• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

An approximate solution for the power utility optimization under predictable returns Dmytro Ivasiuk Department of Statistics, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt(Oder), Germany E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This work presents an approximate single period solution of the portfolio choice problem for the investor with a power utility function and the predictable returns. Assuming that gross portfolio returns approximately follow a log-normal distribu- tion, it was possible to derive the optimal weights. As it is known, the log-normal distribution seems to be a good proxy of the normal distribution in case if the stan- dard deviation of the last one is way much smaller than its mean. Thus, succeeding to model the behaviour of asset returns as a multivariate normal (conditional nor- mal) distribution (what is a popular way to proceed in academic literature) would be the case to apply the ideas discussed in this work. Besides, the paper provides a simulation study comparing the derived result to the well-know numerical solution. Keywords: CRRA, power utility, utility optimization, numerical solution, log-normal distribution. 1 Introduction The current paper discusses portfolio optimization as the utility of wealth maximization. The classical problem stands for deriving the value function given by the whole investment period with the use of the Bellman backward method (see Pennacchi, 2008; Brandt, 2009). One can find it as the typical solution for the investment strategies for different types of utility functions (see Bodnar et al., 2015a,b). However, most of the time, it is hard arXiv:1911.06552v3 [q-fin.PM] 21 Jan 2021 to succeed and to derive an analytical solution. Because of the difficulty to perform the calculations (see Bodnar et al., 2015b; Campbell and Viceira, 2002), it is needed to have some specific assumptions. On the other hand, one can always use numerical and approximative results (see Brandt et al., 2005; Broadie and Shen, 2017). However, the quadratic utility has a closed-form multi-period solution which requires to estimate a variance-covariance matrix and expected value of the returns (see Bodnar et al., 2015a). W 1−γ This work deals with the power utility of wealth function U(W ) = 1−γ , γ > 0, which classifies as a constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) utility. The interpretation of the CRRA invented by John W. Pratt stands for the person who's investing decisions do not rely on his or her initial wealth (see Campbell and Viceira, 2002; Pennacchi, 2008), which is, in fact, observable in findings of the paper. 1 To derive the optimal weights, we will consider that asset returns follow a multivariate normal distribution. The similar way to proceed is to use a conditional multivariate normal distribution, which appears, for instance, in the vector-autoregressive process given multivariate normal error terms. Those models have become a popular choice to model the return path in recent literature (see Bodnar et al., 2015a,b; Barberis, 2000; Brandt and Santa-Clara, 2006). Consequently, it comes up with the multivariate normal asset returns and, the resulting portfolio returns will be normally distributed, as a linear combination of normal variables. However, it gives no benefits in case of the power utility function. It is convenient to have the log-normal distribution for the gross portfolio returns, to calculate the expected value of a power function of wealth. For that reason, the log-normal distribution emerges as an approximation of the normal distribution. Precisely speaking, the idea is to model the returns using the proxy distribution which behaves similar to the original one. Note that the log-normal distribution often used to model stock returns in literature. However, the resulting portfolio returns do not remain log-normal. For that reason, the idea is to switch to the limit case and work in the continuous-time setting (see Campbell and Viceira, 2002; C¸etinkaya and Thiele, 2016; Herzel and Nicolosi, 2019). The main result of the paper provides approximate single-period optimal portfolio weights for the power utility function. The approximation is based on a similar behaviour of the normal N(µ, σ2) and log-normal LN(ln µ, σ2/µ2) densities if σ/µ approaches zero (see Taras et al., 2020). For instance, let µ = 1 and σ = 0:04 then both densities look pretty similar, as presented in Figure 1. Indeed, testing simulated samples from the corresponding log-normal distribution would frequently fail to reject the normality hypothesis. Performing Shapiro-Wilk test for 105 samples of 2500 values simulated from log-normal distribution LN(0; 0:042) has a p-value greater than 0.05 in around 43% cases. A similar situation holds in practice at a stock market trading: the gross returns fluctuate around value zero within a small interval. It is also notable that the correct definition of the approximation requires a positive definite µ. That is itself a fair assumption since nobody expects to lose all the invested money. One might also question the normality setup because it implies a possibility of negative wealth, although it is quite small from a practical point of view (x ∼ N(1; 0:1) ) p(x < 0) = 7:62·10−24). On the other hand, this issue vanishes under the log-normality (because of the positive definite random variables), that makes it so attractive for the power utility function. One should also clarify that the approach presented in this paper is slightly different from Taras et al. (2020). The present work has the normal distribution to model returns, whereas in Taras et al. (2020) the log-normal distribution has the same mean and variance as gross portfolio returns. As it is known, the power utility optimization has no analytical solution and therefore, for an empirical study we will compare the derived result to the well known numerical solution (see Brandt et al., 2005), since both of them are an approximation. In general, the preferable among two portfolios is the one with a higher expected utility of the final wealth. Thus it is done in the same manner. Simulating the return path from a vector autoregressive model with normally distributed error terms, one can calculate the final utility of wealth for both strategies and examine the outcomes. Even though the numerical solution provides multi-period weights, the derived result (built under a single-period setup) outperforms. Simulations have shown, that the numerical wights produce a smaller sample mean for the final utility of wealth, which means, that in case of a normally distributed returns the derived solution dominates. 2 10 N(1, 0.0016) lnN(0, 0.0016) 8 6 4 2 0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Figure 1: Normal and Log-normal densities 2 Framework Below one can find a framework used to present the portfolio selection problem for a power utility function. Let r denote the one-period random return vector on risky assets and let rf be the return on the risk-free asset. Let ! define portfolio weights of an initial wealth W0 allocated between risky assets. Therefore, if Rf = 1 + rf is the gross return on the risk-free asset and R = r − rf 1 is the vector of excess return on the risky assets, 0 then the investor's wealth at the end of investment period is W = W0 (Rf + ! R). So it is considered that in investor distributes all the money between risky assets and one risk-free asset without any consumption. Also let us define the mean vector and the variance-covariance matrix of the excess returns with the next way: µ = E[r − rf 1], Σ = V ar[r − rf 1]. The purpose of the paper is to derive the optimal portfolio weights in order to maximise the expected utility of the final wealth: !∗ = arg maxE [U (W )] : (1) f!g Precisely speaking, this is a single-period setup of the utility maximization problem (see, Brandt and Santa-Clara, 2006; Pennacchi, 2008; Bodnar et al., 2015a). The analyzed utility U(·) is a power function of wealth W 1−γ U(W ) = ; γ > 0; γ 6= 1; (2) 1 − γ which has constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) γ and belongs to HARA family (see C¸anako˘gluand Ozekici,¨ 2010, 2012). 3 To model the behavior of excess returns, we will use the multivariate normal distribu- tion, N(µ; Σ). On the other hand, to approximate the resulting normal distribution of 0 0 the gross portfolio returns, N(! µ + Rf ; ! Σ!), we choose the log-normal distribution, 0 !0Σ!2 LN(ln(! µ+Rf ); 0 2 ) (see Taras et al., 2020). One can also consider the conditional (! µ+Rf ) normal distribution which is a case when we talk about vector autoregressive processes (see, Barberis, 2000; Campbell and Viceira, 2002; Bodnar et al., 2015b). For instance, if the excess returns follow the VAR process of order one Rt = ' + ΦRt−1 + "t;"t ∼ N (0; Σ) ; 0 then the gross portfolio returns Rf + ! Rt will have the conditional normal distribution 0 0 with the mean Rf + ! (' + ΦRt−1) and the variance ! Σ!. Precisely speaking, only the normality of error terms is crucial, since the idea behind is to approximate the normal distribution with the log-normal based on the convenience to calculate the expected value of a power function of a log-normal random variable: 1 E Xλ = exp αλ + β2λ2 ; if X ∼ LN(α; β2); λ 2 : (3) 2 R 3 Approximate solution of the power utility opti- mization The main finding of this paper presents an approximate solution for a single-period port- folio optimization problem (1). We also consider an investor with a power utility of wealth function (2) and the excess returns to follow the multivariate normal distribution.

Load more

  17

Copy Link