Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T08:51:49.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on the Implications of Quadratic Utility for Portfolio Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Marshall Sarnat
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The shortcomings of a quadratic utility function are so serious and so widely known that by now one might assume that it would simply have been dropped from consideration. Arrow [1] and Pratt [6] have shown that such a function implies ever increasing absolute risk aversion, that is, reduced risk taking as wealth increases, which contradicts everyday experience. Moreover, the assumption of quadratic utility also implies ultimate satiation with respect to risk taking. This function has a well-defined maximum beyond which the marginal utility of money declines, and as a result the range of admissable returns must be restricted. Wippern [12] has focused attention on the second of the above two shortcomings. Using a rather ingenious device, based on the Sharpe-Lintner market model [8 and 5], Wippern has measured empirically the admissable range of returns implied by the quadratic utility function. Since his empirical findings imply that returns beyond as little as 1.3 standard deviations from the expected return provide negative marginal utility to investors, Wippern concludes that the Sharpe-Lintner market model, and/or the mean-variance portfolio theory upon which it is based, have “inconsistent and implausible properties.”

Type
Communications
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , September 1974 , pp. 687 - 689
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

[1]Arrow, K.J.Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing. Helsinki: Yrjo Jahnssonin Saatio, 1965.Google Scholar
[2]Feldstein, M.S. “Mean-Variance Analysis in the Theory of Liquidity Preference and Portfolio Selection.” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 36 (January 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Levy, H., and Sarnat, M.. “A Note on Indifference Curves and Uncertainty.” Swedish Journal of Economics, September 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Levy, H., and Sarnat, M.. Investment and Portfolio Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1972.Google Scholar
[5]Lintner, J. “Security Prices, Risk and Maximal Gains from Diversification.” Journal of Finance, vol. 20 (December 1965).Google Scholar
[6]Pratt, J.W. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica, vol. 32 (January–April 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Samuelson, P.A. “The Fundamental Approximation Theorem of Portfolio Analysis in Terms of Means, Variances and Higher Moments.” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 37 (October 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Sharpe, W.F. “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk.” Journal of Finance, vol. 19 (September 1964).Google Scholar
[9]Tobin, J. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior towards Risk.” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 26 (February 1958).Google Scholar
[10]Tobin, J. “The Theory of Portfolio Selection.” In Theory of Interest Rates, edited by Hahn, F.H. and Brechling, F.P.R.. New York: Macmillan, 1965.Google Scholar
[11]Tobin, J. “Comment on Borch and Feldstein.” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 36 (January 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Wippern, R.F. “Utility Implications of Portfolio Selection and Performance Appraisal Models.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 6 (June 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar