0
$\begingroup$

Background Information:

I came across this question in chapter 2 of Active portfolio Management by Grinold and Kahn. It pertains to the efficient frontier which is displayed below: enter image description here

Question:

If $T$ is fully invested and efficient and $T\neq C$, prove there exists a fully invested portfoli $T^{*}$ such that $Cov(r_T, r_{T^{*}}) = 0$

We have that $T$ is fully invested on the efficient frontier so $h_{T}^{T}e = 1$ since we want to find a $T^{*}$ that is also fully invested and efficient but $T^{*}\neq C$ it seems to me by the picture above that the only way we can have $Cov(r_T, r_{T^{*}}) = 0$ then $T^{*} = Q$?

Additional thoughts:

Since $T$ is efficient and fully invested it must be a linear combination of $h_C$ and $h_Q$ thus $$h_T = c_1 h_C + c_2 h_Q$$

Then since $h_T^{T}e = 1$,

$$\left(c_1h_C + c_2 h_Q\right)^{T}e = 1 \ \Rightarrow \ c_1 + c_2 = 1$$

Like wise since $T^{*}$ is fully invested so $h_{T^*}^{T}e = 1$. Now, $r_T = h_{T}^{T} r = \left(c_1h_C + c_2 h_Q\right)^{T}r$ and $r_{T^{*}} = h_{T^{*}}^{T}r$ So, \begin{align*} Cov(r_T,r_{T^{*}}) &= Cov((c_1h_{C}^{T} + c_2 h_{Q}^{T})r,h_{T^{*}}^{T}r)\\ &= c_1 c_2 Cov(h_C^{T}r + h_Q^{T}r, h_{T^{*}}^{T}r)\\ &= c_1 c_2\left(E[(h_C^T r + h_Q^{T})h_{T^{*}}^{T}r] - E[h_C^{T}r + h_{Q}^{T}r]E[h_{T^{*}}^{T}r]\right)\\ &= c_1 c_2 \left(E[h_{C}^{T}r h_{T^{*}}r] + E[h_{Q}^{T}r h_{T^{*}}^T r] - E[h_C^{T}r]E[h_{T^{*}}^T r] - E[h_{Q}^{T}r] E[h_{T^{*}}^T r]\right)\\ &= 0 \end{align*}

I am not sure if this is correct although. I don't really know exactly how to approach this problem, any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There has to be some assumptions (forgive me for being a bit picky). You need to have at least 2 orthogonal components in the portfolio (after decomposition). Then you can think about this problem as finding a vector that is orthogonal to a existing vector. on a 2-d plane, you obviously have a unique orthogonal vector. In a 3-d or more space, the result is not unique anymore. With this intuition, I think the proof would be easy to construct. $\endgroup$ – Will Gu Dec 10 '16 at 0:16
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe I am blind - but what is $r_P$ or the corresponding portfolio $P$? $\endgroup$ – LocalVolatility Dec 10 '16 at 0:46
  • $\begingroup$ The portfolio $P$ as defined by what my class has discussed to be us determined by a holding vector for $N$ available assets: $$h = h_P = \begin{pmatrix} h_1\\ \vdots\\ h_N \end{pmatrix}$$ $\endgroup$ – Wolfy Dec 10 '16 at 2:11
  • $\begingroup$ You can also think if it as a benchmark portfolio like the S&P 500 I believe $\endgroup$ – Wolfy Dec 10 '16 at 2:13
  • $\begingroup$ Any portfolio is defined via a weight vector. So what is special about P? It seems to matter here. $\endgroup$ – LocalVolatility Dec 10 '16 at 12:46
2
$\begingroup$

There is a procedure for finding $T^*$ starting from the portfolio $T$ on the efficient frontier, such that $cov(T^*,T)=0$:

From the point $T$ draw a line thorough the point $C$ (which represents the global minimum variance portfolio or GMVP) until it intersects the Y axis at a point $R_z$. Draw a horizontal line from this point until it intersect the parabola at a point we will call $T^*$. This is the desired portfolio having zero covariance with $T$.

Clearly if T and C coincides the procedure fails: the line TC is not defined. We know that the GMVP has the same non-zero covariance with every portfolio on the parabola, so this case is not solvable.

The detailed proof can be found for example on page 6,7,8 of this paper

https://eclass.aueb.gr/modules/document/file.php/INF258/ConstMalliarisPortfolioChapter.pdf

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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