Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T00:02:34.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mean-Variance Portfolio Selection with Either a Singular or Nonsingular Variance-Covariance Matrix

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Extract

In derivations of the mean-variance model of portfolio selection, authors from Markowitz [6 and 7] and Tobin [11] to Merton [8] and Black [1] rely on the inverse of the matrix of variances and covariances for the returns on risky securities. Unfortunately, as is shown in this paper, such an inverse does not exist when risk-free combinations can be formed from the risky securities. Accordingly, the general validity of the mean-variance model is challenged by the existence of opportunities for hedging, including those fostered by short sales and the rapidly expanding markets for warrants, options, and futures. Fortunately, the mean-variance model is tractable even when the conventional methods for deriving it fail. Alternative solution procedures presented in this paper are valid with or without riskless securities and with either singular or nonsingular variance-covariance matrices. The important properties of the mean-variance model are shown to extend for the previously omitted cases. In particular, the frontier of mean-variance combinations is always well-defined, is always strictly convex, and (the efficient portion of the frontier) is always positively sloped. In addition, the frontier of mean-variance combinations always can be expressed in terms of a pair of mutual funds which are determined on purely technical grounds.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Black, Fischer. “Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing.” Journal of Business (August 1970).Google Scholar
[2]Black, Fischer, and Scholes, Myron. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities.” Journal of Political Economy (May/June 1973), pp. 637654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Cass, David, and Stiglitz, Joseph E.. “The Structure of Investor Preference and Asset Returns, and Separability in Portfolio Allocation: A Contribution to the Pure Theory of Mutual Funds.” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 2 (June 1970), pp. 122160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Hakansson, Nils. “Capital Growth and the Mean-Variance Approach to Portfolio Selection.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 6 (January 1971), pp. 517559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Lintner, John. “The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investment in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets.” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 47 (February 1965a), pp. 1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Markowitz, Harry M.Portfolio Selection.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 7 (March 1952), pp. 7791.Google Scholar
[7]Markowitz, Harry M.Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.Google Scholar
[8]Merton, Robert C.An Analytic Derivation of the Efficient Portfolio Frontier.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 7 (September 1972), pp. 18511872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Sharpe, William F.Capital Asset Pries: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 19 (September 1964), pp. 425442.Google Scholar
[10]Sharpe, William F.Portfolio Theory and Capital Markets. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.Google Scholar
[11]Tobin, James. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior towards Risk.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 25 (February 1958), pp. 6585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar