Damage Awards Using Intermediate Term Government Bond Funds vs. U.S. Treasuries Ladder: Tradeoffs in Theory and Practice

J. I. Rosenberg, Rick R. Gaskins
{"title":"Damage Awards Using Intermediate Term Government Bond Funds vs. U.S. Treasuries Ladder: Tradeoffs in Theory and Practice","authors":"J. I. Rosenberg, Rick R. Gaskins","doi":"10.5085/JFE.23.1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Valuing damage awards for personal injury or wrongful death requires the application of finance theory to achieve a practical result. Methods for discounting future earnings losses fall into two major categories: Current market rates, which offer greater objectivity, and historical rates, which theoretically offer greater stability of results by averaging away the effect of often volatile “current” market conditions. The purpose of this paper is to provide a unique ex post comparison of damage awards using distinctive current and historical rates methods that highlight the inherent differences between the two major discounting alternatives. Current market rates methods are represented by a Treasury bond ladder with no instrument rollover, using initial market rates for both discounting and investing damage awards. Historical rates methods are represented by intermediate term government bonds; historical average five-year Treasury yields are used for discounting the damage award, with annual bond rollover required afterwards to maintain the award investment in comparable instruments, creating realized total returns from investing. These alternative methods are compared, ex ante in terms of the present value of the awards, and also ex post, in terms of how well each method's award, based on the same projected lost earnings, is able to support paydowns based on actual lost earnings. Key findings include: (a) both methods result in widely varying lump sum awards; (b) the idea that historical rates offer greater stability of results over time is empirically unsupportable; (c) that a good measure of methodological accuracy is the relative variance in award present values observed by first discounting and then subsequently investing under each method using the same instruments; (d) that different economic conditions greatly affect the relative ex post accuracy of each method; and (e) that neither method is very accurate in projecting present value of earnings losses upon ex post analysis.","PeriodicalId":265321,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5085/JFE.23.1.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Valuing damage awards for personal injury or wrongful death requires the application of finance theory to achieve a practical result. Methods for discounting future earnings losses fall into two major categories: Current market rates, which offer greater objectivity, and historical rates, which theoretically offer greater stability of results by averaging away the effect of often volatile “current” market conditions. The purpose of this paper is to provide a unique ex post comparison of damage awards using distinctive current and historical rates methods that highlight the inherent differences between the two major discounting alternatives. Current market rates methods are represented by a Treasury bond ladder with no instrument rollover, using initial market rates for both discounting and investing damage awards. Historical rates methods are represented by intermediate term government bonds; historical average five-year Treasury yields are used for discounting the damage award, with annual bond rollover required afterwards to maintain the award investment in comparable instruments, creating realized total returns from investing. These alternative methods are compared, ex ante in terms of the present value of the awards, and also ex post, in terms of how well each method's award, based on the same projected lost earnings, is able to support paydowns based on actual lost earnings. Key findings include: (a) both methods result in widely varying lump sum awards; (b) the idea that historical rates offer greater stability of results over time is empirically unsupportable; (c) that a good measure of methodological accuracy is the relative variance in award present values observed by first discounting and then subsequently investing under each method using the same instruments; (d) that different economic conditions greatly affect the relative ex post accuracy of each method; and (e) that neither method is very accurate in projecting present value of earnings losses upon ex post analysis.
使用中期政府债券基金与美国国债阶梯的损害赔偿:理论与实践的权衡
评估人身伤害或意外死亡损害赔偿需要运用金融理论来获得实际结果。贴现未来收益损失的方法主要分为两大类:当前市场利率,它提供了更大的客观性;历史利率,理论上通过平均掉经常波动的“当前”市场条件的影响,提供了更大的结果稳定性。本文的目的是提供一个独特的事后比较损害赔偿使用独特的当前和历史费率方法,突出两种主要折扣方案之间的内在差异。目前的市场利率方法由国债阶梯表示,没有工具展期,使用初始市场利率来贴现和投资损失奖励。历史利率方法以中期政府债券为代表;五年期国债的历史平均收益率被用来贴现损失奖励,之后需要每年进行债券展期,以保持奖励投资于可比工具,从而创造投资的实际总回报。对这些替代方法进行比较,在事前根据奖励的现值进行比较,也在事后根据基于相同的预计损失收益的每种方法的奖励如何能够支持基于实际损失收益的付款。主要发现包括:(a)两种方法产生的一次性奖励差异很大;(b)历史利率在一段时间内提供更大稳定性的观点在经验上是站不住脚的;(c)衡量方法准确性的一个很好的方法是先贴现,然后在每种方法下使用相同的工具进行投资所观察到的奖励现值的相对差异;(d)不同的经济条件极大地影响了每种方法的相对事后准确性;(e)两种方法在事后分析中预测收益损失的现值时都不是很准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信