Since f < O, it follows that ebε < elε and hence
ebε < elε, ^ ε,
which contradicts the budget constraint (5). Therefore inequality (22)
must be true.
Second, we consider an increase in Rf so that e1 changes to ebo. Then η
changes to aoη. Hence the sharing constant decreases if inequality (22) holds
with a and b being replaced by ao and bo. Therefore the same method by
which the first part of Lemma 1 has been proven can be applied here. ■
Appendix B: Proof of Proposition 2
a) Sufficiency: Suppose that F(e) is a quadratic function. Then f (e) =
a + be. Hence (17) implies linear relative sharing rules for two investors i and
j. Therefore all absolute rules are also linear.
b) Necessity: Differentiate (15) with respect to ε; this yields
ʃ//ʌ λdei dθ
f (e“) * = ■/
(25)
Now suppose a linear absolute sharing rule for every investor: eiε = ai +
βi ε, so that β~ = βi. Then it follows from (25) for any two investors i and j
f (êis) η. = f> (êj£') ηl.' ’ ^ ε'
(26)
37
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. Robust Econometrics
6. Income Growth and Mobility of Rural Households in Kenya: Role of Education and Historical Patterns in Poverty Reduction
7. Family, social security and social insurance: General remarks and the present discussion in Germany as a case study
8. Nietzsche, immortality, singularity and eternal recurrence1
9. The name is absent
10. What should educational research do, and how should it do it? A response to “Will a clinical approach make educational research more relevant to practice” by Jacquelien Bulterman-Bos