Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T10:06:35.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of a Mean-Semivariance Approach to Capital Budgeting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

R. Burr Porter ,
Roger P. Bey  and
David C. Lewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent trends in capital budgeting have been toward more complex decision rules with increasingly sophisticated treatments of risk. Although they have the virtue of simplicity, undiscounted methods such as the payback do not account for the time value of money. Net present value and internal rate of return consider the time value of money but many questions remain about the proper discount rate, the reinvestment assumption, and the statistical interrelations among projects. The latest approaches, referred to as portfolio models, are substantially more complicated but are the only methods that consider the statistical interrelations among the various assets. The most popular portfolio approach has been the mean-variance (E-V) model developed by Sharpe [10] and Lintner [5].

Type
VI. Capital Budgeting Decsions
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 1975 , pp. 639 - 649
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1975

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]Fama, E. F. “Risk, Return and Equilibrium: Some Clarifying Comments” Journal of Finance, vol. 23 (March 1968), pp. 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Hogan, W. W., and Warren, J. M.. “Computation of the Efficient Boundary in the E-S Portfolio Selection Model” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 7 (September 1972), pp. 1881–1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Hogan, W. W., “Toward the Development of an Equilibrium Capital Market Model Based on Semivariance” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 9 (January 1974), pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Lanzilotti, R. F. “Pricing Objectives in Large Companies” American Economic Review, vol. 48 (December 1958), pp. 921–940.Google Scholar
[5]Lintner, J. “The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 47 (February 1965), pp. 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Mao, J. C. T. “Models of Capital Budgeting, E-V Versus E-S” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 4 (January 1970), pp. 657–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Mao, James C. T. “Survey of Capital Budgeting: Theory and Practice” Journal of Finance, vol. 25 (May 1970), pp. 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Markowitz, H. M.Portfolio Selection. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1959).Google Scholar
[9]Petty, J. William; Scott, David F. Jr.; and Bird, Monroe M.. “The Capital Expenditure Decision-Making Process of Large Corporations” Engineering Economist, vol. 20 (Spring 1975), pp. 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Sharpe, W. F. “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk” Journal of Finance, vol. 19 (September 1964), pp. 425–442.Google Scholar
[11]Swalm, Ralph O. “Utility Theory—Insights into Risk Taking.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 44 (November–December 1966), pp. 123–136.Google Scholar