Knowledge that Transforms

In [2] Hakansson and Liu presented a multiperiod portfolio model in which there is an optimal myopic policy. In particular, at any decision point j and state m the optimal amount to invest in opportunity i, namely , may be found by maximizing(42a) subject to(42b) (42c) , where the expectation is taken with respect to the β's, and the p's and r are positive constants (r > 1). Assumptions are made in [2] which guarantee that (42) has a unique optimal solution and that the set of vijm which satisfies (42b and 42c) is a nonempty, compact, convex set for all j and m.

Using the mean-variance model, Sharpe [5] and Lintner [4] have derived an equilibrium model for price determination under uncertainty. Jean [2] has tried to generalize this model so that other moments of the distribution will be taken into account. The purpose of this note is to show that unlike the Sharpe-Lintner model, Jean's results make no economic sense.

This paper is a selective review of the received theory of financial institutions with some suggestions regarding future research on this topic. The major emphasis is placed on the positive economic theory of these firms. Financial institutions are considered to be firms that supply financial securities and contracts held as assets by other sectors of the economy and that use the proceeds of these sales to finance the purchase of financial securities and contracts which are the liabilities of other economic units. The theory discussed here is stripped of much of the regulatory and legal framework surrounding financial institutions. The primary reason for so limiting the scope of this paper is a conviction that a reasonably complete model of a simple financial institution is a necessary precursor to useful models of the positive economic behavior of financial institutions in any specific legal, regulatory, and operational framework. While recognizing that no tractable model of a financial institution is likely to be so general as to avoid the problem of model specificity, I take the view that many of the questions asked in the literature would be better answered in less specific models, i.e., in models capable of explaining additional important aspects of the behavior of the financial institution in question.

A recent study by Larner [11] concluded that the managerial revolution analyzed earlier by Berle and Means [4] was close to completion because a large percentage of the nation's 200 largest nonfinancial corporations was controlled by nonowner managers. This finding makes more significant any substantial differences in financial performance that may exist between owner-controlled and manager-controlled firms, and it increases the potential impact of numerous related theories; for example, see Berle [3], Donaldson [5], Gordon [6, 7 ], Mason [14], Monsen and Downs [16], Williamson [21], and others.

George E. Pinches, Gary M. Simon, An Analysis of Portfolio Accumulation Strategies Employing Low-Priced Common Stocks, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Jun., 1972), pp. 1773-1796

Despite the enormous attention received by the single-period mean-variance model in the literature, its structural relationship to the empirical world is still largely unexplored. The purpose of this note is to show that when certain consistency requirements and equilibrium conditions in the financial markets are taken into account, the collective judgment of the present literature concerning the mean-variance approach is in some respects too lenient and in other respects too harsh. In addition, it will be noted that the mean-variance model can only achieve consistency with the von Neumann-Morgenstern postulates and absolute preference (also known as first-order stochastic dominance) at the price of a severe upper bound on the risk aversion that can be possessed by the decision maker.

This study has addressed itself to that group most immediately affected in corporate acquisition, the stockholders of acquired companies. We find that in the years observed, acquired company stockholders seem to have benefited from the acquisitions. This study differs from other studies of post-merger performance of the common stock of acquirors and not the performance of securities received by acquirees in exchange for their common stock. It should also be noted that most of the financial gain resulting from the acquisitions accrued at the time of merger because of substantial premiums paid by acquirors. While the stockholders of the acquired companies have, on average, benefited, these results tell us little of the effect of mergers on the welfare of society or, for that matter, of their effect on the stockholders of the acquiring firm. If the merger cannot be justified on the basis of some economy of scale or synergistic advantage, the newcomers reap their lucrative returns only at the expense of the old guard. If the acquiring firm pays a premium in acquisition on the basis of justifiably sound expectations of increased profits, social welfare is not necessarily enhanced. Increased profitability may not reflect increased efficiency; it may, for example, be a manifestation of decay in the competitive environment.

A number of recent articles have explored the reasons underlying observed differences in deposit variability among commercial banks. The variability of deposits at individual banks is of interest to bank management, the Federal Reserve, and the general public for several reasons:1. Deposit variability is frequently included as an important determinant of portfolio strategy. The more volatile a bank's deposits are, the more liquid its mix of assets will be.

Since World War II, the significance of the municipal bond market has increased dramatically with state and local government debt growing much more rapidly than public and private debt, federal debt, or the gross national product. Between 1960 and 1970, the annual value of new issues of state and local government bonds increased 110 percent, and there is every indication that the total will continue its rapid rise. In 1969 and 1970, the values of state and local government bond new issues were second only to those of the corporate bond market. Despite the size of the state and local bond market, investors and researchers have devoted their attention to the markets for corporate and U.S. government securities; the interest in these markets has tended to overshadow activity in the municipal bond market.

R. Richardson Pettit, Randolph Westerfield, A Model of Capital Asset Risk, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 2, Supplement: Outlook for the Securities Industry (Mar., 1972), pp. 1649-1668