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?