Dans cette Thèse, trois cas pratiques sont étudiées dans le domaine de la gestion des fonds où les risques d’investissement semblent mal perçus du fait d’ambiguïtés dans la mesure de risque. Ces ambiguïtés sont analysées comme une erreur élémentaire où une trop forte simplification de la réalité qui peut aboutir à une approche confuse. Les trois études sont développées dans un contexte usuel d’investissement, et portent sur les actions pour la première, sur les obligations pour la seconde et sur les devises pour la troisième. Elles s’inscrivent dans les conventions traditionnelles de la théorie de la finance. Les trois études, qui font l’objet de chapitres distincts, montrent comment la perception de risque peut être troublée dès les premiers traitements des données financières et avant même une éventuelle évaluation des risques. Plusieurs mesures de risque, pourtant courantes dans la finance, apparaissent réductrices ou mal adaptées aux circonstances dans lesquelles elles sont utilisées. Nous décrivons comment, dans certains cas, des mauvaises décisions d’investissement peuvent être prises du fait d’erreur de mesure, ou comment dans d’autres cas le débat dans la littérature économique a été orienté vers de mauvaises directions. Les études soulignent que l’appréciation des risques financiers est loin d’être triviale, même dans les domaines habituellement considérés comme maîtrisés. Une approche systématique a été adoptée pour établir à quel moment précis les analyses intègrent une mauvaise perception du risque. / Three situations are studied in the field of fund management where investment risk may be misperceived due to an ambiguity in the way risk is being measured. The case studies involve equity, bonds and currencies respectively, and are inscribed in the traditional conventions of finance theory. It is shown how the perception of risk can fail immediately in the initial data processing stage even before a propoer analysis. Several risk measures that are frequently used in finance are shown to be defunct or badly adapted for the circumstances in which they tend to be used. We described how in certain cases sub-optimal investment decisions are taken based on an error in measurement, or how in certain cases the debate in the economic literature has been disorientated. The studies underline that the appreciation of financial risk is far from trivial, even in the realms that are generally considered as well-established.

Submitted by JONAS DOI (jonas.nevasca@gmail.com) on 2015-09-04T23:26:42Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERTACAO FINAL JONAS.pdf: 427402 bytes, checksum: e027f128b8dbb648fec63fc2a1c487c3 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Renata de Souza Nascimento (renata.souza@fgv.br) on 2015-09-08T17:33:54Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERTACAO FINAL JONAS.pdf: 427402 bytes, checksum: e027f128b8dbb648fec63fc2a1c487c3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-08T20:04:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERTACAO FINAL JONAS.pdf: 427402 bytes, checksum: e027f128b8dbb648fec63fc2a1c487c3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 / O prêmio de inflação é calculado pela diferença entre a inflação implícita (diferença entre a taxa de juro nominal e a taxa de juro real encontrada nos títulos públicos) e a projeção de inflação dos agentes econômicos. A mediana do prêmio de inflação no Brasil varia entre 0.2% e 0.5% ao ano. O presente artigo encontra evidência empírica de que um aumento na incerteza dos agentes sobre a expectativa de inflação impacta positivamente o prêmio de inflação. O grau de incerteza dos agentes é medido neste trabalho pelo desvio padrão das projeções de inflação no relatório Focus do Banco Central. O primeiro modelo VAR foi testado com o desvio padrão e os prêmios de inflação para os horizontes de 3, 6, 9, 12, 24 e 36 meses, e apresentou resposta estatisticamente significativa positiva a um impulso no desvio padrão para todos os prêmios exceto os de horizontes de 3 e 6 meses. As respostas ao impulso são semelhantes para os diferentes horizontes. Um segundo modelo VAR foi testado com o desvio padrão, o prêmio de inflação com horizonte de 12 meses, a inclinação entre os prêmios de horizonte de 6 e 24 meses e uma borboleta entre os prêmios de horizonte de 3, 12 e 36 meses para verificar se a incerteza impacta também a forma da curva de prêmio de inflação. Esse não apresentou resposta estatisticamente significativa a um impulso no desvio padrão. Concluiu-se que a incerteza dos agentes impacta a curva de prêmio de inflação em nível, porém sem efeitos significativos no formato da curva. / The inflation premia is calculated by the difference between the inflation breakeven (difference between the nominal yield and the real yield embedded in the government bonds) with the inflation projection of the economic agents. The median of the inflation premia in Brazil vary from 0.2% to 0.5% per year. This article finds empirical evidence that an increase of the agents’ uncertainty over the inflation projections positively impacts the inflation premia. The uncertainty of the agents is measured by the standard deviation of the projections in the Focus report from the Brazil Central Bank. The first model VAR was tested with the standard deviation, the inflation premias for 3, 6, 9, 12, 25 and 36 months, and presented a statistically significant positive response to an impulse on the standard deviation to all inflation premias except for the 3 and 6 month maturities. The responses to the impulse are similar for all the maturities. The second model VAR was tested with the standard deviation, the 12 month inflation premia, the slope between 6 and 24 months and a butterfly between 3, 12 and 36 months inflation premia. This model did not presented a statistically significant response to an impulse on the standard deviation to the shape of the inflation premia curve. We concluded that the uncertainty of the projections impacts the level of the inflation premia curve, but without the significant effect on the shape of the curve.