Deriving the Kelly Fraction for a Risky Asset in Geometric Brownian Motion
Summary
The document checks a continuous-time Kelly criterion derivation for a portfolio split between a risky asset and a risk-free asset. The key correction to the proposed wealth process is that the Brownian shock must be scaled by the risky allocation as well as by asset volatility. This scaling matters when simulating portfolio wealth because the chosen fraction changes the portfolio’s exposure to risk.
The derivation maximizes expected logarithmic wealth. Taking the logarithm turns wealth growth into a drift term plus a Brownian term; conditional on initial wealth, the Brownian term has zero expectation. Maximizing the remaining drift yields the optimal risky fraction as the excess expected return divided by variance. The result assumes the stated geometric Brownian motion setup, a constant allocation, and a positive time horizon. It does not address estimation error, constraints on allocation, or departures from the model assumptions.
Key ideas
- The Brownian component of portfolio wealth must include the risky investment fraction.
- Kelly sizing maximizes expected logarithmic wealth rather than expected wealth itself.
- The Brownian shock has zero conditional mean, leaving the drift to determine expected log wealth.
- Under the stated model, the optimal risky fraction is excess return divided by return variance.
- The derivation relies on a continuous-time model and does not account for parameter uncertainty or trading constraints.
Tags
Full text
# Did I derive the Kelly criterion correctly?
# Did I derive the Kelly criterion correctly?
$$\frac{dX_t}{X_t}=\alpha\frac{dS_t}{S_t}+(1-\alpha)\frac{dS^0_t}{S^0_t}$$
where $\alpha$ is proportion of the investment in the risky asset $S_t$ and $S^0_t$ is the risk-free asset. $S_t$ follows a geometric Brownian motion,
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{dS_t}{S_t} &= \mu{dt} + \sigma{dW_t} \\ \frac{dS^0_t}{S^0_t} &= r dt \end{aligned}$$
Substituting the equation, we get
$$\frac{dX_t}{X_t}=(\alpha\mu+(1-\alpha)r)dt+\alpha\sigma{dW_t}$$
Solving the following SDE yields
$$X_t = X_0 \exp\left(\left(\alpha\mu + (1-\alpha) r -\frac{(\alpha\mu)^2}{2}\right)t+\sigma{W_t}\right)$$
So we have to maximize $\alpha\mu+(1-\alpha)r-\frac{(\alpha\mu)^2}{2}$. Differentiating the above expression $\mu-r-\alpha\sigma^2$, so $\alpha=\frac{\mu-r}{\sigma^2}$. I think there might be an error in my derivation. I looked at this part and felt that something was off.
$$X_t = X_0 \exp\left(\left(\alpha\mu+(1-\alpha)r-\frac{(\alpha\mu)^2}{2}\right)t+\sigma{W_t}\right)$$
Did I derive the Kelly formula correctly?
## Answer by Nap D. Lover (score 2, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/75459
Might be a typo but you dropped the $\alpha$ on the noise term after solving the SDE: in $\exp(...)$ you should have $\alpha \sigma W_t$ instead of $\sigma W_t$. For deriving the Kelly criterion, it won't matter since we will take the mean and this will vanish (see below). But in simulations this is important to get right, since your investment fraction $\alpha$ will scale the volatility $\sigma$ you're getting from the asset $S$.
Let $g(\alpha) = r+(\mu-r)\alpha-\frac12 \sigma^2 \alpha^2$. This is just your expression, with some rearrangement. Your solution $X_t$ can now be written (with the above note in mind) as $$X_t = X_0 \exp(g(\alpha)t+\sigma \alpha W_t).$$ The Kelly criterion says to maximize the expected log utility: $$f(\alpha,t,x) = \mathbb{E}(\log X_t|X_0=x),$$ Taking logarithms gives $$\log X_t = \log X_0 +g(\alpha) t +\sigma \alpha W_t$$ Taking the expectation conditional on $X_0=x$, gives $$f(\alpha,t,x)=\log x +g(\alpha) t+0,$$ Differentiating this with respect to $\alpha$ gives $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial \alpha} = g'(\alpha)t$$ which is equal to zero if and only if $g'(\alpha)=0$ (we assume $t>0$). Computing $g'(\alpha)$ from the definition and setting it equal to zero means we have to solve $$g'(\alpha) = \mu-r-\frac12 \sigma^2 \alpha=0,$$ which gives the solution $\alpha^* = (\mu-r)/\sigma^2$ as desired. Your derivation is essentially the same but omits some of reasoning that would justify the steps (1. taking logs allows us to focus on the argument to $\exp$, 2. taking means makes the noise term vanish, so we just have to maximize the drift part).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.