Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-ff9ft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-26T22:19:09.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic Risk and the Firm's Experimental Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Giora Harpaz  and
Stavros B. Thomadakis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The valuation of the firm in the context of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) of Sharpe [22] and Lintner [18] brings into a new focus the product ion-investment decisions of the firm faced with demand and cost uncertainty. The market value of the firm and the level of systematic risk which arise from its product ion-investment decisions become items of primary importance. Although there are earlier treatments of the real determinants of valuation and risk in a dynamic context (e.g., Thomadakis [24] and Myers and Turnbull [20]), the case of a firm which experiments for the acquisition of information can furnish new insights.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1982 , pp. 363 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1982

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1]Baron, D. P. ‘Demand Uncertainty in Imperfect Competition.’ International Economic Review, Vol. 12 (06 1971), pp. 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Bhattacharya, S. ‘Project Valuation with Mean-Reverting Cash-Flow Streams.’ Journal of Finance, Vol. 33 (12 1978), pp. 1317–1331.Google Scholar
[3]Blackwell, D. ‘Equivalent Comparison of Experiments.’ Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 24 (1953), PP. 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Blume, M. ‘Betas and Their Regression Tendencies.’ Journal of Finance, Vol. 30 (03 1975), pp. 785–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Cyert, R. M., and DeGroot, M. H.. ‘Bayesian Analysis and Duopoly Theory.’ Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78 (10 1970), pp. 1168–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Cyert, R. M., and DeGroot, M. H.. ‘Interfirm Learning and the Kinked Demand Curve.’ Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 3 (09 1971), pp. 272–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Cyert, R. M., and DeGroot, M. H.. ‘An Analysis of Cooperation and Learning in a Duopoly Context.’ American Economic Review, Vol. 63 (03 1973), pp. 24–36.Google Scholar
[8]Cyert, R. M., and DeGroot, M. H.. ‘Rational Expectations and Bayesian Analysis.’ Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82 (1974), pp. 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Cyert, R. M.; DeGroot, M. H.; and Holt, C. A.. ‘Sequential Investment Decision with Bayesian Learning.’ Management Science, Vol. 24 (03 1978), pp. 712–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]DeGroot, M. H.Optimal Statistical Decisions. New York: McGraw Hill 1970).Google Scholar
[11]Grossman, S.; Kihlstrom, R. E.; and Mirman, L. J.. ‘A Bayesian Approach to the Production of Information and Learning by Doing.’ Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 44 (10 1977), pp. 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Harpaz, G.; Lee, Y. W.; and Winkler, R. L.. ‘Learning, Experimentation and the Optimal Output Decisions of a Competitive Firm.’ Management Science, Vol. 28 (06 1982), pp. 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Hawawini, G. ‘A Mean-Variance Exposition of the Theory of the Firm under Uncertainty.’ American Economic Review, Vol. 68 (03 1978), pp. 194–202.Google Scholar
[14]Hite, G. L. ‘Leverage, Output Effects, and the M-M Theorems.’ Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 4 (03 1977), pp. 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Kihlstrom, R. E. ‘A Bayesian Model of Demand for Information about Product Quality.’ International Economic Review, Vol. 15 (02 1974), pp. 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Leland, H. E. ‘The Theory of the Firm Facing Uncertain Demand.’ American Economic Review, Vol.62 (06 1972), pp. 278–291.Google Scholar
[17]Lindenberg, E. G., and Ross, S. A.. ‘Tobin's Q Ratio and Industrial Organization.’ Journal of Business, Vol. 54 (02 1981), pp. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Lintner, J. ‘The Valuation of Risky Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets.’ Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 47 (02 1965), pp. 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Lintner, J. ‘The Valuation of Risky Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets.’ Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 47 (02 1965), pp. 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Myers, S. C., and Turnbull, S. M.. ‘Capital Budgeting and the Capital Asset Pricing Model: Good News and Bad News.’ Journal of Finance, Vol. 32 (05 1977), pp. 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Raiffa, H., and Schlaifer, R.. Applied Statistical decision Theory. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration. Boston: Harvard University (1961).Google Scholar
[22]Sharpe, W. F. ‘Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk.’ Journal of Finance, Vol. 19 (09 1964), pp. 432–442.Google Scholar
[23]Subrahmanyam, M. G., and Thomadakis, S. B.. ‘Systematic Risk and the Theory of the Firm.’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 94 (05 1980), pp. 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Thomadakis, S. B. ’A Model of Market Power, Valuation and the Firm's Return.’ Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Vol. 7 (Spring 1976), pp. 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25]Winkler, R. L.Introduction to Bayesian Influence and Decision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1972).Google Scholar
[26]Winkler, R. L., and Barry, C. B.. ‘A Bayesian Model for Portfolio Selection and Revision.’ Journal of Finance, Vol. 30 (03 1975), pp. 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Zellner, A.An Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Econometrics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1971).Google Scholar