5
$\begingroup$

In Markowitz' portfolio theory we can construct portfolios with the minimum variance for a given expected return (or vice versa). Across expected risks, this traces out the well-known efficient frontier.

To find the so-called tangency portfolio, we look to solve:

$$\max_x \frac{\mu^T x}{\sqrt{x^T Q x}}$$

Following Tütüncü (section 5.2), this can be reformulated under a change of variables to a simpler quadratic optimisation problem:

$$\min_{y,\kappa} y^T Q y \qquad \text{where} \quad (\mu-r_f)^T y = 1,\; \kappa > 0$$

I've solved the problem and got values for $y$. However.. $\kappa$ is defined in terms of $x$... So, whilst I'm sure this is a stupid question, how do we actually translate the $y$ vector to recover the true portfolio weights $x$??

The only thing I can think of is that I did not include a constraint for $\kappa$. This is for the same reason as above (that it is defined in terms of $x$, and so not available), and because the KKT conditions suggested in this answer also ignore the $\kappa >0$ term.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The $\kappa$ must be related to the other variables in the problem, otherwise your formulation does not make much sense. $\endgroup$
    – Alex C
    Apr 5, 2018 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ I agree; it doesn't make sense to me. $\kappa$ is introduced on p62 of the book linked in the question, and the formulation is at the bottom of the same page, so perhaps I'm missing a nuance in the mathematical derivation, and how the feasible set $\chi$ is defined? $\endgroup$
    – Zac
    Apr 6, 2018 at 0:59

3 Answers 3

4
$\begingroup$

The trick is in the transformation of the constraints used to solve the optimisation problem. This can be seen in the definition of the set $\chi^+$ in the two lines following equation 5.4 of Tütüncü. So, for example, the usual budget constraint ($e^Tx = 1$) would be replaced by ($e^Tx - \kappa = 0$). After the addition of that constraint, the solution with the maximum Sharpe ratio is $x^* = \frac{\hat{x}}{\hat{\kappa}}$, where $(\hat{x},\hat{\kappa})$ is the solution to the quadratic programming problem (see bottom of page 62).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The formulation allows for a variable $\kappa$ that can take any positive value. In your code, you are using $\kappa$ as a constraint in your Lagrangean, when you should be augmenting your solution vector with a $\kappa$. In other words, you should be solving for $(x, \kappa)$ rather than $x$. $\endgroup$ Apr 6, 2018 at 14:44
  • $\begingroup$ I think that’s the wrong approach. Your Lagrangean is $L(x, \kappa, \lambda_1, \lambda_2)$, and you should be solving for $(x, \kappa, \lambda_1, \lambda_2)$. Hence, your $A$ matrix should be $ (N+3) \times (N+3)$. There should be an extra row for $ \frac{\partial L}{\partial \kappa} = \lambda_1$. Your $b$ values should be all 0, apart from the $\lambda_2$ entry, which should be 1. $\endgroup$ Apr 6, 2018 at 17:44
0
$\begingroup$

H is the hessian matrix

f = [0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0];
n = 10;
rf = 0.0082;
ExpReturns =  -0.00591 + 0.002 * (1:10)';

% Optimization problem data
lb = zeros(n+1,1);
ub = inf*ones(n+1,1);
F = ones(n,1);
Aeq = [( AvrReturn- rf)' 0;ones(1,n) -1];
beq = [1; 0];
A = [eye(n),-1*ones(n,1)];
b = zeros(n,1);
[x4 fval4,exitflag,output] = quadprog(H,f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub)
y = x4(1:n);
k = x4(n + 1);
x = x4/k;
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ " ExpReturn" and "F " are not useful in the code, there should be ignored. $\endgroup$ Apr 14, 2020 at 19:50
0
$\begingroup$

As you follow through the derivation, you'll note that $y = \lambda \cdot x$. This transformation was created to remove the numerator from the main optimization problem, and reframe it as a boundary condition $(\mu^T - \mathbb{1}^T) \cdot y = 1$.

After you've finished the optimization problem and obtained your y vector, you now have to tackle $x = \frac{y}{\lambda}$. You don't need to keep track of this transformation constant during the problem, because we know that by the nature of portfolio weights, $\mathbb{1}^T\cdot x = 1$, or rather the sum of all weights should equal 1. So all you have to do now, is normalize your y vector - that is, calculate the sum of your values in the y vector, and use that value as the scalar divisor for y to obtain x. $x = \frac{y}{\sum^{len(y)}_{i=1}y_i}$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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