Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:30:32.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stochastic Dominance With a Riskless Asset: An Imperfect Market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Extract

The assumption that investors can borrow and lend at a riskless interest rate reduces the Mean-Variance (M-V) efficient set to only one optimal unlevered portfolio. However, once we realize that the market is generally imperfect and that the borrowing rate is higher than the lending rate, we can no longer use the mean-variance Separation Theorem. Instead, a number of unlevered portfolios must be included in the efficient set, while the optimal unlevered portfolio is selected on the basis of the investor's preference. The size of the efficient set of unlevered portfolios is a function of the type of empirical data used and of the disparity between the borrowing and lending interest rates.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Bawa, R. C.Optimal Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 1 (1975).Google Scholar
[2]Fishburn, P. C.Decision and Value Theory.” New York: Wiley (1964).Google Scholar
[3]Fishburn, P. C.. “Convex Stochastic Dominance with Continuous Distribution Functions.” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 7 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Hadar, J., and Russell, W. R.. “Rules of Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” American Economic Review, Vol. 59 (1969).Google Scholar
[5]Hadar, J., and Russell, W. R.. “Stochastic Dominance and Diversification.” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 3 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Hanoch, G., and Levy, H.. “The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 36 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Hanoch, G., and Levy, H.. “Efficient Portfolio Selection with Quadratic and Cubic Utility.” Journal of Business, Vol. 43 (1970).Google Scholar
[8]Levhari, D.; Paroush, J. and Peleg, B.. “Efficiency Analysis for Multivariate Distribution.” Review of Economic Studies (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Levy, H., and Kroll, Y.. “Stochastic Dominance with Riskless Assets.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Levy, H., and Kroll, Y.. “Stochastic Dominance with Borrowing and Lending.” Journal of Finance (05 1978).Google Scholar
[11]Levy, H.Stochastic Dominance, Efficiency Criteria, and Efficient Portfolios: The Multiperiod Case.” American Economic Review, Vol. 63 (1973).Google Scholar
[12]Levy, H.. “Stochastic Dominance Among Log-Normal Prospects.” International Economic Review, Vol. 3 (1973).Google Scholar
[13]Levy, H., and Paroush, J.. “Toward Multivariate Efficiency Criteria.” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 7 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Levy, H., and Sarnat, M.. “Investment and Portfolio Analysis.” New York: Wiley (1972).Google Scholar
[15]Markowitz, H. M.Portfolio Selection.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 7 (1952).Google Scholar
[16]Markowitz, H. M.. “Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments.” New York: Wiley (1959).Google Scholar
[17]Markowitz, H. M.. “An Algorithm For Finding Undominated Portfolios.” IBM Working Paper, IBM Research Center (1975).Google Scholar
[18]Quirk, J. P., and Saposnik, R.. “Admissibility and Measure Utility Functions.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Rothschild, M., and Stiglitz, J. E.. “Increasing Risk: I. A Definition.” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 2 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Sharpe, W. F.Portfolio Theory and Capital Markets.” New York: McGraw (1971).Google Scholar
[21]Sharpe, W. F.. “Mutual Fund Performance.” Journal of Business, Vol. 39 (1966).Google Scholar
[22]Tobin, J.Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 25 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Vickson, R. G.Stochastic Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion. II. General Random Variables.” Management Science, Vol. 21 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Whitmore, G. A.Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance.” American Economic Review, Vol. 60 (1970).Google Scholar