Advertisement

A new perspective on dynamic portfolio policies

  • Elisa Luciano
Article

Abstract

The paper starts from the preceeding paper by L. Peccati in this issue. The original model is enriched with corporate taxes and reinvestment possibilities.

The decomposition of NPV is used to study an optimal dynamic reinvestment policy.

A generalization of the model is outlined and a numerical example is provided in an appendix.

Keywords

Economic Theory Public Finance Original Model Corporate Taxis Portfolio Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Peccati L., Multiperiod Analysis of a Levered Portfolio, paper presented at the Fifth Meeting of the Euro Working Group on Financial Modelling, Catania, Italy, April 20–21, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    IfI is an industrial investment, it seems to be more logical to think off s as rents.Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    Each addendum in turn is proportional both to the amount of capital to which it pertains and to the difference between its rate of return through I (ρ s for debt and equity, 1 for working capital) and its cost (opportunity costR s and zero for equity and working capital respectively, effective costδ s for debt).Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    In Peccati's model (see (7) above, to which (10) reduces whent s=1−b s=0,s=0, 1,2, ...,N) the contribution to the (s, s+1) addendum of discounted cash flow of each source of capital was the product of the capital in question times its spread: rate of return throughI (ρ s or one) minus cost (true or opportunity). Under our hypotheses the contribution is still the product of the amount of capital times its spread, but: i) as concerns equity, the spread is in terms of compound factors instead of rates, ii) as regards reinvestments, the opportunity cost does not appear.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    i.e. if the net rate of interest corresponding to theIFL now (ρ s(1-t s)) is the same as the net rate earned in the previous model (ρ s, which was also a gross rate).Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    In fact, when i)b s=1,s=1, 2,...N, ii)ρ s(1-t s) amounts toρ s in the previous model, the tax shield on debt isD s δ s t s.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    See, for example, Whittle, P., Optimization over time, J. Wiley, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. (8).
    The change in sign is due only to the formulation (12).Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    The hypothesis of a constant rate of return is introduced just in order to simplify notation: the reader can easily generalize it to the case in which this rate or return fluctuates over time.Google Scholar
  10. (10).
    See Luciano, E., Peccati, L., The decomposition of random cash flows, paper presented at the 5th FUR Conference, Durham, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    Remind that retained earnings are rerouted.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisa Luciano
    • 1
  1. 1.Università Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations