Under the CAPM and other theories, a widely held corporation should be averse only to systematic risk, correlated with other investments in the economy, not idiosyncratic risk like a CEO dying or a fire which are special to the firm and which shareholders could diversify away. Yet there do exist a number of reasons why firms might be averse to idiosyncratic risk. I'm working on a paper on one of them,and I wonder whether economists ever think about it. I think it would come up in non-economists' minds, but I pretty quickly but I haven't seen it mentioned by economists.

So I am curious as to what reasons people here think of for firms to be risk averse. Why would a firm require a higher return from a project, a policy, or a contract with more risk uncorrelated with other risks? I won't list even the four or so standard ones, because I am curious as to what might be mentioned.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.