1.5 Prove that dRA(z)/dz > 0 implies that da/dWo < 0 ‘tWo and dRA(z)/dz = 0 implies that da/dWo = 0 ‘tWo in the context of Section 1.21.

1.7 Define absolute risk tolerance to be the inverse of the ArrowPratt measure of absolute risk aversion. Show that solutions to (1.27.1) and (1.27.2) all exhibit linear absolute risk tolerance.

1.8 Fix an individual with an increasing and strictly concave utility function u and consider the gamble of (1.17.1). Define the insurance premium z to be the maximum amount of money the individual is willing to pa)’ to avoid the gamble. That is, z is the solution to the following

u(Wo – z) = pu(Wo + ht) + (1 – p)u(Wo + h2).

Obviously, z depends upoil the initial wealth, W0 , and we will denote this dependence by z(Wo). Show that, when the risk is small,

dRA(z)/dz < 0 ‘Vz if dz(Wo)/dWo < 0v Wo;

1.9. Show that utility functions of (1.27.2) imply two fund monetary

separation .

If you dont have the book i will give the link

.

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

The post Define absolute risk tolerance to be the inverse of the ArrowPratt measure of absolute risk aversion appeared first on Top Premier Essays.

“Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now”