Talk:Risk neutral preferences

Can someone answer me this question:

You are offered a lottery with the following prizes: £100, £50, or £10. The probabilities of each prize are respectively: 0.1, 0.2, or 0.7.

What sum of money would a risk neutral individual pay for this lottery ticket?

---

.1*100 + .2*50 + .7*10 = 10+10+7 = 27 Wolfman 22:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding pricing, keep this in mind: risk-neutral pricing only really makes sense for pricing options. The 'break-through' of the Black-Scholes option pricing model is that it's risk-neutral, meaning that the investor's tolerance for risk is not a part of the formula. Generally, if you're pricing cash flows in the future, you need some sort of discount rate, which is the rate of return that an investor demands to receive that cash flow in the future rather than in the present. If the cash flow is seen as uncertain (risky), the investor will demand a higher discount rate, meaning that the investor is assigning a lower present value to that future cash flow. A risk-seeking individual will accept lower discount rates than a risk-averse person. This makes it very hard to establish the correct discount rate. So again, the cool thing about B-S option pricing is that it doesn't require an expected rate of return at all. If you're pricing an option on a stock, the expected return on that stock is NOT relevant to B-S pricing. That's what this risk-neutral business is all about. Tristanreid (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Example

That example section is awful. First, the numbers change midway through from being 100 EUR to 1 EUR for winning (I think?). Second, the idea of shorting the game doesn't make sense in the context of the example. Third, the example is really about risk-neutral pricing of options, not really about the general concept of risk neutral. There is already a great example in the second sentence of the article. This long-winded example is interesting but not really appropriate here. Thus, I deleted the example. (I also added "see also" references to the more appropriate topics of risk-neutral pricing.) Dosai (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The one "example" given in the second paragraph does not exemplify the subject (future cash flow discounting at present,) so it has to go (or be reworded so that it says something.) The last paragraph ("The fundamental assumption behind risk-neutral valuation...") doesn't even parse past the middle of the first sentence -- please remove this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.21.134 (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

=

Forgive me but this article, covering a central topic in finance, is poor. May I suggest a reading of the early chapters in Duffie (Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory) or similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.219.70 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)