Limiting Liability? — Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes Under Real Losses

2013 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Koch ◽  
Daniel Schunk
2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-208
Author(s):  
Mitchell A. Farlee

ABSTRACT: Disclosure and monitoring policy are studied, where disclosure relates to information about the monitoring system. A moral hazard model is presented where employee monitoring occurs with some exogenous probability and the owner privately learns whether he will be monitoring before the employee chooses his productive action. Disclosure policy is an owner choice between revealing to the employee whether he will be monitoring before the action (Disclosure) or remaining silent (Secrecy). The results rely on the joint presence of risk aversion and limited liability. Risk aversion creates an efficiency/risk tradeoff where secrecy obtains risk-sharing benefits. Limited liability reduces these benefits, allowing preference for disclosure. Lower monitoring probabilities increase the risk premium required to obtain effort with secrecy. For small monitoring probabilities, disclosure is preferred even though less efficient production is achieved, because disclosure provides a greater risk-sharing benefit. For high monitoring probabilities, secrecy is preferred because it leads to greater efficiency despite a greater risk premium.


JAMA ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 257 (6) ◽  
pp. 778
Author(s):  
Richard Belsey
Keyword(s):  

Orthopedics ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 919-920
Author(s):  
Robert E Booth

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélien Baillon ◽  
Han Bleichrodt

This paper reports on two experiments that test the descriptive validity of ambiguity models using a natural source of uncertainty (the evolution of stock indices) and both gains and losses. We observed violations of probabilistic sophistication, violations that imply a fourfold pattern of ambiguity attitudes: ambiguity aversion for likely gains and unlikely losses and ambiguity seeking for unlikely gains and likely losses. Our data are most consistent with prospect theory and, to a lesser extent, α-maxmin expected utility and Choquet expected utility. Models with uniform ambiguity attitudes are inconsistent with most of the observed behavioral patterns. (JEL D81, D83, G11, G12, G14)


Econometrica ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 1839-1858 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélien Baillon ◽  
Zhenxing Huang ◽  
Asli Selim ◽  
Peter P. Wakker
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-110
Author(s):  
Eka Lusvita Wulandari ◽  
Lily Rahmawati Harahap

Capital budgeting in practice is intended to conduct an investment analysis of some available investment alternatives, and then determine or choose the most profitable investment. Inappropriateness in determining investment options will result in losses of either real losses or losses due to loss of opportunity to gain an opportunity cost that can actually be realized. The investment analysis will select the available investment opportunities, so that investment can be selected that will provide the greatest benefit of every dollar invested. Capital budgeting techniques can be analyzed by appraisal method of investment as follows: Average Rate of Return, Payback Period , Net Present Value, and Profitability Index.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document