Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T09:04:56.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Utility Theoretic Basis for “Generalized” Mean-Coefficient of Variation (MCV) Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Ronald E. Shrieves  and
John M. Wachowicz Jr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The coefficient of variation (CV) in investment returns is often presented in introductory finance texts as a measure of project risk [7, 9, 13, 15]. Curiously, the resulting mean-coefficient of variation (MCV) efficiency criterion is usually casually proposed as an alternative to the more widely recommended mean-standard deviation (MSD) definition of efficiency, as if MCV possessed an obvious intuitive appeal for some investors or some investment situations. The pervasiveness of references to CV as a risk measure is perplexing in light of the absence of utility theoretic underpinnings, especially by contrast with the substantial theoretical effort underlying the MSD notion of efficiency [3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12].

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 16 , Issue 5 , December 1981 , pp. 671 - 683
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1981

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]Arrow, Kenneth J. “The Theory of Risk Aversion.” Essays in the Theory of Risk–Bearing, Chapter 3. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co. (1971).Google Scholar
[2]Baumol, William J. “An Expected Gain–Confidence Limit Criterion.” Management Science (10 1963), pp. 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Hanoch, G., and Levy, H.. “The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Review of Economic Studies (1969), pp. 335–346.Google Scholar
[4]Friend, I., and Blume, M. E.. “The Demand for Risky Assets.” American Economic Review, Vol. 65, No. 5 (12 1975), pp. 900–922.Google Scholar
[5]Graves, Philip E. “Relative Risk Aversion: Increasing or Decreasing.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 14 (06 1979), pp. 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Levy, H., and Markowitz, H. M.. “Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variation.” American Economic Review, Vol. 69, No. 3 (06 1979), pp. 308–317.Google Scholar
[7]Levy, H., and Sarnat, M.. Capital Investment and Financial Decisions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice–Hall, Inc. (1978).Google Scholar
[8]Markowitz, Harry. “Portfolio Selection.” Journal of Finance (03 1952), pp. 77–91.Google Scholar
[9]Osteryoung, Jerome S.Capital Budgeting: Long–Term Asset Selection. Columbus, Ohio: Grid, Inc. (1974).Google Scholar
[10]Samuelson, Paul A. “The Fundamental Approximation Theorem of Portfolio Analysis in Terms of Means, Variances, and Higher Moments.” The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 37 (1970), pp. 537–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Tobin, J. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior toward Risk.” Review of Economic Studies (1958), pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
[12]Tsiang, S. C. “The Rationale of the Mean–Standard Deviation Analysis, Skewness Preference, and the Demand for Money.” American Economic Review, Vol. 62 (06 1972), pp. 354–371.Google Scholar
[13]VanHorne, James C.Financial Management and Policy, 4th ed.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice–Hall, Inc. (1977).Google Scholar
[14]Wachowicz, J. M. Jr, and Shrieves, R. E.. “An Argument for ‘Generalized’ Mean–Coefficient of Variation (MCV) Analysis.” Financial Management, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Winter 1980), pp. 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Weston, J. F., and Brigham, E. F.. Managerial Finance, 6th ed.Hinsdale, Ill.: The Dryden Press (1978).Google Scholar