The expected value is not simply the potential gain, but also the possibility of loss. You have to look at both in order to determine the expected value of the investment.
If you have 3/10 probability of gain, you also have a 7/10 probability of loss.
Your gain in option 1 is $20,000 × 0.3 = $6,000.
Your loss in option 1 is -$5,000 × 0.7 = -$3,500.
Remember, if the investment doesn't do well, you lose the whole $5,000.
Adding these together, you get +$2,500.
In the second option, you could make $8,000 ($10,000 - $2,000), but there is only a 2/5 probability of making that amount. That is $8,000 × 2/5 = $3,200.
Your loss could be -$2,000 × 3/5 = -$1,200.
Adding together these amounts, you get $2,000 for an expected payoff (value).
Clearly, $2,500 > $2,000, so the first option is better.
Does the logic make sense now? If not, where am I losing you?
Daniel O.
Unless I'm interpreting the question wrong, shouldn't opportunity 1's EV be:
(3/10)*25,000 - 5000 = $2500
and opportunity 2's EV:
(2/5)*10,000 - 2000 = $4000
Because when opportunity 1 pays off, we get $25000 (but $5000 of that was our initial investment) and when opportunity 2 pays off, we get $10K (but $2k of that was our own)
- that's the way I interpreted the "you could earn $25,000 less your initial investment" and "you will only earn $10,000 less your investment" but maybe I should be reading it as "you get $20,000 for opp. 1 [and $8000 for opp. 2] at the end of the investment", as in the instituition (or whomever) is keeping our initial investment.
12/14/12