Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio

Minor innovations make up most of a company's development portfolio, on average, but they never generate the growth companies seek. The solution, says Day--the Geoffrey T. Boisi Professor of Marketing and a codirector of the Mack Center for Technological Innovation at Wharton--is for companies to undertake a systematic, disciplined review of their innovation portfolios and increase the number of major innovations at an acceptable level of risk. Two tools can help them do this. The first, called the risk matrix, graphically reveals the distribution of risk across a company's entire innovation portfolio. The matrix allows companies to estimate each project's probability of success or failure, based on how big a stretch it is for the firm to undertake. The less familiar the product or technology and the intended market, the higher the risk. The second tool, dubbed the R-W-W (real-win-worth it) screen, allows companies to evaluate the risks and potential of individual projects by answering six fundamental questions about each one: Is the market real? Explores customers' needs, their willingness to buy, and the size of the potential market. Is the product real? Looks at the feasibility of producing the innovation. Can the product be competitive? and Can our company be competitive? Investigate how well suited the company's resources and management are to compete in the marketplace with the product. Will the product be profitable at an acceptable risk? Explores the financial analysis needed to assess an innovation's commercial viability. Last, Does launching the product make strategic sense? examines the project's fit with company strategy and whether management supports it.     

Distribution-free estimation with interval-censored contingent valuation data: troubles with Turnbull?

Contingent valuation (CV) surveys frequently employ elicitation procedures that return interval-censored data on respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP). Almost without exception, CV practitioners have applied Turnbull’s self-consistent algorithm to such data in order to obtain nonparametric maximum likelihood (NPML) estimates of the WTP distribution. This paper documents two failings of Turnbull’s algorithm; (1) that it may not converge to NPML estimates and (2) that it may be very slow to converge. With regards to (1) we propose starting and stopping criteria for the algorithm that guarantee convergence to the NPML estimates. With regards to (2) we present a variety of alternative estimators and demonstrate, through Monte Carlo simulations, their performance advantages over Turnbull’s algorithm.

How Property Markets Determine Welfare Outcomes: An Equilibrium Sorting Model Analysis of Local Environmental Interventions

This paper examines the pivotal role played by property markets in determining the magnitude and distribution of welfare changes resulting from localised environmental change. We address that issue using an equilibrium sorting model (ESM) calibrated, by way of example, to the circumstances of a road infrastructure project in the English town of Polegate. Previous ESM research has tended to assume that all households rent property from a fixed property stock. The narrative that arises from those models concerns environmental gentrification, wherein access to environmentally improved locations is appropriated by the relatively wealthy through their ability to out-compete the less wealthy in the rental property market. Our research shows that to be only part of a much more complex story. We develop a model that extends the sophistication with which ESMs replicate property market dynamics, allowing for households to choose whether to rent or purchase their home and introducing greater realism into housing supply responses to changing market conditions. Our research shows that property markets redistribute welfare gains across the population in complex ways in which tenure choice and housing supply constraints play central roles.     

The Piketty-Kaldor paradox of growth: Reply to Medlen

Despite the yawning gap between their time horizons, there are a few interesting similarities between Piketty and Keynes. A graph of the Piketty-Kaldor paradox of growth (where a lower growth rate leads to a higher saving rate) is similar to the familiar graph of the Keynesian paradox of thrift (where a lower saving rate leads to higher investment). Keynes showed that cautious spending can lead to recession, and Piketty showed that cautious growth can lead to maldistribution.     

Bounded Rationality Modeling

This paper deals with bounded rationality as a way to describe behavior and focuses on the question of how to build such boundedly rational models. The first part is a discussion of the reasons why such models are needed and on the situations in which they can be regarded as more particularly useful. The second part examines three strategies of research towards bounded rationality modeling which have emerged in the last ten years and weights them. The concluding remarks offer a first link between the respective typologies of strategies and of situations and calls for additional experimental work by marketing scientists and economists together.     

Benefit Transfer in Europe: How Reliable Are Transfers between Countries?

The benefits for specific health impacts related to air and water quality were measured in simultaneous contingent valuation surveys conducted in five different European countries. Consistent inter-country differences in willingness to pay to avoid ill health episodes could not be explained by measurable differences in individual characteristics. International transfer of unit values resulted in an average transfer error of 38%. Accounting for measurable differences among countries in health status, income and other demographic measures, either through ad hoc adjustments to the transferred values or through value function transfer, did not improve transfer performance.     

Financial Economics and Actuarial Practice

Abstract

Starting in the United Kingdom and continuing through the U.S. and Canadian actuarial professions, proponents of financial economics have been forcefully promoting a review of traditional actuarial practices and training. In particular, the financial theories first proposed by Modigliani and Miller and subsequently developed by others have been used to highlight serious weaknesses in typical actuarial thinking. In summary, it is claimed that much actuarial advice wrongly specifies value, that guidelines and standards need radical revision, and that traditional actuarial intuition suffers in comparison to newer modes of thought adopted by other professions.

This paper examines concepts from both financial economics and actuarial science as applied to defined benefit schemes using a simple discounted cash-flow framework as a reference point. The general finding is that many standard modes of actuarial thought are, in fact, indefensible when examined with the tools and techniques of financial economics. The call for revision of actuarial training and practices is credible and necessary.

However, the paper also touches upon areas where a heavy-handed application of finance theory could be misguided due to limitations in the simple financial economic models presented. It concludes that financial economics should be carefully integrated into actuarial thought rather than appended to existing actuarial theory or inserted as a wholesale replacement.