Let 100 -100 A = 300 -300 200 -200 be an asset payoff matrix. You are 'greedy': 'more is better' in at least one state. (a) Suppose that a broker offers you to sell asset 2 at a price of AED 300. What should the price of asset 1 be for the Law of One Price to hold, if at all possible? Explain. (b) Can the prices you found under (a) be part of a financial equilibrium? Explain. (c) Give no arbitrage prices q1, q2 consistent with an implicit riskfree discount rate of p= 0.

Let 100 -100 A = 300 -300 200 -200 be an asset payoff matrix. You are 'greedy': 'more is better' in at least one state. (a) Suppose that a broker offers you to sell asset 2 at a price of AED 300. What should the price of asset 1 be for the Law of One Price to hold, if at all possible? Explain. (b) Can the prices you found under (a) be part of a financial equilibrium? Explain. (c) Give no arbitrage prices q1, q2 consistent with an implicit riskfree discount rate of p= 0.

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

14th Edition

ISBN:9780190931919

Author:NEWNAN

Publisher:NEWNAN

Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1QTC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

A seller has an indivisible asset to sell. Her reservation value for the asset is s, which she knows privately. A potential buyer thinks that the assetís value to him is b, which he privately knows. Assume that s and b are independently and uniformly drawn from [0, 1]. If the seller sells the asset to the buyer for a price of p, the seller's payoff is p - s and the buyer's payoffis b - p. Suppose the buyer makes a take-it-or-leave-it offer p to the seller. What's the optimal offer if the buyer's value is b = 1/2?
One of the predictions of prospect theory is that we tend to be overly concerned with relatively small risk. Can you think of any example (besides those given in the lecture) that either speaks to this or is an exception?
a) Consider a set of monetary outcomes X = {x1,... , Xk} where the outcomes are arranged in increasing order x, g(x;) for all i = 1,... K, j=i j=i with at least one of the inequalities being strict. Explain the intuition of first-order stochas- tic dominance. Show that, for expected utility preferences with vNM utility u that is strictly increasing in money, if p first-order stochastically dominates q then p > q.
a) Consider a set of monetary outcomes X = {x1,...,Xk} where the outcomes are arranged in increasing order x, E q(x,) for all i = 1, ... K, j=i j=i with at least one of the inequalities being strict. Explain the intuition of first-order stochas- tic dominance. Show that, for expected utility preferences with vNM utility u that is strictly increasing in money, if p first-order stochastically dominates q then p > q.
2. In the game between the manager and the stockholders of Ross (1977), the future value of the firm is random and uniformly distributed on the interval [0, t], where t is the upper bound of V1. The manager knows the value of t, but the stockholders do not, and this is the asymmetry of information. In observing the debt level F chosen by the manager, the stockholders think that the value of t is given by a[F]. In the lecture on the model of Ross, it was shown that a[F] has the following form: a[F] = 4 LF+c?. Yo Compute the debt level F that maximizes the manager's expected payoff.
Find the attached file.
Repeated Game Consider the game below, which is infinitely repeated at t = 1,2, .... Both players discount the future at rate d E (0, 1). The stage game is C C 5,5 0,6 D 6,0 1,1 1. The following three questions are about "Grim Trigger" strategies. (a) Describe the "Grim Trigger" strategy profile of this game. (b) Draw the finite automata representation of this strategy profile. (c) Find the lowest value of 8 for this strategy profile to form a subgame perfect equilibrium. 2. Suppose that the players play (C,C) in period t = 1, 3, 5, ... and plays (D,D) in period t = 2,4, 6, ... Compute the discounted payoff of each player. 3. Find a subgame perfect equilibrium such that, on the equilibrium path, (D,D) is played at periods t = 1, 3, 5, ..., and (C,C) is played at periods t = 2, 4, 6, ... Write down the finite automata representation for the strategy profile you proposed. Find the lowest value of d for the profile to form a subgame perfect equilibrium.
PLEASE CHECK THIS HOW TO SOLVE
A seller has an indivisible asset to sell. Her reservation value for the asset is s, which she knows privately. A potential buyer thinks that the assetís value to him is b, which he privately knows. Assume that s and b are independently and uniformly drawn from [0, 1]. If the seller sells the asset to the buyer for a price of p, the seller's payoff is p-s and the buyer's payoffis b-p. Suppose simultaneously the buyer makes an offer p1 and the seller makes an offer p2. A transaction occurs if p1>=p2, and the transaction price is 1/2 (p1 + p2). Is the following strategy profile a Bayesian Nash equilibrium: the buyer chooses p1 = 1/2 if b>=1/2 and he chooses p1=0 if b<1/2; the seller chooses p2=1/2 if s<1/2 and she chooses p2=1 if s>1/2. Why or why not? Can there be a Bayesian Nash Equilibrium in which the transaction price is .9 whenever there is a transaction? Why or why not?
Suppose Alex’s utility function is u ($x) = √x. Assume her initial wealth is 0. Is it possible that Alex’s expected utility from the prospect equals $5, why? What is the possible range of Alex’s expected utility?
Suppose that Alex wants to purchase a boat from Rosette. Alex is willing to pay up to $18,000, while Rosette is not willing to accept any offer below $15,000. Assume that there are a finite number of negotiating rounds. 1.If the discount factors for Rosette and Alex are δR = 0.05 and δA = 0.05, respectively, how much should Alex offer for the boat? 2.Suppose that Rosette’s discount factor is δR = 0.20, and Alex’s discount factor is δA =0.15. 3.How much should Alex offer for the boat? How does this offer differ from your r to part a, and why?
Prospect Y = ($6, 0.25 ; $15, 0.75) If Will's utility of wealth function is given by u(x)=x0.25, what is the value of CE(Y) for Will? (In other words, what is Will's certainty equivalent for prospect Y?) (The certainty equivalent represents the maximum amount a person would be willing to pay to acquire a risky prospect, and equivalently, the lowest price for which they would be willing to sell a risky prospect if they already owned it) (Note: The answer may not be a whole number; please round to the nearest hundredth) (Note: The numbers may change between questions, so read carefully)