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

Robert A. Haugen and James L. Pappas

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1972, vol. 7, issue 4, 2005-2008

Abstract: 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.

Date: 1972
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:jfinqa:v:7:y:1972:i:04:p:2005-2008_01

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().