- Branche: Economy; Printing & publishing
- Number of terms: 15233
- Number of blossaries: 1
- Company Profile:
Someone who thinks risk is a four-letter word. Risk-averse investors are those who, when faced with two investments with the same expected return but two different risks, prefer the one with the lower risk.
Industry:Economy
The process of bearing the risk you want to bear, and minimizing your exposure to the risk you do not want. This can be done in several ways: not doing things that carry a particular risk; hedging; diversification; and buying insurance.
Industry:Economy
This is one of two influential economic theories of how assets are priced in the financial markets. The other is the capital asset pricing model. The arbitrage pricing theory says that the price of a financial asset reflects a few key risk factors, such as the expected rate of interest, and how the price of the asset changes relative to the price of a portfolio of assets. If the price of an asset happens to diverge from what the theory says it should be, arbitrage by investors should bring it back into line.
Industry:Economy
Someone who is insensitive to risk. Risk-neutral investors are indifferent between an investment with a certain outcome and a risky investment with the same expected returns but an uncertain outcome. Such people are few and far between.
Industry:Economy
Buying an asset in one market and simultaneously selling an identical asset in another market at a higher price. Sometimes these will be identical assets in different markets, for instance, shares in a company listed on both the London Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange. Often the assets being arbitraged will be identical in a more complicated way, for example, they will be different sorts of financial securities that are each exposed to identical risks. Some kinds of arbitrage are completely risk-free—this is pure arbitrage. For instance, if Euros are available more cheaply in dollars in London than in New York, arbitrageurs (also known as arbs) can make a risk-free profit by buying euros in London and selling an identical amount of them in New York. Opportunities for pure arbitrage have become rare in recent years, partly because of the globalization of financial markets. Today, a lot of so called arbitrage, much of it done by hedge funds, involves assets that have some similarities but are not identical. This is not pure arbitrage and can be far from risk free.
Industry:Economy
The extra return that investors require to hold a risky asset instead of a risk-free one; the difference between the expected returns from a risky investment and the risk-free rate. (See equity risk premium. )
Industry:Economy
A rise in the value of an asset and the opposite of depreciation. When the value of a currency rises relative to another, it appreciates.
Industry:Economy
Someone who cannot get enough risk. ¬Risk-seeking investors prefer an investment with an uncertain outcome to one with the same expected returns and certainty that it will deliver them.
Industry:Economy
Government policy for dealing with monopoly. Antitrust laws aim to stop abuses of market power by big companies and, sometimes, to prevent corporate mergers and acquisitions that would create or strengthen a monopolist. There have been big differences in antitrust policies both among countries and within the same country over time. This has reflected different ideas about what constitutes a monopoly and, where there is one, what sorts of behavior are abusive. In the United States, monopoly policy has been built on the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. This prohibited contracts or conspiracies to restrain trade or, in the words of a later act, to monopolize commerce. In the early 20th century this law was used to reduce the economic power wielded by so-called "robber barons", such as JP Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, who dominated much of American industry through huge trusts that controlled companies' voting shares. Du Pont chemicals, the railroad companies and Rockefeller's Standard Oil, among others, were broken up. In the 1970s the Sherman Act was turned (ultimately without success) against IBM, and in 1982 it secured the break-up of AT&T's nationwide telecoms monopoly. In the 1980s a more laissez-faire approach was adopted, underpinned by economic theories from the Chicago school. These theories said that the only justification for antitrust intervention should be that a lack of competition harmed consumers, and not that a firm had become, in some ill-defined sense, too big. Some monopolistic activities previously targeted by antitrust authorities, such as predatory pricing and exclusive marketing agreements, were much less harmful to consumers than had been thought in the past. They also criticized the traditional method of identifying a monopoly, which was based on looking at what percentage of a market was served by the biggest firm or firms, using a measure known as the Herfindahl-Hirschman index. Instead, they argued that even a market dominated by one firm need not be a matter of antitrust concern, provided it was a contestable market. In the 1990s American antitrust policy became somewhat more interventionist. A high-profile lawsuit was launched against Microsoft in 1998. The giant software company was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior, which was said to slow the pace of innovation. However, fears that the firm would be broken up, signaling a far more interventionalist American antitrust policy, proved misplaced. The firm was not severely punished. In the UK, antitrust policy was long judged according to what policymakers decided was in the public interest. At times this approach was comparatively permissive of mergers and acquisitions; at others it was less so. However, in the mid-1980s the UK followed the American lead in basing antitrust policy on whether changes in competition harmed consumers. Within the rest of the European Union several big countries pursued policies of building up national champions, allowing chosen firms to enjoy some monopoly power at home which could be used to make them more effective competitors abroad. However, during the 1990s the European Commission became increasingly active in antitrust policy, mostly seeking to promote competition within the EU. In 2000, the EU controversially blocked a merger between two American firms, GE and Honeywell; the deal had already been approved by America's antitrust regulators. The controversy highlighted an important issue. As globalization increases, the relevant market for judging whether market power exists or is being abused will increasingly cover far more territory than any one single economy. Indeed, there may be a need to establish a global antitrust watchdog, perhaps under the auspices of the world trade organization.
Industry:Economy
