使用真实世界数据时,股票加权可提高估值

IF 5.5 3区 经济学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103067
Austin Burlile, Peter Maniloff
{"title":"使用真实世界数据时,股票加权可提高估值","authors":"Austin Burlile,&nbsp;Peter Maniloff","doi":"10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Environmental economists have long debated whether and how to appropriately integrate distributional concerns into cost benefit analysis. Recent White House guidance instructs U.S. government analysts to weight different groups’ costs and benefits according to their incomes. Groups with incomes below the median would have weights above one, while groups with incomes above the median would have weights below one. We explore the impact of this method. We find that the average weight is above one in a policy-relevant setting. In this example, weighting increases the magnitude of monetized costs and benefits. The average weight varies with the unit of analysis and the choice of unit of analysis can change the sign of the net benefits.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management","volume":"128 ","pages":"Article 103067"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equity weighting increases valuations when using real-world data\",\"authors\":\"Austin Burlile,&nbsp;Peter Maniloff\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Environmental economists have long debated whether and how to appropriately integrate distributional concerns into cost benefit analysis. Recent White House guidance instructs U.S. government analysts to weight different groups’ costs and benefits according to their incomes. Groups with incomes below the median would have weights above one, while groups with incomes above the median would have weights below one. We explore the impact of this method. We find that the average weight is above one in a policy-relevant setting. In this example, weighting increases the magnitude of monetized costs and benefits. The average weight varies with the unit of analysis and the choice of unit of analysis can change the sign of the net benefits.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management\",\"volume\":\"128 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103067\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069624001414\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069624001414","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,环境经济学家一直在争论是否以及如何将分配问题恰当地纳入成本效益分析。白宫最近的指导意见指示美国政府分析师根据不同群体的收入情况对其成本和收益进行加权。收入低于中位数的群体的权重将高于 1,而收入高于中位数的群体的权重将低于 1。我们探讨了这种方法的影响。我们发现,在与政策相关的情况下,平均权重高于 1。在这个例子中,权重增加了货币化成本和收益的幅度。平均权重随分析单位的变化而变化,分析单位的选择也会改变净效益的符号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Equity weighting increases valuations when using real-world data
Environmental economists have long debated whether and how to appropriately integrate distributional concerns into cost benefit analysis. Recent White House guidance instructs U.S. government analysts to weight different groups’ costs and benefits according to their incomes. Groups with incomes below the median would have weights above one, while groups with incomes above the median would have weights below one. We explore the impact of this method. We find that the average weight is above one in a policy-relevant setting. In this example, weighting increases the magnitude of monetized costs and benefits. The average weight varies with the unit of analysis and the choice of unit of analysis can change the sign of the net benefits.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management publishes theoretical and empirical papers devoted to specific natural resources and environmental issues. For consideration, papers should (1) contain a substantial element embodying the linkage between economic systems and environmental and natural resources systems or (2) be of substantial importance in understanding the management and/or social control of the economy in its relations with the natural environment. Although the general orientation of the journal is toward economics, interdisciplinary papers by researchers in other fields of interest to resource and environmental economists will be welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Clean innovation, heterogeneous financing costs, and the optimal climate policy mix Blowin’ in the wind: Long-term downwind exposure to air pollution from power plants and adult mortality Unintended environmental consequences of anti-corruption strategies Labor market impacts of eco-development initiatives in protected areas Combining private and common property management: The impact of a hybrid ownership structure on grassland conservation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1