Calculation of investment portfolios with risk free borrowing and lending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We colisider the .problem of portfolio selection for a risk averse investor wishing to allocate his resources among several investment opportunities in order to maximize the expected utility of final wealth. The calculation of the optimal investment proportions generally requires the solution of a stochastic program whose dimension is the number of risky investments. The computations are simplified dramatically when there is a risk free asset and the investment returns are jointly normally distributed. In this case Tobin has shown that the investment proportions in the risky assets are independent of the utility function and Lintner has shown that these proportions may be obtained from the solution of a fractional program. It is shown under mild hypotheses that the fractional program has a pseudo-concave objective and that the program always has a unique solution. The solution may be sought in several ways, perhaps most efficiently via Lemke's algorithm applied to a linear complementarity problem. The optimal investment proportions in all assets may be found by solving a stochastic program having one random variable and one decision variable via a search technique. Data on the major pooled Canadian equity pension funds were used to provide an empirical test of the suggested solution approach. Five common classes of utility functions were utilized with varying parameter values. For each class there are smooth curves that related the investment in the risk free asset to the parameters of the utility function. The investor is more risk averse when faced with quarterly data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".