Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Investment in risky assets can be examined in the state-preference framework by assuming that \(W^{*}\) dollars invested in an asset with a certain return \(r\) will yield \(W^{*}(1+r)\) in both states of the world, whereas investment in a risky asset will yield \(W^{+}\left(1+r_{g}\right)\) in good times and \(W^{*}\left(1+r_{b}\right)\) in bad times (where \(r_{g}>r>r_{b}\) ). a. Graph the outcomes from the two investments. b. Show how a "mixed portfolio" containing both risk-free and risky assets could be illustrated in your graph. How would you show the fraction of wealth invested in the risky asset? c. Show how individuals' attitudes toward risk will determine the mix of risk- free and risky assets they will hold. In what case would a person hold no risky assets? d. If an individual's utility takes the constant relative risk aversion form (Equation 7.42 ), explain why this person will not change the fraction of risky assets held as his or her wealth increases. \(^{25}\)

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: An individual's attitude towards risk influences the mix of risk-free and risky assets they hold in their investment portfolio. The more risk-tolerant they are, the larger the fraction of wealth they allocate towards risky assets. Conversely, the less risk-tolerant they are, the larger the fraction of wealth they allocate towards risk-free assets. Extremely risk-averse individuals may prefer to invest their entire wealth in risk-free assets.

Step by step solution

01

Graph the outcomes of the two investments

To graph the outcomes of the two investments, plot the investment in risk-free assets on the x-axis and the investment in risky assets on the y-axis. The risk-free asset has a return of \(r\), which yields \(W^{*}(1+r)\) in both states. Therefore, its payoff is a straight line with a slope of \((1+r)\). On the other hand, the risky asset has differing returns (\(r_g\) in good times and \(r_b\) in bad times), yielding payoffs of \(W^{+}\left(1+r_{g}\right)\) and \(W^{*}\left(1+r_{b}\right)\). Consequently, the payoff will be two separate points on the graph corresponding to the good and bad states.
02

Illustrate a mixed portfolio containing both risk-free and risky assets

The mixed portfolio can be represented as a line segment connecting the risk-free asset and the risky asset on the graph. Each point on the line segment represents a different mix of the risk-free and risky assets. The fraction of wealth invested in the risky asset can be shown by the distance of a specific point on the line segment from the risk-free asset point, divided by the total length of the line segment.
03

Determine the mix of risk-free and risky assets based on individuals' attitudes towards risk

An individual's risk tolerance will influence how much they invest in risk-free and risky assets. The more risk-tolerant they are, the larger the fraction of wealth they will allocate towards risky assets. The less risk-tolerant they are, the larger the fraction of wealth they will allocate towards risk-free assets. In the case where a person holds no risky assets, it means they are extremely risk-averse and prefer to invest their entire wealth in risk-free assets.
04

Explain the constant relative risk aversion form of an individual's utility

According to the constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) form of utility - Equation 7.42, an individual's utility function takes the following form: \(u(W) = \frac{W^{1-\rho}}{1-\rho}\), where \(\rho\) is the CRRA coefficient (a measure of risk aversion). In this case, the elasticity of the utility function remains constant as wealth increases, meaning the proportion of wealth allocated to risky assets does not change. This is because the individual is assumed to maintain the same level of risk aversion, regardless of changes in wealth.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

State-Preference Framework
In the context of investment, the state-preference framework is a tool that helps to analyze how different investment choices perform under varying economic states. Imagine the world can be in a "good" or "bad" state at any time. Each state represents a different scenario in which investments might produce different returns. In this framework:
  • A risk-free asset provides a consistent return regardless of the state.
  • A risky asset's return fluctuates depending on whether the world is in a good or bad state.
By considering these different states, investors can visualize potential outcomes and decide on their investment strategy based on their preferences and expectations.
Understanding this framework allows investors to simulate potential scenarios and make informed decisions about their asset allocations under uncertainty.
Risk-Free Asset
A risk-free asset is an investment that offers a guaranteed return with no risk of financial loss. In practice, "risk-free" is more of a theoretical concept, since almost all investments carry some risk. However, government bonds from stable governments are often treated as risk-free due to their low chance of default.
The return from a risk-free asset is stable and predictable. For example, if someone invests in a risk-free asset with an interest rate of 5%, they can expect their investment to grow by 5% over the specified period, regardless of economic conditions.
Risk-free assets are vital building blocks in investment portfolios, providing stability and a safe haven for portion of the capital that investors do not wish to expose to market volatility.
Risk Aversion
Risk aversion refers to the preference of investors to choose investments with more predictable, less risky outcomes. Different individuals have varying levels of risk aversion, influencing their investment choices.
For example:
  • Risk-averse individuals prefer safer investments, like government bonds, often with lower returns.
  • Risk-tolerant individuals are more inclined to invest in stocks or other high-risk assets for the potential of higher returns.
  • Highly risk-averse individuals may invest solely in risk-free assets to avoid any possibility of financial loss.
Understanding risk aversion helps in creating investment strategies that align with an individual's comfort with risk, ensuring they are more likely to stick with their investments during turbulent market periods.
Mixed Portfolio
A mixed portfolio combines different types of assets, often blending risk-free and risky investments to balance potential returns with risk exposure. By diversifying, investors aim to improve their overall portfolio performance while managing risk levels.
Here’s how it works:
  • A point on the line connecting the risk-free to the risky asset on a graph represents a certain mix of the two.
  • The distance from the risk-free asset point indicates the proportion invested in risky assets.
  • Investors can adjust their mix according to their risk tolerance and investment goals, moving along this line to achieve the desired balance.
By maintaining a mixed portfolio, investors can better weather financial fluctuations while still potentially benefiting from the higher returns that risky assets might offer.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Return to Example \(7.5,\) in which we computed the value of the real option provided by a flexible-fuel car. Continue to assume that the payoff from a fossil-fuel-burning car is \(A_{1}(x)=1-x\). Now assume that the payoff from the biofuel car is higher, \(A_{2}(x)=2 x\). As before, \(x\) is a random variable uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 , capturing the relative availability of biofuels versus fossil fuels on the market over the future lifespan of the car. a. Assume the buyer is risk neutral with von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function \(U(x)=x\). Compute the option value of a flexible-fuel car that allows the buyer to reproduce the payoff from either single-fuel car. b. Repeat the option value calculation for a risk-averse buyer with utility function \(U(x)=\sqrt{x}\) c. Compare your answers with Example \(7.5 .\) Discuss how the increase in the value of the biofuel car affects the option value provided by the flexible- fuel car.

Show that if an individual's utility-of-wealth function is convex then he or she will prefer fair gambles to income certainty and may even be willing to accept somewhat unfair gambles. Do you believe this sort of risk-taking behavior is common? What factors might tend to limit its occurrence?

A farmer believes there is a \(50-50\) chance that the next growing season will be abnormally rainy. His expected utility function has the form \\[ \text { expected utility }=\frac{1}{2} \ln Y_{N R}+\frac{1}{2} \ln Y_{R} \\] where \(Y_{N R}\) and \(Y_{R}\) represent the farmer's income in the states of "normal rain" and "rainy," respectively. a. Suppose the farmer must choose between two crops that promise the following income prospects: $$\begin{array}{lcc} \text { Crop } & Y_{N R} & Y_{R} \\ \hline \text { Wheat } & \$ 28,000 & \$ 10,000 \\ \text { Corn } & \$ 19,000 & \$ 15,000 \end{array}$$ Which of the crops will he plant? b. Suppose the farmer can plant half his field with each crop. Would he choose to do so? Explain your result. c. What mix of wheat and corn would provide maximum expected utility to this farmer? d. Would wheat crop insurance-which is available to farmers who grow only wheat and which costs \(\$ 4,000\) and pays off \(\$ 8,000\) in the event of a rainy growing season-cause this farmer to change what he plants?

For the CRRA utility function (Equation 7.42), we showed that the degree of risk aversion is measured by 1 \(-R\). In Chapter 3 we showed that the elasticity of substitution for the same function is given by \(1 /(1-R)\). Hence the measures are reciprocals of each other. Using this result, discuss the following questions. a. Why is risk aversion related to an individual's willingness to substitute wealth between states of the world? What phenomenon is being captured by both concepts? b. How would you interpret the polar cases \(R=1\) and \(R=-\infty\) in both the risk-aversion and substitution frameworks? c. A rise in the price of contingent claims in "bad" times \(\left(p_{b}\right)\) will induce substitution and income effects into the demands for \(W_{g}\) and \(W_{b^{*}}\) If the individual has a fixed budget to devote to these two goods, how will choices among them be affected? Why might \(W_{g}\) rise or fall depending on the degree of risk aversion exhibited by the individual? d. Suppose that empirical data suggest an individual requires an average return of 0.5 percent before being tempted to invest in an investment that has a \(50-50\) chance of gaining or losing 5 percent. That is, this person gets the same utility from \(W_{0}\) as from an even bet on \(1.055 \mathrm{W}_{0}\) and \(0.955 \mathrm{W}_{0}\) (1) What value of \(R\) is consistent with this behavior? (2) How much average return would this person require to accept a \(50-50\) chance of gaining or losing 10 percent? Note: This part requires solving nonlinear equations, so approximate solutions will suffice. The comparison of the riskreward trade-off illustrates what is called the equity premium puzzle in that risky investments seem actually to earn much more than is consistent with the degree of risk aversion suggested by other data. See N. R. Kocherlakota, "The Equity Premium: It's Still a Puzzle," Journal of Economic Literature (March 1996 ): \(42-71\).

In Equation 7.30 we showed that the amount an individual is willing to pay to avoid a fair gamble \((h)\) is given by \(p=0.5 E\left(h^{2}\right) r(W),\) where \(r(W)\) is the measure of absolute risk aversion at this person's initial level of wealth. In this problem we look at the size of this payment as a function of the size of the risk faced and this person's level of wealth. a. Consider a fair gamble ( \(v\) ) of winning or losing \(\$ 1 .\) For this gamble, what is \(E\left(v^{2}\right) ?\) b. Now consider varying the gamble in part (a) by multiplying each prize by a positive constant \(k\). Let \(h=k v\). What is the value of \(E\left(h^{2}\right) ?\) c. Suppose this person has a logarithmic utility function \(U(W)=\ln W\). What is a general expression for \(r(W) ?\) d. Compute the risk premium ( \(p\) ) for \(k=0.5,1\), and 2 and for \(W=10\) and \(100 .\) What do you conclude by comparing the six values?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free