In addition， historical market data of annualized returns on the Standard & Poor 500 Index and on the U.S.treasury bills are borrowed.Using one observed portfolio decision， computed solutions show that picking one of the three functional forms and then inferring relative risk aversion performs much better than assuming a quadratic utility or using the F—B in the small procedure， if the true utility is from the isoelastic risk preferences group.It seems that when the goal is to estimate risk aversion level under regular conditions， choosing a functional form of utility that possesses the property of isoelastic risk preferences （even if it is wrong） to infer risk aversion in the large prevails over the F—B's methodology of inferring risk aversion in the small without restricting functional forms of utility. Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of three published papers： F—B， C—P and B—N.The methodologies used and the empirical evidence presented in these papers have led to the writing of Chapters 3 and 4.The theoretical findings in these two chapters are utilized to reinterpret the empirical findings concerning the magnitudes and the slopes of relative risk aversion.There are three tentative conclusions.First， relative risk aversion for liquid financial wealth is probably constant.
占位居中
直播中，去观看