Equilibrium in the Pricing of Capital Assets, Risk-bearing Debt Instruments, and the Question of Optimal Capital Structure: A Reply

Abstract

Although Imai and Rubenstein are correct that our proof — that the Miller- Modiglianl (M-M) and Sharpe-Lintner-Mossin (S-L-M) capital asset pricing models are mutually consistent — is incomplete, their comments indicate some confusion about the relationships involved in the equilibrium pricing of assets in these models. Further, they seem to imply that Stiglitz's proof in terms of dollar returns is in some sense superior to a proof in terms of rates of return. This is erroneous. Accordingly, we shall further clarify the relationships inherent in the models and correct our presentation of the proof of the invariance of capital costs in the context of the S-L-M model.