2002
DOI: 10.5085/0898-5510-15.1.19
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The “Income-Variance” Risk Factor and Jones & Laughlin v. Pfeifer Guidelines for the Calculation of Present Value

Abstract: No abstract available.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 15 publications
(8 reference statements)
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A similar, more recent discussion has occurred among Bell and Taub (1999), Ireland (1999) and Breeden (2002). Bell and Taub have taken Ireland to task for stating that, once the earnings stream has been adjusted for non-survival, non-participation in the labor force and unemployment, the use of a discount rate that includes a premium for default risk is incorrect in that it involves double counting of the risk that the worker would not earn the projected income.…”
Section: Economic Argumentssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…A similar, more recent discussion has occurred among Bell and Taub (1999), Ireland (1999) and Breeden (2002). Bell and Taub have taken Ireland to task for stating that, once the earnings stream has been adjusted for non-survival, non-participation in the labor force and unemployment, the use of a discount rate that includes a premium for default risk is incorrect in that it involves double counting of the risk that the worker would not earn the projected income.…”
Section: Economic Argumentssupporting
confidence: 60%