IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fek/papers/doi10.5085-jfe.23.1.1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph I. Rosenberg
  • Rick R. Gaskins

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph I. Rosenberg & Rick R. Gaskins, 2012. "Damage Awards Using Intermediate Term Government Bond Funds vs. U.S. Treasuries Ladder: Tradeoffs in Theory and Practice," Journal of Forensic Economics, National Association of Forensic Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:fek:papers:doi:10.5085/jfe.23.1.1
    DOI: 10.5085/jfe.23.1.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.journalofforensiceconomics.com/doi/abs/10.5085/jfe.23.1.1
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.journalofforensiceconomics.com/doi/pdf/10.5085/jfe.23.1.1
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5085/jfe.23.1.1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fek:papers:doi:10.5085/jfe.23.1.1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kurt Krueger (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nafeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.