Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T12:43:23.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computation of the Efficient Boundary in the E-S Portfolio Selection Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

William W. Hogan  and
James M. Warren
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Portfolio selection models based on expected value-semivariance (E-S) criteria have been suggested as offering certain advantages over the expected value-variance (E-V) approach. Although variance is more tractable mathematically, it has not always been satisfying to financial theorists ([3, pp. 278–284], [5], [6], [7, pp. 193–194], and [10, pp. 72–73]). In the pioneering work in portfolio analysis, Markowitz [7, p. 194] observed that semivariance concentrates on reducing losses as opposed to variance which considers extreme gains, as well as extreme losses, as undesirable. In the presence of nonsymmetrical probability distributions, this equal weighting of gains and losses may not adequately describe the alternative portfolios available to the decision maker.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , September 1972 , pp. 1881 - 1896
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1972

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]Frank, M., and Wolfe, P.. “An Algorithm for Quadratic Programming.” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 3, 1956, pp. 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Geoffrion, A. M. “Elements of Large Scale Mathematical Programming, Parts I & II.” Management Science, 16, No. 11, July 1970, pp. 652–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Hirshleifer, J.Investment, Interest, and Capital. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.Google Scholar
[4]Lasdon, L. S.Optimization Theory for Large Systems. New York: Macmillan, 1970.Google Scholar
[5]Mao, J.C.T. “Survey of Capital Budgeting: Theory and Practice.” Journal of Finance, 25, May 1970, pp. 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Mao, J.C.T. “Models of Capital Budgeting, E-V vs. E-S.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 4, January 1970, pp. 657–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Markowitz, H. M.Portfolio Selection. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.Google Scholar
[8]Quirk, J. P., and Saposnik, R.. “Admissibility and Measurable Utility Functions.” Review of Economic Studies, 29, No. 79, February 1962, pp. 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Rudin, W.Real and Complex Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
[10]Smith, K. V.Portfolio Management: Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Portfolio Decision Making. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
[11]Swalm, R. O. “Utility Theory-Insights into Risk Taking.” Harvard Business Review, 44, November–December 1966, pp. 123–136.Google Scholar
[12]Wolfe, P. “Convergence Theory in Nonlinear Programming.” In Integer and and Nonlinear Programming. Edited by Abadie, J.. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1970.Google Scholar