Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T23:22:54.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Monte Carlo Investigation of Characteristics of Optimal Geometric Mean Portfolios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Steven F. Maier ,
David W. Peterson  and
James H. Vander Weide
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We began this paper by posing four questions about the characteristics of optimal geometric mean portfolios. Tentative answers to these questions were obtained from an examination of the solutions to a relatively large number of geometric mean portfolio problems generated from a Monte Carlo simulation of ex-ante security return data. The results of this examination can be summarized as follows. First, the number of risky securities contained in an optimal geometric mean portfolio depends on one's expectations concerning future market conditions and on the conditions under which borrowing is permitted. If all capital must be invested, the investor who believes the market will fall should invest in just one security, he who believes the market will remain unchanged should diversify among two securities, while he who believes the market will rise should diversify among four to seven securities. In the event that some capital must be withheld from investment, the investor who believes the market will rise and who can borrow on reasonable terms will again diversify among four to seven securities, choosing the same securities in the same relative proportions as in the preceding situation. Should the investor be permitted neither to borrow nor to invest all his capital, his best portfolio consists of two to four securities, assuming he expects the market to rise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 215 - 233
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]Breiman, Leo. “Investment Policies for Expanding Business Optimal in a Long-Run Sense.” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 7 (December 1960), pp. 647–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Elton, Edwin J., and Gruber, Martin J.. “On the Maximization of the Geometric Mean with Lognormal Return Distribution.” Berlin, Germany: International Institute of Management, Report #I/73–28.(May 1973).Google Scholar
[3]Fama, Eugene F. “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Some Clarifying Comments.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 23 (March 1968), pp. 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Gill, P. E., and Murray, W.. “Two Methods for the Solution of Linearly Constrained and Unconstrained Optimization Problems.” National Physical Laboratory Report NAC 25, (November 1972).Google Scholar
[5]Hakansson, Nils H. “Capital Growth and the Mean-Variance Approach to Portfolio Selection.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 6 (January 1971), pp. 517–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Hakansson, Nils H., and Liu, Tien-Ching. “Optimal Growth Portfolios When Yields Are Serially Correlated.” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 52 (November 1970), pp. 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Latane, Henry A. “Criteria for Choice among Risky Ventures.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 38 (April 1959), pp. 145–155.Google Scholar
[8]Latane, Henry A., and Tuttle, Donald L.. “Criteria for Portfolio Building.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 22 (September 1967), pp. 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]RosenbergBarr, and Walt McKibben. Barr, and Walt McKibben. “The Prediction of Systematic and Specific Risk in Common Stocks.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 8 (March 1973), pp. 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Sharpe, William F. “A Simplified Model for Portfolio Analysis.” Management Science, Vol. 9 (January 1963), pp. 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Sharpe, William F. “Mutual Fund Performance.” Journal of Business: A Supplement (January 1966), pp. 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Thorp, Edward, and Whitley, Robert. “Concave Utilities Are Distinguished by Their Optimal Strategies.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
[13]Wagner, Harvey M.Principles of Operations Research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., pp. 600–601.Google Scholar