Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-35115House OversightOther

Abstract discussion of risk‑adjusted return and behavioral economics

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010985
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage contains no concrete names, transactions, dates, or allegations involving any high‑profile individuals or institutions. It is a theoretical exposition on economic concepts, offering no act Discusses risk‑adjusted return as a maximand, not constant over time Mentions psychological biases (overoptimism/overpessimism) from behavioral economics literature Speculates on hypothetical behavio

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

behavioral-financetheoryhouse-oversighteconomics
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
The rule does not say that risk-adjusted return tends to hold constant over time. To the contrary. Return equals growth plus cash flow, and my charts show the growth component as a bucking bronco. The maximand rule says only that risk-adjusted return is always the maximand. It is not always the same as time changes circumstances. Proof is in Turgot’s equalization of return at each moment, not from one moment to the next. That is what we see wherever we look. There is a quibble worth attention. Behavior seldom expresses taste exactly. We say one word when we mean another. We reach for the coffee, and accidentally spill it. That was the point of my axiom that predictions converge to outcomes, as well as to one another, only on average. Outcomes are generally a little better or a little worse than predicted. There can even be systematic bias where all people together seem overoptimistic or overpessimistic accordingly to circumstances, as shown in the psychological economics of Hanneman and Tversky. The axiom requires that these biases offset over scale and time. That sounds plausible, and anyhow makes analysis easier. The maximand rule would be ridiculous if terms were defined in a literal market context only. Markets must be defined as wherever any choice is made. It would be ridiculous if cash flow were understood to presuppose literal cash, or even the necessity of some quid pro quo to explain motivations. Unreciprocated gift down the generations drives lineage survival. All behavior means all behavior. The miser maximizes the growth component in return, the parent or philanthropist maximizes the net gift component, and the good-time Charlie maximizes exhaust. Have | gone too far in this claim? Try to imagine an exception. What kind of behavior might not maximize perceived risk-adjusted return? What if I jump out the window? Deliberately drive my car into a tree? Sell a cow for a handful of beans? Maximize a Chapter 3: Foundations 1/11/16 14

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.