Any risk-averse individual would always (Select all that applies) a) take a 30% chance at $100 rather than a sure $20. b) take a sure $20 rather than a 30% chance at $100. c) take a sure $2 rather than a 50% chance at $5 and a 50% chance at losing $1. d) take a 50% chance at $5 and a 50% chance at losing $1 rather than a sure $1.

The value of a successful project is $420,000; the probabilities of success are 1/2 with good supervision and 1/4 without. The manager is risk neutral, not risk averse as in the text, so his expected utility equals his expected income minus his disutility of effort. He can get other jobs paying $90,000, and his disutility for exerting the extra effort for good supervision on your project is $100,000. (a) Show that inducing high effort would require the firm to offer a compensation scheme with a negative base salary; that is, if the project fails, the manager pays the firm an amount stipulated in the scheme. (b) How might a negative base salary be implemented in reality? (c) Show that if a negative base salary is not feasible, then the firm does better to settle for the low-pay, low-effort situation.

Who is most risk-averse? a-an individual with slightly diminishing marginal utility. b-all individuals are equally risk-averse. c-an individual with rapidly diminishing marginal utility. d-an individual who does not experience diminishing marginal utility.

A risk-averse consumer with $100,000 in wealth faces 0.1 probability of losing half of his wealth within the next year. a. What is the consumer's expected wealth one year from now? b. An insurance company offers our consumer full insurance against the possible loss. What premium must the consumer be charged for the insurance company to expect to break even?   c. Suppose our risk-averse consumer is indifferent between getting $85,000 wealth with certainty and facing the above described uncertain situation. What is the maximum premium that the insurance company will be able to charge this consumer for its full insurance policy?