I have calculated my optimal portfolio weights following the mean-variance framework where I go $w_1$ in the risky asset and $1-w_1$ in the risk free rate.

I get the following result: $w_1$ = 1.5, 1-$w_1$ = -0.5

My question is, how can I interpret this? Obviously I need to short the risk-free rate and go long in the risky asset. However, if I have 100 dollars to use for my portfolio, how do I allocate this amount in practice?

Moreover, it should follow that I go long with 150 dollars and short 50, but the question is, where does this money come from? How is it possible that I get money when I go short?

One option would be to standardize the sum of the weights. Hence this is not possible as then you never will invest in the risk-free rate.


closed as off topic by Bob Jansen, Matt, John, Alexey Kalmykov, zuiqo Feb 2 '13 at 12:47

Questions on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange are expected to relate to quantitative finance within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You are aware of what a "margin account" is, right? $\endgroup$ – chrisaycock Feb 1 '13 at 18:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can't questions directly be closed that are asked by someone who is obviously not working in this industry nor has sufficient exposure to quant finance? I thought that was the whole idea of this site to provide a platform for exchange between quants. $\endgroup$ – Matt Feb 2 '13 at 1:48

In your set up where you have just two assets, risky asset and risk-free asset, where weight of risky asset is w1, and consequently weight of risk-free asset is 1 - w1:

w1 = 1, => You invest all your money in the risky asset.

w1 = 0, => You invest all your money in the risk-free asset

0 < w1 < 1, => You invest some of your money in the risky asset and some of it in the risk-free asset

w1 > 1, => Your case : you invest all you money (100) in the risky asset, plus you borrow (50) at risk free-rate and invest it in the risky asset.

w1 < 0, => implies that you short the risky asset to invest in the risky free rate, this behavior is irrational, because we can find combinations of risky asset and risk-free asset that yield higher mean return at lower variance, thus w1 < 0, should never happen.


You borrow the money against the risk free rate.


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