Mean-Variance Portfolio Weights With and Without Short Selling
Summary
The discussion considers how to allocate capital between two risky stocks when their returns are negatively correlated. It separates maximizing expected return from minimizing variance: under a fully invested, long-only constraint, expected return is a linear function of the weights, so its maximum lies entirely in the stock with the higher expected return. For minimum variance, the answer gives the covariance-matrix solution for a fully invested unconstrained portfolio and describes enforcing long-only weights as inequality constraints.
A numerical example reports a minimum-variance allocation of roughly 83% and 17% for the stated inputs. The response does not fully resolve the short-selling cases, and its claim that return maximization is unbounded assumes a different setup from the question’s fixed investment amount and fully invested weights. The treatment is introductory: practical portfolios may require additional constraints, and the Sharpe-ratio question is left unanswered.
Key ideas
- With fully invested weights, expected return is linear, so its long-only maximum selects the asset with the higher expected return.
- Minimum-variance weights depend on the covariance matrix and the full-investment constraint.
- Long-only restrictions can be represented as inequality constraints in an optimization problem.
- Negative correlation can reduce portfolio variance, but does not alone determine the optimal allocation.
- The discussion does not fully answer the short-selling or Sharpe-ratio questions.
Tags
Full text
# 2 stocks, no shorting vs shorting. (concrete questions, mean-variance)
# 2 stocks, no shorting vs shorting. (concrete questions, mean-variance)
I'd appreciate help with the following questions.
Suppose there are two stocks $A$ and $B$ with expected returns $E_A, E_B >0$ and volatilities $v_A, v_B >0$, respectively . Also, suppose their correlation is $\rho_{AB} = \rho <0$. Given a dollar amount $D>0$ to invest without shorting, how should $D$ be invested in $A,B$ so that i) Expected return is maximized? ii) Overall volatility is minimized?
My second question: same questions (i) and (ii) but now with shorting allowed.
Intuitively, volatility is a standard deviation of a stock's price (or return) over a fixed period of time. Therefore (for a fixed period of time), in the case $E_A > E_B$ and $v_A>v_B$, I'd expect a 'middle-ground' determined by comparing the ratios $E_A/v_A$ with $E_B/v_B$.
Finally, how might Sharpe ratio play into these questions? (would it measure the 'strength' of a strategy?) Also, how approach this question for $n>2$ stocks $A_1,\ldots, A_n$? I would think to set $A = A_1$ and $B = A_2 +\cdots + A_n$
Concrete (mathematical) answers as well as general references to tackle these problems is appreciated.
## Answer by user9482 (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/12962
The concrete (general) answer to part (ii) of my question seems to be contained in Equation 8 of the following link: http://www.columbia.edu/~ks20/FE-Notes/4700-07-Notes-portfolio-I.pdf
In particular, interpreting $\sigma$ as volatility, take for example $E_A=0.10,\sigma_A=0.15,E_B=0.25,\sigma_B=0.40$ and $\rho =−0.2$.
I get that about 83 percent of the money should be invested in $A$ and 17 percent for $B$. Namely, if $D = 1000$, then about 830 into $A$ and 170 into $B$. No shorting is required in this case since $\rho <0$.
The return, as calculated from Eq. (4) in the above pdf, in this case is about $+125$ in profit.
Update. Regarding (i). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as for "maximizing return" it seems we want to maximize the following function: $R(a) = aE_A + (1-a)E_B$. Since $R(a)$ is linear in $a$, then we see that $\max R(a)$ subject to $0\leq a \leq 1$, occurs at $a = 1$ iff $E_A\geq E_B$ or either at $a = 0$ iff $E_A < E_B$. Certainly though, the approach should be different if we are maximizing return with respect to a specified level of risk or volatility in the desired portfolio (help on this last point would be appreciated).
## Answer by madilyn (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/12952
Firstly, to answer your question for part (i), this part of the question makes no sense - your expected return is unbounded and is asymptotically linear with respect to risk.
Let ${\bf w}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$ denote your vector of weights, $\Omega$ denote the covariance matrix and $\iota$ denote a unit exposure vector (defined by $\iota_{j}:=1\ \forall j, j \in \mathbb{Z}^{*}$). We have:
$ \mu_{P}={\bf w}\cdot\mu=\sum w_{i}\mu_{i} $
$ \sigma_{P}^{2}={\bf w}^{T}\Omega{\bf w}=\sum_{i\neq j}w_{i}w_{j}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\rho_{ij} $
$n\in\mathbb{Z}^{*}$ equality constraints of form $g_{k}\left({\bf w}\right)=c,\ c\in\mathbb{R},k=1,...,n$ are imposed. We define the Lagrangian:
$ \mathcal{L}\left({\bf w},k_{1},...,k_{n}\right):=\dfrac{1}{2}{\bf w}^{T}\Omega{\bf w}+k_{1}g_{k}\left({\bf w}\right)+...k_{2}g_{k}\left({\bf w}\right) $
For example, for a single constraint that you are fully invested, you solve for the Lagrange multipliers for:
$ \mathcal{L}\left({\bf w},l\right)=\dfrac{1}{2}{\bf w}^{T}\Omega{\bf w}+l\left(1-{\bf w}\cdot\iota\right) $
Then, you can find the minimum variance (volatility) portfolio:
$ {\bf w}_{min}=l\Omega^{-1}\iota=\dfrac{\Omega^{-1}}{\iota^{T}\Omega^{-1}\iota} $
This answers your question for part (ii).
As for your remaining question about shorting, this could be expressed as an inequality constraint ${\bf w}\geq{\bf 0}$ for ${\bf w},{\bf 0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$. Then, you can formulate this as a classical nonlinear programming problem and solve the first order necessary conditions (Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions).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.