Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for finance professionals and academics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am working on a toy model, in part of which an investor has to decide (based on some utility theory) how much money to invest in a given portfolio. For simplicity, assume that the portfolio is already constructed, it has an expected return $\mu$ and the volatility $\sigma$ which are known to the investor. If the investor invests $x$ in the portfolio, he gets $(1+\rho)x$ on the next step where $$ \rho \sim\mathscr N(\mu,\sigma^2) $$ is a stochastic return on the investment. Suppose, that at the current moment the investor has $X$ as his capital. Are there any formulas from the utility theory on how to compute the desired level of investments given $X,\mu$ and $\sigma$ - and perhaps some additional parameters such as risk aversion of the investor?

share|improve this question
Have you tried with exponential utility $U(x) = -e^{-\lambda x}$ and power utility $\frac{1}{p}x^p$? – quasi May 17 '13 at 13:36
@quasi: I am not very familiar with utility theory, so can you elaborate on how to apply your advice? – Ilya May 17 '13 at 13:37

One approach is to use an exponential utility function: $U(x) = -e^{-\lambda x}$. Here, $\lambda$ records what is known as the absolute risk aversion. Exponential utility functions are nice because they have a wealth independence property (of course, this may be seen as a drawback). As we will see below, the initial capital $X$ plays no part in the optimal investment decision. This decision only depends on $\lambda$. Let's consider the agent's utility after investing $x$ dollars. This is

$$ U(X + \rho x) = -e^{-\lambda (X + \rho x)} = e^{-\lambda X} \cdot \left( -e^{-\lambda \rho x} \right). $$ The first term above does not depend on $x$, and is positive. So, we only have to optimize (minimize) the second term over $x$. This is the wealth independence property. The second term is $$ -\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-\lambda x y} e^{\frac{-(y - \mu)^2}{2 \sigma^2}}dy. $$ We can evaluate this analytically by completing the square, yielding $$ -\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{\frac{-(y - \mu + \sigma^2 \lambda x)^2}{2 \sigma^2}} e^{-\mu \lambda x + \frac{\sigma^2 \lambda^2 x^2}{2}} dy = -e^{-\mu \lambda x + \frac{\sigma^2 \lambda^2 x^2}{2}}. $$ The right hand side above is maximized when $-\mu \lambda x + \frac{\sigma^2 \lambda^2 x^2}{2}$ is minimized.

Differentiating, we achieve the optimal $x^* = \frac{\mu}{\sigma^2 \lambda}$. This makes sense at least qualitiatively. We invest more when $\mu$ is higher, lower when $\sigma^2$ is greater, and lower when $\lambda$ (our level of risk aversion), is higher.

share|improve this answer
An another approach is to use the power utility functions. This family of functions (which includes $\log x$), will have the property of constant relative risk aversion, meaning that a constant proportion of wealth will be invested. – quasi May 17 '13 at 15:00
thanks a lot for the answer, however I am more interested in case when the capital $X$ matters. Shall I look into power utility functions? – Ilya May 17 '13 at 15:02
I would. The calculations unfortunately won't be as nice as with exponential utility, but doable. – quasi May 17 '13 at 15:05
thanks, I'll try and get back to you. – Ilya May 17 '13 at 15:06
@quasi: If I do the same computation for $U(X)=\frac{1}{p}x^p$ then I will get: $$ \int_{-\infty}^\infty U(X+\rho x) = \frac{1}{2}\left( (X+x \mu)^2+x^2\sigma^2 \right) $$ for $p=2$, which cannot be maximized. What do you suggest as values for $p$? – user5396 May 23 '13 at 14:22

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.