arxiv: v1 [q-fin.pm] 20 Jun 2018

Transcription

1 Mean-Variance Efficiency of Optimal Power and Logarithmic Utility Portfolio Tara Bodnar a, mytro Ivaiuk b, Netor Parolya c,, and Wolfgang Schmid b arxiv: v1 [q-fin.pm] 0 Jun 018 a epartment of Mathematic, Stockholm Univerity, Stockholm, Sweden b epartment of Statitic, European Univerity Viadrina, FrankfurtOder), Germany c Intitute of Statitic, Leibniz Univerity Hannover, Hannover, Germany Abtract We derive new reult related to the portfolio choice problem for a power and logarithmic utilitie. Auming that the portfolio return follow a log-normal ditribution, the cloed-form expreion of the optimal portfolio weight are obtained for both utility function. Moreover, we prove that both optimal portfolio belong to the et of mean-variance feaible portfolio and etablih neceary and ufficient condition uch that they are mean-variance efficient. Furthermore, an application to the tock market i preented and the behavior of the optimal portfolio i dicued for different value of the relative rik averion coefficient. It turn out that the aumption of log-normality doe not eem to be a trong retriction. Keyword: optimal portfolio election; power utility; log-normal ditribution; mean-variance analyi; logarithmic utility. 1 Introduction The theory of optimal portfolio choice tarted with the pioneering contribution of Markowitz 195). Markowitz ued the variance a a meaure of the rik of a portfolio return. He recommended to chooe the portfolio weight in uch a way that the portfolio variance i minimal for a given level of the expected portfolio return. All of thee o-called efficient portfolio lie in the efficient frontier which i a parabola in the mean-variance pace. In the meantime many further propoal for a portfolio election have been made. A widely made approach i baed on the maximization of an invetor utility function, where the invetor chooe a portfolio for which it utility ha reache a maximum poible value Pennacchi, 008; Elton Correponding Author: Netor Parolya. parolya@tatitik.uni-hannover.de. 1

2 et al., 009). The mean-variance approach of Merton and Samuelon 1974) turn out to be fully conitent with the expected utility maximization ee, ybvig and Ingeroll, 198). Thi reult i valid without any ditributional aumption impoed on the return. Similarly, a quadratic utility provide a cloed-form olution under very general condition Bodnar et al., 015a). However, there are many other way to chooe the utility function like, e.g., the power and the exponential utility function. In thee cae no cloedfrom olution can be derived without information on the ditribution of the return proce Bodnar et al., 015b). The focu of thi paper lie on the power and on the logarithmic utility function. If W denote the wealth of the invetor, then the power utility i given by U W ) = 1 1 γ W 1 γ, γ > 0, γ 1. The logarithmic utility U W ) = log W i obtained a a limit of the power utility if γ converge to one. The quantity γ i equal to the relative rik averion which i contant for the power utility CRRA). Thi mean that an invetor at any wealth level will hold the ame amount of money on the riky aet Brandt, 009; Campbell and Viceira, 00). Thi i a very important property and it make thi utility function quite attractive from economical point of view. In order to determine the optimal portfolio for the power utility everal numerical procedure have been propoed in literature Grauer and Hakanon 1987); Cover 1991). The firt-order condition for the maximum of the expected utility are derived and a Taylor erie expanion i ued to tranform the expected utility into a linear combination of moment Brandt et al., 005). However, no analytical olution i available in literature and motly a numerical approach i applied Brandt, 009). Yet another poibility i to make ue of ditributional aumption on the return predictability Barberi, 000) and to combine it with a numerical procedure Brandt and Santa-Clara, 006; Lynch and Tan, 010). The ue of the log-normal ditribution for modeling aet or portfolio return ha become popular many year ago. In Elton and Gruber 1974) an efficient et theorem i derived auming log-normally ditributed portfolio return. They preent an algorithm for determining the efficient portfolio. In the paper on multi-period mean variance analyi Hakanon 1971) decribe a limiting approach for the optimal portfolio choice. Merton and Samuelon 1974) dicu the log-normal approach in detail and conclude that it hould be very carefully applied. In thi paper we conider the problem of finding the optimal portfolio for a power and logarithmic utilitie under the aumption that the portfolio return are log-normally ditributed. The analytical expreion of the optimal portfolio weight are obtained for both utility function. Moreover, we tate the condition under which the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power utility and the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected logarithmic utility are both mean-variance efficient. The log-normal ditribution ued a a model for aet return in thi

3 paper ha everal nice propertie. If the portfolio return follow a log-normal ditribution, then it i poible to determine it higher-order moment in a traightforward way. Moreover, if it mean i much larger than it tandard deviation, then the log-normal ditribution i cloe to the normal one. Thi can be hown by the elta method. In application, the aet return r j vary in mot cae in a range up to ±15%. Thu the correponding relative return R j = 1 + r j take value cloe to 1. Conequently the overall portfolio mean i cloe to one while the portfolio variance i uually mall. Thi mean that in uch a cae it behave like a normal ditribution. Moreover, auming a log-normally ditributed portfolio return, it continuouly compounded rate of return appear to be normally ditributed and vice vera. The ret of the paper i tructured a follow. In Section the optimization problem i decribed and the aumption ued in the paper are preented and dicued. Our main finding are given in Section 3. In Theorem 1 we derive an explicit formula for the weight of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility and dicu it propertie. In particular, we derived the condition under which thi portfolio i meanvariance efficient in Theorem and how that it converge to the portfolio with the maximum Sharpe ratio when the relative rik averion converge to infinity. In Section 3., the analytical reult for the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected logarithmic utility are preent: the cloed-form expreion of it weight i provided in Theorem 3, while it mean-variance efficiency i proved in Theorem 4. In Section 4 the reult of an empirical tudy are hown. Here we tudy portfolio baed on tock contained in the German tock market index. We check whether the lognormality aumption on the wealth i fulfilled and whether the condition impoed in Theorem 1 are fulfilled. It turn out that thee aumption are reaonable and that they are motly atified for the portfolio in our tudy. Moreover, we compare the portfolio with optimal weight with other portfolio trategie and how the dominance of the new approach. Portfolio election uing a utility function In thi ection we give ome notation and baic aumption ued in the paper and dicu the portfolio election problem for a power utility function. Suppoe that a portfolio conit of k riky aet. Let r i denote the relative price change of the ith aet within one period and let r = r 1,..., r k ) be the vector of return. The quantity ω i tand for the relative amount of money inveted into the ith aet. Then it hold for the vector of the portfolio weight ω = ω 1, ω,..., ω k ) that ω 1 = 1, where 1 i a vector of one. The portfolio return at the end of the period i equal to ω r. If W 0 denote the wealth of the invetor at the beginning of the period, then the 3

4 wealth at the end of the period i given by W = W 0 ω r + 1 ) = W 0 ω R, where R = r + 1. The mean vector of R and it covariance matrix are denoted by ER) = µ and V arr) = Σ where Σ i aumed to be poitive definite. Many procedure have been propoed in literature how to contruct an optimal portfolio, i.e., how to chooe the optimal portfolio weight. Markowitz 195) developed the mean-variance principle for portfolio election. The idea i to chooe the portfolio weight uch that the portfolio variance i minimal for a given value of the portfolio return. Another attempt i baed on utility function. It i decribed in detail by, e.g., ybvig and Ingeroll 198). The optimal weight are obtained by maximizing the expected utility U ) of the wealth W at the end of the invetment period and it i given by ω = arg max E [U W )]. 1) {ω: ω 1=1} There are many poibilitie for the choice of a utility function U ) ee, Pennacchi, 008). In the cae of the quadratic utility the olution of 1) i mean-variance efficient, i.e., it coincide with Markowitz optimization problem under ome condition ee, Bodnar et al., 013). Other utility function conidered in the literature are the HARA, the CARA, and the SAHARA utilitie ee, e.g., Pennacchi, 008; Chen et al., 011). In thi paper we deal with the optimal portfolio choice problem under the power utility function expreed a UW ) = W 1 γ, γ > 0, γ 1. ) 1 γ It i the only utility function with contant relative rik averion cf. Pennacchi, 008) equal to γ. The logarithmic utility i a limiting cae of the power utility when γ converge to 1 and it i given by UW ) = log W. 3) Both the power utility function and the logarithmic utility function are widely applied in practice. In order to calculate the expected utility it i neceary to have a tatement on the ditribution of the portfolio return. There have been many propoal in literature how to model the return of tock. Bachelier 1900) propoed to ue the normal ditribution while Fama 1965) and Mittnik and Rachev 1993) uggeted the ue of table ditribution. An overview on variou propoal can be found in, e.g., Jondeau et al. 007). 4

5 Here we chooe a lightly different way. We aume that the portfolio return of the invetor at the end of the invetment period follow a lognormal ditribution which i characterized by two parameter α IR and β > 0. We briefly write Z ln N α, β ) to denote that a random variable Z i log-normally ditributed. It hold that Z ln N α, β ) if and only if ln Z N α, β ) with the denity given by fz; α, β) = 1 z 1 ln z α) exp πβ β ), z > 0, and 0 otherwie. The log-normal ditribution ha a nice property that it moment can be eaily derived by E Z τ ) = exp ατ + 1 ) β τ, τ R. 4) The log-normal ditribution ha been applied in finance by everal author ee, e.g., Mconald 1996), Limpert et al. 001)). If the portfolio return i aumed to be log-normally ditributed, then it continuouly compounded rate of return i normally ditributed and vice vera. Moreover, doing o it i implicitly aumed that the wealth i poitive. 3 Cloed-form olution of optimal portfolio choice problem In thi ection we preent the analytical expreion of the optimal portfolio weight obtained for both the power utility and the logarithmic utility. Under the aumption that the portfolio return ω R at the end of the invetment period i log-normally ditributed, namely ω R ln N α, β ), we get ee Lemma 1 in the Appendix) that α = ln X 1 ln V + X ) and β = ln 1 + VX ), where X = Eω R) = ω µ and V = V arω R) = ω Σω are the expected return and the variance of the portfolio with the weight ω. In the following we alo ue of the et of efficient contant, i.e. of three quantitie which uniquely determine the location of the efficient frontier, the et of optimal portfolio obtained a olution of Markowitz optimization problem, in the mean-variance pace. They are given by Bodnar and Schmid, 009) R GMV = 1 Σ 1 µ 1 Σ 1 1, V GMV = Σ 1 1, and = µ Qµ 5)

6 with Q = Σ 1 Σ 1 11 Σ 1 1 Σ ) Here, R GMV denote the expected portfolio return of a global minimum variance GMV) portfolio the portfolio with the mallet variane), V GMV tand for it variance, and repreent the lope parameter of the efficient frontier which i the upper part of the parabola given by X R GMV ) = V V GMV ). 7) The whole parabola i known in the literature a a feaible et of optimal portfolio. 3.1 Analytical olution for the power utility In Theorem 1 we preent the cloed-form olution of the optimal portfolio choice problem for the power utility function, i.e. the olution of 1) with U ) given in ). Theorem 1. Aume that the portfolio return ω R at the end of the invetment period i log-normally ditributed. If ) ) ) γ γ min = ) VGMV ) 1 + VGMV ) VGMV, 8) RGMV RGMV RGMV then the olution of the optimization problem 1) with the power utility function U ) from ) i given by [ ω = Σ γ + 1) µ ) ] Y X γ Xµ 9) with X = γ + )R GMV, 10) 1 + ) Y = γ XR GMV R GMV V GMV ), 11) = γ + ) R GMV 4γ + 1)1 + )R GMV + V GMV ). 1) Moreover, if γ = γ min then = 0 and 10) implifie to X = γ min + )R GMV 1 + ) The proof of Theorem 1 i given in the appendix. Remark 1. Theorem 1 reveal one very important fact: the olution for the power utility function not alway exit. Indeed, to guarantee the exitence we need to have γ γ min, which implie that there exit a minimum. 6

7 level of rik averion γ min > 0 o that for all γ γ min the olution of the optimization problem 1) with the power utility function exit and i unique. Going through the proof of Theorem 1 one can jutify that thi condition i equivalent to a more technical one, i.e., 0 for all γ > 0. The expected return of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility i X, while it variance i equal to V = Y X. Moreover, the maximum value of the optimization problem 1) i given by max {ω: ω 1=1} 1 γ [ W0 E [UW )] = 1 γ exp 1 γ ) ln X + 1 ] γ γ) ln Y. 13) It i remarkable that the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power utility function i located for any relative rik averion coefficient γ on the et of feaible portfolio, i.e., on the parabola 7). Thi reult i formulated a Corollary 1 with the proof provided in the Appendix. Corollary 1. Under the aumption of Theorem 1, it hold that where ω = ω GMV + X R GMV Qµ 14) ω GMV = Σ Σ 1 1, 15) are the weight of the global minimum variance portfolio; R GMV and are given in 5) and 6); X i the expected return of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility a provided in 10). The expreion of optimal portfolio weight 14) coincide with the formula for weight obtained a a olution of Markowitz portfolio election problem. Moreover, the reult of Corollary 1 are ued to derive condition on the relative rik averion coefficient γ which enure that the obtained portfolio 14) lie in the upper part of the parabola 7) and, hence, the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility function i meanvariance efficient. Thi finding i ummarized in Theorem with the proof moved to the Appendix. Theorem. Under the condition of Theorem 1, the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power utility function i mean-variance efficient if and only if γ γ min and R GMV > 0. 16) The reult of Theorem provide the rigorou mathematical proof of Markowitz conjecture that the mean-variance analyi provide a very good proxy to the utility optimization problem with the power utility in 7

8 the ene that it ophitically approximate it olution ee, e.g., Levy and Markowitz 1979); Markowitz 014)). Thi reult i alo in-line with the finding of Grauer 1986). In the cae of the power utility function, Corollary 1 how that both approache lead to the ame et of optimal portfolio, while Theorem make one tep further and preent the condition under which the mean-variance efficiency hold for the optimal portfolio obtained by maximizing the expected power utility. It i remarkable that the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power utility will never coincide with the global minimum variance portfolio GMV). Thi obervation follow from the fact that if X = R GMV, then from Theorem 1 we get Y = γ XR GMV R GMV V GMV ) = γv GMV < 0, what i not poible ince Y = E [ ω R) ] 0. Further intereting property of the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power utility i formulated in Corollary. Here, we prove that it converge to the optimal portfolio that maximize the Sharpe ratio, another popular portfolio in the financial literature, when γ. Corollary. Suppoe that the aumption of Theorem are atified. If γ tend to infinity, then the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility converge to the Sharpe ratio portfolio with the weight: ω = Σ 1 µ 1 Σ 1 µ. 17) Remark. Note that the Sharpe ratio portfolio preented in 17) i lightly different from a claical one becaue the mean vector µ i not equal to expected value of the aet return Er) but to ER) = Er)+1. Thi implie a very intereting fact that although the expected power utility portfolio can not be exactly equal to the GMV portfolio they are very cloe to each other in ome ituation. Indeed, if Er) i cloe to zero then the weight preented in 17) are cloe to the GMV portfolio from 15). Thi i natural becaue the GMV portfolio play the role of the leat riky portfolio in the mean-variance framework. Next, Corollary 3 prove that the expected return of the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power utility function i not maller than the expected return of the Sharpe ratio portfolio. Corollary 3. Suppoe that the aumption of Theorem are atified and R GMV > 0. Then the expected return of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility i larger than or equal to the expected return of the Sharpe ratio portfolio, i.e. X µ Σ 1 µ 1 Σ 1 µ. 18) 8

9 The other intereting tatement i related to the coefficient of relative rik averion. It i natural to conclude that if γ increae what mean the le riky invetor) we can expect the decreae of the variance of the portfolio return. So a the reult we preent decribed fact in a Corollary 4. Beide, we have alo received that the expected portfolio return decreae a well. Corollary 4. Suppoe that the aumption of Theorem are atified and R GMV > 0. Then the expected return and the variance of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility are decreaing function of γ. 3. Analytical olution for the logarithmic utility In Theorem 3 we preent the cloed-form olution of the optimization problem 1) for the logarithmic utility given in 3). The proof of the theorem i given in the Appendix. Theorem 3. Aume that the portfolio return ω R at the end of the invetment period i log-normally ditributed. If γ min 1 19) then the olution of the optimization problem 1) with the logarithmic utility function U ) a in 3) i given by [ ω = Σ µ ) ] Y Xµ 0) X with X = 3R GMV 1 + ) and Y = XR GMV R GMV = 9R GMV 81 + )R GMV + V GMV ). V GMV, 1) The expected return of the optimal portfolio in the ence of maximizing the expected logarithmic utility i X and it variance i given by V = Y X. Uing the reult of Theorem 1, we alo obtain the maximum value of the optimization problem 1) for the logarithmic utility given by max E [UW )] = ln W ω 0 + ln X 1 ln Y. ) The expreion of the weight obtained for the logarithmic utility function i a pecial cae of the optimal portfolio weight derived for the power utility function correponding to γ = 1. Thi finding i not urpriing ince the logarithmic utility function i a limiting cae of the power utility function when γ 1. Although the power utility cannot be defined for γ = 1 and only it limiting behavior i conidered, that i not longer the cae with the 9

10 formula for the weight preented in Theorem 1 which can alo be computed for γ = 1 a oon a the condition 8) i fulfilled which coincide with 19) of Theorem 3. Another important application of the reult given in Theorem 1 and 3 i that the weight of the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected logarithmic utility function can alo be preented in the form of Markowitz portfolio, imilarly to the expreion for the weight obtained for the power utility function and they are given by ω = ω GMV + X R GMV Qµ 3) with X a in 1), i.e. the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected logarithmic utility function alo lie on parabola 7). Finally, Theorem 4 preent condition under which thi portfolio i mean-variance efficient, i.e. it lie on the upper part of the parabola. Theorem 4. Under the condition of Theorem 1, the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected logarithmic utility i mean-variance efficient if and only if 4 Empirical Study γ min 1 and R GMV > 0. 4) The aim of thi ection i to how how the above reult can be applied in practice. We will analyze in detail a well whether the demanded aumption are fulfilled in practice or not. Our empirical tudy i baed on tock lited in the German tock index AX). We elect 17 tock from the AX AS, ALV, BAYN, BMW, CBK, AI, BK, PW, TE, HEI, IFX, LHA, LIN, SAP, SIE, TKA, VOW3) and tudy their behavior during the time period from September 1, 014 up to September 17, 017. Our analyi i baed on weekly return. Conequently we have 157 obervation for each tock. Baed on thee 17 tock we contruct a number of portfolio by randomly ampling k {4,..., 14} aet. Thu, for each k the number of different et of aet i equal to ) 17 k. From every uch et we determine the optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power logarithmic) utility. The parameter µ and Σ are etimated for each portfolio contellation by the ample mean vector and the ample covariance matrix. Moreover, without lo of generality we et W 0 = Validating of model aumption and condition of theorem The finding of Theorem 1 and 3 are obtained under certain aumption. In the following we analyze whether thee condition are reaonable for the 10

11 Number of aet i Relative rik averion γ Table 1: 5% quantile of the p-value of the log-normality tet for everal combination of k and γ underlying data et. Firt, we validate the aumption of log-normally ditributed portfolio return. In order to tet the hypothei of log-normality, we apply the Shapiro-Wilk tet to the logarithmized return of optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility function for the choen et of aet. In Table 1 the 5% quantile of the p-value are provided for everal number of aet k within the portfolio and for everal value of the relative rik averion coefficient γ. We remind again that for each fixed k the amount of optimal portfolio under conideration i ) 17 k. Table 1 how that more than 75% of the p-value are alway coniderably larger than the poible nominal level of the tet, like 5% in our cae. Conequently, in at leat of 75% of all conidered cae, the null hypothei that the return of optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power utility are log-normally ditributed cannot be rejected. For example, chooing k = 1 and γ = 5 we receive that 75% of p-value are greater than 0.6. Moreover, with increaing number of aet the p-value are monotonically increaing a well. Hence, thi give rie to the concluion that the log-normality aumption eem to be reaonable in a number of practical ituation. Next, we analyze whether the condition 8) of Theorem 1 i fulfilled in the conidered application. Our reult are ummarized in Figure 1 above). Here the percentage of all conidered cae are preent for everal value of the number of aet k in the portfolio and of the relative rik averion γ when the condition {γ γ min } i not fulfilled. The dahed vertical line repreent the value of γ min k) for every number of aet k. We oberve that with decreaing k and increaing γ thi condition i almot alway atified and the number of inappropriate cae goe to zero. For example, the probability of 11

12 having γ < γ min for k aet i virtually zero if γ > γ min k) for all conidered value of k {4, 5,..., 14}. Thi i in line with the theoretical finding of Theorem 1. Moreover, becaue γ min k) i alway maller than one, we can conclude due to Theorem 3 that the olution for the logarithmic portfolio exit a well. Hence, the condition 8) i realitic for both mall or large portfolio and for the relatively large value of the rik averion coefficient, at the ame time the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility exit with a mall probability if γ i cloe to zero. Finally, we analyze the condition for the mean-variance efficiency of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility which i tated in Theorem. The reult are preented in Figure 1 below). Here we proceed in the ame way a above for Theorem 1. The econd expreion in 16) upplie the claical mean-variance efficiency in ene that the accumulated expected portfolio return of GMV portfolio, i.e., R GMV = 1 Σ 1 µ 1 Σ 1 Er) 1 Σ Σ 1 1 = +1 mut be alway poitive. A we can oberve, the related reult look the ame a the upper part of Figure 1, which mean that the firt expreion of 16) eem to be a tronger retriction than the econd one for the conidered data et. 4. Location of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility function on the efficient frontier An other part of the empirical tudy preented by Figure i related to the location of the optimal portfolio. A it wa hown in 10) and 11) the mean and the variance of the optimal portfolio depend on three parameter: µ, Σ, γ. The mean vector and the covariance matrix can be etimated and in our example we conider four poible number of aet k {4, 7, 10, 14}. We chooe the firt k aet in the alphabetic order. Then we build efficient frontier for each combination of aet where we add the location of the optimal portfolio for γ {1,, 5} and the Sharpe ratio portfolio. Like it wa proved in Corollary 4 we receive the decreae of the variance and the mean with the increae of a rik averion coefficient and optimal portfolio tend to the Sharpe ratio portfolio a it wa hown in Corollary. In addition, we alo receive the increae of both mean and variance of portfolio return with a larger amount of aet in the portfolio. 4.3 A comparion of everal portfolio trategie Finally, we compare the power utilitie of everal portfolio trategie with each other. We examine the naive portfolio with equal weight, the Sharpe ratio portfolio, and the optimal portfolio derived in Theorem 1. Note that the GMV portfolio wa excluded from the tudy becaue it wa to cloe to Sharpe ratio portfolio for a conidered data et ee, Remark ). In Figure 3 the empirical ditribution function of the power utility obtained for each 1

13 Relative frequency of the event {γ < γ min } γ min4) γ min7) γ min14) 4 aet 14 aet Relative rik averion coefficient, γ Relative frequency of the event {γ < γ min } or {R GMV < 0} γ min4) γ min7) γ min14) 4 aet 14 aet Relative rik averion coefficient, γ Figure 1: Relative number of cae when the condition γ γ min of Theorem 1 above) and the condition 16) of Theorem below) are not fulfilled plotted a a function of γ for everal number of aet k {4, 5,..., 14}. 13

14 Efficient frontier, k=4 Efficient frontier, k=7 Mean, µ γ=5 Sharpe γ= γ=1 Mean, µ γ=5 Sharpe γ= γ= Variance, σ Variance, σ Efficient frontier, k=10 Efficient frontier, k=14 Mean, µ γ=5 Sharpe γ= γ=1 Mean, µ γ=5 Sharpe γ= γ= Variance, σ Variance, σ Figure : Optimal portfolio for γ {1,, 5} and the Sharpe ratio portfolio located on the efficient frontier for a number of aet k {4, 7, 10, 14}. of the conidered method are given for the portfolio coniting of k = 9 aet and for variou value of γ. The figure how that the bet reult are obtained for the trategy derived in Theorem 1 a expected. In addition, a another viualiation of Corollary reult we have that the utility of the Sharpe ratio portfolio nearly coincide with the derived one in Theorem 1 a the coefficient of a relative rik averion increae. Finally, a very bad performance of the equally-weighted naive) portfolio i oberved. 5 Appendix Lemma 1. Aume that the portfolio return ω R at the end of the invetment period i log-normally ditributed, i.e. ω R ln Nα, β ). Let E := E [ ω R ] = ω µ, 5) V := V ar [ ω R ] = ω Σω. Then ) V β = ln E + 1 and E α = ln. V + E ) 1 14

15 Fnx) Fnx) γ= 1.0 γ= Sharpe Naive Optimal Sharpe Naive Optimal γ= Fnx) Fnx) γ= Sharpe Naive Optimal Sharpe Naive Optimal Figure 3: Empirical ditribution function of the power utility for everal portfolio trategie naive portfolio, Sharpe portfolio, optimal portfolio in the ene of maximizing the expected power utility) for k = 9 aet. Proof of Lemma 1. In uing 4), we get 1 E ω 0 R = eα+ β, V ar ω 0 R = eα+β eβ 1). 6) Subtituting 5) into 6) and olving thee two equation with repect to α and β lead to the tatement of the lemma. Proof of Theorem 1. For the power utility function, we get that W01 γ 1 E [U W )] = exp α1 γ) + β 1 γ) 1 γ " # W01 γ E 1 V + E = exp 1 γ) ln 1 γ) ln γ E V + E ) W01 γ 1 = exp 1 γ ) ln E + γ γ) lnv + E ) 1 γ 1 γ W exp 1 γ ) ln ω µ + γ γ) ln ω Σω + ω µ).7) = 1 γ In order to maximize the expected utility we need to find the maximum of the expreion in the exponent of 7) for γ < 1 or it minimum for γ > 1 15

16 under the ide condition ω 1 = 1. In both cae the method of Lagrange multiplier i ued with the Lagrange function given by 1 γ ) ln ω µ + 1 γ γ) ln ω Σω + ω µ) ) + λω 1 1). 8) Partial derivation lead to Let ω L = 1 γ ) µ ω µ + γ γ) Σω + ω µ)µ ω Σω + ω + λ1 = 0, µ) 9) λ L = ω 1 1 = 0. 30) X := ω µ, and Y := ω Σω + ω µ). 31) Then, the multiplication of 9) by ω lead to λ = γ 1. Furthermore, multiplying 9) by µ Σ 1 /1 Σ 1 1 and 1 Σ 1 /1 Σ 1 1 and uing the following equalitie 1 1 Σ 1 1 = V GMV, 1 Σ 1 µ 1 Σ 1 1 = R GMV, and µ Σ 1 µ 1 Σ 1 1 = R GMV + V GMV with R GMV, V GMV, and a in 5), we get γ + 1) R GMV +V GMV X + γ XV GMV +R GMV +V GMV ) Y + R GMV = 0, 3) γ + 1) R GMV X + γ V GMV +XR GMV Y + 1 = 0. 33) Next, we multiply 3) by R GMV, multiply 33) by R GMV + V GMV, and ubtract the firt equation from the econd one to get and, conequently, γ XR GMV R GMV V GMV Y = 34) γ 1 Y = XR GMV RGMV V. 35) GMV Subtituting 35) to 33) lead to γ + 1) R GMV X + V GMV + XR GMV ) XR GMV R GMV V GMV + 1 = 0 or equivalently to 1 + )X γ + )R GMV X + γ + 1)R GMV + V GMV ) = 0 36) 16

17 where The root of the quadratic equation 36) are given by X ± = γ + )R GMV ±, 37) 1 + ) = γ + ) R GMV 4γ + 1)1 + )R GMV + V GMV ). Finally, from 35) and 37), we get Y ± = γ X ±R GMV R GMV V GMV ). 38) Moreover, equation 37) how that the quadratic equation ha a olution if and only if 0 which i equivalent to 8). Indeed, taking the derivative of γ) with repect to γ and etting it equal to zero one get γ) = γ + )R GMV 41 + )R GMV + V GMV ) = 0 with the olution γ = 1+)R GMV +V GMV ) R GMV ) = ) V GMV. RGMV One can eaily check that γ ) i negative, thu, γ can not be the minimum poible value of γ which guarantee the exitence of the olution of 36). On the other ide, the econd derivative of γ) i poitive, which indicate that γ i the global minimum point of the parabola γ). Now from 0) < 0 follow that the mallet poible value of γ > 0 hould be the poitive olution of equation γ) = 0, which i exactly γ min preented in 8). Further, inerting two olution of X and Y into 9), we get two equation for the poible optimal portfolio weight. Since the method of Lagrange multiplier only provide a neceary condition for the optimality in contrained problem we have to analyze the critical point in more detail to check whether a maximum or a minimum i preent. We conider the right ide of 7) for X +, Y + ) and X, Y ) and prove for all γ γ min and γ 1 that Lγ, X, Y ) > Lγ, X +, Y + ) 39) and, thu, the maximum i attained at X, Y ). In the cae of γ > 1, 39) i equivalent to 1 γ ) ln X γ γ) ln Y + 1 γ ) ln X + 1 γ γ) ln Y or = 1 γ ) ln X + X + 1 γ γ) ln Y + Y > γ) ln X X γ ln Y + Y > 0 40) 17

18 Similarly, for 0 < γ < 1 we get 1 γ ) ln X γ γ) ln Y + 1 γ ) ln X + 1 γ γ) ln Y = 1 γ ) ln X + X + 1 γ γ) ln Y + Y < 0 which coincide with 40). Conequently, in order to prove 39), it i ufficient to how 40) for γ > γ min uch that γ 1. Or, equivalently, we have to how that for all γ > γ min the following inequality hold γ + 1 γ ln X + X + 1 ln Y + Y > 0. 41) Firt, we prove that the derivative of the function on the left ide of 41) with repect to γ i poitive. It hold that γ + 1 ln X γ γ X ln Y ) + = 1 Y γ ln X + X γ + 1 ) X X+ + 1 ) Y Y+, γ X + γ X Y + γ Y ) Now we calculate X+ γ X and γ Y+ Y ). It hold ) X+ = γ + )R GMV + ) γ X γ γ + )R GMV )) R GMV + γ γ + )R GMV ) = γ + )R GMV ) )) R GMV γ γ + )R GMV + ) γ + )R GMV ) ) γ + ) R GMV γ R GMV = γ + )R GMV ) = R γ GMV γ + ) γ + )R GMV ) = R GMV 4γ1 + ) RGMV + V ) GMV γ + )R GMV ) = γ R GMV γ + 1 γ + )R GMV + γ + )R GMV = γ R GMV X +, 4) γ + 1 X 18

19 where econd lat equality follow from 1+)RGMV +V GMV ) = γ+) RGMV 41+γ). In order to proceed to the derivative of Y + Y we firt note that Y + = γ + )R GMV + )RGMV 1 + )RGMV + V GMV ) Y γ + )R GMV )R GMV 1 + )RGMV + V GMV ) γ + )R GMV + ) γr GMV + ) X + γr GMV + ) = γ + )R GMV ) γr GMV ) = X γr GMV ). Thu, taking the derivative of Y + Y γ Y+ Y ) = γr GMV + γr GMV γ lead to = γr GMV + γr GMV γ R GMV X + γ + 1 = γ R GMV Y + + X + γ + 1 Y X γ Thu, we only need to calculate γ ) X+ + X + γr GMV + ) X X γ γr GMV + X + γr GMV + ) X X γ γr GMV γr GMV + ) γr GMV. γrgmv + ) γr GMV. It hold )) γr GMV + ) R GMV + γ γr GMV γ γr GMV ) = γr GMV ) )) R GMV γ γr GMV + ) γr GMV ) ) γr GMV γ R GMV = γr GMV ) = R γ GMV γ γr GMV ) = γ + R GMV γ + 1 γr GMV + γr GMV, which immediately implie that ) Y+ = γ R GMV Y + γ γ + 1 Y + γ + Y γ + 1 R GMV Y + Y = R GMV Y + Y. Putting all together it follow that for γ > γ min γ + 1 ln X γ γ X ln Y ) + = 1 Y γ ln X + > 0. X 19

20 Thu, the function on the left ide in 41) i monotonically increaing function of γ and, thu, attain it minimum value at γ = γ min. So, calculating the value of function in 41) at point γ = γ min we get ln X X + γ γ + 1) ln Y Y + = ln γ + )R GMV γ=γmin γ + )R GMV + = 0, γ=γmin becaue when γ = γ min it hold = 0. Hence, the inequality 41) hold for all γ > γ min and, thu, the maximum i attained at X, Y ) Proof of Corollary 1. It hold that ) Y γ Xµ ] [ ω = Σ γ + 1) µ X ) Y γ + 1)Y = ω GMV γ + V GMV Σ Xγ where in uing 35) we get ) X Σ 1 µ, Y γ + V GMV = XR GMV RGMV V GMV and γ + 1)Y Xγ + V GMV = X R GMV X = γ + 1 XR GMV RGMV V GMV X X R GMV = γ + 1)R GMV X γ + 1)R GMV V GMV ) X X = X R GMV X X where the third line follow from 36). Hence, ω = ω GMV X R GMV = ω GMV + X R GMV = X R GMV R GMV Σ X R GMV Qµ,, Σ 1 µ Proof of Theorem. Firt part, i.e., γ γ min, follow obviouly from the condition 8). For the econd one uing 1) we firt oberve that = γ + ) R GMV 4γ + 1)1 + )R GMV + V GMV ) = γ + ) 4γ + 1)1 + ) ) R GMV 4γ + 1)1 + )V GMV = γ ) 41 + ) ) RGMV 4γ + 1)1 + )V GMV = γ ) RGMV 41 + )RGMV + γ + 1)V GMV ) 0. 43) 0

21 Next, in order to prove the econd inequality in 16), we only have to find in which cae X R GMV > 0. 44) Inerting X from 10) in the above equation 44) we get γ )R GMV 1 + ) > 0. 45) So, becaue of 43) we have γ ) RGMV and together with γ γ min > and 45) it implie that 44) i atified R GMV > 0. Proof of Corollary. For the proof of the corollary, we only have to compute the following limit lim γ + )R GMV ) = lim γ γ γ + ) R GMV γ + )R GMV + 4γ + 1)1 + )RGMV = lim + V GMV ) γ γ + )R GMV + = 1 + )R GMV + V GMV ) R GMV. Now, the application of Corollary 1 lead to lim X R GMV lim γ ω γ = ω GMV + Qµ = ω GMV + R GMV + V GMV R GMV R GMV Qµ = ω GMV + V GMV R GMV Qµ = Σ 1 µ 1 Σ 1 µ. Proof of Corollary 3. Uing 11) and 36), the variance of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility i given by V = Y X = γ XRGMV R ) GMV V GMV γ XR GMV + γ + 1 ) R + 1 GMV + V GMV = γ 1 + ) XR GMV γ ) R 1 + ) GMV + V GMV, which i non-negative if and only if γ ) X R γ )R GMV + V GMV GMV > 1 ) R µ Σ 1 µ R GMV + V GMV = GMV 1 Σ 1 µ. 1

22 Proof of Corollary 4. Uing 7) the variance of the optimal portfolio that maximize the expected power utility i given by V = 1 X R GMV ) + V GMV. Next we how that a partial derivative of X with repect to γ i negative what bring the decreae of X and V by γ. X γ = 1 R GMV γ + )R GMV 41 + ) RGMV + V )) GMV 1 + ) 4RGMV = [ γ + )RGMV 41 + ) RGMV + V )] GMV 41 + ) [ R GMV + γ + )RGMV 41 + ) RGMV + V ) ] GMV = ) RGMV + V ) GMV R GMV ) RGMV + V ) GMV 41 + ) [ R GMV + γ + )RGMV 41 + ) RGMV + V ) ] GMV 4 RGMV = + V ) [ GMV R GMV 1 + ) RGMV + V )] GMV [ R GMV + γ + )RGMV 41 + ) RGMV + V ) ] < 0. GMV Proof of Theorem 3. For the logarithmic utility function it hold with Lemma 1 that E [UW )] = ln W 0 + ln ω µ 1 ln ω Σω + ω µ) ). 46) In order to maximize the expected logarithmic utility 46) under the contrain ω 1 = 1, the method of Lagrange multiplier i ued with the Lagrange function given by ln W 0 + ln ω µ 1 ln ω Σω + ω µ) ) + λ ω 1 1). 47) Partial derivation yield ω L = µ ω µ Σω + ω µ)µ ω Σω + ω + λ1 = 0, µ) 48) λ L = ω 1 1 = 0. 49) The multiplication of 48) by ω lead to λ = 1. Uing the definition of X and Y from 31) and multiplying 48) by µ Σ 1 /1 Σ 1 1 and

23 1 Σ 1 /1 Σ 1 1, we get R GMV +V GMV X XV GMV +RGMV +V GMV ) Y R GMV = 0, 50) R GMV X V GMV +XR GMV Y 1 = 0. 51) The ytem of equation 50) and 51) i a partial cae of 3) and 33) given in the proof of Theorem 1 which correpond to γ = 1. Hence, it olution i given by X ± = 3R GMV ± 1 + ) and Y ± = X ±R GMV R GMV V GMV, 5) where = 9R GMV 81 + )R GMV + V GMV ). Finally, for > 0 or, equivalently, for γ min 1 we get that LX, Y ) LX +, Y + ) = ln X 1 ln Y ln X ln Y + = ln X X ln Y + Y > 0. Hence, X, Y ) maximize the expected logarithmic utility. Proof of Theorem 4. The proof of Theorem 4 follow from the proof of Theorem with γ = 1. Reference Bachelier, L. 1900). Théorie de la péculation. Gauthier-Villar. Barberi, N. 000). Inveting for the long run when return are predictable. The Journal of Finance, 551):5 64. Bodnar, T., Parolya, N., and Schmid, W. 013). On the equivalence of quadratic optimization problem commonly ued in portfolio theory. European Journal of Operational Reearch, 93): Bodnar, T., Parolya, N., and Schmid, W. 015a). A cloed-form olution of the multi-period portfolio choice problem for a quadratic utility function. Annal of Operation Reearch, 91): Bodnar, T., Parolya, N., and Schmid, W. 015b). On the exact olution of the multi-period portfolio choice problem for an exponential utility under return predictability. European Journal of Operational Reearch, 46):

24 Bodnar, T. and Schmid, W. 009). Econometrical analyi of the ample efficient frontier. The European journal of finance, 153): Brandt, M. 009). Portfolio choice problem. Handbook of financial econometric, 1: Brandt, M. W., Goyal, A., Santa-Clara, P., and Stroud, J. R. 005). A imulation approach to dynamic portfolio choice with an application to learning about return predictability. The Review of Financial Studie, 183): Brandt, M. W. and Santa-Clara, P. 006). ynamic portfolio election by augmenting the aet pace. The Journal of Finance, 615): Campbell, J. Y. and Viceira, L. M. 00). Strategic aet allocation: portfolio choice for long-term invetor. Clarendon Lecture in Economic. Chen, A., Peler, A., and Vellekoop, M. 011). Modeling non-monotone rik averion uing ahara utility function. Journal of Economic Theory, 1465): Cover, T. M. 1991). Univeral portfolio. Mathematical finance, 11):1 9. ybvig, P. H. and Ingeroll, J. E. 198). Mean-variance theory in complete market. Journal of Buine, page Elton, E. J. and Gruber, M. J. 1974). Portfolio theory when invetment relative are lognormally ditributed. The Journal of Finance, 94): Elton, E. J., Gruber, M. J., Brown, S. J., and Goetzmann, W. N. 009). Modern portfolio theory and invetment analyi. John Wiley & Son. Fama, E. F. 1965). Portfolio analyi in a table paretian market. Management cience, 113): Grauer, R. R. 1986). Normality, olvency, and portfolio choice. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analyi, 13): Grauer, R. R. and Hakanon, N. H. 1987). Gain from international diverification: return on portfolio of tock and bond. The Journal of Finance, 43): Hakanon, N. H. 1971). Multi-period mean-variance analyi: Toward a general theory of portfolio choice. The Journal of Finance, 64): Jondeau, E., Poon, S.-H., and Rockinger, M. 007). Financial modeling under non-gauian ditribution. Springer Science & Buine Media. 4

25 Levy, H. and Markowitz, H. M. 1979). Approximating expected utility by a function of mean and variance. The American Economic Review, 693): Limpert, E., Stahel, W. A., and Abbt, M. 001). Log-normal itribution acro the Science: Key and Clue. BioScience, 515): Lynch, A. W. and Tan, S. 010). Multiple riky aet, tranaction cot, and return predictability: Allocation rule and implication for u.. invetor. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analyi, 454): Markowitz, H. 195). Portfolio election. The journal of finance, 71): Markowitz, H. 014). Mean variance approximation to expected utility. European Journal of Operational Reearch, 34): Mconald, J. B. 1996). Probability ditribution for financial model. In Statitical Method in Finance, volume 14 of Handbook of Statitic, page Elevier. Merton, R. C. and Samuelon, P. A. 1974). Fallacy of the log-normal approximation to optimal portfolio deciion-making over many period. Journal of Financial Economic, 11): Mittnik, S. and Rachev, S. T. 1993). Modeling aet return with alternative table ditribution. Econometric review, 13): Pennacchi, G. G. 008). Theory of aet pricing. Pearon/Addion-Weley Boton. 5