Source: CUPA research. The shaded area represents the approximate range of the consensus vieni on the MRP. We recognise that alternative viem have existed outside this range - as demonstrated by regulatory decisions in Hong Kong in the 1990s. The selected regulator}- decisions are intended to indicate the range of views taken by worldwide reguktors and are not intended to he comprehensive.
Severa] academics posed the question of how an MRP as high as 9% could be justified trom a theoretical perspective when other approaches justified much lower values. This led to an intense debate about why using observed values to estimate the MRP provided misleading values. This focused specifically on the: • use of out-turn values rather than expected values: • problems of survival bias in equity indices; • problems of unstable ratings periods such that like-tor-like calculations are not being undertaken; and • relative impact of unanticipated inflation on equities and bonds.
This analysis has led to alternative values for the MRP being developed. The consensus view is now arguably lower (and narrower), as reflected in Figure 3.1.
5 DE JUNHO DE 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
177

Consultar Diário Original