Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 228

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Forgone Gains of Incomplete Portfolios

Open access
Paiella, Monica·2007·Review of Financial Studies

Abstract

This article proposes a test for the cost-based explanation of nonparticipation, by estimating a lower bound to the forgone gains of incomplete portfolios; these are in turn a lower bound to the costs that could rationalize nonparticipation in financial markets: high bounds would imply implausibly high costs. Assuming isoelastic utility and a relative risk aversion of three or less, for the stock market I estimate an average lower bound of between 0.7 and 3.3 percent of consumption. Since total annual (observable plus unobservable) participation costs are likely to exceed these bounds, the cost-based explanation is not rejected by this test.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/rfs/hhm022

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 228

Metadata

Authors
Paiella, M.
Venue
Review of Financial Studies
Published
2007-04-13
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
1623-1646
ISSN
  • 0893-9454 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7368
OpenAlex
W3124641579
Cited by
228
References
2
FWCI
178.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Forgone Gains of Incomplete Portfolios. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/rfs/hhm022
The paper
Paiella, M. (2007). The Forgone Gains of Incomplete Portfolios. Review of Financial Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhm022

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.