both income and gross asset levels as the risks involved in banking. In particular, the model is formulated as maximizing expected profit subject to risk constraints on wealth losses and the availability of liquid assets. The parameters for these constraints include the covariance matrices of rates of return on bank assets and deposit changes. Included in the latter category are fluctuations in business loans which are treated as negative deposits because, due to deposit feedbacks and the like, these can reasonably be considered exogenous to the short-run portfolio decision. Basically, the model is an extension of Markowitz's work [11] to incorporate problems associated with portfolios that include assets having imperfect markets and liabilities that are not completely under the control of the economic unit. As such, it is applicable (with minor institutional modifications) to the entire spectrum of financial intermediaries.

In an earlier paper [2], the sequential decision process was applied to two major facets of credit management: (a) deriving unambiguous decision rules for handling individual credit requests; and (b) devising relevant credit indices for effective management control and evaluation of the system. Usefulness of the model was constrained by its static nature and by exogenous determination of other significant variables, notably, collection efforts and costs.

A. James Boness, Frank C. Jen, A Model of Information Diffusion, Stock Market Behavior, and Equilibrium Price, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 279-296

Stocks differ in the variability of their prices; thus, as the level of stock market prices swings periodically, one observes a change in structure as the prices of more volatile issues change relative to those of a more stable character. Here we attempt to empirically establish some of the differentiating characteristics of these volatile issues. In doing so we add to the empirical and analytical work of Fritzemeier [4], Clendenin [2], Latané [7], Malkiel [8], and Heins and Allison [6]. Only the last of these efforts used regression techniques.

This study is another attempt to analyze the behavior of common stock prices. In the last decade, and even before that, literature has spewed forth an abundant supply of studies in this area, from random walkers, to optimum portfolioers, to performance measurers. Terms such as risk and return, variance and covariance, and variability and volatility proliferate journal pages and our daily conversations.

P. A. Tinsley, Capital Structure, Precautionary Balances, and Valuation of the Firm: The Problem of Financial Risk, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Mar., 1970), pp. 33-62