Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:33:24.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homogeneous Risk Measures and the Construction of Composite Assets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

William Breen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The use of the expected utility hypothesis and the “portfolio approach” has recently become quite popular by both writers in monetary theory and in financial management. Most discussions are given within what might be called the Tobin-Markowitz framework. One very important result recently discussed at some length is the Tobin “separation theorem.” This theorem essentially says that a quadratic preference function, or a normal distribution of returns on risky assets is a sufficient condition for the proportions of the various risky assets in a portfolio to be independent of the proportion of the portfolio held in a safe asset. The proofs of this theorem are given within a framework of the decision maker who minimizes portfolio variance for a given portfolio return, using variance as a measure of risk of the portfolio.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 1968 , pp. 405 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Arrow, K. S., and Enthoven, A. C., “Quasi-Concave Programming,” Econometrica, Vol. 29, No. 4 (1961), pp. 779–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Breen, William, “Liquidity Preference, Degree of Risk Aversion and the Expected Utility Hypothesis,” unpublished manuscript, April 1967.Google Scholar
3.Lintner, John, “The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets,” Review of Economies and Statistics, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1965), pp. 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Lintner, John, “Security Prices, Risk, and Maximal Gains from Diversifications, “Journal of Finance, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1965), pp. 587–615.Google Scholar
5.Markowitz, Harry, Portfolio Selections: Efficient Diversification of Investments (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959).Google Scholar
6.Pratt, John, “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large,” Econometrica, Vol. 32, No. 1 – 2 (1964), pp. 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Sharpe, W. F., “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1964), pp. 425–442.Google Scholar
8.Tobin, James, “Liquidity Preference as Behavior Toward Risk,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 25 (2) No. 67 (1958), pp. 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar