Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T10:51:46.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Toward the Development of an Equilibrium Capital-Market Model Based on Semivariance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Extract

A fundamental function of any portfolio selection model is the identification of inefficient portfolios and the consequent reduction of the set of alternative investments that the decision maker must evaluate. In the absence of a specific utility function, the establishment of criteria for the identification of inefficient portfolios must strike a compromise in terms of convenience and effectiveness. Of the myriad possibilities, models employing a criterion based on two parameters have been found most convenient for reasons of simplicity of interpretation and computational feasibility. Certainly, the most popular of the two parameter models has been the expected value-variance (E-V) formulation first proposed by Markowitz [7]. The basic E-V model developed for individual decision making has been extended by Sharpe, Lintner, and others [1, 4, 3, 9] to set forth an extensive theory which seeks to explain the equilibrium price of risky assets. The purpose of the present paper is to review and extend some of the implications of an alternative two-parameter portfolio selection model, called the expected value-semivariance model (E-S). In particular, the discussion focuses on certain contrasts and similarities between the E-V and the E-S models.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1974

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

REFERENCES

[1]Fama, E. F.Risk, Return and Equilibrium: Some Clarifying Comments.” Journal of Finance, vol. 23 (March 1968), pp. 2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Hirshleifer, J.Investment, Interest, and Capital. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.Google Scholar
[3]Hogan, W. W., and Warren, J. M.. “Computation of the Efficient Boundary in the E-S Portfolio Selection Model.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 7 (September 1972), pp. 18811896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Lintner, J.Security Prices, Risk, and Maximal Gains from Diversification.” Journal of Finance, vol. 20 (December 1965), pp. 587615.Google Scholar
[5]Mao, J. C. T.Survey of Capital Budgeting: Theory and Practice.” Journal of Finance, vol. 25 (May 1970), pp. 349360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Mao, J. C. T.Models of Capital Budgeting, E-V versus E-S.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 4 (January 1970), pp. 657675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Markowitz, H. M.Portfolio Selection. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959.Google Scholar
[8]Mossin, J.Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market.” Econometrica, vol. 34 (October 1966), pp. 768783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Sharpe, W. F.Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of Risk.” Journal of Finance, vol. 19 (September 1964), pp. 425442.Google Scholar
[10]Smith, K. V.Portfolio Management: Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Portfolio Decision Making. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
[11]Stone, B. K.Risk, Return and Equilibrium: The General Single-Period Theory of Asset Selection and Capital-Market Equilibrium. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1970.Google Scholar