The investor who prefers to bank his funds to generate a fixed ‘certain’ interest at the end of a term is the classic case of risk-averse individual while a casino gambler who bets against high ‘uncertain’ odds is at the other end of the spectrum (Pietersz, 2009).
In scenario whereby an individual investment is assured of a £500 return, in the uncertain situation, a bet is considered that with a toss of a penny, the individual can get £1,000 or naught, while in the certain situation the individual will definitely receive the £500. Although both situations have a guaranteed return of £500, the uncertain situation has a 50 percent chance of garnering £1,000 or nothing. Therefore, three possible scenarios emerge:
Risk aversion is therefore a characteristic case of martingale effect whereby the most likely scenario is the investor risk-taker only gaining the original amount (Yates, 2009). In modern portfolio theory, risk aversion is calculated as the added subsidiary return an investor needs to admit supplementary risk, which is calculated through the standard deviation of the ROI or the square root of its variance (Baker, 2001).
Modern portfolio theory established mean-variance efficient portfolios in a fixed time horizon that ignored future market movements hence not applicable to multi-period investment horizon. Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965) and Mossin (1966) separately have been ascribed to establishing the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) model that was developed from Markowitzs (1959) exposition of the Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) particularly the mean-variance model. The fundamental theory of the CAPM indicates that there is a linear link involving systematic risk, as measured by beta, and projected share returns (Brewton, 2009). The CAPM model endeavours to illustrate the linkage by applying beta to describe the differences involving the likely proceeds from shares and share portfolios (Laubscher, 2002, p.
Risk aversion has been described as the expression of individual inclination for ‘certainty over uncertainty’ hence the need to reduce possible worst results susceptible to (Kolakowski, 2010). This are individuals who have a preference for low risk but safer guaranteed…
The Investor is a 47-year-old married male who is looking to retire at age 67, the first year he is eligible for full social security benefits. He is a district sales manager for Bob Forsythe Auto, a large and highly profitable dealership in mid-Missouri. His earned income, including salary and bonuses, is $85,000 per year.
His earned income, including salary and bonuses, is $85,000 per year. He does receive a cost of living adjustment on an annual basis of 3.5%. His wife works part-time as a freelance photographer; however, her pay is considered supplemental income, as her workflow is not deemed steady enough to cover anything more than the car payments for their two teenage children, ages 17 and 16.
The companies selected for the purpose of research are Apple Incorporation from the Information Technology sector, Pfizer Incorporation from the pharmaceutical sector, Citigroup Incorporation from the Banking sector, Chicago Bridge & Iron from the Infrastructural sector, and General Motors from the automotive sector.
Since I am a middle aged and have a family that is young and not established calls for a judicious evaluation of the alternatives available.
It is critical to understand the various investment avenues available. Investing in either of the available options comes with a package of advantages and disadvantages.
The author states that Morris Capital is a professional investment that presents financial guidance and the distribution of financial and risk products to local personnel and corporations who realize the need to build their wealth and establish equitable plans for the future expectations. It has developed speedily in a highly competitive market.
The risk aversion coefficient points out the extent to which an investor is risk averse. A higher value suggests that the investor will always tend to make less risky investments. A risk aversion coefficient of 1 implies less risk
The anticipation that, the profits generated in the investments will withstands the risks involved in any investment will stand in as a pillar for the financial projections (Ranganatham & Madhumathi, 2006). In essence, the
itz in 1990 discussed that the position of portfolios risk would be reduced and the expected rate of return would be improved if investments having dissimilar price movements are combined. In other words, Markowitz explained how one could best assemble diversified portfolio and
3 pages (750 words)Assignment
Hire a pro to write a paper under your requirements!
Win a special DISCOUNT!
Put in your e-mail and click the button with your lucky finger
Apply my DISCOUNT
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Assignment on topic INVESTMENT AND PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT for FREE!