Following Markowitz's [11] pioneering work on portfolio selection, it is customary to consider an individual's choice among several risky assets as a two-step procedure. First, given some general characteristics concerning his preferences, the decision maker chooses an efficient set of portfolios independent of his specific preference assessment. Secondly, an optimal portfolio is chosen from the efficient set given the individual's specific preferences.

Numerous studies have already examined the investment performance of mutual fund management with data from the 1950s and 1960s. Although the previous studies differed in the time period and evaluation method, they generally agreed that mutual funds, on the average, had failed to outperform the market over time. Thus they rendered a strong support to the efficient market hypothesis. Yet there is a need for an investigation of the data of the past several years. This study evaluates the quarterly investment performance of mutual funds in the period 1969–1975, using the weighted index benchmark portfolio approach.

As the multinational corporation (MNC) becomes the norm rather than the exception, the need to internationalize the tools of domestic financial analysis is apparent. A key question is: What cost-of-capital figure should be used in appraising the profitability of foreign investments? This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive approach to analyze the cost-of-capital question. It begins by extending the weighted cost-of-capital concept to the multinational firm. It then builds on previous research to address the following related topics: national or multinational financial structure norms; the role of parent company guarantees; the costing of various fund sources particularly when exchange risk is present; the impact of tax and regulatory factors; risk and diversification; and joint ventures.

Intermediation, and in particular financial intermediation, is a frequently observed class of activities for which the literature provides little definition. Although intermediaries exist in major proportions of the economy, a precise characterization of an intermediary's function has not appeared. Rather, the academic and pragmatic literature refer to intermediaries by example, generally agreeing that such institutions as banks, insurance companies, etc., are intermediaries. This research addresses the issue of what an intermediary is; that is, what distinguishes the activity of intermediation from other economic activity.

It has been shown by Haley and Schall [4], Modigliani and Miller [7], Myers [8], Solomon [10], and Vickers [12] that if (1) a firm's investments always yield cash flows that are constant forever, and if (2) the firm maintains, likewise into perpetuity, a constant debt/equity ratio in terms of market values, a constant per period cost of capital can be derived which involves as weights the market values of debt and equity. Since these sufficient conditions, which were set forth for positive purposes, pose severe limitations on the usefulness of these results for normative purposes, derivations which are less restrictive would be helpful for decision making.

In recent years, several papers [Mossin [13], Hamada [7], Rubinstein [14]] have addressed the normative implications of the CAPM (developed by Sharpe [15], Lintner [9] and Mossin [12]) for the capital budgeting and capital structure decisions of a value maximizing firm. The model has been extended by Chen and Boness [3] to analyze the effects of uncertain inflation and by Adler and Dumas [1] to study optimal international acquisitions.

In this paper we confront two well-known models for pricing options. It shows how the two models, one derived in a discrete time framework by Boness, the other derived in a continuous time framework by Black and Scholes, can be made consistent. In doing so, we find the implicit, discrete period, discount factor for the call option. Several characteristics of the discount factor are analyzed and compared to the characteristics of the instantaneous expected rate of return on the call.

In this issue of the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Beranek [2] has presented a clever but cumbersome analysis showing that, for a simple multiperiod situation, computing a project's net present worth by discounting its cash flows at particular “costs of capital” and accepting the project if that net present worth is positive is completely consistent with raising the net present wealth of stockholders, initial investment from whom provides partial funding for the project.

An important aggregation problem is the derivation of equilibrium security prices which are independent of the allocation of initial wealth among investors. The problem is of interest because, if investors are conceived as being endowed with initial holdings of securities, it is clear that the initial wealth allocation which depends on security prices is endogenous to the model. Although he addresses a differently defined objective, Rubinstein [8] has shown that sufficient conditions for the solution of the problem described above are conditions that permit construction of “composite” (representative) investors whose resources, beliefs, and tastes depend on the exogenous specifications of the economy (viz., the beliefs and tastes of all investors and production conditions) but not on the initial allocation of securities.

The striking and powerful conclusions of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) [13,8] arise from imposing the requirement that optimal individual portfolio decisions must be consistent with a market equilibrium for securities. That simple requirement–of market balance–produces the strong results that have been the centerpiece of research in finance in the last fifteen years. But despite the huge payoffs to imposing equilibrium requirements on financial markets, the CAP model remains a partial equilibrium result. The risks which are attributed to securities are strictly exogenous. Securities are risky because their prices fluctuate, but the cause of those price fluctuations is rarely specified. The literature seems to associate “market risk” with the business cycle and individual security risk with either random technological change or demand uncertainty. But whatever attribution is made, such risk remains outside of the model itself. Since the keystone of the CAPM is its important distinction between “real” or nondiversifiable risk and purely financial uncertainty, it is disconcerting to recognize that it is a model in which real quantities do not appear at all.

When a unit of a multinational corporation requires short-term funding, it normally has the opportunity to obtain funds from a number of different sources, both internal and external to the country where these funds will be deployed. The possibility exists for borrowing in a currency other than the local currency of the borrowing unit. The purpose of this paper is to find the optimal currency source or sources for such a loan, when the borrowing unit can enter the forward exchange market for a term equivalent to the time to maturity of the loan.

Formal models for portfolio analysis, such as Markowitz [13], are frequently based upon mean-variance analyses and involve the estimation of a mean vector and a variance-covariance matrix describing expected returns and variability of returns for all securities under consideration. These parameter estimates play a major role in the selection of a single, optimal portfolio. Kalymon [9] and Barry [1] have considered the effects of parameter uncertainty upon individual investors' inferences and decisions in the context of portfolio selection, and Barry and Winkler [2] have similarly considered the impact of nonstationary means upon portfolio selection decisions by individual investors.

Recently, the appropriateness of the weighted average cost of capital for making decisions on capital structure and the selection of projects has been seriously questioned. Arditti [1] showed that when project lives were finite, the weighted average cost of capital was not appropriate for valuing the firm. Beranek [2] demonstrates that when the objective is shareholder wealth maximization, the appropriate discount rate for capital budgeting decisions for finite lived projects n > 1 is not the traditional weighted average cost of capital.

This paper is a pioneering effort in the examination of the workings of rationality and efficiency in capital markets. The central theme of the paper is the notion of informational efficiency in markets for durable assets. In its broadest terms this imposes a behavioral constraint on the intertemporal development of the asset markets; in a perfect market the development of the equilibrium over time must not be self-contradictory. Individual agents' anticipations of future developments determine their current actions and these, in turn, determine equilibrium prices. But, tomorrow the process will be repeated and it is at this second step that the possibility of conflict enters. The future development need not fulfill precisely people's previous anticipations, but in a perfectly functioning market it would be difficult to accept a blatant contradiction. To believe that prices are lognormally distributed, for example, and to have that belief generate the same equilibrium price period after period is such a contradiction.

Since call option trading started on the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) in April 1973, the interest shown by both the investment and academic communities has grown as rapidly as the volume of option trading. In May 1973, the first full month of trading on the CBOE, a total of 34,599 contracts were traded; during 1976, the monthly volume reached 1.5 million contracts on the CBOE and 800,000 contracts on the American Stock Exchange. At present the New York Stock Exchange and certain regional exchanges are evaluating the feasibility of adapting option trading for their respective exchanges.

The risk inherent in the price fluctuations of bonds has many dimensions. These include default risk, inflation risk, and call risk. The most important single source of risk, particularly for government and high-grade corporate bonds, is basis-risk price fluctuations caused by shifts in interest rates. For a given shift in the yield curve, and holding other factors unchanged, longer term-to-maturity bonds generally suffer greater price changes than shorter maturity bonds. This characterization is not exact because high coupon bonds are less volatile than low coupon bonds. Intuition says that this is to be expected because, other things being equal, high coupon bonds have a greater percentage of their value due to the interim coupons and, hence, have a shorter “effective” maturity. Duration may be interpreted as an attempt to quantify this qualitative statement through the use of a single, numerical measure intended to be used in place of maturity.

The capital asset pricing model specifies that relative risk is a sufficient descriptor of security risk. This result holds under both the Sharpe-Lintner version,

and the more general Black version of the model,

where

= expected rate of return on asset i,

Rf = riskless rate of interest,

= expected return on the market portfolio,

= expected return on any “zero-beta” asset or portfolio of such assests, and

= relative risk of asset i in the market portfolio of assests.

Ever since Markowitz introduced the concept of portfolio theory in 1952, one of the questions predominant in the minds of financial theorists has been the constituency of the investor's optimal asset portfolio. Research into this area, which became known as capital market theory, attempted to analyze the equilibrium relationships between assets. One of the products of this research was the widely accepted Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) of Sharpe and Lintner.

The cost of capital concept has for some years permeated both finance theory and textbook treatments of capital structure and business investment decisions. This has been due, to a major extent, to the important works of Modigliani and Miller [10,11] and Solomon [16], among others. In recent years, however, the concept has been the subject of some controversy. A number of authors have shown that the cost of capital, as usually computed, can produce errors except under highly restrictive assumptions and that there continues to be some debate over its proper definition and use. Our purpose in the present paper is to explicate more fully the source of the difficulties with the cost of capital and to suggest that, despite the initial usefulness of the concept, the field of finance would be better off now if it were relegated to history. Both the perfect and imperfect market cases will be considered. We propose that the term “cost of capital” be eliminated from textbooks and research papers and be replaced by superior concepts.

Stochastic Dominance rules are playing an increasingly prominent role in the literature on choice under uncertainty. Their foundation is the mainstream VonNeumann-Morgenstern expected utility paradigm. Their essence is to provide an admissible set of choices under restrictions on the utility functions that follow from prevalent and appealing modes of economic behavior: The admissible sets generated are useful for a large group of individual decision makers and the optimal choice for an individual can then be obtained from among the smaller set of admissible choices.