Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine use of the Black‐Scholes (BS) risky asset model to determine choice of optimal investment term in a reinvestment chain model.

An extension of Tobin's separation theorem is used to establish a mean‐variance efficient strategy for lump sum conversion to an income stream over any fixed term; two criteria involving the BS model are then applied to determine optimal investment term in a perpetual chain of reinvestment. The first criterion selects the term to maximize the value of a call option on excess of a market portfolio accumulation over the indexed value of the original lump sum. The second criterion selects term to maximize the expected present value of this excess without the no‐arbitrage assumption.

It is found that both criteria lead to useful but different income stream funding strategies. Annual returns data for the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index for years 1900‐2009 are used for an empirical assessment of the relative usefulness of the two criteria. Empirical evidence favours use of the criterion without the no‐arbitrage assumption.

Mean‐variance efficiency of the lump sum conversion strategy has been described elsewhere, but it has not previously been recognized as an extension of the Tobin theorem. Determination of optimal reinvestment term in this context is new and crucial to practical application of the model. One application of universal significance is for retirees emerging from defined contribution pension schemes with lump sums to provide for retirement in the face of longevity risk.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

This essay provides a non‐technical account of the development of thinking about the ways in which financial markets work. The account is organized by distinguishing between the “financial approach” and the “monetary approach” to the study of financial markets. The financial approach emphasizes the importance of arbitrage in determining financial asset prices. The monetary approach utilizes the more traditional tools of supply and demand, and places greater emphasis on the role of market imperfections. The essay evaluates the contribution of each approach to improving our understanding of financial markets. It concludes that the central problem in financial market research remains that of providing a satisfactory explanation of the determination of asset prices. In the emerging regime of liberalized, competitive financial markets both the financial approach and the monetary approach have a distinctive contribution to make in understanding how these markets work. This paper is based on research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council under grant No. B0023‐2151.

The economic science is again in a crisis and a new solution prolegomena to any future study in economics, finance and other social sciences has just been published by the International Institute of Social Economics in care of the MCB University Press in England. The roots of the major financial and economic problems of our time lie in an open conflict between theory and practice. In the 1930s and before the conflict was between classical theory and given realities. In the 1990s the conflict appears between the now prevailing modern, Keynesian theory and the actual realities. In addition during the twentieth century a great argument developed between the two schools of thought, argument which is not yet settled. In one sentence, the prolegomena tried and was successful to solve the conflict between theory and practice and the big doctrinal dispute of the twentieth century. It was a struggle of research and observation over half a century between 1947 and 1997.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

The purpose of this paper, and a companion paper (Duxbury, 2015), is to review the insights provided by experimental studies examining financial decisions and market behavior.

Focus is directed on those studies examining explicitly, or with direct implications for, the most robustly identified phenomena or stylized facts observed in behavioral finance. The themes for this first paper are theory and financial markets.

Experiments complement the findings from empirical studies in behavioral finance by avoiding some of the limitations or assumptions implicit in such studies.

The authors synthesize the valuable contribution made by experimental studies in extending the knowledge of the functioning of financial markets and the financial behavior of individuals.

Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.