Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:03:45.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

All Roads Lead to Risk Preference: A Turnpike Theorem for Conditionally Independent Returns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Kevin F. McCardle  and
Robert L. Winkler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An individual is repeatedly offered the opportunity to invest in a risky asset whose return distribution is unknown. Because the return distribution is constant over time, however, he is able to learn about that distribution by observing investment outcomes. Results are presented regarding the asymptotically optimal investment behavior of a risk-averse individual under these circumstances when his aim is to maximize the expected utility of his end-of-horizon wealth. For the class of isoelastic utility functions with constant relative risk averson less than one, the optimal investment approaches a constant proportion of wealth. The limiting proportion is the same as the proportion put up by the most optimistic individual when the investment opportunity is offered only once. These results are then extended by generalizing the class of utility functions under consideration and, at the same time, restricting the class of possible investment schemes. This paper is distinguished from the previous literature by the assumption of conditional independence of returns across periods.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 13 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1989

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

Baron, D. P. “Information, Investment Behavior, and Efficient Portfolios.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 9 (09 1974), 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellman, R., and Kalaba, R.. “On the Role of Dynamic Programming in Statistical Communication Theory.” I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory, IT-3 (09 1957), 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, T. S., and Gilstein, C. Z.. “A General Investment Model.” Working Paper, UCLA Dept. of Mathematics (1986).Google Scholar
Goldman, M. B. “A Negative Report on the Near Optimality of the Max-Expected-Log Policy as Applied to Bounded Utilities for Long Lived Programs.” Journal of Financial Economics, 1 (05 1974), 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakansson, N. H. “On Optimal Myopic Portfolio Policies, with and without Serial Correlation of Yields.” Journal of Business, 44 (04 1971), 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakansson, N. H. “Convergence to Isoelastic Utility and Policy in Multiperiod Portfolio Choice.” Journal of Financial Economics, 1 (09 1974), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huberman, G., and Ross, S. A.. “Portfolio Turnpike Theorems, Risk Aversion, and Regularly Varying Utility Functions.” Econometrica, 51 (09 1983), 1345–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H.. Decisons with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: Wiley (1976).Google Scholar
Kelly, J. L. Jr, “A New Interpretation of Information Rate.” The Bell System Technical Journal, 35 (07 1956), 917–926.Google Scholar
Leland, H. “On Turnpike Portfolios.” In Mathematical Methods in Investment and Finance, Szego, G. P. and Shell, K., eds. Amsterdam: North Holland (1972).Google Scholar
Lippman, S. A., and Mamer, J. W.. “When Many Wrongs Make a Right: An Asymptotic Analysis of Risk Aversion and Additive Risk.” Probability in the Engineering and Information Sciences, 2 (No. 1, 1988), 115–127.Google Scholar
McCardle, K. F., and Winkler, R. L.. “Repeated Gambles, Learning, and Risk Aversion.” Working Paper, Fuqua School of Business, Duke Univ. (1989).Google Scholar
Merton, R. C., and Samuelson, P. A.. “Fallacy of the Log-Normal Approximation to Optimal Portfolio Decision-Making over Many Periods.” Journal of Financial Economics, 1 (05 1974), 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossin, J. “Optimal Multiperiod Portfolio Policies.” Journal of Business, 41 (04 1968), 215–229.Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. T. “Attractive Compounds of Unattractive Investments and Gambles.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 87 (No. 3, 1985), 463–473.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. W., and Zeckhauser, R. J.. “Proper Risk Aversion.” Econometrica, 55 (01 1987), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. A. “Portfolio Turnpike Theorems for Constant Policies.” Journal of Financial Economics, 1 (07 1974), 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. M.Introduction to Stochastic Dynamic Programming. New York: Academic Press (1983).Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. “Risk in Uncertainty: A Fallacy of Large Numbers.” Scientia, (04–05 1963), 63–68.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. “Lifetime Portfolio Selection by Dynamic Stochastic Programming.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 51 (08 1969), 239–246.Google Scholar
Thorpe, E. O. “Optimal Gambling Systems for Favorable Games.” Review of the International Statistical Institute, 37 (No. 3, 1969), 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar