Abstract
Because of risk aversion, any sensible investment valuation system should value less projects that contribute more to the aggregate risk, i.e., that have a larger income- elasticity of net benefits. In theory, this is done by adjusting discount rates to consumption betas. But in reality, for various reasons (Arrow-Lind and WACC fallacies, market failures), most public and private institutions and people use a discount rate that is rather insensitive to the risk profile of their investment projects. I show in this pa- per that the economic consequences of the implied misallocation of capital are dire. To do this, I calibrate a Lucas model in which the investment opportunity set contains a myriad of projects with different expected returns and risk profiles. The welfare loss of using a single discount rate is equivalent to a permanent reduction in consumption that lies somewhere between 15% and 45%, either at the level of the irrational agents, or at equilibrium if all agents make the same mistake. Economists should devote more energy to support a reform of public discounting systems in favor of what has been advocated by the normative interpretation of modern asset pricing theories over the last four decades.
Keywords
Discounting; investment theory; asset pricing; carbon pricing; Arrow-Lind theorem; WACC fallacy; capital budgeting.;
JEL codes
- G12: Asset Pricing • Trading Volume • Bond Interest Rates
- H43: Project Evaluation • Social Discount Rate
- Q54: Climate • Natural Disasters • Global Warming
Replaced by
Christian Gollier, “The welfare cost of ignoring the beta”, TSE Working Paper, n. 24-1556, July 2024.
Reference
Christian Gollier, The welfare cost of ignoring the beta, January 2021, revised April 2022.
Published in
January 2021, revised April 2022