t

17 ce ( We diti

y2
Co

in

h,
tio
ra
o

.
ce
,

17

th
,C

n)

eF

vo

elc
h, on) orat 201 anc o W Ed Cor ), Ju te F 17. e (4 elc itio rpo
ul

di
an
E
h,

(4

C
tio

20
lch

.I
J

W
oW E
at
th
an elc

h,
o

ce
,
i

h
Fi
r
C
n)

ly
(4

c
o

t
n
E

l
v
4
u
p
h,

e
te

0
a
I
ce

(
J

E
or
h

2
n
o

(4 elc

ra

7.
(4 elch itio por ly 2 inan Ivo th E h, C n), rate 017 nce
4t

,
Iv

th
Fi
C

y
d

o
n

01
ul
W

E
Part II

v
4
rp
h,

te
o
7.

a
I
(
,J
th

2
n
an vo

a
t
o
01

.
(4 elch itio por ly 2 inan Ivo th E h, C n), rate 017 nce
di
n

i
lch ion or
C

y
F

o
.I
na

ul
W

E
y2

Iv
p
,

e
o
h

a
ce

Risk and Return

J
r

at
th
i

y2

in
o

c
F

t
o

.
),
i
l
Iv

r
C
d
e
20

F
e

o
l
W

n
E
t

Ju
p
,
n
a

7.

ch

a
or
th
ly
Fi

2
or

in
o
c

t
01

(4 elch itio por ly 2 nan Ivo th E h, C n),

di
l
n
Iv
Ju

,C

ly
4
e

F
4t elch tion pora y 20 nan Ivo th E , Co ), J ate

o
na

W
(

oW E
y2

Ju
p
io
,

ce

or
)

h
i

2
r

o
F

t
n
tio po
ul

4t

di
n
Iv
...in a Perfect Market under Risk Aversion

po ly
lch io

e
0
e

o
a

e(

E
2
or

at

Ju
p
in

o
7 .

r
h
ly

i
or
C

c
c
We are now moving on to the next step in complexity. into the world of uncertainty.

t
o
n

01

i
l
n
v
Ju

r
4
We shall still (cowardly) maintain that financial markets are

d
e
rp
,

Although the details of how to invest now become more

I
na

W
e(
2

perfect: no information differences, no transaction costs, difficult, fortunately, all the important questions and tasks

o
a

at 201 nce o W Ed Cor , Ju e Fi 17.

,
i

no taxes, and many buyers and sellers. But we are now

r
still remain the same—and, fortunately, so do many of the
)

ly

i
Ed

iti
r

an vo

c
c
F

o
n
po

abandoning the assumption that investors are risk-neutral— answers. As a corporate executive, you must still under-

l
an

(4

d
lch io

e
20
te

that they are indifferent between receiving $1 million for stand how to work with rates of return and how to decide
I

n
h

W
h

or

sure, and receiving $500,000 or $1,500,000 with equal

t

n
elc

(4 elc itio
whether to accept or reject investment projects. You can
a

.
t

di

ce
20 anc o W h E , Co ), J te F 17
(4

ly

probability. An investor who is risk-averse prefers the safe

r
C

still use the net present value method. You still
need knowl-

c
n
7. e (4 elc itio po
W

$1 million. edge of projects’ expected cash flows, E C , and of the

l
u

d
o

e
0
,

J

W
cost of capital, E r ,

(
elc iti

We now introduce a complication that adds not only

2
t

n
vo

h
),

ce
complexity but also realism: risk aversion. Under risk aver-
7
4

i
Ed

E C1 E C2
e

01

sion, projects can influence one another from an “overall

tio po

l
Fi 7. I

NPV = C0 +
+
+ ···
W

4
1 + E r1 1 + E r2
,

risk” perspective. If one project’s return is always high (say,

e

W
vo th

(
2
r
nc

+20%) when the other project’s return is low (say, –20%),

a
o

7. The novel complication arises in the denominator. Investors’

ce


)
(4

and vice-versa, then it can even be possible that the overall

r
,C

risk aversion influences the NPV (only) through E r . Still,

F
a

01
o

t
W

risk cancels out completely! This simple insight means that

u
n

it continues to be best to think of it as the opportunity cost

e
7.

determining the best investment choices, selected from the

h
h

of capital. As a manager, the difficulty is only that you

c

large universe of available investment projects, becomes a

.
t
1

e
7 must somehow calculate what it should be on behalf of
4

or

much more difficult task for corporate investors and conse-

0

c
F
on

01
I
(

your corporation’s owners (investors). The cost of capital

E

u
y2

quently, for their corporations’ managers. Projects are no

p
h,

an Ivo th E , C n), J ate

still measures the same thing: whether your investors have

.
01 nce

J
h
i

longer self-contained islands.

7

elc iti

r
F

better alternatives elsewhere in the economy. If they do,

elc

7.
t
1

,
l

As a corporate manager, it now becomes a question of

)
v
Ju

you should return their capital to them and let them invest
e

F
y 2 na

1
I

how your corporate projects work together with your other

W
t

their money there. The opportunities elsewhere determine

u
lch io

0
ra

o W th E , Co ), J ate
7.

projects (for internal corporate risk management) or even

h

your corporation’s cost of capital, which in turn determines

h
i

or
F

t
an vo
o

with your investors’ projects elsewhere. This also means

t

what projects you should take.

di
l

or , Ju e Fi
u
p

,C

that you need to first understand your investors’ problems

e

I
(
o W Ed Co , J
or

before you can answer what projects they would like you What You Want to Learn in this Part
n

17 ce

to undertake. So, who are your investors, what do they

i

or

at
n)

eF

4t

like and dislike, and how should you evaluate your project In sum, we now assume that investors are risk-averse—
l

d
u

e
io

relative to what you believe your investors’ alternatives are? as they

truly are in the real world. Then what is the correct
n

l
I
(

E
J
r

What exactly are your investors’ alternatives? How do your E r , the opportunity cost of capital, in the NPV formula?
ra
t

.
,
di

h
i

r
)

projects interact with your investors’ other projects? This As in earlier chapters, great opportunities elsewhere in the
Co , Ju e F
po

t
l

is a wide and deep subject, which is why we require an un- economy still manifest themselves as a high cost of capital
)
4
v

d
u
h,

0
a

E r that you should apply to your projects. But in this

I
e(

precedented four chapters: It requires a larger expedition

J
or

W
y2

n
c

p
7.
,
l
i

i
C
n)
e

137
vo
W

d
rp
,

,C
te
elc tio

W
th

in
n) ora
Ed Co

.
ce
di

17
y
(4

Ju e F

i
l

n
E

Ed
u
p
h,

na
ce

,J
r
h

iti

7.
ce
Iv

th
Fi
or
ly

01
W
e(

Iv
rp

te

e
io
7.