1. No category

ECON 337901
FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
Peter Ireland
Boston College
March 24, 2015
These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike
4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.
6 Modern Portfolio Theory
A
B
C
D
E
F
Generalizing the Portfolio Problem
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
The Gains From Diversification
The Efficient Frontier
A Separation Theorem
Strengths and Shortcomings of MPT
Generalizing the Portfolio Problem
We can elaborate on our previous portfolio problem
max Eu[Y0 (1 + rf ) + a(˜r − rf )]
a
by considering N > 1 risky assets with returns (˜r1 , ˜r2 , . . . , ˜rN ):
"
#
N
X
max Eu Y0 (1 + rf ) +
ai (˜ri − rf )
a1 ,a2 ,...,aN
i=1
Generalizing the Portfolio Problem
It turns out to be convenient to re-express this problem in
terms of the shares wi = ai /Y0 of initial wealth allocated to
each asset. Since ai = wi Y0 :
"
#
N
X
max Eu Y0 (1 + rf ) +
ai (˜ri − rf )
a1 ,a2 ,...,aN
i=1
is equivalent to
"
max
w1 ,w2 ,...,wN
Eu Y0 (1 + rf ) +
N
X
i=1
#
wi Y0 (˜ri − rf )
Generalizing the Portfolio Problem
Modern Portfolio Theory examines the solution to this
extended problem assuming that investors have mean-variance
utility, that is, assuming that investors’ preferences can be
represented by a trade-off between the mean (expected value)
and variance of the N asset returns.
MPT was developed by Harry Markowitz (US, b.1927, Nobel
Prize 1990) in the early 1950s, the classic paper being his
article “Portfolio Selection,” Journal of Finance Vol.7 (March
1952): pp.77-91.
Generalizing the Portfolio Problem
The mean-variance utility hypothesis seemed natural at the
time the MPT first appeared, and it retains some intuitive
appeal today. But viewed in the context of more recent
developments in financial economics, particularly the
development of vN-M expected utility theory, it now looks a
bit peculiar.
A first question for us, therefore, is: Under what conditions
will investors have preferences over the means and variances of
asset returns?
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
If we start, as we did previously, by assuming an investor has
preferences over terminal wealth Y˜ , potentially random
because of randomness in the asset returns, described by a
vN-M expected utility function
E [u(Y˜ )]
we can write
Y˜ = E (Y˜ ) + [Y˜ − E (Y˜ )]
and interpret the portfolio problem as a trade-off between the
expected payoff
E (Y˜ )
and the size of the “bet”
[Y˜ − E (Y˜ )]
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
With this interpretation in mind, consider a second-order
Taylor approximation of the Bernoulli utility function u once
the outcome [Y˜ − E (Y˜ )] of the bet is known:
u(Y˜ ) ≈ u[E (Y˜ )] + u 0 [E (Y˜ )][Y˜ − E (Y˜ )]
1
+ u 00 [E (Y˜ )][Y˜ − E (Y˜ )]2
2
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
u(Y˜ ) ≈ u[E (Y˜ )] + u 0 [E (Y˜ )][Y˜ − E (Y˜ )]
1
+ u 00 [E (Y˜ )][Y˜ − E (Y˜ )]2
2
Now go back to the beginning of the period, before the
outcome of the bet is known, and take expectations to obtain
1
E [u(Y˜ )] ≈ u[E (Y˜ )] + u 00 [E (Y˜ )]σ 2 (Y˜ )
2
since
E [Y˜ − E (Y˜ )] = 0 and E {[Y˜ − E (Y˜ )]2 } = σ 2 (Y˜ )
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
1
E [u(Y˜ )] ≈ u[E (Y˜ )] + u 00 [E (Y˜ )]σ 2 (Y˜ )
2
The right-hand side of this expression is in the desired form: if
u is increasing, it rewards higher mean returns and if u is
concave, it penalizes higher variance in returns.
So one possible justification for mean-variance utility is to
assume that the size of the portfolio bet Y˜ − E (Y˜ ) is small
enough to make this Taylor approximation a good one.
But is it safe to assume that portfolio bets are small?
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
A second possibility is to assume that the Bernoulli utility
function is quadratic, with
u(Y ) = a + bY + cY 2 ,
with b > 0 and c < 0. Then
u 0 (Y ) = b + 2cY and u 00 (Y ) = 2c
so that u 000 (Y ) = 0 and all higher-order derivatives are zero as
well. In this case, the second-order Taylor approximation holds
exactly.
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
Note, however, that for a quadratic utility function
RA (Y ) = −
u 00 (Y )
2c
=
−
u 0 (Y )
b + 2cY
which is increasing in Y .
Hence, quadratic utility has the undesirable implication that
the amount of wealth allocated to risky investments declines
when wealth increases.
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
Fortunately, there is a result from probability theory: if Y˜ is
normally distributed with mean µY = E (Y˜ ) and standard
deviation σY = {E [Y˜ − E (Y˜ )]2 }1/2 then the expectation of
any function of Y˜ can be written as a function of µY and σY .
Hence, in particular, there exists a function v such that
Eu(Y˜ ) = v (µY , σY )
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
The result follows from a more basic property of the normal
distribution: its location and shape is described completely by
its mean and variance.
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
If Y˜ is normally distributed, there exists a function v such that
Eu(Y˜ ) = v (µY , σY ).
Moreover, if Y˜ is normally distributed and
1. u is increasing, then v is increasing in µY
2. u is concave, then v is decreasing in σY
3. u is concave, then indifference curves defined over µY and
σY are convex
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
Since µY is a “good” and σY is a “bad,” indifference curves
slope up. But if u is concave, these indifference curves will still
be convex.
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
Problems with the normality assumption:
1. Returns on assets like options are highly non-normal.
2. Departures from normality, including skewness
(asymmetry) and excess kurtosis (“fat tails”) can be
detected in returns for both individual stocks and stock
indices.
Justifying Mean-Variance Utility
The mean-variance utility hypothesis is intuitively appealing
and can be justified with reference to vN-M expected utility
theory under various additional assumptions.
Still, it’s important to recognize its limitations: you probably
wouldn’t want to use it to design sophisticated investment
strategies that involve very large risks or make use of options
and you probably wouldn’t want to use it to study how
portfolio strategies or risk-taking behavior changes with wealth.
The Gains From Diversification
One of the most important lessons that we can take from
modern portfolio theory involves the gains from diversification.
To see where these gains come from, consider forming a
portfolio from two risky assets:
˜r1 , ˜r2 = random returns
µ1 , µ2 = expected returns
σ1 , σ2 = standard deviations
Assume µ1 > µ2 and σ1 > σ2 to create a trade-off between
expected return and risk.
The Gains From Diversification
If w is the fraction of initial wealth allocated to asset 1 and
1 − w is the fraction of initial wealth allocated to asset 2, the
random return ˜rP on the portfolio is
˜rP = w˜r1 + (1 − w )˜r2
and the expected return µP on the portfolio is
µP = E [w˜r1 + (1 − w )˜r2 ]
= wE (˜r1 ) + (1 − w )E (˜r2 )
= w µ1 + (1 − w )µ2
The Gains From Diversification
µP = w µ1 + (1 − w )µ2
The expected return on the portfolio is a weighted average of
the expected returns on the individual assets.
Since µ1 > µ2 , µP can range from µ2 up to µ1 as w increases
from zero to one. Even higher (or lower) expected returns are
possible if short selling is allowed.