This document discusses portfolio theory and algorithms for solving mean/variance optimization problems with restrictions. It begins by summarizing the fundamentals of portfolio theory, including the mean/variance principle derived from utility theory. It then describes different algorithms - the Markowitz algorithm, generalized Markowitz algorithm, and extended Markowitz algorithm - that can solve portfolio optimization problems subject to various equality and inequality restrictions. Numerical examples are provided to illustrate the algorithms. The goal is to help practitioners implement portfolio strategies based on theoretical concepts.
The concept of the Security Market Line is very popular for portfolio management. It helps to derive the pricing of risky securities by plotting their expected returns.
To know more about it, click on the link given below:
https://efinancemanagement.com/investment-decisions/security-market-line
Now knowledge pre-processing, model and reasoning issues, power metrics, quality
issues, post-processing of discovered structures, visualization, and on-line change is best challenge.
In this paper Neural Network based forecasting of stock prices of selected sectors under Bombay
Stock Exchange show that neural networks have the power to predict prices albeit the volatility in the
markets[9]. The motivation for the development of neural network technology stemmed from the
desire to develop an artificial system that could perform “intelligent" tasks similar to those performed
by the human brain. Artificial Neural Networks are being counted as the wave of the future in
computing. They are indeed self-learning mechanisms which don’t require the traditional skills of a
programmer. Back propagation is one of the approaches to implement concept of neural networks.
Back propagation is a form of supervised learning for multi-layer nets. Error data at the output layer
is back propagated to earlier ones, allowing incoming weights to these layers to be updated. It is most
often used as training algorithm in current neural network applications. In this paper, we apply data
mining technology to stock market in order to research the trend of price; it aims to predict the future
trend of the stock market and the fluctuation of price. This paper points out the shortage that exists in
current traditional statistical analysis in the stock, then makes use of BP neural network algorithm to
predict the stock market by establishing a three-tier structure of the neural network, namely input
layer, hidden layer and output layer. Finally, we get a better predictive model to improve forecast
accuracy
The concept of the Security Market Line is very popular for portfolio management. It helps to derive the pricing of risky securities by plotting their expected returns.
To know more about it, click on the link given below:
https://efinancemanagement.com/investment-decisions/security-market-line
Now knowledge pre-processing, model and reasoning issues, power metrics, quality
issues, post-processing of discovered structures, visualization, and on-line change is best challenge.
In this paper Neural Network based forecasting of stock prices of selected sectors under Bombay
Stock Exchange show that neural networks have the power to predict prices albeit the volatility in the
markets[9]. The motivation for the development of neural network technology stemmed from the
desire to develop an artificial system that could perform “intelligent" tasks similar to those performed
by the human brain. Artificial Neural Networks are being counted as the wave of the future in
computing. They are indeed self-learning mechanisms which don’t require the traditional skills of a
programmer. Back propagation is one of the approaches to implement concept of neural networks.
Back propagation is a form of supervised learning for multi-layer nets. Error data at the output layer
is back propagated to earlier ones, allowing incoming weights to these layers to be updated. It is most
often used as training algorithm in current neural network applications. In this paper, we apply data
mining technology to stock market in order to research the trend of price; it aims to predict the future
trend of the stock market and the fluctuation of price. This paper points out the shortage that exists in
current traditional statistical analysis in the stock, then makes use of BP neural network algorithm to
predict the stock market by establishing a three-tier structure of the neural network, namely input
layer, hidden layer and output layer. Finally, we get a better predictive model to improve forecast
accuracy
Denoising Process Based on Arbitrarily Shaped WindowsCSCJournals
Many factors, such as moving objects, introduce noise in digital images. The presence of noise affects image quality. The image denoising process works on reconstructing a noiseless image and improving its quality. When an image has an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) then denoising becomes a challenging process. In our research, we present an improved algorithm for image denoising in the wavelet domain. Homogenous regions for an input image are estimated using a region merging algorithm. The local variance and wavelet shrinkage algorithm are applied to denoise each image patch. Experimental results based on peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) measurements showed that our algorithm provided better results compared with a denoising algorithm based on a minimum mean square error (MMSE) estimator.
Financial Benchmarking Of Transportation Companies In The New York Stock Exc...ertekg
Download Link > https://ertekprojects.com/gurdal-ertek-publications/blog/financial-benchmarking-of-transportation-companies-in-the-new-york-stock-exchange-nyse-through-data-envelopment-analysis-dea-and-visualization/
In this paper, we present a benchmarking study of industrial transportation companies traded in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). There are two distinguishing aspects of our study: First, instead of using operational data for the input and the output items of the developed Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model, we use financial data of the companies that are readily available on the Internet. Secondly, we visualize the efficiency scores of the companies in relation to the subsectors and the number of employees. These visualizations enable us to discover interesting insights about the companies within each subsector, and about subsectors in comparison to each other. The visualization approach that we employ can be used in any DEA study that contains subgroups within a group. Thus, our paper also contains a methodological contribution.
Denoising Process Based on Arbitrarily Shaped WindowsCSCJournals
Many factors, such as moving objects, introduce noise in digital images. The presence of noise affects image quality. The image denoising process works on reconstructing a noiseless image and improving its quality. When an image has an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) then denoising becomes a challenging process. In our research, we present an improved algorithm for image denoising in the wavelet domain. Homogenous regions for an input image are estimated using a region merging algorithm. The local variance and wavelet shrinkage algorithm are applied to denoise each image patch. Experimental results based on peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) measurements showed that our algorithm provided better results compared with a denoising algorithm based on a minimum mean square error (MMSE) estimator.
Financial Benchmarking Of Transportation Companies In The New York Stock Exc...ertekg
Download Link > https://ertekprojects.com/gurdal-ertek-publications/blog/financial-benchmarking-of-transportation-companies-in-the-new-york-stock-exchange-nyse-through-data-envelopment-analysis-dea-and-visualization/
In this paper, we present a benchmarking study of industrial transportation companies traded in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). There are two distinguishing aspects of our study: First, instead of using operational data for the input and the output items of the developed Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model, we use financial data of the companies that are readily available on the Internet. Secondly, we visualize the efficiency scores of the companies in relation to the subsectors and the number of employees. These visualizations enable us to discover interesting insights about the companies within each subsector, and about subsectors in comparison to each other. The visualization approach that we employ can be used in any DEA study that contains subgroups within a group. Thus, our paper also contains a methodological contribution.
Dissertation template bcu_format_belinda -sampleAssignment Help
Dear student, Warm Greetings of the Day!!! We are a qualified team of consultants and writers who provide support and assistance to students with their Assignments, Essays and Dissertation. If you are having difficulties writing your work, finding it stressful in completing your work or have no time to complete your work yourself, then look no further. We have assisted many students with their projects. Our aim is to help and support students when they need it the most. We oversee your work to be completed from start to end. We specialize in a number of subject areas including, Business, Accounting, Economic, Nursing, Health and Social Care, Criminology, Sociology, English, Law, IT, History, Religious Studies, Social Sciences, Biology, Physic, Chemistry, Psychology and many more. Our consultants are highly qualified in providing the highest quality of work to students. Each work will be unique and not copied like others. You can count on us as we are committed to assist you in producing work of the highest quality. Waiting for your quick response and want to start healthy long term relationship with you. Regards http://www.cheapassignmenthelp.com/ http://www.cheapassignmenthelp.co.uk/
Motivated by the problem of computing investment portfolio weightings we investigate various methods of clustering as alternatives to traditional mean-variance approaches. Such methods can have significant benefits from a practical point of view since they remove the need to invert a sample covariance matrix, which can suffer from estimation error and will almost certainly be non-stationary. The general idea is to find groups of assets which share similar return
characteristics over time and treat each group as a single composite asset. We then apply inverse volatility weightings to these new composite assets. In the course of our investigation we devise a method of clustering based on triangular potentials and we present associated theoretical results as well as various examples based on synthetic data.
My master thesis on exchange rate modelling and imperfect knowledge. With a exchange rate model including risk, based on the Vector Auto Regressive (VAR) method.
Dividend portfolio – multi-period performance of portfolio selection based so...Bogusz Jelinski
What will happen to your investment if you ignore change of share prices while calculating both returns and risk during stocks portfolio selection? Is it profitable in long term to
sell a share when its price has started to skyrocket?
Statistical Arbitrage
Pairs Trading, Long-Short Strategy
Cyrille BEN LEMRID

1 Pairs Trading Model 5
1.1 Generaldiscussion ................................ 5 1.2 Cointegration ................................... 6 1.3 Spreaddynamics ................................. 7
2 State of the art and model overview 9
2.1 StochasticDependenciesinFinancialTimeSeries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 Cointegration-basedtradingstrategies ..................... 10 2.3 FormulationasaStochasticControlProblem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Fundamentalanalysis............................... 16
3 Strategies Analysis 19
3.1 Roadmapforstrategydesign .......................... 19 3.2 Identificationofpotentialpairs ......................... 19 3.3 Testingcointegration ............................... 20 3.4 Riskcontrolandfeasibility............................ 20
4 Results
22
2
Contents

Introduction
This report presents my research work carried out at Credit Suisse from May to September 2012. This study has been pursued in collaboration with the Global Arbitrage Strategies team.
Quantitative analysis strategy developers use sophisticated statistical and optimization techniques to discover and construct new algorithms. These algorithms take advantage of the short term deviation from the ”fair” securities’ prices. Pairs trading is one such quantitative strategy - it is a process of identifying securities that generally move together but are currently ”drifting away”.
Pairs trading is a common strategy among many hedge funds and banks. However, there is not a significant amount of academic literature devoted to it due to its proprietary nature. For a review of some of the existing academic models, see [6], [8], [11] .
Our focus for this analysis is the study of two quantitative approaches to the problem of pairs trading, the first one uses the properties of co-integrated financial time series as a basis for trading strategy, in the second one we model the log-relationship between a pair of stock prices as an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process and use this to formulate a portfolio optimization based stochastic control problem.
This study was performed to show that under certain assumptions the two approaches are equivalent.
Practitioners most often use a fundamentally driven approach, analyzing the performance of stocks around a market event and implement strategies using back-tested trading levels.
We also study an example of a fundamentally driven strategy, using market reaction to a stock being dropped or added to the MSCI World Standard, as a signal for a pair trading strategy on those stocks once their inclusion/exclusion has been made effective.
This report is organized as follows. Section 1 provides some background on pairs trading strategy. The theoretical results are described in Section 2. Section 3
The Stock Market is known for its volatile and unstable nature. A particular stock could be thriving in one
period and declining in the next. Stock traders make money from buying equity when they are at their
lowest and selling when they are at their highest. The logical question would be: "What Causes Stock
Prices To Change?". At the most fundamental level, the answer to this would be the demand and supply.
In reality, there are many theories as to why stock prices fluctuate, but there is no generic theory that
explains all, simply because not all stocks are identical, and one theory that may apply for today, may not
necessarily apply for tomorrow. This paper covers various approaches taken to attempt to predict the
stock market without extensive prior knowledge or experience in the subject area, highlighting the
advantages and limitations of the different techniques such as regression and classification. We formulate
both short term and long term predictions. Through experimentation we achieve 81% accuracy for future
trend direction using classification, 0.0117 RMSE for next day price and 0.0613 RMSE for next day
change in price using regression techniques. The results obtained in this paper are achieved using only
historic prices and technical indicators. Various methods, tools and evaluation techniques will be
assessed throughout the course of this paper, the result of this contributes as to which techniques will be
selected and enhanced in the final artefact of a stock prediction model. Further work will be conducted
utilising deep learning techniques to approach the problem. This paper will serve as a preliminary guide
to researchers wishing to expose themselves to this area.
Buy Verified PayPal Account | Buy Google 5 Star Reviewsusawebmarket
Buy Verified PayPal Account
Looking to buy verified PayPal accounts? Discover 7 expert tips for safely purchasing a verified PayPal account in 2024. Ensure security and reliability for your transactions.
PayPal Services Features-
🟢 Email Access
🟢 Bank Added
🟢 Card Verified
🟢 Full SSN Provided
🟢 Phone Number Access
🟢 Driving License Copy
🟢 Fasted Delivery
Client Satisfaction is Our First priority. Our services is very appropriate to buy. We assume that the first-rate way to purchase our offerings is to order on the website. If you have any worry in our cooperation usually You can order us on Skype or Telegram.
24/7 Hours Reply/Please Contact
usawebmarketEmail: support@usawebmarket.com
Skype: usawebmarket
Telegram: @usawebmarket
WhatsApp: +1(218) 203-5951
USA WEB MARKET is the Best Verified PayPal, Payoneer, Cash App, Skrill, Neteller, Stripe Account and SEO, SMM Service provider.100%Satisfection granted.100% replacement Granted.
Cracking the Workplace Discipline Code Main.pptxWorkforce Group
Cultivating and maintaining discipline within teams is a critical differentiator for successful organisations.
Forward-thinking leaders and business managers understand the impact that discipline has on organisational success. A disciplined workforce operates with clarity, focus, and a shared understanding of expectations, ultimately driving better results, optimising productivity, and facilitating seamless collaboration.
Although discipline is not a one-size-fits-all approach, it can help create a work environment that encourages personal growth and accountability rather than solely relying on punitive measures.
In this deck, you will learn the significance of workplace discipline for organisational success. You’ll also learn
• Four (4) workplace discipline methods you should consider
• The best and most practical approach to implementing workplace discipline.
• Three (3) key tips to maintain a disciplined workplace.
Memorandum Of Association Constitution of Company.pptseri bangash
www.seribangash.com
A Memorandum of Association (MOA) is a legal document that outlines the fundamental principles and objectives upon which a company operates. It serves as the company's charter or constitution and defines the scope of its activities. Here's a detailed note on the MOA:
Contents of Memorandum of Association:
Name Clause: This clause states the name of the company, which should end with words like "Limited" or "Ltd." for a public limited company and "Private Limited" or "Pvt. Ltd." for a private limited company.
https://seribangash.com/article-of-association-is-legal-doc-of-company/
Registered Office Clause: It specifies the location where the company's registered office is situated. This office is where all official communications and notices are sent.
Objective Clause: This clause delineates the main objectives for which the company is formed. It's important to define these objectives clearly, as the company cannot undertake activities beyond those mentioned in this clause.
www.seribangash.com
Liability Clause: It outlines the extent of liability of the company's members. In the case of companies limited by shares, the liability of members is limited to the amount unpaid on their shares. For companies limited by guarantee, members' liability is limited to the amount they undertake to contribute if the company is wound up.
https://seribangash.com/promotors-is-person-conceived-formation-company/
Capital Clause: This clause specifies the authorized capital of the company, i.e., the maximum amount of share capital the company is authorized to issue. It also mentions the division of this capital into shares and their respective nominal value.
Association Clause: It simply states that the subscribers wish to form a company and agree to become members of it, in accordance with the terms of the MOA.
Importance of Memorandum of Association:
Legal Requirement: The MOA is a legal requirement for the formation of a company. It must be filed with the Registrar of Companies during the incorporation process.
Constitutional Document: It serves as the company's constitutional document, defining its scope, powers, and limitations.
Protection of Members: It protects the interests of the company's members by clearly defining the objectives and limiting their liability.
External Communication: It provides clarity to external parties, such as investors, creditors, and regulatory authorities, regarding the company's objectives and powers.
https://seribangash.com/difference-public-and-private-company-law/
Binding Authority: The company and its members are bound by the provisions of the MOA. Any action taken beyond its scope may be considered ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the company and therefore void.
Amendment of MOA:
While the MOA lays down the company's fundamental principles, it is not entirely immutable. It can be amended, but only under specific circumstances and in compliance with legal procedures. Amendments typically require shareholder
Implicitly or explicitly all competing businesses employ a strategy to select a mix
of marketing resources. Formulating such competitive strategies fundamentally
involves recognizing relationships between elements of the marketing mix (e.g.,
price and product quality), as well as assessing competitive and market conditions
(i.e., industry structure in the language of economics).
Business Valuation Principles for EntrepreneursBen Wann
This insightful presentation is designed to equip entrepreneurs with the essential knowledge and tools needed to accurately value their businesses. Understanding business valuation is crucial for making informed decisions, whether you're seeking investment, planning to sell, or simply want to gauge your company's worth.
3.0 Project 2_ Developing My Brand Identity Kit.pptxtanyjahb
A personal brand exploration presentation summarizes an individual's unique qualities and goals, covering strengths, values, passions, and target audience. It helps individuals understand what makes them stand out, their desired image, and how they aim to achieve it.
Tata Group Dials Taiwan for Its Chipmaking Ambition in Gujarat’s DholeraAvirahi City Dholera
The Tata Group, a titan of Indian industry, is making waves with its advanced talks with Taiwanese chipmakers Powerchip Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (PSMC) and UMC Group. The goal? Establishing a cutting-edge semiconductor fabrication unit (fab) in Dholera, Gujarat. This isn’t just any project; it’s a potential game changer for India’s chipmaking aspirations and a boon for investors seeking promising residential projects in dholera sir.
Visit : https://www.avirahi.com/blog/tata-group-dials-taiwan-for-its-chipmaking-ambition-in-gujarats-dholera/
"𝑩𝑬𝑮𝑼𝑵 𝑾𝑰𝑻𝑯 𝑻𝑱 𝑰𝑺 𝑯𝑨𝑳𝑭 𝑫𝑶𝑵𝑬"
𝐓𝐉 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐬 (𝐓𝐉 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬) is a professional event agency that includes experts in the event-organizing market in Vietnam, Korea, and ASEAN countries. We provide unlimited types of events from Music concerts, Fan meetings, and Culture festivals to Corporate events, Internal company events, Golf tournaments, MICE events, and Exhibitions.
𝐓𝐉 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐬 provides unlimited package services including such as Event organizing, Event planning, Event production, Manpower, PR marketing, Design 2D/3D, VIP protocols, Interpreter agency, etc.
Sports events - Golf competitions/billiards competitions/company sports events: dynamic and challenging
⭐ 𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬:
➢ 2024 BAEKHYUN [Lonsdaleite] IN HO CHI MINH
➢ SUPER JUNIOR-L.S.S. THE SHOW : Th3ee Guys in HO CHI MINH
➢FreenBecky 1st Fan Meeting in Vietnam
➢CHILDREN ART EXHIBITION 2024: BEYOND BARRIERS
➢ WOW K-Music Festival 2023
➢ Winner [CROSS] Tour in HCM
➢ Super Show 9 in HCM with Super Junior
➢ HCMC - Gyeongsangbuk-do Culture and Tourism Festival
➢ Korean Vietnam Partnership - Fair with LG
➢ Korean President visits Samsung Electronics R&D Center
➢ Vietnam Food Expo with Lotte Wellfood
"𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲. 𝐖𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬."
Attending a job Interview for B1 and B2 Englsih learnersErika906060
It is a sample of an interview for a business english class for pre-intermediate and intermediate english students with emphasis on the speking ability.
Unveiling the Secrets How Does Generative AI Work.pdfSam H
At its core, generative artificial intelligence relies on the concept of generative models, which serve as engines that churn out entirely new data resembling their training data. It is like a sculptor who has studied so many forms found in nature and then uses this knowledge to create sculptures from his imagination that have never been seen before anywhere else. If taken to cyberspace, gans work almost the same way.
The Influence of Marketing Strategy and Market Competition on Business Perfor...
Algorithms for generalized mean variance problems
1. 1
Introduction
The principles of portfolio theory were laid more than 40 years ago. But although it was
designed for managing private and institutional portfolios of financial assets, among the largest
banks in the world there are few which systematically apply the perceptions of portfolio theory.
And even if applications are implemented, there is only a small number of market participants
who are able to utilize more than the basics. There are only a few, typically rather small,
investment banks and institutional investors in the world who have the human resources
available to exploit the superior theoretical concepts for the real investment process. However,
they tend not to make their knowledge publicly available.
The realization of portfolio theory and its modern developments in downside risk management
necessitates the use of powerful computers and software programs. Although the theoretical
work has advanced considerably, neither in the research nor in practice has there been
sufficient work to provide programmable algorithms which would make approaches
understandable and applicable. This thesis is intended to show how abstract theories can be
applied to real portfolio management using modern financial instruments. Its purpose is to help
practitioners to implement portfolio strategies based on theoretical concepts. It summarizes
existing theories and expands them to frameworks which are designed to generate specific
asset allocation decisions.
In the first chapter the basics of portfolio theory are summarized. It follows the description of
quadratic optimization algorithms. They are needed to implement and solve mean/variance
optimization problems respecting various restrictions resulting from investor preferences or
from laws. Mean/variance principles are the basis for asset allocation decisions and although
they are extended and alternative approaches are given in this thesis, all investment decision
criteria observe them. Markowitz [1987] provided a book which contains the principles of the
mean/variance approach where linear restrictions are imposed. Nevertheless, this thesis extends
the basic rules of Markowitz and gives comprehensive numerical examples.
The second chapter is concerned with international asset allocation decisions. Investment
decisions arising from international diversified portfolios are typically more complex than
merely domestic investments, since they require one to respect currency movements
supplementary to asset price movements. Due to the development of advanced markets for
currency derivatives the currency allocation decision may be influenced by hedging decisions:
selling short forward contracts on currencies provides opportunities for lowering the impact of
the currency risk. Since the hedge ratio may be chosen in accordance with the expected
currency development, hedging of the currency exposure can be done without avoiding
potential gains on currencies. Traditionally, the hedging and the asset allocation decision are
done subsequently. This is done with respect to the fact that currency and asset returns are
2. 2
related to each other. Thus, it is reasonable to take the currency and the asset allocation
decision simultaneously. The approach introduced in chapter two simultaneously optimizes the
hedge ratios and the fractions invested in different countries. Since in contrast to the traditional
international asset allocation decisions it elaborates a model where variable hedging
opportunities are allowed, it is called a variable hedging model. Apart from the analytical
presentation of the model, chapter two contains a case study for an investor with the reference
currency US-$ who diversifies internationally.
Chapter three discusses downside risk measures. A major disadvantage of mean/variance
problems is the consideration of symmetrical payoff patterns. That is, oscillations to the upside
of returns series are interpreted as disadvantageous occurrences as well as downside
oscillations. Obviously, investors are more concerned with the downside movements than with
the upside potential. Therefore, downside risk approaches exclusively accept downside
oscillations as relevant measures of risk. Although these approaches were already developed at
the beginning of the fifties, they succeeded in the mid seventies with the introduction of lower
partial moment frameworks. A special case of lower partial moments is the safety first
principle. This allows investors to find out portfolios revealing a minimum probability for
falling short of specified return level. Chapter three contains a discussion of the literature
concerning lower partial moments and the safety first principle and applies it to investment
allocation decisions. For identifying minimum shortfall probability when the investment
opportunity set is restricted, the results from chapter one are used. It is shown that one of the
major advantages of the Markowitz algorithm compared to other methods which minimize
quadratic functions, is that it is easily applicable to investment problems based on the
mean/variance principle.
The last chapter investigates downside risk problems when derivatives, such as options, are
used to influence the probability distributions of the payoffs. Using options to protect
portfolios against pitfalls is a widely used technique. However, it is not clear how using options
influences the probability distributions of the returns. In chapter four, a simulation approach is
shown which allows their comparison. Applying downside risk measures allows comparing
them.
Apart from those who are interested in applied portfolio theory, this thesis is designed for
programmers. Therefore, this work is accompanied by a software program which contains all
the algorithms described. The figures and numerical examples contained in the following
chapters are mostly calculated by this program.
3. 3
Chapter I
Algorithms for generalized mean/variance problems
This chapter lays the foundations for this thesis. In the first section the fundamentals of
portfolio theory are summarized. These are well known from the standard literature (see for
instance Ingersoll [1987] and Huang and Litzenberger [1988]). Since readers with different
knowledges of portfolio theory are addressed by this thesis, this section is to provide the reader
with the most important equations and interpretations of standard portfolio theory. In section
one, the main results of portfolio theory without respecting practical investment restrictions are
pointed out.
Since with this thesis people are addressed who are concerned with the implementation of
investment strategies, in the subsequent sections portfolio problems subject to investment
restrictions are investigated. The algorithms provided in the sections two, three, and four are
based on the critical line algorithm introduced by Markowitz [1956 and 1987] which is
therefore sometimes referred to as Markowitz algorithm. Section two deals with the ordinary
form of the algorithm. This allows solving portfolio problems subject to equality restrictions
and with the exclusion of short selling. However, in the real investment process it is not
sufficient to impose purely equality restrictions. Typically, investment situations are
characterized by lower or upper boundaries for the fractions invested in specific asset classes
or in combinations of asset classes. For instance, investors may be prepared to invest in foreign
stocks but not more than fifty percent of the investment capital. This restriction will require to
impose a quot;smaller thanquot; restriction for foreign stocks. Although these problems are briefly
discussed in Markowitz's [1987] book, they are not explicitly solved. Therefore section three
deals with an algorithm which allows imposing linear inequality and equality restrictions. This
is, in addition to equality restrictions, quot;smaller thanquot; and quot;greater thanquot; restrictions are added.
Short sales remain excluded. Since this generalizes the ordinary form of the Markowitz
algorithm this is called generalized Markowitz algorithm.
Some investment situations might require the exclusion of short sales for specific asset classes
but not for others. Although the generalized critical line algorithm allows to solve very general
investment problems the lowest fraction for each asset in the portfolio is zero: no asset can be
sold short. Permitting negative portfolio fractions provides the opportunity to sell short some
assets of the portfolio. Variables which are unrestricted to the downside are called
unrestricted-in-sign variables. In the fourth section this problem is investigated: an algorithm is
provided which allows the solution of investment problems with unrestricted-in-sign variables
and with equality and inequality restrictions. Since this algorithm is not discussed in the
4. 4
literature provided by Markowitz but since it is nevertheless based on the critical line algorithm
this is called extended Markowitz algorithm.
All variants of the Markowitz algorithm are completed by comprehensive numerical examples.
This shall enable the reader to exactly understand the algorithms in order to allow
programming them. Since this chapter provides the methodical basics for solving general
mean/variance problems, case studies with practical impact are not provided here but in the
following chapters. To facilitate the understanding of the principles of the algorithm, the
applications in this chapter deal with a hypothetical three asset case.
1. Fundamentals of Portfolio Theory
Harry Markowitz [1952][1959] laid the foundations for a new view of investments in financial
assets. He showed that the fundamental issue of capital investment should no longer be to pick
out dominant stocks but to diversify the wealth among many different assets. His work marked
a turning point in the academic literature concerning capital investments, because he showed
that the success of investment does not purely depend on return, but also on the risk which has
to be taken. Furthermore, he showed that the risk of investments is influenced by the
correlations between different assets. Thus, the objective of investors can no longer be seen in
maximizing the quot;performancequot;1 only. The performance strategies must be evaluated in the
context of a certain level of risk. Investors are faced with complex optimization problems, the
solution of these problems leads to a specific investment strategy, i.e. a concrete portfolio of
assets. The optimization process is referred to as portfolio selection.
That diversification is a crucial issue of investment, and that risk has to be considered in
addition to portfolio returns, is an intuitive investment issue rather than a highly academic
perception. So the main results of Markowitz' work have to be seen in his answering the
question how to measure investment quot;performancesquot; and investment risks. The answers to
these questions were derived from very general assumptions of utility theory. Markowitz
presented quot;investment rulesquot; which maximize the expected utility of investors.
The first section of this thesis summarizes briefly the main results of portfolio theory. In the
first part, the mean/variance principle is elaborated from the standard assumption of utility
theory. The following part contains a short survey of the analytical basics of the mean/variance
1 The term quot;performancequot; should be interpreted in its original sense, rather than according to the newer
literature of portfolio performance, where it is referred to as risk adjusted portfolio returns.
5. 5
efficient set and, in conclusion, it is shown that under certain assumptions the single period
optimization problem is equivalent to a multiperiod, discrete time portfolio selection model.
1.1. Utility theory and mean/variance principle
The aim of this section is to show, how the quot;performancequot; and risk of any portfolio can be
measured. It was assumed by von Neumann/Morgenstern [1953] that rational investors behave
according to five fundamental axioms of rationality. They showed that this assumption is
consistent with maximizing expected utility, given a fixed bundle of consumption goods and
investment opportunities. The respective utility function has to be twice differentiable,
increasing and strictly concave (see Ingersoll [1987], pp. 21-22). Thus, every rational investor
endeavours to maximize his individual expected utility of consumption. First, a single period
case of portfolio optimization is considered. Since in this case end-of-period-wealth equals
consumption, it is admissible to maximize expected utility of end-of-period wealth instead of
%
consumption. Let Wt +1 denote the end of period wealth of a representative investor and U his
(her) (twice differentiable, increasing and strictly concave) utility function. Then the investors'
optimization problem can be stated as follows (see Huang/Litzenberger [1988], pp. 60-61):
(1.1)
~
(
max EU Wt +1 )
~
( ) ~
( ~ ~
)
U Wt +1 may be expressed as U EWt +1 + Wt +1 − EWt +1 , where E denotes the expectations
operator. Since a single period model is considered, the time sub-index is dropped from now
on. Applying a Taylor series expansion leads to:
( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) + ∑ i1!U ( EW )(W − EW )
∞
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ i
U W = U EW + U ′ EW W − EW + 1 2 U ′′ EW W − EW (i)
i =3
(i)
U is the i-th derivative of the utility function U with respect to the term in brackets. It is
assumed to be at least twice differentiable. Substituting the above expression into equation
(1.1) renders a restatement, where σ 2 denotes the variance of wealth:
W
∞
(1.2)
~
( ) ( )
~ ~
( )(
~ ~ 1
)~ 2
( )
1
EU W = U EW + U ′ EW E W − EW + 2 U ′′ EW σ W + ∑ U ( i ) EW mi
i!
~
( )
i=3
6. 6
%
mi represents the i-th moment of the probability distribution of W . Equation (1.2) highlights
the fact that the expected utility of wealth depends on the expected end of period wealth and
its variance. Without making any assumptions about the probability distribution, the expected
utility of wealth is furthermore influenced by the higher moments. If on the other hand it is
%
assumed that the end of period wealth W is normally distributed, then the moments of order
greater than two can be stated as functions of the expected end of period wealth and its
variance. This allows reformulating (1.2) as:
(1.3)
~
( ) ~
( ) ~ ~
( )(~
)
~ 2
EU W = U EW + U ′ EW E W − EW + 1 2 U ′′ EW σ W ( )
(1.3) indicates, that investors have to concern themselves merely with the mean and the
variance of the end of period wealth for normal probability distributions. It should be
emphasized that equation (1.2) holds for any probability distribution whereas the
mean/variance principle can be deduced out of (1.3): The higher the expected utility of wealth
given a constant level of variance, the higher the expected level of end of period wealth will be.
%
If EW is held constant, the variance of the end of period wealth has to be minimized to
maximize the expected utility. Thus, the quot;performancequot; of any portfolio according to von
Neumann/Morgenstern's utility theory is measured as the expected end of period wealth
assessed by a portfolio of assets. The portfolio's risk is measured by the variance of the end of
period wealth. This is called a mean/variance principle of portfolio diversification.
If a normal distribution for the end of period wealth cannot be assumed, the mean/variance
principle can be rescued for arbitrary wealth distributions, if quadratic utility functions of the
( )
~ ~ b ~
form U W = W − W 2 are imputed. In this case all moments of order greater than two are
2
zero and can thus be dropped. Substituting the utility function into equation (1.2) the new
objective function may be expressed as:
(1.4)
~
( ) ( ) ( )
~ b
2
~ 2 ~ b ~ 2
EU W = E W − EW = E W − E EW + σ W
2 ( )
2
( )
Just as in equation (1.3) equation (1.4) shows that investors endeavour to minimize the
variance of wealth for a given level of expected end of period wealth. Two alternative
assumptions can be made to deduce the mean/variance principle out of utility theory:
1. The end of period wealth is distributed normally , or
2. investors are faced with quadratic utility functions.
7. 7
1.2. Mean/variance efficient frontier
From the results of the last section it can be established that expected utility maximizers
minimize the variance of the end of period wealth subject to a given level of expected end of
period wealth. This is equivalent to minimizing the variance σ 2 of returns of a portfolio where
the expected portfolio return E is fixed. Analytically this can be stated as:
2
min σ = min ω ' V ω
ω ω
(1.5) s . t .: ω' µ = E
ω' e = 1
If n portfolio assets are being considered, then ω ∈ℜ n represents the vector of portfolio
weights, V ∈ℜ nxn represents the variance-covariance matrix of portfolio returns, µ ∈ℜ n the
vector of expected returns, and e ∈ℜ n the unity vector. The first constraint secures that the
expected portfolio return equals E and the second one enforces the portfolio weights to sum
up to unity. Merton [1972] showed, that the solution of problem (1.5) can be characterized by
the following function2:
1 2
(1.6) σ= ( cE − 2 bE + a )
d
σ represents the standard deviation of portfolio returns; a,b,c, and d are real constants which
are defined as follows:
(1.7) a≡ µ' V −1µ b≡ µ' V −1 e c≡ e' V −1e d≡ ac − b 2
Huang/Litzenberger [1988] (p.66) show, that equation (1.6) represents a hyperbola. Since it
describes efficient portfolios, i.e. portfolios with minimum risk for any given level of expected
return, the graph of function (1.6) is called efficient frontier, which is a well known result from
2 Although this was already shown by Roy [1952] the most well known reference for the following equation is
Merton [1972]. In chapter three the Roy's [1952] paper will be discussed in detail.
8. 8
portfolio theory. The aim of this section is to summarize some analytical properties of the
efficient frontier. The formulae are presented without proof, the interested reader may for
instance refer to Huang/Litzenberger [1988] (chapter 3).
The vector of portfolio weights for any efficient portfolio can be calculated as
−1 −1 −1 −1
V V V µ V e
(1.8) ω= ( c µ − be ) E + ( ae − b µ ) = ( cE − b ) − ( bE − a )
d d d d
where first equation shows that the portfolio fraction invested in one of the n assets is a linear
function of the portfolio's expected return. The second equation shows, that each efficient
portfolio can be expressed as a function of two portfolios: V −1 µ and V −1 e . In equation (1.9) it
is shown that the latter portfolio is the minimum variance portfolio. It is the portfolio with
lowest possible variance given n portfolio assets. It will be characterized by variance σ 2 ,
mvp
expected return E mvp , and vector of portfolio weights ω mvp . They can be calculated as:
b 1 V −1e 1
(1.9) E mvp = σ2 = ω mvp = = V −1e
mvp −1
c c e' V e c
Any two efficient portfolios p and q have covariance
c b b 1
(1.10) σ pq = E p − Eq − + ,
d c c c
which determines the covariance between the minimum variance portfolio with any efficient
portfolio p as:
1
(1.11) σ p,mvp = = σ2
mvp
c
Each hyperbola may be characterized by asymptotes; in case of the efficient frontier they are
identified for large σ by:
b d
(1.12) E = ± σ
c c
9. 9
Figure 1.1. depicts the graph of an arbitrary efficient frontier and its asymptotes.
expected return
standard deviation
Figure 1.1: Efficient Frontier and its asymptotes
The equations above briefly summarize the main results of the classical portfolio theory and lay
the foundation for the more advanced applications in the following chapters. So far, it has been
assumed that investments are possible only in risky assets. If the investment opportunity set is
extended by a riskless asset, i.e. an asset with zero variance, the well established CAPM (see
Sharpe [1964], Lintner [1965], and Mossin [1966]) equilibrium equation can be derived, where
the expected return on any portfolio depends linearly on the return on the market portfolio:
(1.13) E − r = β( E m − r )
The notation in equation (1.13) is as follows: r represents the riskless return, β the beta of the
portfolio against the market and E m the expected return on the market portfolio. Black [1972]
showed that the assumption of the existence of a riskless asset is unnecessary if instead of the
riskless asset a portfolio is used, which elucidates zero covariance with the returns on the
market portfolio and has a zero beta. It can easily be shown that a zero beta portfolio exists,
whenever the market portfolio is an efficient risky portfolio (see e.g. Huang/Litzenberger
[1988]). The Black form of the CAPM is called zero-beta CAPM. Let E z denote the expected
return on the zero-beta portfolio, then (1.13) may be modified to:
10. 10
(1.14) E − E z = β ( Em − E z )
Thus a linear efficient frontier is developed in the case of the existence of a riskless asset or a
zero-beta portfolio. It may be shown that it is tangent to exactly one point of the quot;risky-assets
efficient frontierquot;, which is the market portfolio. The tangency is generally called Capital
Market Line (CML). Figure 1.2 illustrates this phenomenon:
Market portfolio
expected return
standard deviation
Figure 1.2: Efficient Frontier and Capital Market Line
Figure 1.2. clearly illustrates that the market portfolio is the only efficient risky portfolio in the
case of the existence of a riskless portfolio. Given the riskless rate of interest r (or the expected
return on the zero-beta portfolio E z ) the expected return on the market portfolio can be
calculated as:
a − br
(1.15) Em =
b − cr
The portfolio fractions are received by substituting (1.15) into (1.8)
11. 11
V −1 ( µ − re )
(1.16) ωm =
e' V −1
( µ − re )
=
1
b − cr
( )
V −1(µ − re) ,
where the portfolio fractions sum up to unity. If a riskless asset exists, portfolio (1.16)
represents the only risky optimal portfolio, i.e. the only risky portfolio which is chosen by
investors maximizing the expected utility within a single period.
1.3. Discrete time intertemporal portfolio theory
The considerations so far assumed an investor whose relevant time horizon is a single period.
Of course this is not an appropriate characterization of the real decision situation of investors.
This section will deal with a maximizer of expected utility in an multi-period frame. To begin
with, no more is assumed than an additively separable utility function. Since the wealth at the
end of all consideration periods depends on the consumption plan in the preceding periods, his
( ~
)
utility function is assumed to be U C0 , C1 ,..., CT , WT , where C represents the consumption
in the respective period and T the end period of investor's life. Then the objective function of
the considered investor according to the previous section may be expressed by3:
(1.17) [
max Et U (C0 , C1,..., CT ) ≡ J (Wt )
Ct ,ω
]
By exploiting the fact that U is additively separable, and assuming that the bequest in period T
~
( )
is denoted by B WT , (1.17) may be expressed as:
T ~
(1.18) J (Wt ) = max Et ∑ U (Cτ ) + B WT =
( )
Ct ,ω τ = t
T
= max Et U (Ct ) + max Et + ∆t ∑ U ( Cτ ) + B WT
Ct ,ω Ct + ∆t ,ω τ = t∆t
~
( )
3 For an overview see Ingersoll [1987] pp. 235-250, the original reference is Samuelson [1969]. The
intertemporal portfolio problem in a continuous time case was treated by Merton [1969] in the same issue of the
Review of Economics and Statistics as Samuelson's paper.
12. 12
~
( ) ( ~
= U (Ct ) + Et J Wt + ∆t = U (Ct ) + Et J Wt + ∆W )
%
∆W represents the change in wealth between period t and t + ∆t . ∆t is assumed to be a very
short time interval. Applying a Taylor series expansion provides:
0 = U (Ct ) + Et J ' (Wt )∆W + J '' (Wt )∆W 2 + o( ∆t )
~ 1 ~
(1.19)
2
The term o(∆t ) summarizes the terms dependent on ∆t of an order higher than two; they are
approximately zero if ∆t is assumed to be an extremely short time interval. Then an
%
∆W
assumption about the changes in wealth is added. In the following part of this section is
W
presumed to be distributed normally, i.e. follows an arithmetic Wiener process4. Let ~W
z
denote a standard normal distributed random variable, µ W the expected relative change in
2
wealth, σ W its variance, and Yt the income in period t, for the relative changes in wealth
holds:
%
∆W
(1.20) ≡ µ W ∆t + σ W z W ∆t
%
W
C − Yt C − Yt
µ W ≡ (1 − ω ' e)r + ω ' µ − t = ω '( µ − re ) + r − t
Wt Wt
2
σ W ≡ ω ' Vω
The definition of µ W ensures that the sum of the fractions of the riskless and the risky assets
equal unity. Substituting (1.19) into (1.20) and rearranging yields:
C + Yt
(1.21) G (Wt , Ct ) ≡ U (Ct ) + Wt J ' (Wt ) ω '( µ − re ) + r − t ∆t + 1 2 Wt J '' (Wt )ω ' Vω∆t
2
Wt
Differentiating G with respect to ω provides the following multi-period portfolio of expected
utility maximization:
4 Stochastic processes were first introduced by Bachelier [1990] into the theory of capital markets.
13. 13
J ' (Wt )
(1.22) ω =− V −1( µ − re )
Wt J ' ' (Wt )
Since the fraction of wealth 1 − ω ' e is invested in the riskless assets (lending if 1 − ω ' e >0 and
borrowing if 1 − ω ' e <0) the optimum risky portfolio may be normalized to:
V −1(µ − re)
(1.23) ω =
e' V −1( µ − re)
Comparing portfolio (1.22) to (1.16) proves that the holdings of the multi-period optimum
portfolio are proportional to the holdings of the single period optimum portfolio. The solution
of the multi-period problem (1.17) can also be obtained by solving the single period problem.
Thus, in the present simple form of the multiperiod portfolio selection model, one can
equivalently use a single period model. An important assumption of this model is, that the
parameters of the underlying Wiener process (1.20) remain constant over time. If this
assumption is given up, i.e. if it is assumed that µ W and σ 2 are dependent on a set of state
W
variables, then the relative changes in wealth follow a more general diffusion process instead of
a Wiener process and the continuous time version of the CAPM (see Merton [1973]) has to be
applied. An important result proven by this study is that for each state variable a single hedge
portfolio has to be used. This guarantees protection against different sources of risk which are
established by the state variables. The major property of the hedge portfolios are that they
produce maximum correlation with the respective state variable. The object of this thesis is to
provide algorithms for the portfolio optimization process and not the investigation of
continuous time models. In this chapter attempts have been made to capture optimization
solutions for the single period model, which also hold for the simple case of a discrete time
multi-period model.
The standard portfolio selection model of Markowitz starts with the assumption that no
riskless asset is available. Thus, the multi-period optimum portfolio is considered excluding
riskless assets. This is then compared to the single period optimum portfolio. In this case figure
(1.17) has to be maximized subject to e' ω = 1 , since it is not possible to implicitly construct
this requirement as in (1.20). Let λ denote the Lagrange multiplier belonging to the constraint
e' ω = 1 , then the optimum condition (1.22) may be restated in the new context as (see
Ingersoll [1987], p. 288):
14. 14
J ' (Wt ) λ
(1.24) ω =− V −1µ − V −1e
Wt J ' ' (Wt ) Wt J ' ' (Wt )
Equation (1.24) points out that the intertemporal discrete-time optimum portfolio equivalent to
the single period optimum portfolio in (1.8) consists of two portfolios: V −1 µ and V −1 e known
as the minimum variance portfolio. Thus, even when the investment opportunity set is limited
to purely risky assets, the single period and the multi-period problem are solved by the same
portfolio. No matter which problem is to be solved, the optimum portfolio maximizes both: the
one period expected utility function (1.1) and the multiperiod expected utility function (1.17).
This holds as long as the investment opportunity set is constant over time, i.e. the underlying
processes are Wiener processes rather than generalized diffusion processes. Although in a
discrete time intertemporal portfolio optimization framework the sum of the expected utilities
of periodical consumption is maximized, without assuming intertemporal changes in µ W and
σ W the solution of the single period problem does not differ from that of the multi-period
problem. Consequently, the following sections will assume a one period problem. Its solution
also solves the multi-period model for constant decision variables.
2. The ordinary Markowitz-algorithm
The ordinary Markowitz algorithm is concerned with the solution of quadratic programs
subject to equality and non-negativity restrictions. Extensions of it are given in the following
sections. In addition to equality restrictions, the generalized Markowitz algorithm solves
quadratic problems subject to arbitrary inequality restrictions. Unrestricted-in-sign variables are
furthermore imposed to the extended Markowitz algorithm.
In section one of the first chapter the fundamentals of portfolio theory were considered. The
purpose of that section was to introduce the reader who may not be very familiar with
portfolio theory to the main topic of this thesis. Although Markowitz's theory [1952]
introduced a revolutionary understanding of capital investment at that time, it does not exactly
reconstruct the decision situation of investors. A major problem which might occur is that the
optimal investment policy recommended by (1.8), (1.16), (1.21), or (1.24) cannot be
transposed into reality due to legal restrictions or the investment philosophy or other reasons
due to the investor's attitudes. Specifically, restrictions may be imposed on some of the
available assets, the vector of portfolio weights ω is restricted. Typically, one of the most
common requirements to any investment policy is to exclude short sales, that is to prohibit
negative portfolio fractions of one or more portfolio assets. Although in the theory the
inclusion of such restrictions into equation (1.5) is not a problem, the difficulty lies in the
15. 15
practical implementation. A simple Lagrange approach as in (1.5) and (1.6) will not be
sufficient to find a solution. The problem has to be solved by a quadratic program. General
algorithms may be found in standard operations research literature, e.g. in Winston [1991] (pp.
658-665). Since these algorithms are not specifically fitted to the mean/variance problem, the
computational efficiency can be increased by using an algorithm developed by Markowitz
[1956]. Although it is not exclusively employable for solutions of the mean/variance problem,
it was constructed paying special attention to such problems. The topic of the following
section is the Markowitz algorithm where short selling restrictions are imposed. Since the
structure of such restrictions is rather simple, this variant will be labelled ordinary Markowitz
algorithm. Most aspects of his subject were covered in detail in Markowitz's book [1987].
Consequently, there is no reason to prove the respective equations. However, this section
provides extensions of the original algorithm in some aspects: in part three a special case is
investigated and in part five it is shown that the restricted efficient frontier, in contrast to the
unrestricted efficient frontier discussed earlier, is not differentiable. Apart from short sales
restrictions, the ordinary Markowitz algorithm merely includes equality restrictions. Extensions
of this approach, which are not covered by Markowitz's book, will be developed in subsequent
sections. A simplification of the model is to be found in Markowitz/Schaible/Ziemba [1992]
where the mean/variance problem for lognormal markets and power utility functions is solved
subject to arbitrary restrictions. Since this makes it more specific, this thesis concentrates on
the original algorithm.
The purpose of this section is to show how the Markowitz algorithm works and how it may be
applied to mean/variance problems. It is subdivided in the following parts. Part one states the
general model and the Lagrangian. Part two derives the Kuhn-Tucker conditions for the
problem and summarizes the optimum conditions. A special case is considered in part three.
The following two parts investigate whether the efficient frontier is continuous and
differentiable when short selling restrictions are imposed on the problem. Part six examines
concavity and the minimum variance portfolio of the restricted efficient frontier. An important
issue of the model is how to find a feasible base solution; this will be investigated in part seven.
A numerical application of the model is given in part eight.
2.1. Basic model
The subsequent sections refer to the portfolio optimization problem (1.5). Again the variance
of the portfolio returns is minimized subject to the restrictions in (1.5). Furthermore, the
notation of the variables is supplemented and additional restrictions are imposed into the
problem:
16. 16
1. A ∈ℜ m x n denotes the matrix of m restrictions imposed on n assets fractions, b ∈ R n is the
vector of right-hand-side elements of the restrictions. It has to be emphasized that the
restriction ω' µ = E is not included by A and b; i.e. it is the (m+1) st restriction. The reason
for this will become obvious later on.
2. Non-negativity of the portfolio fractions is required for each asset.
Further notations can be read as in part one of the present section. Thus, the extended
optimization program may be stated as:
2
(1.25) ( a ) min σ = ω' V ω
ω
( b ) µ' ω = E
(c ) Aω = b
(d ) ω ≥ 0
Let λ ' = (λ 1,..., λ m ) ∈ℜ m and λ E denote Lagrange-multipliers for the constraints (1.25 c)
and (1.25 b), respectively, then the Lagrangian results as:
1
(1.26) L = ω ' Vω + λ ' ( Aω − b) − λ E (µ ' ω − E )
2
Since b and E are constants, they are not influenced by ω , minimizing (1.26) is equivalent to
minimizing a simplified Lagrangian:
1
(1.27) L = ω ' Vω + λ ' Aω − λ E µ' ω
2
Starting with equation (1.27) the Kuhn-Tucker conditions are now being constructed.
2.2. Kuhn-Tucker-conditions
17. 17
(1.25) represents a quadratic minimization problem with linear constraints. Necessary and
sufficient conditions for these kinds of problems are given by the Kuhn-Tucker conditions5. Let
η ∈ℜ n represent the vector of partial derivatives of the Lagrangian L with respect to the n
decision variables ω i (1 ≤ i ≤ n )
∂L ∂L
(1.28) η' ≡ (η1 ... η n ) = ...
∂ω 1 ∂ω n
then the following Kuhn-Tucker conditions hold6:
ω
(1.29) ( a ) η = (V A') − λ E µ ≥ 0
λ
(b ) ω ≥ 0 λ ≥ 0
(c) ∀ ηi > 0 ⇔ ω i = 0 and ηi = 0 ⇔ ω i > 0
1≤i ≤ n
(d ) Aω = b
( e ) µ' ω = E
Condition (1.29 c) implies that the partial derivative ηi of L with respect to ω i equals zero if
and only if ω i is greater than zero, i.e. if asset i is included by the base solution. This is the
well known necessary optimum condition. But however, if ω i equals zero, then the respective
partial derivative ηi is positive. That means basically that the value of the Lagrangian could be
improved if ω i were not restricted by a lower boundary (in the present simple case by zero).
Thus, the system of equations (1.29) may be rearranged by summarizing (1.29 a) and (1.29 d),
where it is assumed that all partial derivatives are equal to zero, i.e. that all available assets
show non-zero portfolio fractions. To ascertain that (1.29 a) remains satisfied, (1.29 a) is
maintained as optimality condition (1.30 d):
V A' ω µ 0
(1.30) (a) − λ E =
A 0 λ 0 b
( b) ω ≥ 0 λ ≥ 0
5 The derivation of the Kuhn-Tucker conditions may be found in Intriligator [1971], pp. 22-36.
6 Markowitz [1956], p. 116
18. 18
(c) ∀ η i > 0 ⇔ ω i = 0 and η i = 0 ⇔ ω i > 0
1≤ i ≤ n
ω
( d ) η = (V A') − λ E µ ≥ 0
λ
( e ) µ' ω = E
V A'
The matrix M ∈ℜ ( n + m) x ( n + m) will subsequently be defined as M ≡ , so the
A 0
ω
necessary optimum condition for the vector may be stated as7:
λ
ω −1 0 −1 µ
(1.31) = M +λE M
λ b 0
Furthermore, α ∈ℜ n + m and β ∈ℜ n + m are defined as:
0 µ
(1.32) α = M −1 β = M −1
b 0
By adhering to the conditions laid down in (1.30 b) and (1.32), (1.31) may be simplified, such
that
ω
(1.33) = α + βλ E ≥ 0 ,
λ
i.e. the vector of portfolio weights may be represented as a linear function of the Lagrange
multiplier λ E . The major idea of the algorithm is to find an interval for λ E , such that (1.33) is
satisfied, that is to obtain zero as lower boundary for both, the vector of portfolio weights ω
7 In the following rearrangements it must be assumed that M is non-singular. Markowitz [1987] (p. 137)
shows, that M is singular if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
a) The range of A is uncompleted
b) The set of feasible mean/variance combinations is a function parallel to the horizontal axis; in this case,
there are obviously no efficient portfolios.
19. 19
and the vector of Lagrange multipliers λ . Each ω i > 0 is labelled base variable8, each ω i = 0
non-base variable9. The set of base variables constitutes a portfolio.
The set of all base variables is titled quot;inquot;, the set of all non-base variables is titled quot;outquot;. Since
an asset of the portfolio whose fraction equals zero will not have any impact on the variance
σ 2 of the portfolio, the variance/covariance matrix Vin is defined such that all columns and
rows referring to variables in quot;outquot; are replaced by identity vectors. Let σ in (1 ≤ i, j ≤ n )
ij
represent the element of row i and column j of Vin and σ ij (1 ≤ i, j ≤ n ) the respective
element of V, then the former statements may be analytically expressed as:
σ ij if i, j ∈in
∀ σ in = 1 if i = j and i, j ∈out
ij
1≤ i, j ≤ n 0 otherwise
The vector of expected returns µ in equals µ where all rows referring to an element of quot;outquot;
are replaced by 0. Ain equals A, where all columns referring to an element of quot;outquot; are
replaced by 0. Therefore, given a set quot;inquot; and a portfolio Pin which is defined by the indexes
contained by quot;inquot;, the following may be calculated:
σ 2 = ω ' Vinω
P in
E = ω ' µ in
b = ω ' Ain
ω i = 0 ⇔ ω i ∈ out
Obviously, the vector b of right-hand-sides is not dependent on the sets quot;inquot; and quot;outquot;, that is
why it remains unchanged. According to (1.32), further definitions may be made if non-
singularity of M in is assumed:
V Ain
'
− 0 − µ in
(1.34) M in ≡ in
α in ≡ M in1 β in ≡ M in1
Ain 0 b 0
8 I.e. following equation (1.29 c) this is equivalent to ηi = 0
9 I.e. following equation (1.29 c) this is equivalent to ηi > 0
20. 20
Equivalent to equation (1.33), the vector of portfolio fractions emerges from:
ω
(1.35) = α in + β in λ E ≥ 0
λ
In addition to (1.35) equation (1.29 a) has to be satisfied, thus:
(1.36) η= V( )ω
A' − λ E µ = V
λ
( )
A' (α in + β in λ E ) − λ E µ ≥ 0
This equation can be rearranged to give:
η = γ in + δ in λ E ≥ 0 with
(1.37) ( A' )α in
γ in = V
δ in = (V A' )β in − µ
Equations (1.35) and (1.37) provide the Kuhn-Tucker conditions (1.29 a,b,d) expressed as
linear functions of λ E . Markowitz [1987] (pp. 156) labelled this system of equations quot;critical
linesquot;, therefore the Markowitz algorithm is often referred to as the critical line algorithm.
Necessary and satisfying conditions for ω and λ are solely dependent on λ E . Since E and ω
have a positive linear relationship to each other, finding feasible intervals for λ E
simultaneously provides feasible intervals for E. The exact relationship between λ E and E will
be discussed later, where intervals for λ E are determined, which satisfy (1.35) and (1.37).
Since in the case of portfolio selection, merely ω is a matter of interest not the vector of
ω
Lagrange multipliers λ , only the leading n elements of from (1.35) are investigated.
λ
According to Markowitz [1987] (p. 158), let λ a , λ b , λ c , λ d ∈ℜ be scalars which are
determined as follows:
α
i γ
i
max − in
max − in
∀ λ a ≡ β iin > 0 β iin ∀ λ b ≡ δ iin > 0 δ iin
1≤ i ≤ n 1≤ i ≤ n
− ∞ for β i ≤ 0
in − ∞ for δ i ≤ 0
in
(1.38)
21. 21
α
i γ in
i
min −
i
in min −
i i
∀ λ c ≡ β in < 0 β in ∀ λ d ≡ δ iin < 0 δ in
1≤ i ≤ n 1≤ i ≤ n
∞ for β i
in ≥0 ∞ for δ i ≥ 0
in
The high-index i represents the i-th element of the respective vector. λ a determines a lower
boundary for λ E such that (1.35) is satisfied, λ b a lower boundary such that (1.37) is
satisfied. Equivalently, λ c provides an upper boundary for λ E satisfying (1.35) whereas λ d is
an upper boundary for λ E to provide a feasible solution to equation (1.37). To satisfy both
equations (1.35) and (1.37) simultaneously, i.e. to satisfy the Kuhn-Tucker conditions, the
minimum out of λ a and λ b determines the upper boundary for λ E and the maximum out of
λ c and λ d fixes the lower boundary for λ E . The respective values are titled λ low and
λ high :
λ low ≡ max [λ a , λ b ]
(1.39) λ high ≡ min [λ c , λ d ]
with λ low ≤ λ E ≤ λ high
If λ low ≤ λ high is not satisfied then there is no feasible solution which may be caused by
contradictionary constraints. To put it more specifically, by calculating an efficient frontier, i.e.
minimizing the variance for each level of expected return with respect to the constraints (1.25
b-d), piecewise intervals for λ E have to be calculated. I.e. critical lines are calculated
piecewise, the efficient frontier is said to be segmented. The portfolios located in the transition
from one critical line to another are labelled corner portfolios. Starting from the lower
boundary λ low for λ E and increasing it continuously up to the upper boundary λ high leads to a
violation of at least one of the Kuhn-Tucker restrictions given by (1.35) or (1.37). Thus, every
ω i reaches zero if (1.35) is infringed, or ηi if (1.37) is infringed. Two cases must therefore be
distinguished:
1. If some ω k (1 ≤ k ≤ n ) is responsible for the violation of (1.37), it changes from the quot;inquot;-
set to the quot;outquot;-set.
2. If on the other hand η k (1 ≤ k ≤ n ) does not satisfy (1.37) anymore, the partial derivative
of the Lagrangian L with respect to ω k just reaches zero. As a matter of fact, η k changes
from the quot;outquot;- set of non base variables to the quot;inquot;- set of base variables.
The algorithm is broken up if either λ high = ∞ or λ low = − ∞ . That means that the portfolio
which has to be optimized contains only one remaining asset left and therefore a change of any
variable from quot;inquot; to quot;outquot; or vice versa is not possible, no matter which value λ E takes.
22. 22
Subsequently, it will be shown that adjacent segments of the efficient frontier transit
continuously into each other but not differentiable. Equations (1.38) and (1.39) guarantee that
the Kuhn-Tucker conditions in (1.29) are satisfied, whereas equation (1.29 e) is not explicitly
satisfied. However, it can quite simply be shown that λ E and E are in a positive-linear
relationship, that is the increase of λ E will lead to a linear increase in the portfolio's expected
return E. This clearly implies that for each E a λ E can be found such that (1.29 e) holds, too.
Therefore, it will only be necessary to consider the top n rows of α in and β in . Substituting ω
as defined in (1.35) into (1.29 e) and paying attention to the results in (1.39) provides:
E − µ ' α in
(1.40) E = µ ' α in + µ ' β in λ E ⇔ λ E =
µ' β in
Thus, a segment for λ E satisfying (1.29 e) has to be chosen in such a manner that equation
(1.40) is solved for a given E. A specific application of the above equation will be given in part
eight of this section.
2.3. A special case
In the following part a special case of the Markowitz algorithm is investigated. It is assumed
that there is a segment being on the efficient frontier where all portfolio assets are base
variables, i.e. where the portfolio fractions ω i (1 ≤ i ≤ n ) are non-zero for all i. Thus out = ∅.
In such a case the following must hold:
V = Vin A = Ain ⇒ M = M in and α = α in
µ = µ in ⇒ β = β in
Then using (1.36) and (1.34) yields:
0 µ
η = (V A') M −1 + M −1 λ E − µλ E
b 0
(1.41)
0 µ
= (V A') M −1 + λ E (V A') M −1 − µ
b 0
23. 23
Now, M −1 may be subdivided into block matrices and redefined as:
M1 M2
M −1 = M1 ∈ℜ nxn , M 2 ∈ℜ nxm , M 3 ∈ℜ mxn , M 4 ∈ℜ mxm
M3 M4
Let E(kl) represent the identity matrix and 0(kl) the zero-matrix of dimension kxl. Then,
following the definition of the inverse of a matrix M permits the following statement:
V A' M1 M 2 (V A') M −1 E( nn ) 0( nm)
(1.42) MM −1 = = =
A 0 M3 M 4 AM1 AM 2 0( mn )
E( mm)
⇒ (V (
A') M −1 = E( nn ) 0( nm) )
Substituting (1.42) into (1.41)
0 µ
(1.43) (
η = E( nn ) ) (
0( nm) + λ E E( nn )
b
)
0( nm) − µ
0
and using the definitions in (1.37) yields:
(1.44) γ in = γ = 0 and δ in = δ = 0
The result of this special case may be summarized such that it is sufficient to calculate λ a and
λ b with equation (1.38). Equation (1.44) determines λ c and λ d as minus infinity. This result
could be anticipated because it simply means that the derivatives of the Lagrangian with
respect to all portfolio fractions is zero. However, the fact that this result can be derived by
using the Markowitz algorithm is of great significance.
2.4. Continuity of the efficient frontier
24. 24
The purpose of this section is to show that two adjacent segments of the efficient frontier are
continuously linked (see Markowitz [1987], pp. 157-166). First, a graphical example is
examined to illustrate the use of critical lines. Therefore it is assumed that six assets are
included in the portfolio where the quot;inquot;- and quot;outquot;-set contain the following variables:
in = {ω 1 , ω 3 , ω 4 } and out = {ω 2 , ω 5 , ω 6 }
Let λiE (1≤ i≤ n) represent the value for λ E given by application of (1.38) of asset i, then the
following critical lines may be assumed as an example:
α1
line 1: β1 > 0 ⇒ λ E > − ≡ λ1
E
β1
γ2
line 2: δ 2 < 0 ⇒ λ E < − ≡ λ2
E
δ2
α3
line 3: β 3 > 0 ⇒ λ E > − ≡ λ3
E
β3
α4
line 4: β 4 < 0 ⇒ λ E < − ≡ λ4
E
β4
γ5
line 5: δ 5 > 0 ⇒ λ E > − ≡ λ5
E
δ5
γ6
line 6: δ 6 > 0 ⇒ λ E > − ≡ λ6
E
δ6
Following (1.39) determines:
[
λ a = max λ1E , λ3
E ] λ c = λ4
E
λa = max [λ 4 6
E,λ E ] λ c = λ2
E
[ [
⇒ λ low = max max λ1E , λ3 , max λ4 , λ6
E E E ] [ ]] [
λ high = min λ2 , λ4
E E ]
Under these assumptions, critical lines may be presented in the following figure. It elucidates
under which circumstances a variable leaves or enters the base.
From figure 1.3 it becomes clear that λ E is bounded to the bottom by λ1E and to the top by
λ4 , which implies:
E
25. 25
λ low = λ1E and λ high = λ4
E
If λ E > λ4 the fraction of asset four ω 4 is negative and therefore leaves the base. For
E
1
λ E < λ E ω 1 is negative and leaves the base. After determining the upper and lower
boundaries for λ E , a new iteration is run. If λ E is increased, then in ={ω 1 , ω 3 } and
out ={ω 2 , ω 4 , ω 5 , ω 6 }, whereas if λ E is decreased, asset one leaves the base and
in ={ω 3 , ω 4 } and out ={ω 1 , ω 2 , ω 5 , ω 6 }. α in , β in , γ in and δ in are adapted to the new
quot;inquot;- and quot;outquot;-set. Simultaneously, the intersections between the critical lines one to six and
the vertical axis are changing.
λ ω
Critical Line 1
Critical Line 2
Critical Line 3
Critical Line 4
Critical Line 5
3 5 2
Critical Line 6
λE λE 4
λE λE
1
λE
λE
Figure 1.3: Critical lines - an example
The efficient frontier proves to be continuous if two adjacent segments are bound by the same
λ E , one of the segments to the top, the other one to the bottom. The portfolio defined by the
transition point from one segment into the next is called corner portfolio. Each efficient
frontier is defined segment for segment given the different levels of λ E . With (1.40) it is clear
that the segmental definition of the efficient frontier is given for the different levels of the
expected portfolio return E as well. Thus, different critical lines as functions of λ E are
obtained, if equation (1.35) (here: (ω λ ) as a function of λ E ) or (1.37) (here: η as a function
of λ E ) is employed. Since (1.40) states that λ E and E are in a positive-monotonic
relationship it follows that the efficient frontier is continuous if and only if any two segments
transit continuously from one to another.
26. 26
Let a and b represent two critical lines which express two adjacent segments. Segment a is
defined for greater λ E than segment b. Defining λb
high as λ high of segment b according to
(1.39) and λa as λ low of the adjacent segment a then a sufficient condition for continuity is:
low
(1.45) λa = λb
low high
In case (1.45) the critical lines representing segment a and b, respectively, would have an
intersection. Because of (1.40) the continuity of λ E required by (1.45) implies the continuity
of E and (1.30 e) implies the continuity of ω along the efficient frontier. More specifically, the
equality of the composition of the portfolio in segment a for λ E = λa and of the porfolio of
low
segment b for λ E = λb
high must be proven. Obviously this implies that the equality of the
expected returns and variances at the borders of segment a and b is given, respectively. Let
0(l) denote a zero-vector of dimension l the equation (1.30 a) may be expressed slightly
differently as:
′ ω
Vin Ain µ in 0( n )
(1.46)
λ =
Ain 0 0 b
λ E
Without any loss of generality a specific asset k can be assumed to leave the base. This implies
ω k changes from quot;inquot; to quot;outquot;, if E and equivalently λ E moves from segment a into segment
b. It therefore holds:
∃
1≤ k ≤ n
ω k λa( )
low = 0 and (
η k λb )
high = 0
( )a
where ω k λ low denotes the portfolio fraction of asset k in segment a for λ E = λa and
low
(
η k λb
high ) the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to ω k given λ E = λb .
high
Furthermore, it can without loss of generality be assumed that the variables are sorted such,
that asset k is the element n of the vector of portfolio fractions ω . Furthermore, v' is defined as
a vector of dimension n which includes the covariances of returns of all assets with asset n,
V( n −1) the variance-covariance matrix of dimension n-1 including just the first n assets, A( n −1)
the first n-1 columns of A, α the last column, µ ( n−1) , ω ( n−1) the first n-1 lines of µ and ω ,
27. 27
respectively. The variance of returns, expected return and fraction of asset n is denoted by σ 2 ,
n
µ n , and ω n . The former definitions may be analytically stated as:
(1.47) (
v ' ≡ σ 1n ... σ n −1, n σ2
n ) V( n −1) v
Vin ≡
v′ σ 2
n
µ ( n −1) ω ( n −1)
µ ≡
µn
ω ≡
ωn
(
A ≡ A( n −1) α )
Substituting these definitions into (1.46) yields:
ω ( n −1)
V( n −1) v A′ ( n −1) µ ( n −1) 0( n −1)
ωn
(1.48) v′ σ2 α′ µn = 0
n λ
A α 0 b
( n −1) 0
λE
First of all, critical line b is examined. Here, ω n =ω k is non-base variable which implies:
(1.49) v = 0 σ2 = 1 α = 0 µ n = 0
n
In addition to (1.49), employing (1.29 a) together with (1.37) allows the following statement:
ω ( n −1)
b
( b
) (
η n λ high = v ′ σ 2
n
ωb
α′ µn )
λ
n
b =0
−λ b
high
b b
Using this equation for λ E = λ high and summarizing it with (1.48) and (1.49) it is obtained:
28. 28
V( n −1) 0 A(' n −1) µ ( n −1) ω ( n −1) 0( n −1)
b
0 1 0 0 ωb 0
(1.50)
n
b
=
A( n −1) 0 0 0 λ b
− λb 0
v' σ2n α' µn high
In a further step, critical line a is considered. It is known that for λ E = λ E = λ low the asset k
a a
which leaves the base ω k (λ E ) equals zero. Thus, the former statement may be expressed by:
ω ( n −1)
a
(0'(n −1) 1 0'( m −1)
ωa
0
) λ
n
a
=0
−λ a
low
a a
Comprising the realization from (1.48) for λ E = λ low , a further transformation may be:
V( n −1) A(' n −1) µ ( n −1) ω ( n −1) 0
a
v
( n −1)
ωn a 0
v' σ2 α' µn
a = b
n
A( n −1) α 0 0 λ
−λ a 0
0 1 0 0 low
( ) a
Since ω n λ low = 0 , the second column may be replaced by arbitrary values without any
changes in the result vector at the left hand side.
V( n −1) A(' n −1) µ ( n −1) ω ( n −1) 0
a
0
( n −1)
ωn a 0
v' σ2 α' µn
a = b
n
(1.51)
A( n −1) 0 0 0 λ
−λ a 0
0 1 0 0 low
Since in the corner portfolio λb = λa , reversing the second and the last line of the matrix
high low
on the left hand side and of the vector on the right hand side of (1.51) provides a system of
29. 29
equations which is equal to (1.50)10. Thus, converging λ E to the borders of the segments a
and b, respectively, yields identical vectors ω , λ and scalar λ E .
ω ( n −1) ω a
b
( n −1)
ωb ωa
b =
n n
(1.52)
λ λa
−λ b −λ a
high low
From (1.52) it is clear that the values for λ E are identical at the borders. Since the portfolio
( ) ( ) (
a a b
) ( b
fractions are identical and since ω n λ low = ω k λ low = ω n λ high = ω k λ high = 0 the )
expected returns in both segments are equal. The efficient frontier is continuous.
2.5. Differentiating the efficient frontier
One of the properties of the ordinary efficient frontier given by (1.6) is that it is differentiable
in each point and strictly concave. This part shows that in the case restrictions a non-
differentiable efficient frontier is obtained. Although this was not proved by Markowitz [1987]
this seems to be an important insight. The third chapter will deal with shortfall risk
approaches. Since they are based on tangents to the efficient frontier, it is a matter of great
interest whether the efficient frontier is differentiable or not. It is vital to bear in mind that the
efficient frontier is composed of segments. Within each segment a specific portfolio is defined
by the quot;inquot;-set. Thus, within segments defined by intervals λ E ∈ λ low , λ high the efficient
frontier is defined by (1.6) and which implies that it is differentiable. Therefore, it is sufficient
to check differentiability at the corner portfolios.
Let ein represent the unity vector where elements are replaced by 0 if the respective variable is
contained in quot;outquot;. Then, the derivative of the variance of the portfolio with respect to the
expected portfolio return for any λ E ∈ λ low , λ high may be expressed as11:
10 Markowitz [1987], p.171
11 see Merton [1972] and (1.6)
30. 30
∂σ 2 − −
2 (einVin 1 ein ) E − 2 (µ'inVin 1ein )
'
( )
(1.53) = − − − −
∂E λE (µ'inVin 1µ in )(einVin 1ein ) − (µ'inVin 1ein ) (µ'inVin 1ein )
'
Obviously, the ratio changes depending on the segment which defines λ E . Since µ in , Vin and
ein are dependent on the elements of quot;inquot; and quot;outquot;, for different λ E (and consequently for
different E), different λ E and different slopes can be expected.
To prove that the efficient frontier is not differentiable, it is sufficient to find a counter-
example. With respect to the former analysed circumstances this is not very difficult, if one
considers a portfolio consisting of three assets. Without loss of generality it may be assumed
that asset one first of all is included in quot;inquot; but moving to quot;outquot; as soon as the adjacent
−1
segment is entered. Let vij represent element of line i and column j of the matrix Vin then the
' −1
expression einVin ein of the above equation may be restated as:
n n
' −1
einVin ein = ∑ ∑ vij
i =1 j =1
If on the other hand asset one is excluded then
−1
einVin ein = v22 + v23 + v32 + v33
'
Obviously, both expression are not equal, unless v11 + v12 = 0 . This proves that
( )
∂σ 2 / ∂ E λ E in (1.53) differs for two adjacent segments which implies that the slopes of the
efficient frontier in two adjacent segments differ. In conclusion, the efficient frontier at the
corner portfolios is not differentiable.
2.6. Concavity and minimum variance portfolio
The unrestricted efficient frontier following (1.6) is characterized by strict concavity (Merton
[1972]). As was the case in the previous part strict concavity of the efficient frontier is a
property which will be needed for implementing shortfall risk based algorithms: if the efficient
frontier were not strictly concave but linear constructing tangents would be impossible. This
part confirms that concavity is also a characteristic of the restricted efficient frontier. Satisfying
31. 31
the Kuhn-Tucker conditions (1.29) implies restricting λ E by λ E ∈ λ low , λ high . Choosing an
expected portfolio return E, fixed and consistent with the interval for λ E , a simpler formation
of optimization problem (1.25) can be stated:
(1.54) a) min σ 2 = ω' Vω
ω
ω
b) µ' =E
e' ω
This implies the following Lagrangian L'
(1.55) L' = σ 2 - λ E E
with optimality condition:
∂ L' ∂ σ2 ∂ σ2
(1.56) =0 ⇔ −λ E = 0⇔λ E =
∂E ∂E ∂E
Thus, the slope of the efficient frontier decreases with λ E . Since (1.40) states that increasing
λ E corresponds to increasing expected return E, the slope of the efficient frontier is negatively
related to expected returns. This is usually called strict concavity. This part showed that the
efficient frontier is strictly concave even if restrictions are imposed on the feasible set. The
following figure illustrates that the restricted efficient frontier is composed by several efficient
frontiers, one defined for each segment. Furthermore, it shows intuitively that this fact implies
concavity.
32. 32
expected return
restricted efficient frontier
standard deviation
Figure 1.4: Restricted efficient frontier composed by three efficient frontiers according to
three adjacent segments
From figure 1.4 it becomes clear that the restricted efficient frontier is composed of several
unrestricted efficient frontiers. The unrestricted efficient frontiers are calculated by using those
assets which are contained in the respective quot;inquot;-set. The complete efficient frontier is given by
segment one as long as all Kuhn-Tucker conditions are satisfied. This fact is illustrated in
figure 1.4 by the dotted line with points. It is illustrated that the restricted efficient frontier in
each point is determined by one of the unrestricted efficient frontiers, it moves from one to
another at the corner portfolios if one of the Kuhn-Tucker conditions is no longer satisfied.
That is if λ E > λ high , a new segment determines the efficient frontier. Moving from one
segment to another decreases the slope. Consequently, strict concavity results.
From (1.56) it follows furthermore
∂ σ2
= 0 ⇔ λE = 0
∂E
which implies that the minimum variance portfolio occurs in the segment where the interval
[λ low ,λ high ] includes λ E =0. If λ E is negative, following (1.56) the slope of the efficient
frontier is negative12 which implies that the portfolios are inefficient. In concluding this part, it
should be emphasized that the portfolio selection process should be restricted for positive λ E .
∂σ2
12 Which implies < 0.
∂E
33. 33
2.7. Feasible base solution
Finding an initial feasible base solution is the condition for an application of the critical line
algorithm. First, an efficient combination of portfolio assets has to be found in order to fix the
initial sets quot;inquot; and quot;outquot;. In the case of the ordinary Markowitz algorithm, which is the topic
of this section, a simple solution can be applied: By definition, each portfolio with maximum
available expected return is efficient. Thus, a feasible solution may be found by executing the
following program:
(1.57) max ω' µ s. t. Aω = b ω ≥ 0
ω
Then, the initial solution is in = {ω ≥ 0 and ω solves (1.57)} . By applying (1.38) and
(1.39) λ low and λ high are obtained; the algorithm can then be continued as stated in the present
section. In the special case of the ordinary Markowitz algorithm a trivial solution of (1.57) is
obtained, if the only asset which initially enters the base is that with the highest expected
return. This naturally maximizes the expected return on the portfolio. Since this is the case only
when non-negativity and equality restrictions are imposed for more general inequality
restrictions (1.57) has to be solved by the simplex approach. This will be comprehensively
discussed in the next section.
2.8. A numerical application
A portfolio optimization problem for three portfolio assets A, B and C which are defined as in
table 1.1. is considered.
Table 1.1: Initial data for the numerical application
covariances A B C µ
A 400 150 100 15
B 225 150 10
34. 34
C 625 20
The program which has to be executed is assumed to determine efficient portfolios subject to
the constraints that the portfolio fractions sum up to unity and that short sales are prohibited:
min σ 2 = ω' Vω
ω
ω1
(1 1 1) ω 2 = 1
ω 3
ω≥0
According to the notation used thus far it may be defined:
400 150 100 15
V ≡ 150 225 150 µ ≡ 10 A ≡ (1 1 1)
100 150 625 20
first step: determining a feasible base solution
Given the former example the solution which maximizes the portfolio's expected return is a
pure investment in asset C. An initial feasible base solution may be possible: in = {ω C } and
out = {ω A , ω B } .
second step: determining the first segment
According to equation (1.34), Min is defined as follows:
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 −1 0 1 0 0
M in ≡ ⇒ M in ≡
0 0 625 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 −625
35. 35
Using (1.35) and (1.37) provides
αin βin α in γin δin γ in
Asset − −
β in δ in
A 0 0 - -525 5 105
B 0 0 - -475 10 47.5
C 1 0 - 0 0 -
and (1.38):
λa = −∞ λc = ∞
λb = 105 λd = ∞
Thus, with (1.39) λlow = 105 and λhigh = ∞ λ E cannot be increased anymore, since the
.
break-up-criterion λ high = ∞ holds. λ low is determined by asset A: the partial derivative of
the Lagrangian L subject to ω A reaches zero. Thus, asset A enters the base in the next step.
One has in = {ω A , ω C } and out = {ω B } .
third step: determining the second segment
Min is defined as follows (see equation (1.34)):
400 0 100 1 0.001212 0 −0.001212 0.6364
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
M in ≡ −1
⇒ M in ≡
100 0 625 1 −0.001212 0 0.001212 0.3636
1 0 1 0 0.6364 0 0.3636 −290.9091
Using (1.35) and (1.37) provides
αin βin α in γin δin γ in
Asset − −
β in δ in
36. 36
A 0.6364 -0.006061 105 0 0 -
B 0 0 - -140.9031 6.8182 20.67
C 0.3636 0.006061 -60 0 0 -
and (1.38):
λa = -60 λc = 105
λb = 20.67 λd = ∞
Applying (1.39) yields λlow=20.67 and λhigh=105. Since λ high of the present segment equals
λ low of the former one, the numerical example obviously confirms equation (1.52). Calculating
the corner portfolios following (1.35) yields:
0 0.5136
( )
ω λ E = λ high = 0
and ω (λ E = λ low ) = 0
1 0.4864
( )
E λ E = λ high = 20 and E(λ E = λ low ) = 17.43
This illustrates that the corner portfolios for both adjacent segments are identical which
supports the former proof numerically that the efficient frontier is continuous even if
restrictions are imposed.
λ low is determined by asset B: the partial derivative of the Lagrangian L subject to ω B reaches
zero. Thus asset B enters the base in the next step. One has in = {ω A , ω B , ω C } and out = { } .
All available portfolio assets are now included in the base, it can be expected that the special
case in (1.44) holds, i.e. that γ in = δ in = 0. This will be examined in the next step.
fourth step: determining the third segment
Min is defined as follows (see equation (1.34)):
400 150 100 1 0.003088 −0.002947 −0.00014 0.2210
M in ≡ 150 225 150 1 ⇒ M −1 ≡ −0.002947 0.004632 −0.001684 0.6526
100 150 625 1 in −0.00014 −0.001684 0.001825 01263
.
1 1 1 0 0.2211 0.6526 .
01263 −198.95
37. 37
Using (1.35) and (1.37) provides:
αin βin α in γin δin γ in
Asset − −
β in δ in
A 0.2211 0.014 -15.75 0 0 -
B 0.6526 -0.0316 20.67 0 0 -
C 0.1263 0.0175 -7.2 0 0 -
Supporting the theoretical result from (1.44) it holds γ in = δ in = 0. Further, (1.38) provides:
λa = -7.2 λc = 20.67
λb = - ∞ λd = ∞
Applying (1.39) yields λlow=-7.2 and λhigh=20.67. Again, λ high of the present segment equals
λ low of the former one. Giving due considerations to the previous part it should be observed
that the actual interval which determines λ E includes the minimum variance portfolio. Since all
efficient portfolios are identified now, the algorithm may be stopped. For didactic reasons and
to demonstrate the break-up criterion it is, however, continued.
0.5136 01203
.
( )
ω λ E = λ high = 0
and ω (λ E = λ low ) = 0.8801
0.4864 0.0
( )
E λ E = λ high = 17.43 and E(λ E = λ low ) = 10.61
λ low is determined by asset C: the non-negativity constraint ω C reaches zero. Thus C is
eliminated out of the base in the next step. One has in = {ω A , ω B } and out = {ω C } .
fifth step: determining the fourth segment
Min changes following equation (1.34) to:
38. 38
400 150 0 1 0.0031 −0.0031 0 0.2308
M in ≡ 150 225 0 1 ⇒ M −1 ≡ −0.0031 0.0031 0 0.7692
0 0 1 0 in 0 0 1 0
1 1 0 0 0.2308 0.7692 0 −207.69
Using (1.35) and (1.37) provides
αin βin α in γin δin γ in
Asset − −
β in δ in
A 0.2208 0.01539 -14.5 0 0 -
B 0.7692 -0.0153 50 0 0 -
C 0 0 - -69.23 -9.615 -7.2
and with (1.38) it is obtained:
λa = -15 λc = 50
λb = - ∞ λd = -7.2
Employing (1.39) yields λlow=-15 and λhigh=-7.2. As expected, λ high of the present segment
equals λ low of the former one.
01203
. 0
(
)
ω λ E = λ high = 0.8801
and ω (λ E = λ low ) = 1
0.0 0
( )
E λ E = λ high = 10.61 and E(λ E = λ low ) = 10
Now, the non-negativity constraint is violated by asset A. Hence A leaves the base. Since it
emerges that B leaves the base, too, the last iteration may be skipped. The result would be
λlow=- ∞and λhigh=-14.5.
As demonstrated above, five iterations were needed to calculate the entire efficient frontier in
this numerical example. Efficient segments were determined. Finally, all segments are
characterized by both, λ E and the expected return E: