Risk premium

A first kind of these insurance products are called "catastrophe bonds" and consist in securitizing environmental risks in bonds, which could be sold to high-yield investors. The catastrophe bonds are able to transfer risk to investors that receive coupons that are normally a reference rate plus an appropriate risk premium. By these products, insurance companies limit risk exposure transferring natural catastrophe risk into the capital markets. In this way, with the involvement of the financial markets, their global size offers enormous potential for insurers to diversify risks. 

In practice, one can imagine many possible trade-offs between flexibility and reward size. The most obvious way to reduce risk premiums is to design contracts that minimize sponsors discretion to adjust rewards ex post. One blue ribbon panel recently adopted this position by recommending that sponsors not be allowed to adjust Advanced Purchase Commitment rewards downward even if R D costs fall in the interim (Advanced Markets Working Group 2005). They presumably believed that the increased discretion was not worth the additional risk premium that companies would demand in compensation. Other possible trade-offs include promising to award a fixed sum to the best drug(s) produced within a preannounced time... 

What, then, is the conscientious executive to do The most reasonable course for him would be to employ a heavy additional risk premium when evaluating any chemical that meets all presently known tests and that shows strong commercial potential. If the product passes even this hurdle, it may still eventually encounter regulatory difficulties, but the chances are high that it will have repaid its development cost and produced a profit for the company by the time these difficulties emerge. The impact of such a "regulatory risk premium" would be to slow—but not necessarily stop—new product development. 

The study notes, A substantial risk premium may thus be applied by potential hydrogen infrastructure investors. In this analysis, it takes ten years for an investment in infrastructure to achieve a positive cash flow, far too long for the vast majority of investors, and, to achieve this result, significant technological advances will be required in reformers and electrolyzers, compressors, and overall systems integration as well as mass production methods for that equipment. Also, even a small excise tax on hydrogen (to make up for the revenue lost from gasoline taxes) appears to delay positive cash flow indefinitely.59... 

To the extent owners continue to contract with financially strong suppliers and contractors that properly evaluate the risks they are assuming with the rewards they may achieve, then the system stays in balance. However, when an engineering contractor assumes risks that it cannot effectively mitigate, or when it undervalues the risk premium necessary to address such risk, the delicate balance between risk and reward becomes out of balance. 

The market risk premium has declined over the past70 years. If the premium is measured over the post-World War n era, it is 8.3 percent, which would lower the cost of capital to the industry. 

The realized market risk premium (over the risk-free rate) is highly volatile over time, while expected risks are assumed to be stable over long periods. Therefore, the market risk premium is typically estimated over a long period of time (198). Myers and Shyam-Sunder found an arithmetic mean of 8.7 percent for excess market return over the Treasury bill rate for the period 1926-89 (285). The market risk premium declined in the post-war period, however, and the premium for the period 1947-88 was 8.3 percent (285). 

In an unrelated study, Stewart estimated the market risk premium by comparing Standard and Poor s 500 stocks with long-term (20-year) U.S. Treasury bonds from 1925 to 1989 (409). He found that the risk premium was only 5.8 percent over the period. This would imply a risk premium over the Treasury bill rate (adjusted for long-term forecasts) of just 7.0 percent. 

That does not mean that the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of large companies will not be altered if they want to build a number of nuclear plants. Each project, if it is perceived as risky, will add a small risk premium to the WACC of the companies by decreasing the credit rating, but ultimately, applied to a large volume of capital, it could have an important effect, as already mentioned above. Moreover, the total equity investment in several nuclear builds could eventually reach the same precautionary threshold of 15 percent of market capitalization (for instance 6 billion in equity for four plants for a market cap of 40 billion) as one nuclear build for a small company. 

Another very popular definition of risk is through the risk premium or beta. This is defined as the slope of the curve that gives market returns as a function of S P 500 Index returns in other words, comparing how the investment compares with the market. The concept of beta (the slope of the curve) is part of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) proposed by Lintner (1969) and Sharpe (1970), which intends to incorporate risk into valuation of portfolios and it can also be viewed as the increase in expected return in exchange for a given increase in variance. However, this concept seems to apply to building stock portfolios more than to technical projects within a company. 

Risk premium Applequist etal. (2000) suggest benchmarking new investments against the historical risk premium mark. Thus, they propose a two-objective problem, where the expected net present value and the risk premium are both maximized. The technique relies on using the variance as a measure of variability and therefore it penal-izes/rewards scenarios at both sides of the mean equally, which is the same limitation that is discussed above. 

Thus, this representation of risk is favored and variability, upper partial mean, regret functions, chance constraints, VaR, and the risk premium are disregarded. 

Arnould, Richard J. and Len M. Nichols. 1983. Wage-Risk Premiums and Workers Compensation A Refinement of Estimates of Compensating Wage Differentials. Journal of Political Economy. March 332-40. 

Dickens, William T. 1984. Differences Between Risk Premiums in Union and Nonunion Wages and the Case for Occupational Safety Regulation. American Economic Review. May 320-3. 

Model inputs Arbitrage models use the term structure of spot rate as an input, and this data is straightforward to obtain. Equilibrium models require a measure of the investor s market risk premium, which is rather more problematic. Practitioners analyse historical data on interest rate movements, which is considered less desirable. 

Traditionally, information on inflation expectations has been obtained by survey methods or theoretical methods. These have not proved reliable however, and were followed only because of the absence of an inflation-indexed futures market. Certain methods for assessing market inflation expectations are not analytically valid for example, the suggestion that the spread between short- and long-term bond yields cannot be taken to be a measure of inflation expectation, because there are other factors that drive this yield spread, and not just inflation risk premium. 

In order to solve the probability of default, reduced-form models adopt a different approach. They are mainly based on debt prices rather than equity prices. In fact, they do not take into account the fundamentals of the firm and the default event is determined as an exogenous process without considering the underlying asset movements. In addition, the models are mainly based oti X t), that is the default intensity as a function of time. In particular, these models use the decomposition of the risky rate (risk-free rate and risk premium) in order to determine the default probabilities, recovery rates and debt values. Although structural models have the advantage to foUow a reliable measure of credit risk, that is the firm value, reduced-form approach overcomes the Umitatimi in which the balance sheet is not the unique indicator of the default prediction. 

Convertible bonds give a risk premium above the bond floor, that is the excess of the convertible bond price above the option-free bond price (Figure 9.3). 

For instance, if the cmivertible bond price is 107.5 and the bond floor is 89.7, the risk premium is around 20%. This means that an investor is required to pay a risk premium of 20% for the option of the underlying asset... 

---