Equilibrium in the Pricing of Capital Assets, Risk-bearing Debt Instruments, and the Question of Optimal Capital Structure: A Reply

Although Imai and Rubenstein are correct that our proof — that the Miller- Modiglianl (M-M) and Sharpe-Lintner-Mossin (S-L-M) capital asset pricing models are mutually consistent — is incomplete, their comments indicate some confusion about the relationships involved in the equilibrium pricing of as...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of financial and quantitative analysis 1972-09, Vol.7 (4), p.2005-2008
Hauptverfasser: Haugen, Robert A., Pappas, James L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Although Imai and Rubenstein are correct that our proof — that the Miller- Modiglianl (M-M) and Sharpe-Lintner-Mossin (S-L-M) capital asset pricing models are mutually consistent — is incomplete, their comments indicate some confusion about the relationships involved in the equilibrium pricing of assets in these models. Further, they seem to imply that Stiglitz's proof in terms of dollar returns is in some sense superior to a proof in terms of rates of return. This is erroneous. Accordingly, we shall further clarify the relationships inherent in the models and correct our presentation of the proof of the invariance of capital costs in the context of the S-L-M model.
ISSN:0022-1090
1756-6916
DOI:10.2307/2329632