Skip to content
All library documents

Converting MPT Portfolio Weights into Share Quantities

Article Quant Q&A · Author: math

Summary

The document explains how to translate mean-variance portfolio weights into holdings. Given total capital and asset prices, allocate capital in proportion to each optimized weight, then divide each allocation by the asset price to obtain the number of shares. Initial capital does not enter the stated weight optimization when the model assumes a frictionless market and imposes weights summing to one.

In practice, share quantities may need rounding because ordinary markets do not always allow fractional holdings. The answer notes that this can meaningfully distort allocations for small portfolios, especially when instruments such as futures have large contract values. Large portfolios can also face market-impact or liquidity limits, which can be represented as allocation constraints in the optimization. The discussion is conceptual and does not specify a rounding method, transaction-cost model, or detailed constrained optimization procedure.

Key ideas

  • Portfolio weights determine each asset’s capital allocation as a fraction of total capital.
  • Divide an asset’s allocated capital by its price to calculate the target share quantity.
  • Initial capital does not affect theoretical weights under the stated frictionless, fully invested setup.
  • Rounding and minimum contract sizes can materially alter allocations for small portfolios.
  • Large allocations may require asset-level constraints to address market impact and liquidity.

Tags

Full text
# MPT and the connection to asset prices / initial capital


# MPT and the connection to asset prices / initial capital












I have some question about MPT. Suppose we want to build a portfolio given $N$ assets: $A_1,\dots,A_N$. At time $t$ we build the portfolio using MPT, which yields some weight vector $w_t=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_N)$, with $\sum_i\lambda_i = 1$. At time $t$, we have an initial capital $K_t$ and the asset prices are given by $S^1_t,\dots,S^N_t$.

My question is, given the weights $w_t$ which fraction of asset $i$ do I have to buy such that the portfolio is correctly built due to the MPT? In a first step, and for simplicity, we assume one can buy any fraction of an asset. Therefore I would build the portfolio as:

$\frac{S^1_t}{\lambda_1K}$ of asset $A_1$, $\frac{S^2_t}{\lambda_2K}$ of asset $A_2 \dots$ and $\frac{S^1_t}{\lambda_NK}$ of asset $A_N$. Is that correct? How are these things usually done in reality?

Moreover, assuming we have the classical optimization problem

$$\min\{w^T\Sigma w-qR^Tw\}$$

where $R$ is the expected return of the assets and the $\Sigma$ the covariance matrix given the constraint

$$\sum w_i = 1$$

It seems to me that the initial capital does not matter? Or how can the initial capital be linked to into the constraints?

## Answer by Simon (score 3, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/14690

Initial capital is not a real constraint in theoretical analysis, but might be a practical constraint in reality. The objective function you gave defines the efficient frontier corresponding to a given risk tolerance $q \in [0, \infty]$: $$\min\{w^T\Sigma w-qR^Tw\}$$

This criterion is among the other popular optimization criteria, such as minimum variance, maximum Sharpe ratio, etc. By solving these functions numerically, we can obtain the optimal weights, $ W$, subject to the unity constraint $\sum w_i =1 $. In a frictionless theoretical world, assuming total capital of $K$, one will thus allocate capital $K * w_i $ to asset i, which will translates to the $q_i$ shares to purchase in order to achieve MPT portfolio: $$q_i = \frac{K * w_i }{S_i} $$

However, in reality, this number is rarely round number. Since floating number of shares cannot be purchased from standard market, one must apply truncation or rounding operations to the optimization results.

There are certain situations when initial capital does matter. In these cases, one should then pull the capital constraints in to the optimization procedure:

1) It matters when initial capital is too small, such that individual allocation is significantly impacted by rounding and truncation. For portfolio with infinite capital, these rounding effect can be neglected. However, for a small portfolio, truncation operations may lead to substantial impact. For example, for a futures contract, the minimum contract value is usually in the range of 100K dollars. In this case, a small portfolio with total capital of 200K may not be able to allocate capital efficiently without deviating from the optimization results.

2) When initial capital is too large, such that individual allocation can substantially move the market and cause liquidity concerns. In this case, one should supply a maximum capital allocation constraints to selected assets.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.