I denote by $W_0$ and $W_1$ the wealth of an investor at $t=0$ and $t=1$, respectively. Let $r_f$ be the risk free rate, $r$ the vector of returns of the risky assets in excess of the risk free rate, and $w$ the vector of weights of the risky assets. Here is the classical mean-variance optimization problem: $$\max_{w} E(W_1)-\frac{\gamma}{2}Var(W_1)$$ $$\textrm{st.}\hspace{0.5cm} W_1=W_0(1+r_f+w'r)$$

Injecting the constraint into the optimization problem, the first order condition is thus written as follows: $$\frac{1}{\gamma} E(r)=W_0Var(r)w$$

My point is that I would like to end up with the classical mean-variance first-order condition: $$\frac{1}{\gamma} E(r)=Var(r)w$$

But I still have this $W_0$ in the equation... Did I miss something? Could someone please help me? Thanks


1 Answer 1


I get the maximization problem $$ \max\limits_{w} \mathbb{E}\left[W_1\right] - \frac{\gamma}{2} Var(W_1) $$ $$ st. W_1 = W_0(1 + r_f + w^Tr)$$ So we have \begin{align*} L(w) &= \mathbb{E}\left[W_1\right] - \frac{\gamma}{2} Var(W_1)\\ & = \mathbb{E}\left[W_0(1 + r_f + w^Tr)\right] - \frac{\gamma}{2} Var(W_0(1 + r_f + w^Tr))\\ & = W_0 + W_0r_f + W_0w^T\mathbb{E}\left[r\right] - \frac{\gamma}{2}W_0^2 w^TwVar(r) \end{align*} Building the derivative w.r.t. $w$

\begin{align*} \partial L(w) / \partial w &= W_0 \mathbb{E}\left[r\right] - \frac{\gamma}{2}W_0^2 2wVar(r)\\ &= W_0 \mathbb{E}\left[r\right] - \gamma W_0^2 wVar(r) \overset{!}{=} 0 \\ \Leftrightarrow \frac{1}{\gamma}\mathbb{E}\left[r\right] & = W_0Var(r)w \end{align*} So, I get $ w = \frac{\mathbb{E}[r]}{\gamma W_0Var(r)}$. Set initial wealth $W_0 = 1$ and you get the desired result. The optimal investment strategy $w$ is $W_0$ dependent.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, that is basically the calculus I do (except that your matrix calculation is not appropriate: prefer $w'Var(r)w$) and the result I get. So I was wondering whether it was a classical assumption in research papers to set $W_0=1$. $\endgroup$
    – Dadoo
    Apr 4, 2019 at 21:26
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have a link to the exercise? $\endgroup$
    – SmurfAcco
    Apr 4, 2019 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ It is not an exercise, it is my work. $\endgroup$
    – Dadoo
    Apr 5, 2019 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ just provide another perspective. the unit between the first and second term is differen. so the penalty gamma should have a unit. so the disapper of Wo can be absorbed by gamma. if you try to maximam sharp ratio you can find what gamma will be $\endgroup$
    – XYQ
    Apr 5, 2019 at 22:41

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.