Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:57:58.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Some Portfolio-Relevant Risk Characteristics of Long-Term Marketable Securities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Extract

Despite apparent implications of normative portfolio theory for portfolios that incorporate a wide variety of marketable security forms, most of the literature concerned with application or empirical testing of the theory has considered portfolios composed only of common stocks, cash, and the proverbial riskless bond. However, nonequity securities constitute a significant component of investors' total financial wealth, and broadly diversified securities portfolios are commonplace. The objectives of this paper are to examine the risk characteristics of 19 classes of long-term marketable securities, ranging from U.S. government bonds to speculative common stocks, and to explore some implications of these characteristics for diversification of actual securities portfolios. The first section presents some risk measures for these security classes which are derived from ex post holding period return data for the 18 years, 1951–1968. This section includes an appraisal of the efficacy of alternative approaches to the generation of the matrix of interrelationships among the returns of broad types of securities. The second section utilizes the ex post risk measures to explore the composition of minimum risk portfolios consisting of two types of marketable securities, and the final section considers the question of appropriate media for the efficient diversification of common stock portfolios.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1973

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]Bierman, Harold. “Using Investment Portfolios to Change Risk.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 3 (June 1968), pp. 151166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Cohen, Kalman J., and Pogue, Jerry A.. “An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Portfolio-Selection Models.” Journal of Business, vol. 40 (April 1967), pp. 166193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Friedman, Harris C. “Theoretical and Empirical Analyses of Mixed Asset Portfolios.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1970.Google Scholar
[4]Hastie, K. Larry.The Determination of Optimal Investment PolicyManagement Science, vol. 13B (August 1967), pp. 757774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Joyce, Jon M., and Vogel, Robert C.. “The Uncertainty in Risk: Is Variance Unambiguous?Journal of Finance, vol. 25 (March 1970), pp. 127134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Renshaw, Edward F.Portfolio Balance Models in Perspective: Some Generalizations That Can be Derived from the Two-Asset Case.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 2 (June 1967), p. 123149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Silber, William L.Portfolio Behavior of Financial Institutions. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
[8]Sloane, Peter E. “Determinants of Bond Yield Differentials, 1954 to 1959.” In Financial Markets and Economic Activity. Edited by Hester, Donald D. and Tobin, James. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University, Monograph 21, 1967, pp. 189245.Google Scholar
[9]Smith, Keith V.Stock Price and Economic Indices for Generating Efficient PortfoliosJournal of Business, vol. 42 (July 1969), pp. 326336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Smith, Keith V.Portfolio Management. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
[11]Soldofsky, Robert M., and Miller, Roger L.. “Risk-Return Curves for Different Classes of Long-Term Securities, 1950–1966Journal of Finance, vol. 24 (June 1969), pp. 429445.Google Scholar
[12]Wallingford, Buckner A.A Survey and Comparison of Portfolio Selection ModelsJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 2 (June 1967), pp. 326336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar