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 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.

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.

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.

The literature on leasing has generally concentrated on providing management with a selection criterion for the lease-versus-purchase decision; over the years, a variety of recommendations have been advanced ([1], [3], [6], [8], [16], and [18]). More recent papers, however, have shown that the terms of leasing contracts in a transaction-costless competitive capital market will inevitably be such as to render the stockholders of value-maximizing firms indifferent to that decision ([11] and [12]). Simply put, competition among potential lessors-together with the mandates of securities-price-equilibrating trading activities of investors in lessee and lessor firms—will necessarily drive the present values of the cash flows associated with lease arrangements to parity with direct asset purchase prices.

The competitive bidding requirement in the underwriting of public utility securities has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. The difficulties that utilities have encountered in raising funds at an historically reasonable cost have exacerbated this situation. “Utilities,” as used here, will refer to investor-owned gas and electric public utilities. The combination of reduced capital availability and rapidly expanding financial needs gives rise to a serious inquiry about whether competitive bidding in new utility underwritings can be justified on the basis of cost to the company.

Capital market equilibrium has been extensively studied in the recent past, mostly in a mean-variance framework. In a perfect capital market with riskless assets and homogenous expectations among risk-averse investors, Sharpe and Lintner have shown that the efficient set of all investors could be described by only two portfolios (or mutual funds):

(1) the market portfolio

(2) the riskless asset.

Of the behavioral recommendations garnered from modern capital market theory, few, if any, generalizations have been documented as convincingly as the simple advice to hold several assets in one's portfolio. Sharpe made such a conclusion perfectly clear when he stated [27, p. 184]:

If the market is efficient and if an investor is privy to no special information or predictive power, what should he do? First, and most important: diversify.

Several years ago Sharpe suggested a measure for the evaluation of portfolio performance. The measure was conceptually simple, easily calculated, and applicable to an entire investment portfolio, in contrast to the measures of Treynor and Jensen which measure only the undiversifiable risk in a portfolio. Sharpe's measure is still a frequently recommended tool for measuring portfolio performance. The measure is, however, biased. It is the purpose of this note to demonstrate the existence of the bias, indicate its size, and provide a means of correcting it.

The certainty-equivalent method of evaluating risky investments has been widely discussed in the literature ([2], [5], [14, p. 356], [19], [20]) and consists of applying a multiplicative factor, αt, to each period's expected cash flow, μt, to produce a certainty-equivalent flow, αtμt. The certainty-equivalent flow is then discounted with the riskless rate of interest, αtμt/(l + i)t. Although there has been much discussion of αt, researchers have not derived explicit expressions for αt, relying instead on ad hoc graphs [24, p. 328] or arguments involving mean-variance indifference curves [2] which may not even exist ([4], [12], [22], [23]). In this paper, I will (1) provide a rigorous definition of αt, (2) derive formal expressions for a for αt three special cases, (3) discuss relationships between αt and σt, the standard deviation of the period t cash flow, (4) formally derive the period t risk-adjusted discount rate, kt, from assumptions concerning the decision maker's (d. m.'s) risk preferences and cash flow distribution, and (5) apply the preceding results to a specific problem involving calculation of the risk-adjusted present value of an uncertain cash flow stream.

Short interest is the number of shares of a stock borrowed for sale (and not yet replaced) by investors who anticipate a decline in the stock's price. After its price falls, the stock is purchased to replace the borrowed shares, the selling price being higher than the purchase price whence the profit. The New York and American Stock Exchanges disclose the current outstanding short interest for the market as a whole and for selected stocks around the 15th of each month.

This paper is concerned with empirical measurement, analysis, and comparison of the returns expected by investors in U. S., German, French and Japanese equity markets. The expedited return to equity is a pivotal concept in capital market theory because of the concern of this theory with analyzing relationships between expected returns to the general market and expected returns to individual securities. Because the expected equity returns are not directly observable, the approach almost uniformly taken in the empirical testing of capital market theory is to make additional behavioral assumptions beyond those contained in the basic theory that enable it to be translated into an analysis of market relationships among ex-post returns. Empirical tests then become tests of both the basic theory and the appended assumptions. A new approach to the empirical testing of capital market relationships is to develop empirical approximations to the returns expected in the equity market, and to employ these expectational measures to directly test capital market relationships. This paper formulates and examines this approach. Empirical approximations of the expected equity return for a representative group of major international stock exchanges are formulated, estimated, and analyzed, leading to a direct test of the International Asset Pricing model in its original form.

The bank financial management process involves assets, liabilities, and factors external to the bank and thus is multivariate. Because variables such as deposits, loans, or interest rates are often related with a time lag to another variable such as investments, the process is also dynamic. Although the research work of Aigner [1], Aigner and Bryan [2], Anderson and Burger [3], Bryan [6], Bryan and Carleton [7], Fraser and Rose [10], Hester and Pierce [13], and Melnik [14] has dealt with the multivariate aspect of the process, the consideration of dynamic properties in empirical work has been limited.