A relationship between money supply and stock prices is fairly well recognized in the literature. More recently the studies of Hamburger and Kochin [7], Modigliani [12], Keran [9], and Homa and Jaffee [8] have attempted to specify the short- and long-run nature and the direct and indirect nature of these relationships. Also, these studies have focused on determining the transition variables through which the money-supply effect is transmitted to stock prices. A more pragmatic approach is that of Sprinkel [17 and 18] and Palmer [14] who have attempted to analyze the money-supply and stock-market relationships to see if the former can be a predictor of the latter. More reliable forecasts of future market movements, if available, could be extremely useful for individual and institutional investors. At one extreme, information could be used to time the investment in and out of the market portfolio. Alternatively, the investor could more profitably use the B information on market volatility of stocks available from the capital-asset pricing model, relating expected rate of return on a security, E(Ri), with that on the market portfolio, E(Rm). Accordingly, the prediction of the market would indicate when to shift the composition of the portfolio from relatively low to high or from relatively high to low β stocks and cash.

Professor Mendelson's interesting paper reaches one conclusion with which I have no quarrel. Under his “most likely” future scenario, he argues for the need for the individual investor in the stock market to enhance the external equity capital-raising abilities of corporations. However, on the way to that conclusion, he dispenses a number of inconsistencies and confusing points.

Within the past decade, considerable progress has been made in measuring ex post portfolio performance. The two parameter risk-return dimension of investment performance as pioneered by Markowitz has been reduced to a single parameter which incorporates measures of both risk and return. Several different but related one-parameter measures of performance have been developed, notably by Sharpe [8], Treynor [11], and Jensen [3], and are commonly referred to as composite performance measures. Theoretically, the composite measures allow portfolios with different risks and returns to be compared directly.

The earliest successes in developing asset management theory focusing predominantly on short-term optimization of physical stock flow systems are due to Masse [13]; Arrow, Harris, and Marschak [1]; and Whitin [22]. This led to the development of burgeoning literature on what has come to be known as “inventory theory” followed by its application to cash management problems by Baumol [2]. In contrast to the conventional static analysis of Tobin [19] and Markowitz [12], Baumol's model incorporates what Hicks [11] referred to as “frictions” or the adjustment costs. More recently the pioneering works by Miller and Orr [14] Eppen and Fama [3], Weitzman [20], and Sethi [4] have sought to extend this basic model by incorporating different cash flow and operating cost assumptions.

For almost a decade, Myron Gordon has argued repeatedly that an enterprise's dividend policy can affect its share price [2, 3, and 4]. The essence of his argument is that risk-averse investors are likely to perceive current dividends as less risky than future ones. Consequently, a corporate decision to reduce current, in favor of increased future, dividends will reduce share prices, even when the funds are invested to yield the firm's cost of capital.

The facts of increased institutional trading on the nation's securities markets are by now well known. On the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the six major institutional groups—insurance companies, investment companies, noninsured pension funds, nonprofit institutions, common trusts, and mutual savings banks, now own more than one-fourth of the market value of listed shares compared with less than 16 percent at the end of 1956. But, ownership is merely the tip of the perennial iceberg, since institutional trading of stock has become much more significant than institutional ownership. This fact is pointed up in the recent SEC Study of Institutional Investors. It shows that there has been a relatively slow increase in the share of outstanding stock owned by institutions in all markets, but the institutional share of trading has mushroomed.

The characteristics of the mean-variance, efficient portfolio frontier have been discussed at length in the literature. However, for more than three assets, the general approach has been to display qualitative results in terms of graphs. In this paper, the efficient portfolio frontiers are derived explicitly, and the characteristics claimed for these frontiers are verified. The most important implication derived from these characteristics, the separation theorem, is stated and proved in the context of a mutual fund theorem. It is shown that under certain conditions, the classic graphical technique for deriving the efficient portfolio frontier is incorrect.

Robert C. Higgins, The Corporate Dividend-Saving Decision, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 2, Supplement: Outlook for the Securities Industry (Mar., 1972), pp. 1527-1541

This paper has shown that the models developed to select common stock port-folios can be adapted to the selection of real estate portfolios and mixed asset portfolios. The concepts are all identical, and as long as return and risk can be quantified, the problems are soluble.The portfolios identified using a small sample indicate that real estate portfolios can have more return and less risk than do common stock portfolios. When the two assets are combined, the real estate assets dominate the resultant portfolios. On an after-tax basis these results are more apparent. The local aspect of real estate versus the national aspect of common stocks is primarily responsible for these results.

George Kaufman and Cynthia Latta in “The Demand for Money: Preliminary Evidence from Industrial Countries, ” have presented econometric evidence that the money-demand function may shift with the development of financial markets. The thesis depends on the heightened cross-elasticities and lowered wealth-elasticities (or income-elasticities) that are supposed to attend the development of new near-money forms. Their evidence is based on a summary of statistics from money-demand equations for developed and less-developed countries.