REPLY.

This article presents a reply to a comment on a paper that presented a utility function in order to examine the variables that explain the required rate of return on stock for an investor. The author addresses the notion that he assumes a cubic utility function in the theoretical portion of his paper. The author states that he uses a general utility function and attempts to clarify the misunderstanding of this application. The author also defends the variables that are presented in the paper, noting that they were necessary in the development of a testable model.