I am trying to follow the Optimal Kelly derivation on Wikipedia for two continuous assets: one risky and one risk-free.

The derivation begins by assuming that the risky assets follows a GBM (a special type of exponential semi-martingale). It is assumed that we already know the solution for the expected value of $S_t$ (convexity adjustment and all).

The derivation then says that our expected rate of return from investing $f$ in the risky asset and $(1-f)$ in the risk-free asset is:

(1) $${\displaystyle G(f)=f\mu -{\frac {(f\sigma )^{2}}{2}}+(1-f)\ r}$$

How did $G(f)$ become a quadratic function of $f$? Intuitively, the quadratic form makes more sense because otherwise optimizing for a linear $f^*$ would prescribe maximum leverage and thereby assure Gambler's ruin. My sense is that it follows from Ito's lemma (or some analogue of it).

I follow along with the remainder of the derivation in terms of finding $f^*$.

(Correct answer awarded for proof by Ito’s Lemma)

extra credit

But why is $G(f)$ not the following?

(2) $$G(f)= \ln\left(f\,e^{(\mu -{\frac {\sigma^{2}}{2}})}\ + (1-f)\,e^r\right) $$

Because: $${\mathbb{E}[S_t]} = S_0\,e^{(\mu -{\frac {\sigma^{2}}{2}})t}$$

I.e., how the fractional weights for the risky and riskless asset make their ways into the exponent?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi: If $\sigma^2$ is the variance of the price and $f$ is the rate of return, then the variance of the profit and loss ( i.e, the profit ) = $f^2 \sigma^2$. Essentially, you use $var(ax) = a^2 var(x)$. $\endgroup$
    – mark leeds
    Oct 24 '18 at 13:29
  • $\begingroup$ @David The Kelly Criterion is about maximising the expected value of terminal wealth. Terminal wealth = $G(f) = f\frac{S_t}{S_0} + (1-f)e^{rt}$. The aim is to maximise the expectation of that, but you have your expectation of $S_t$ inside the logarithm, and I don't understand why you have a second logarithm term. $\endgroup$ Nov 1 '18 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ Okay. I have fixed that. I guess I am just having an issue discretizing the phenomenon. Intuitively, I feel as though terminal wealth is proportional to the fraction of wealth allocated times the percent return. I nonetheless accept your prior response as mathematically correct. $\endgroup$ Nov 1 '18 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ I think your intuition about terminal wealth is correct, but he Kelly Criterion is about maximising the expected value of the logarithm of the total wealth $\mathbb{E}(ln(G))$. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality for why $\mathbb{E}(ln(G))$ doesn't equal $ln(\mathbb{E}(G)$. $\endgroup$ Nov 2 '18 at 9:41

The Kelly Criterion aims to maximise the expected value of the logarithm of terminal wealth. The derivation starts off by assuming that there is a risky asset that is following a Geometric Brownian Motion:

$$ \frac{\,dS}{S} = \mu \,dt + \sigma \,dZ_t $$

This is combined with a riskless asset that is continuously compounding:

$$ \frac{dB}{B} = r \,dt $$

Hence, if we build a portfolio of the two with proportions $f$ in the risky asset and $1-f$ in the riskless asset, its value, $G$, will follow the equation:

$$ \frac{\,dG}{G} = \frac{(1-f)\,dB + f\,dS}{G} = (1-f) r \,dt + f\mu \,dt + f\sigma \,dZ_t $$

In other words, its value will follow a Geometric Brownian Motion with drift, $(1-f)r + f\mu$, and variance, $f\sigma$.

We can use Ito’s lemma to find the time-dependent process for $\log(G)$. Using Ito’s Lemma with $f(G) = \log(G)$ gives:

$$ \begin{align} \,d f(G) & = f'(G)\,dG + \frac{1}{2}f''(G) (Gf\sigma)^2 \,dt \\[3pt] &= \left((1-f) r \,dt + f\mu \,dt + f\sigma \,dZ_t\right) -\frac{1}{2}(f\sigma)^2\,dt \end{align}$$

In other words, our expected value for $\log(G)$ after 1 period is $(1-f)r + f\mu -\frac{1}{2}(f\sigma)^2$. It is easy to derive $f^*$ from this formula.

I am sure you can tie this in to Shannon’s Demon if you want, but I haven’t done that here.

  • $\begingroup$ I accept this as correct. But could you briefly explain why the second term of $f'(G)$ is negative? The wiki derivation has this term as positive. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) $\endgroup$ Oct 24 '18 at 20:36
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, it was a typo. Should be fixed now. $\endgroup$ Oct 25 '18 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ There is a typo in the third equation. It should read $dG/G=dB/G + dS/G$ and the rest is correct since by definition $G=B+S$ $\endgroup$
    – Ezy
    Jan 8 '19 at 1:58

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.