3
$\begingroup$

If the returns of my strategy are distributed like 𝒩[μ,σ], what is the optimal fraction of capital to invest in each single trade, as a function μ and σ? Help!

PS. I know that normally distributed returns are an abstraction. But I'd like to grasp the concept in an ideal world, before exploring the implications of fat tails on the formula...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you assume you close each trade at the beginning of the next investment period ? $\endgroup$ – Ezy Jan 4 at 19:09
  • $\begingroup$ yes, I do 1 trade per period. There are never 2 trades open at the same time. $\endgroup$ – elemolotiv Jan 4 at 19:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have you perused Thorp’s papers, for instance, eecs.harvard.edu/cs286r/courses/fall12/papers/… , for one derivation? Another can be done via Itô’s lemma, iirc. $\endgroup$ – LoveTooNap29 Jan 4 at 22:59
  • $\begingroup$ @LoveTooNap29 thanks for the suggestion! $\endgroup$ – elemolotiv Jan 5 at 7:24
5
$\begingroup$

This problem can be expressed as the original Merton's portfolio problem.

Consider wealth process defined by SDE

$$ d X _ { t } = \frac { X _ { t } \alpha _ { t } } { S _ { t } } d S _ { t } + \frac { X _ { t } \left( 1 - \alpha _ { t } \right) } { S _ { t } ^ { 0 } } d S _ { t } ^ { 0 } $$

where $\alpha_t$ is proportion of the investment in the risky asset $S_t$, and $S_t^0$ is the risk-free asset.

Optimality criterion may depend on the risk aversion of the investor, and the problem is to maximize expected utility of the investor for appropriate utility function $U$:

$$ E \left[ U \left( X _ { T } \right) \right] \rightarrow \max $$

Classical choice of the utility function is CRRA:

$$ u ( x ) = \frac { x ^ { 1 - \gamma } } { 1 - \gamma } $$

where $\gamma$ is constant and corresponds to the risk-aversion of the investor.

If the asset $S_t$ follows Black-Scholes dynamics (in conformance with your assumption of log-normal returns)

$$ \begin{aligned} d S _ { t } ^ { 0 } & = r S _ { t } ^ { 0 } d t \\ d S _ { t } & = \mu S _ { t } d t + \sigma S _ { t } d W _ { t } \end{aligned} $$

remarkably there is a closed-form solution which it is to invest a constant proportion of wealth in the risky asset

$$ \alpha_t = \frac { \mu - r } { \gamma \sigma ^ { 2 } } $$

Notice that the solution can be interpreted as the mean-variance trade-off.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Note also that for log-utility (the Kelly case) $\gamma=1$ $\endgroup$ – noob2 Jan 5 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ @nakajuice thanks for the answer! I can't explain this case though. If we suppose γ=1 (kelly case), r=0, μ=0.01€ and σ=0.05€ we get ⍺=4. How can ⍺>1? $\endgroup$ – elemolotiv Jan 6 at 8:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ We assume short-selling is allowed. $\alpha=4$ implies that for each 4 shares you hold, you need to short-sell 3 bonds (read: borrow money). $\endgroup$ – nakajuice Jan 6 at 12:29
0
$\begingroup$

ok I found it 🙂and this works for any distribution, not just the normal distribution

$f^*=\frac μ {σ^2 + μ^2} \approx \frac μ {σ^2} \space if μ\llσ$

here the steps: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4nqd5yfk2xcuag5/kelly.pdf

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This answer is close to, but not identical, to the other well-known one. It would be interesting to understand why the difference. $\endgroup$ – noob2 Jan 5 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ @noob2 what do yo mean "not identical" - in what does it differ? $\endgroup$ – elemolotiv Jan 5 at 21:15

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.