Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T17:20:43.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Corporate Financial Policy in Segmented Securities Markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Extract

The attempt to incorporate securities market imperfections other than proportional taxes within a mean-variance security valuation context has met with modest success. Lintner [5], however, has recently considered imperfections by the device of segmented markets. His paper has motivated the following taxonomy. Securities markets are defined as weakly segmented if some of the securities in at least one market are available to some investors but not to others, partially segmented if the sets containing both investors and available securities in each market are disjoint, and completely segmented if additionally the sets of firms in each market are disjoint. Segmented markets effectively relax the separation property of mean-variance equilibrium models (i.e., all investors, irrespective of differences in present wealth or preferences, divide their wealth between the same two mutual funds; one is risk-free and the other is the market portfolio of risky securities). This property unfortunately implies that each investor must hold a portion of every available risky security. This is empirically unrealistic, primarily due to restrictions on borrowing and shorting and scale economies in security analysis and brokerage. Moreover, even in the absence of these complications, ownership of nonmarketable assets, nonhomogeneous beliefs, or breakdown of the separation property due to tastes or nonnormality will motivate individuals to hold different risky portfolios. The device of segmented markets embodies in extreme form these obstacles to diversification and portfolio similarity.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1973

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

[1]Arrow, K. J., and Lind, R. C.. “Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions.” American Economic Review, June 1970.Google Scholar
[2]Hirshleifer, J.Investment Decision Under Uncertainty: Applications of the State-Preference Approach.Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1966.Google Scholar
[3]Lintner, J.The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets.Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Lintner, J.The Market Price of Risk, Size of Market, and Investor's Risk Aversion.Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Lintner, J.Expectations, Mergers and Equilibrium in Purely Competitive Securities Markets.American Economic Review, May 1971.Google Scholar
[6]Mossin, J.Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market.Econometrica, October 1966.Google Scholar
[7]Lintner, J.Security Pricing and Investment Criteria in Competitive Markets.American Economic Review, December 1969.Google Scholar
[8]Rubinstein, M. E.A Comparative Statics Analysis of Risk Premiums.Journal of Business, October 1973.Google Scholar
[9]Stiglitz, J. E.A Re-Examination of the Modigliani-Miller Theorem.American Economic Review, December 1969.Google Scholar
[10]Stiglitz, J. E.Some Aspects of the Pure Theory of Corporate Finance: Bankruptcies and Takeovers.Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Autumn 1972.Google Scholar
[11]Whitmore, G. A.Third Degree Stochastic Dominance.American Economic Review, June 1970.Google Scholar