Skip to content
All library documents

Why Portfolio Returns Use Beginning-Period Asset Weights

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Peter Wills

Summary

The document resolves an apparent conflict between portfolio returns calculated from portfolio value and weighted averages of individual asset returns. The key is that portfolio weights for the return period must be measured at its start. With fixed asset quantities between periods, each beginning value weight is the asset’s initial market value divided by the portfolio’s initial value.

Under those conditions, the portfolio’s simple return equals the sum of each asset’s simple return multiplied by its beginning-period weight. The weights generally change by the end of the period as prices move. Thus fixed quantities do not imply fixed percentage weights. The explanation assumes no rebalancing during the period and weights that sum to one; it does not address transaction costs, cash flows, or more complex portfolio accounting.

Key ideas

  • Portfolio simple returns aggregate using weights measured at the start of the period.
  • Beginning weights are determined by asset quantities multiplied by beginning prices.
  • With no rebalancing, quantities remain constant while percentage weights change with prices.
  • Using end-period or otherwise mismatched weights does not generally reproduce the portfolio return.

Tags

Full text
# Proof that linear returns aggregate across securities


# Proof that linear returns aggregate across securities












I keep reading that linear returns aggregate across securities, but I'm having trouble proving it. I suspect there's some mistake in my approach; I'd appreciate some help in seeing it.

Suppose we have two securities, $A$ and $B$. They have prices at timestep $t$ of $P_A^t$ and $P_B^t$, respectively. The portfolio has weights $w_A$ and $w_B$, which sum to 1. The price of the portfolio is then

$$P_P^t = w_A P_A^t + w_B P_B^t.$$

We define linear returns via the formula

$$R^t = \frac{P^t}{P^{t-1}} - 1.$$

Thus, the linear returns of the portfolio are

$$R_P^t = \frac{P_P^t}{P_P^{t-1}} - 1 = \frac{w_A P_A^t + w_B P_B^t}{w_A P_A^{t-1} + w_B P_B^{t-1}} - 1$$

I see it claimed in various locations around the internet that these returns aggregate over securities, which is to say that

$$R_P^t = w_A R_A^t + w_B R_B^t.$$

However, this formula yields

$$ R_P^t = w_A \frac{P_A^t}{P_A^{t-1}} + w_B \frac{P_B^t}{P_B^{t-1}} - 1$$

which, as far as I can see, is not in general equal to the previous expression for returns. In particular,

$$ w_A \frac{P_A^t}{P_A^{t-1}} + w_B \frac{P_B^t}{P_B^{t-1}} \neq \frac{w_A P_A^t + w_B P_B^t}{w_A P_A^{t-1} + w_B P_B^{t-1}}.$$

What am I missing here? I need to be able to use linearity when justifying Markowitz-style optimization.

## Answer by LocalVolatility (score 6)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/31958

I think you are simply confusing percentage weights and number of assets.

In your definition the initial percentage weight of the $m$ assets in the portfolio are given by $w_i^{t - 1}$ and they sum to one, i.e.

\begin{equation} \sum_{i = 1}^m w_i^{t - 1} = 1. \end{equation}

Now define the absolute number of assets as $n_i$. They are linked to the percentage weights through

\begin{equation} w_i^{t - 1} = \frac{n_i P_i^{t - 1}}{\sum_{j = 1}^m n_j P_j^{t - 1}}. \end{equation}

As you don't rebalance your portfolio, the number of assets stays the same in $t - 1$ and $t$. The value of the portfolio at any time $t$ is

\begin{equation} P_P^t = \sum_{i = 1}^m n_i P_i^t. \end{equation}

Then

\begin{eqnarray} R_P^t & = & \frac{P_P^t}{P_P^{t - 1}} - 1\\ & = & \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^m n_i P_i^t}{\sum_{j = 1}^m n_j P_j^{t - 1}} - 1\\ & = & \sum_{i = 1}^m \left( \frac{n_i P_i^{t - 1}}{\sum_{j = 1}^m n_j P_j^{t - 1}} \right)\frac{P_i^t}{P_i^{t - 1}} - 1\\ & = & \sum_{i = 1}^m w_i^{t - 1} \frac{P_i^t}{P_i^{t - 1}} - 1\\ & = & \sum_{i = 1}^m w_i^{t - 1} R_i^t \end{eqnarray}

Note that generally $w_i^t \neq w_i^{t - 1}$.

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.