Professional Documents
Culture Documents
02 Portfolio Theory PDF
02 Portfolio Theory PDF
Portfolio Theory
Objectives:
Understanding of
• Return and risk of assets
• Return and risk of portfolios
• Efficient and optimal portfolios
• Market portfolio
Concepts:
• Perfect and perfect inverse correlated asset returns
• Covariance risk
• Mean-variance curve
• Mean variance frontier
• Capital market line
Contents:
2.1 Returns and Risks of Assets
2.2 Returns and Risks of Portfolios of Two Risky Assets
2.3 Portfolios of Many Risky Assets
2.4 Portfolios of Risk-free and Risky Assets
2.5 Efficient and Optimal Portfolios
Future values include future prices and all (intra-period) payments, such as dividends or
coupons. All statements and results apply to portfolios and their returns as well.
The variance and the standard deviation of the rate of returns serve as a measure of the risk of the
asset X:
( ) {
σ XX ≡ Var rX = E ⎡⎣ rX − E rX ⎤⎦ ( )
2
}
( )
σ X ≡ SD rX = Var rX ( )
These moments can be used for asset Y respectively.
( ) { ( )
σ XY ≡ Cov rX ,rY = E ⎡⎣ rX − E rX ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣ rY − E rY ⎤⎦( )}
Obviously the covariance of a random variable with itself is equal to its variance.
Instead of the covariance we use sometimes the correlation coefficient of the asset returns
σ XY
(
κ XY ≡ CC rX ,rY ≡) σ XσY .
The correlation coefficient is normalized to the interval [−1,1] . Depending on the covariance of
the returns the correlation coefficient takes the following values:
1. κ XY = +1 , i.e. the returns of two assets are perfectly correlated.
The rate of return of the portfolio P is a weighted average of the returns of the assets X and Y
( )
rP = arX + 1 − a rY .
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
µ P = E rP = E ⎡⎣ arX + 1 − a rY ⎤⎦ = aE rX + 1 − a E rY = aµ X + 1 − a µY ( ) (2.3)
{
σ PP = E ⎡ rP − E rP ⎤
⎣ ⎦ ( )
2
} ⎧
⎩ ⎣ ( ) ( (⎦
2
= E ⎨ ⎡ arX + 1 − a rY − E arX + 1 − a rY ⎤ ⎬
⎫
⎭
) )
{ ( )
2
( )
2
( )
2
( ) ( )
= E a 2 ⎡⎣ rX − E rX ⎤⎦ + 1 − a ⎡⎣ rY − E rY ⎤⎦ +2a 1 − a ⎡⎣ rX − E rX ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣ rY − E rY ⎤⎦ ( )}
( ) ( )
2
= a 2σ XX + 1 − a σ YY + 2a 1 − a σ XY
( ) ( )
2
= a 2σ XX + 1 − a σ YY + 2a 1 − a κ XY σ X σ Y (2.4)
Obviously the risk of the portfolio return is non-linear in the portfolio weights. Moreover, it
depends on the second order moments of the asset returns.
2.2.3 Impact of the composition on the return and the risk of a portfolio
We investigate how an increase of the weight a influences the return and the risk of the portfolio.
+#
+"
+!
$ % &
For a < 0 , the return of the portfolio is smaller than µY , for a > 1, greater than µ X .
or
dσ P 1 ⎡ 2 −1 2
( )
= a σ XX + 1 − a σ YY + 2a 1 − a κ XY σ X σ Y ⎤ ( )
2
(2.8)
da 2 ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
( )
⋅ ⎡⎣ 2aσ XX − 2 1 − a σ YY + 2 1 − 2a κ XY σ X σ Y ⎤⎦ ( )
Obviously, the sign of the change of the risk of the portfolio depends on the covariance or the
correlation coefficient of the asset returns.
Sometimes it is useful to know the risk minimal portfolio. It can be derived from the first order
condition
dσ PP
da
( ) (
= 2aσ XX − 2 1 − a σ YY + 2 1 − 2a κ XY σ X σ Y = 0 , ) (2.9)
a* =
σ YY − κ XY σ X σ Y
=
σ Y σ Y − κ XY σ X (.
) (2.10)
σ XX + σ YY − 2κ XY σ X σ Y σ XX + σ YY − 2κ XY σ X σ Y
It is obvious that a* depends on the covariance or the correlation coefficient of the asset returns.
In order to discuss the shape of the curves (2.7) 0r (2.8) we distinguish three cases:
Case A: κ XY = 1 , i.e. perfectly correlated assets
2.2.3.1 Case A: κ XY = 1
As the portfolio return is independent from the correlation of the assets return equations (2.3)
and (2.6) remain unchanged. Only the risk (variance and standard deviation) of the portfolio is
affected by the correlation coefficient.
( ) ( )
2
σ PP = a 2σ XX + 1 − a σ YY + 2a 1 − a σ X σ Y (2.11)
[
= aσ X + (1 − a )σ Y . ]
2
As long as we a ≥ 0 assume the expression in the squared bracket is positive, we would not be
short in X and thus the portfolio would be located North East of Y. In this case the standard
( )
deviation would be σ P = aσ X + 1 − a σ Y > 0 . In case of a sufficiently small a < 0 ,
( )
aσ X + 1 − a σ Y may become negative, and therefore, the standard deviation of the portfolio is
to be defined more generally as
(
σ P = aσ X + 1 − a σ Y ≥ 0 . ) (2.12)
From (2.12) we can derive the impact of the composition of the portfolio on its risk as
dσ P σY
da
(
= ± σ X − σY ≥ ≤ 0 ) () ⇔ a≥ ≤ − () σ X − σY .
(2.13)
The derivative is a constant with a alternating sign since it is σ X − σ Y > 0 if the weight of the
asset X is greater than the critical value, a > − σ Y (σ X ) ( )
− σ Y , and it is − σ X − σ Y < 0 if
a < −σY (σ X )
− σ Y . Obviously the critical value is itself negative.
From equation (2.6) we know that the nominator of (2.14) is positive and constant. Thus, the
slope of the MVC must be a constant with an alternating sign. We can deduce from (2.13) and
(2.14)
⎛ dµ ⎞ ⎛ dσ P ⎞
sign ⎜ P ⎟ = sign ⎜ ⎟. (2.15)
⎝ dσ P ⎠ ⎝ da ⎠
Taking this into account we can distinguish different slopes in three different parts of the MVC:
σY d µ P µ X − µY
1. a > −
σ X − σY
⇒ (
σ P = aσ X + 1 − a σ Y > 0 ) ⇒ =
dσ P σ X − σ Y
>0
σY
2. a = −
σ X − σY
⇔ (
σ P = aσ X + 1 − a σ Y = 0 ) (2.16)
σY d µP µ − µY
3. a < −
σ X − σY
<0 ⇒ ( (
σ P = − aσ X + 1 − a σ Y > 0 ⇒ ) ) dσ P
=− X
σ X − σY
<0
The standard deviation and the MVC of this type are illustrated in the following graphs:
m# +#
! !
m! +!
m" "
" +"
$ % & $ m" m! m#
Fig 2.2a: STDV of a portfolio of perfectly corr. assets Fig 2.2b: MVC of a portfolio. of perfectly corr. assets
a* =
σ YY − κ XY σ X σ Y
=
σ YY − σ X σ Y
=
−σ Y σ X − σ Y
=−
σY
< 0.
( ) (2.17)
σ XX + σ YY − 2κ XY σ X σ Y σ XX + σ YY − 2σ X σ Y (
σ X − σY )
2
σ X − σY
σP = −
σY ⎛
σ X + ⎜1+
σY ⎞ σ σ
σY = − Y X + X
σ − σY + σY σY
=0.
( )
σ X − σY ⎟
σ X − σY ⎠ σ X − σY σ X − σY
(2.18)
⎝
We should keep in mind that the risk minimal portfolio is reached for an a* < 0 , i.e. a short
position in X. Such a portfolio generates negative (expected) returns. It is in any case inefficient.
2.2.3.2 Case B: κ XY = −1
Equations (2.3) and (2.6) remain unchanged. Only the portfolio risk is influenced by the
correlation coefficient.
( ) ( )
2
σ PP = a 2σ XX + 1 − a σ YY − 2a 1 − a σ X σ Y (2.19)
[
= aσ X − (1 − a )σ Y . ]
2
As the expression in the squared bracket may be negative, the standard deviation is defined as
( )
σ P = aσ X − 1 − a σ Y ≥ 0 . (2.20)
From (2.20) we can derive the impact of the portfolio composition on the risk of the portfolio as
dσ P σY
da
(
= ± σ X + σY ≥ ≤ 0 ) () ⇔ a≥ ≤ ( )σ + σY
. (2.21)
X
Again the nominator is positive. Thus the sign of the slope depends on the sign of (2.21). From
(2.21) and (2.22) follows
⎛ dµ ⎞ ⎛ dσ P ⎞
sign ⎜ P ⎟ = sign ⎜ ⎟. (2.23)
⎝ dσ P ⎠ ⎝ da ⎠
Moreover, the nominator and the denominator in (2.22) are constant. With these insights we can
distinguish three different ranges of the MVC:
σY d µ P µ X − µY
1. a >
σ X + σY
⇒ (
σ P = aσ X − 1 − a σ Y > 0 ) ⇒ =
dσ P σ X + σ Y
>0
σY
2. a =
σ X + σY
⇔ (
σ P = aσ X − 1 − a σ Y = 0 ) (2.24)
σY d µP µ − µY
3. a <
σ X + σY
⇒ ( (
σ P = − aσ X − 1 − a σ Y > 0 ⇒ ) ) dσ P
=− X
σ X + σY
<0
The standard deviation and the MVC are illustrated by the subsequent graphs:
m# +#
! !
m! +!
%&
m" "
" +"
$ % & $ m" m! m#
Fig 2.3a: STDV of a portfolio of perf. inverse corr. assets Fig 2.3b: MVC of a portfolio of perf. inverse corr. assets
a* =
σ YY − κ XY σ X σ Y
=
σ YY + σ X σ Y σ σ + σY
= Y X =
σY
>0.
( )
(2.25)
σ XX + σ YY − 2κ XY σ X σ Y σ XX + σ YY + 2σ X σ Y σ + σ ( )
2
σ +σ X Y
X Y
( )
The risk minimal a* lies in the interval 0,1 . For a = 1 any (small) increase of a leads to a
proportional increase of the expected return and the risk as well. For a = 0 a small increase of a
causes an increase of the expected return and a decrease of the risk. Obviously, and we will
discuss this later in detail this portfolio is inefficient.
Equation (2.6) remains unchanged. However, the analysis of the influence of the portfolio
composition is more complex and complicated than the two previous cases. It is recommended to
start with a local analysis of the standard deviation and changes of the portfolio composition on
the standard deviation at a = 1 and a = 0 .
For a = 1 the portfolio consists only of X, and therefore the standard deviation of the portfolio
equals the standard deviation of X. In order to determine the impact of a change of the portfolio
composition on the standard deviation we have to evaluate (2.8) for a = 1 :
dσ P 1
= ⎡ 2σ − 2κ XY σ X σ Y ⎤⎦ = ⎡⎣σ X − κ XY σ Y ⎤⎦ > 0 (2.27)
da a=1
2σ X ⎣ XX
The sign of the reaction of the standard deviation on an increase of a depends on the size of the
two terms in the squared brackets. It depends on the size of the standard deviations of X and Y
and the correlation of the returns of the assets.
If the correlation coefficient is sufficiently close to 1, the difference in the brackets is negative,
and thus the derivative in (2.8) is positive. If on the contrary, the correlation coefficient is
sufficiently low the difference in the bracket is positive, and the derivative is negative.
However, it turns out that we can determine these relations more precisely. Therefore, it is
convenient to search for the portfolio composition a, which minimizes the standard deviation.
The risk minimizing a must satisfy the first order condition (2.9)
dσ P
da
( ) ( )
= ⎡⎣ 2aσ XX − 2 1 − a σ YY + 2 1 − 2a κ XY σ X σ Y ⎤⎦ = 0 . (2.9)
a* =
σ YY − κ XY σ X σ Y
=
(
σ Y σ Y − κ XY σ X ) (2.10)
σ XX + σ YY − 2κ XY σ X σ Y σ XX + σ YY − 2κ XY σ X σ Y .
( )
2
σ XX + σ YY − 2κ XY σ X σ Y > σ XX + σ YY − 2σ X σ Y = σ X − σ Y >0. (2.29)
The sign of the risk minimizing a* is the same as the sign of the nominator. A comparison of the
equations (2.28) and (2.10) shows
⎛ dσ P ⎞
sign ⎜
⎝ da
a=0 ⎟
⎠
( )
= −sign a* . (2.30)
Three possible shapes of the standard deviation are illustrated in the subsequent graphs:
m#
m# m# #
# #
! $ ! $ ! $
Fig 2.4: Three possible shapes of the standard deviation curves of portfolios of two assets
( ) ( )
⎡⎣ µ X − µY ⎤⎦ ⎡ a 2σ XX + 1 − a σ YY + 2a 1 − a κ XY σ X σ Y ⎤
2
d µ P d µ P da ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
= = . (2.32)
dσ P dσ P da
⎣ (
⎡ aσ XX − 1 − a σ YY ) + (1 − 2a )κ σ σXY X
⎤
Y⎦
The nominator in (2.32) is positive since both factors are positive. Thus, the sign of the
derivative (slope of the MVC) in (2.32) is equal to the sign of the denominator.
+# +# +# !
! !
+! +! +!
"
+" " +" " +"
! m" m! m# ! ! m" m! m#
Fig 2.5: Three possible shapes of the MVCs of portfolios of two assets
⎡σ σ YX ⎤ ⎡ a ⎤ (2.34)
σ PP = ⎡⎣ a 1 − a ⎤⎦ ⎢ XX ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ σ XY σ YY ⎥⎦ ⎣1 − a ⎦
Following this idea we can calculate easily the return and risk of a portfolio of n = 1,…,N risky
assets. In order to do this we have to introduce some useful notations. The returns of assets can
T
be presented by a N-dimensional vector of random variables, r = ⎡⎣ r1 r2 …rN ⎤⎦ , the expected
T T
returns by the vector, µ = ⎡⎣ µ1 µ2 … µ N ⎤⎦ , and a portfolio X by the vector x = ⎡⎣ x1 x2 …x N ⎤⎦ .
Usually portfolios are defined to satisfy x T e = 1 .
⎡ σ 11 σ 12 σ 1N ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ σ 21 σ 22 σ 2 N ⎥
∑=⎢
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣σ N 1 σ N 2 σ NN ⎥⎦
The return of a portfolio X, denoted as µ X and its risk, denoted as σ XX can be expressed as:
( )
µ X ≡ E rX = x T µ (2.36)
σ XX ≡ Var ( r ) = x
X
T
∑x (2.37)
We will present two different ways to construct the MVF. The first one uses some tangential
properties of the MVF. This method is easy to apply. The disadvantage is that the method can’t
be applied straightforward in case of short sale restrictions. The second one uses quadratic
programming. This method is easy to understand, but it needs some calculation effort.
A third method uses an orthogonal decomposition. We will not discuss this method in this
lecture since it needs some more mathematical exposition.
The MVF will be constructed in two steps. At first we construct two elements of the MVF. At
second we will span the entire MVF from these two points.
As we will see the vector z X has already the composition of a MVF portfolio. However, it is not a
well-defined portfolio in the sense that the portfolio weights add up to one. Therefore, it has to
be normalized.
i) (
z X = ∑ −1 µ − c X e ) (2.40)
z Xi z Xi
ii) xi = N
= (2.41)
zXT e
∑z Xj
j=1
(2.40) we receive by pre-multiplying (2.39) by the inverse covariance matrix. The product eT z X
in (2.41) sums all elements of the vector z X . Therefore x is a normalization of z X to one.
Proof:
• A MVF portfolio has to lie on a tangent line to MVF running through a corresponding point
c X of the ordinate.
• Any tangential portfolio maximizes or minimizes the risk premium per unit of risk of the
portfolio. In other words λ has to attain an extreme value (maximum or minimum):
λ=
(
xT µ − cX e ) = x ( µ − c e)
T
X
(2.42)
σ XX x ∑x
T
In order to understand this we form in a first step the first order condition of λ with respect to
an arbitrary portfolio weight xh :
=
T T
( T
)
∂λ x ∑ x ∂ ⎡⎣ x µ − c X e ⎤⎦ ∂xh − ⎡⎣ x µ − c X e ⎤⎦ ∂ x ∑ x ∂xh
T
=0.
( ) ( ) (2.44)
∂xh
( )
2
xT ∑ x
As the denominator is not (and must not be) equal to zero the nominator has to be equal to
zero and therefore the first order condition (2.44) can be expressed as
If we substitute the fraction in the second expression by λ and express the matrix products in
a more detailed way the first order condition can be rewritten as:
( ) ( ) ( ) (
∂ ⎡⎣ x1 µ1 − c X + x2 µ2 − c X …+ xh µ h − c X +…+ x N µ N − c X ⎤⎦ ∂xh )
− λ∂ ⎡⎣ x12σ 11 + x2 2σ 22 +…+ xh 2σ hh +…+ x N 2σ NN + (2.46)
+2x1 x2σ 12 +…+ 2x1 xhσ 1h +…+ 2x2 xhσ 2h +…+ 2x N xhσ Nh +…⎤⎦ ∂xh = 0
The derivation in (2.45) results the following first order condition for an arbitrary optimal
portfolio weight xh :
(µ h )
− c X − 2 ∑ h xλ = 0 (2.47)
In (2.47) µ h and ∑ h represent the lines h of µ and ∑ . If we apply this procedure to all assets
of the portfolio we receive a first order conditions for an optimal portfolio as in (2.43).
• The second order condition corresponding to (2.47) is
( )
∂ ⎡⎣ µ h − c X − 2 ∑ h xλ ⎤⎦ ∂ xh = −2σ hh λ (2.48)
( µ − c e) − ∑ z
X X
=0 (2.50a)
( µ − c e) − ∑ z
Y Y
=0 (2.50b)
• For any real number a, there is a constant cP = acX + (1 − a )cY and a portfolio P with the
composition zP = az X + (1 − a ) zY such that a is a solution of the equation (2.51):
( ) ( )
µ − cP e − ∑ z P = µ − ⎡⎣ acx + 1 − a c y ⎤⎦ e − ∑ ⎡⎣ az x + 1 − a z y ⎤⎦ = 0 (2.51)
+#
&
%
$
"
m#
s.t. 1 = xT e (2.52)
µ X = xT µ (2.53)
In order to calculate an element of the MVF we minimize the variance of a portfolio which
assures a given expected portfolio return µ X .
In order to find a solution to the optimization problem we optimize the Lagrange function:
( ) (
L = xT ∑ x + λ 1 − xT e + ξ µ X − xT µ
x ,λ ,ξ
)
The solution has to satisfy the following first order conditions:
Lx = 2 ∑ x − λ e − ξµ = 0 (2.54a)
Lλ = 1 − x T e = 0 (2.54b)
Lξ = µ X − x T µ = 0 (2.54c)
or
λ −1 ξ
x= ∑ e + ∑ −1 µ . (2.54’’)
2 2
⎡ eT ∑ −1 e µ T ∑ −1 e ⎤ ⎡ λ 2 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ T −1 ⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (2.56)
⎣e ∑ µ µ T ∑ −1 µ ⎦ ⎣ξ 2 ⎦ ⎣ µ X ⎦
Reinserting (2.57a) and (2.57b) into (2.54’’) yields the optimal portfolio:
µ T ∑ −1 µ − µ X µ T ∑ −1 e −1 µ X eT ∑ −1 e − eT ∑ −1 µ
x= ∑ e+ ∑ −1 µ (2.58)
( ) ( )
2 2
eT ∑ −1 eµ T ∑ −1 µ − µ T ∑ −1 e eT ∑ −1 eµ T ∑ −1 µ − µ T ∑ −1 e
Note that this is the general formula of MVF portfolios depending on the level of the a priori
given portfolio return µ X . As all MVF portfolios contains the expressions ∑ −1 e and ∑ −1 µ they
can be characterized as
x = φ ∑ −1 e + ϕ ∑ −1 µ , (2.59)
where φ and ϕ represent the fractions in the right hand side of (2.58). Envelope portfolios differ
because of different values of φ and ϕ .
=
a 2 c − b2 a − 2abcµ X + 2b3 µ X + ac 2 µ X 2 − b2 cµ X 2
=
( ac − b )( a − 2bµ
2
X
+ cµ X 2 ) (2.61)
( ) ( ac − b )
2 2
ac − b2 2
a − 2bµ X + cµ X 2
= .
ac − b2
The risk minimal portfolio can be calculated as the solution of the following optimization
problem:
Financial Modeling I, js Returns and Risks of Portfolios 34
Min x T ∑ x
x
s.t. 1 = xT e (2.62)
In order to find a single solution to the optimization problem we optimize the Lagrange function:
(
L = xT ∑ x + λ 1 − xT e
x ,λ
)
The solution has to satisfy the following first order conditions:
Lx = 2 ∑ x − λ e = 0 (2.63a)
Lλ = 1 − x T e = 0 (2.63b)
and
λ −1
x= ∑ e. (2.63a’’)
2
and
λ 1 1
= T −1 = . (2.64’)
2 e ∑ e c
From (2.65) we can calculate the return of the risk minimal portfolio as
µ T ∑ −1 e b
µ D = x µ = µ x = T −1 = ,
T T
(2.66)
e ∑ e c
We can construct an explicit form of the MVF. In order to do so we rewrite (2.61) in the
following way:
2
c ⎛ b⎞ 1
= µ − ⎟ +
2 ⎜ X
(2.68)
ac − b ⎝ c⎠ c
( )
2
σ XX = α µ X − µ D + σ DD , (2.69)
b 1⎛ 1⎞ b ac − b2 ⎛ 1⎞
µX = ± ⎜ σ − ⎟ = ± ⎜ σ XX − ⎟ (2.70)
c α⎝ XX
c⎠ c c ⎝ c⎠
Obviously the MVF is not an ordinary function, but a correspondence. The sign before the
square root causes the ascending and descending branch of the MVF. In a more explicit way we
can express (2.69) and (2.70) as
2
eT ∑ −1 e ⎛ µ T ∑ −1 e ⎞ 1
σ XX = µ
2 ⎜ X
− −1 ⎟
+ T −1 (2.69’)
( ) e ∑ e⎠ e ∑ e
T
µ T ∑ −1 µeT ∑ −1 e − µ T ∑ −1 e ⎝
1
⎡ T −1 T −1
( )
⎤2
2
µ ∑ e ⎢ µ ∑ µe ∑ e − µ ∑ e ⎛
T −1
T −1
1 ⎞⎥
µ X = T −1 ± ⎜⎝ σ XX − eT ∑ −1 e ⎟⎠ ⎥ (2.70’)
e ∑ e ⎢ eT ∑ −1 e
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
If we assume that the vectors r , µ and the covariance-matrix Σ contain the universe of the
assets we can calculate the return rM , the expectation µ M and the risk σ MM or σ M of the entire
capital market:
( )
µ M = E rM ≡ x M T µ (2.73)
σ MM = Var ( r ) ≡ x
M M
T
∑ xM (2.74)
The situation changes substantially if we take a risk free asset into account.
σ PP = a 2σ XX , (2.77)
σP = a σX . (2.78)
The risk of the portfolio contains only the weighted risk of the asset X as the variance of r f is of
course zero as well as the covariance of r f with the return of X.
From the derivation of the equations (2.76) and (2.78) we learn about the impact of the
composition on the return and the risk of the portfolio:
d µP
= µ X − rf > 0 (2.79)
da
dσ P
da
= ±σ X ≥ ≤ 0 () ⇔ ()
a≥ ≤ 0 (2.80)
From the equations (2.79) and (2.80) we can calculate the slope of the risk-return-curve:
d µ P d µ P da µ X − rf
=
dσ P dσ P da
=±
σX
≥ ≤ 0 () ⇔ ()
a≥ ≤ 0 (2.81)
2. a = 0 ⇒ σP = 0 (2.82)
d µP µ X − rf
3. a < 0 ⇒ σ P = −aσ X > 0 ⇒ =− <0
dσ P σX
a >1
P
X
X
0<a<1
rf
a<0
0 mX mP
2.4.2 Portfolio of the Market Portfolio (of Many Risky Assets) and a Risk-Faree Asset
The tangent to the MVF starting from the risk-free interest rate r f is called the Capital Market
Line (CML). Its slope of the CML is defined as
tgα =
( )
E rM − r f
=
µ M − rf (2.83)
SD ( r )
M
σM
The slope determines the risk premium of the market per unit market risk.
+"
!
#
+#
+#$%$"&
'
"&
(
m# m"
σ CC = a 2σ MM (2.85)
σC = a σ M (2.86)
All results from section 2.4.1 apply mutatis mutandis to the return and the risk of portfolios out
of the market portfolio of risky and the risk free asset.
The (expected) risk premium of any portfolio along CML will be:
µ M − rf
( )
E rC − r f =
σM
( )
σ rC (2.87)
In a first step we derive the efficient portfolios, in a second one the optimal portfolios.
Of course, not all feasible portfolios are efficient. Each portfolio located at the lower branch of
the MVF is dominated by a portfolio located on the upper branch of the MVF.
+"
!
# &
'
%
$
m"
• All portfolios on the locus ADB are feasible as they are solutions to the program I.
• Portfolios on the locus AD are efficient as they are solutions of the program II.
• Portfolios on the locus DB are of course inefficient.
Obviously each investor realizes different MRS and MRT between returns and risks according to
his preferences and the opportunities of the capital market represented by the risk-return-curve.
+!
&'()*
!
&'()&
%
m# m"
Deviations in the MRS and MRT between return and risk always give an incentive for further
exchange as long as there is any possibility to equilibrate these entities.
If a risk free asset exists we can form portfolios of the risky assets and the risk free asset. We
will see that this option changes the entire situation significantly. In particular the set of efficient
portfolios will form a straight line. Therefore, the differences in the marginal rates of substitution
between return and risk, and thus the incentive for further exchange will disappear.
• Only portfolios on the line r f E are efficient. Portfolios along this line offer the maximal
return for each level of risk. We call this line the Capital Market Line.
+!
%
!
"
#
!$
&
' m!
Fig 2.10: Efficient portfolios of risky assets and a risk free asset
+"
'()*+
!
'()*'
+#
#
$
"%
&
m# m"
Fig 2.11: Optimal portfolios of risky assets and a risk free asset
From (2.77) we can conclude some important properties of the capital market equilibrium:
• Despite any differences in the degree of risk-aversion risk investors choose always portfolios
along the Capital Market Line (CML).
• Obviously, there are no deviations in the marginal rates of substitution of return and risk
among the different investors and thus no incentives for further exchange.
• Moreover, the marginal rates of substitution of the investors equal the marginal rate of
transformation of the entire capital market. The latter equals to the slope of the CML.
• Obviously, all portfolios along the CML result as portfolios of the market portfolio and the
risk free asset.