SYLLABUS Previous: 1.3 The risk and
Up: 1 INTRODUCTION
Next: 1.5 Historical data and
1.4 Modern portfolio theory and basic risk management strategies
The material in this section is intended for students at a more advanced level than your profile
With his conjecture that investment risk can
be quantified as volatility from the
standard deviation of the expected return,
H. Markowitz started in 1952 at the University of Chicago what has become
the Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) and awarded
him in 1990, the counterpart of the Nobel Prize in Economics [16].
Rather than looking at the risk from a single investment, he examined the
stochastic evolution from different asset classes and found that seemingly
random prices are sometimes correlated, for example when two industries
compete or complement each other in the same market.
This led him to distinguish specific risk
associated with small groups of inter-dependent assets (e.g. bad weather
affects the harvest of coffee and the valuation of all the shares in the
food industry) from the non-specific risk
that affects the market as a whole (e.g. a stock market crash).
Using a judicious choice of anti- and uncorrelated securities, Markowitz
showed that the total volatility of a portfolio can be minimized without
reducing the expected return, by
diversifying out the specific risks.
indent
For a simple example, imagine a portfolio composed of two assets that are
perfectly anti-correlated, but have the same expected return: by canceling
each other's price fluctuations, the total volatility can be reduced to
zero without changing the total expected return.
A second example illustrated in (1.4#fig.1) suggests how the
combined risk from two assets can be minimized
at a constant expected return
provided that the prices are
partly de-correlated. By varying the proportions invested in each asset,
an efficient frontier
can be calculated where the highest return is expected for a given
volatility (continuous line in blue).
Figure 1.4#fig.1:
Expected return
from a mix of two volatile assets
and
that are partly correlated. The plot shows how, for the
same expected return
, the combined risk from two assets is lower
than the average that is calculated when the risks of the assets are
evaluated separately
.
The tangent (broken line in red) drawn from the risk-free rate
intersects the efficient frontier (line in blue) at
where the best portfolio is located.
|
|
The analysis is only slightly more complicated when more than two assets
are involved: the applet
below
calculates the efficient frontier based on monthly variations of the
price of raw materials, bonds and stock as they have been observed in
the markets during the years 1986-1996.
FRONTIER applet: select the historical data
(1986-1996) from at least two securities to display the
efficient frontier where the maximum return E[r_e] was achieved
as a function of the volatility sigma.
Courtesy of Prof. C.Harvey,
Duke University, USA.
|
|
To find out which combination is most risk efficient under the present
market conditions, another Nobel laureate, W. Sharpe, looked at the return
from a variable amount invested partly for a risk-free rate
and partly
in assets located on the efficient frontier (1.4#fig.1). He found
that the ``best'' portfolios, located on the broken line in red, intersect
the efficient frontier where the highest return
is achieved if the
money has to be borrowed on the market. This led him to the definition of
what is now known as the Sharpe ratio,
where the reward-to-risk from a portfolio
is measured as the excess
return over the risk free rate divided by the total volatility
 |
(1.4#eq.1) |
To compare the relative performance from a portfolio
with
the average performance from a market index
over
different periods of time, Sharpe later developed the
capital asset pricing model (CAPM)
 |
(1.4#eq.2) |
where a linear least-square fit is calculated to obtain the slope beta
(
relative performance from taking risks) and the offset alpha
(
relative performance from arbitrage and costs).
To ``beat the market'' alpha should always be positive and beta larger
than unity. Unfortunately for most of the investors, commercial funds
generally have a negative alpha because of the 1-2% management costs
that are payed in the form of commissions.
Some say that expertise justifies the costs because of additional earnings
made from arbitrage: this is in general not true, because arbitrage is a
zero-sum game,
so that whatever makes one manager look better only make another look worse!
The value added by the fund manager therefore resides mainly in beta, i.e.
in the management of risk.
All together, the modern portfolio theory largely justifies investments
in funds, provided that a large number of weakly correlated assets are
managed at a very low cost.
It also explains how different funds can be classified according to their
growth (drift), standard deviation (volatility), reward-to-risk (or Sharpe
ratio 1.4#eq.1) and every fund can always be compared with a
market index using the CAPM parameters (alpha and beta).
The correlation between individual assets and the portfolio as a whole
provides a more detailed description (execise 1.03).
For the layman, the theory leads to the simplest and best known risk
management strategy: diversify your portfolio by investing in a
variety of weakly or anti-correlated securities.
To maximize the reward, it is better to blend different types
of investments, for example by selecting assets according to the time
that it will take to average out fluctuations.
Some investors subtract their age from 100 to determine the percentage
to invest in stocks and put the rest in bonds: the younger the an
investor is, the more risk he can afford to take.
Quants: statistics.
Remember that the correlation coefficient between two random variables X,Z
is given by
![$\displaystyle \mathrm{Corr}[X,Z]= \frac{\mathrm{Cov}[X,Z]}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}[X]\mathrm{Var}[Z]}} \hspace{1cm} \in[-1; 1]$](s1img72.gif) |
(1.4#eq.3) |
the covariance, the variance and the expectancy operators are defined by
where
is the mean,
the variance and
the standard
deviation. Higher order central moments are defined from
, such as the skewness
and the curtosis
.
Under general conditions, the sum of a large number of random variables
is approximatively normally distributed
 =
\frac{1}{\sigma}\varphi\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right),
\hspace{1cm} \varphi(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp(-x^2/2)$](s1img86.gif) |
|
|
(1.4#eq.5) |
and the normalized probability
.
Unbiased estimates for the mean and variance of
data points
generated by a normally distributed process
can be calculated from
 |
(1.4#eq.6) |
Finally, a least-square fit to a linear model
is obtained by solving the system of normal equations
 |
(1.4#eq.7) |
In the sixties, E. Fama [8] proposed another important conjecture
following market observations, called the
Efficient Market Hypothesis: at any
time, the price of a security fully reflect all the information that is
available about this security. The reason is that the market is inhabited
by arbitrageurs,
whose highly paid job is to seek out and exploit possible mis-pricings.
Under the efficient market hypothesis, no-arbitrage arguments state that
it is not possible to find a self-financing trading strategy leading
to an immediate risk-less profit.
This means that there is no way for investors to buy securities at a bargain
price: even if the prices just fell, there are equal chances for them to
move back up or fall down even further: there is no way to make a statement
such as ``the market is too high''.
Of course, not all the markets are efficient and human psychology is such
that investors tend to buy more in rising than falling markets: buying
stocks in a falling stock market sounds easy, but very few people have the
stomach to do it!
To avoid arbitrageurs taking advantage of the psychology, portfolio
managers sometimes perform a cost averaging by regularly buying a
fraction of the security they want to buy or sell - independently of
the short time fluctuations of the market (exercise 1.02).
This strategy has, however, also its limits since investors should
imperatively minimize the transaction costs.
In conclusion, simple management strategies can be used to reduce the
investment risk in a portfolio: ignoring the advice to diversify
and regularly pay large commissions and transaction costs have the
worst long term effects.
For a more quantitative and a flexible approach of managing investment
risk, the next chapter will examine a new class of securities: so-called
options, which can be combined with other
assets to hedge a portfolio to any level and type of risk chosen by the
investor.
SYLLABUS Previous: 1.3 The risk and
Up: 1 INTRODUCTION
Next: 1.5 Historical data and
|