Chapter 6
Chapter 6
One of the best-known measures of risk is the variance, or standard deviation of expected
returns. It is a statistical measure of the dispersion of returns around the expected value whereby
a larger variance or standard deviation indicates greater dispersion. The idea is that the more
disperse the expected returns, the greater the uncertainty of future returns.
Another measure of risk is the range of returns. It is assumed that a larger range of expected
returns, from the lowest to the highest return, means greater uncertainty and risk regarding future
expected returns. Instead of using measures that analyze all deviations from expectations, some
observers believe that when you invest you should be concerned only with returns below
expectations, which means that you only consider deviations below the mean value. A measure
that only considers deviations below the mean is the semi-variance. Extensions of the semi-
variance measure only computed expected returns below zero (that is, negative returns), or
returns below some specific asset such as T-bills, the rate of inflation, or a benchmark. These
measures of risk implicitly assume that investors want to minimize the damage from returns less
than some target rate.
Assuming that investors would welcome returns above some target rate, the returns above a
target return are not considered when measuring risk. Although there are numerous potential
measures of risk, we will use the variance or standard deviation of returns because (1) this
measure is somewhat intuitive, (2) it is a correct and widely recognized risk measure, and (3) it
has been used in most of the theoretical asset pricing models.
Undertheseassumptions,asingleassetorportfolioofassetsisconsideredtobeefficientif
nootherassetorportfolioofassetsoffershigherexpectedreturnwiththesame(orlower)risk,
orlowerriskwiththesame(orhigher)expectedreturn.Diversification of securities is one method by
which the above objectives can be secured. The unsystematic and company related risk can be
secured. The unsystematic and company related risk can be reduced by diversification into
various securities and assets whose variability is different and offsetting or put in different words
which are negatively correlated or not correlated at all.
Where:
Wi=thepercentoftheportfolioinasseti
E(Ri)=theexpectedrateofreturnforasseti
Computationoftheexpectedreturnforanindividualriskyasset
Probability Possible Rate of Return (Percent) Expected Return (Percent)
0.25 0.08 0.020
0.25 0.10 0.025
0.25 0.12 0.030
0.25 0.14 0.035
E(R) = 0.110
Computationoftheexpectedreturnforaportfolioofriskyassets
Weight (Wi) Expected Security Return, E(Ri) Expected Portfolio Return [Wi*E(Ri)]
(Percent of Portfolio)
0.20 0.10 0.020
0.30 0.11 0.033
0.30 0.12 0.036
0.20 0.13 0.026
E(RPort) = 0.115
Covariance of Returns: It is a measure of the degree to which two variables “move together”
relative to their individual mean values over time. In portfolio analysis, we usually are concerned
with the covariance of rates of return rather than prices or some other variable.A positive
covariance means that the rates of return for two investments tend to move in the same direction
relative to their individual means during the same time period. In contrast, a negative
covarianceindicates that the rates of return for two investments tend to move in different
directions relative to their means during specified time intervals over time. The magnitude of the
covariance depends on the variances of the individual return series, as well as on the relationship
between the series.The covariance statistic provides an absolute measure of how they moved
together over time. For two assets, iand j, the covariance of rates of return is defined as:
Example: Computation of Covariance of Returns for Coca-Cola and Home Depot: 2001
As can be seen, if the rates of return for one stock are above (below) its mean rate of return
during a given period and the returns for the other stock are likewise above (below) its mean rate
of return during this same period, then the product of these deviations from the mean is positive.
If this happens consistently, the covariance of returns between these two stocks will be some
large positive value. If, however, the rate of return for one of the securities is above its mean
return while the return on the other security is below its mean return, the product will be
negative. If this contrary movement happened consistently, the covariance between the rates of
return for the two stocks would be a large negative value.
According to the above monthly rates of return during 2001 for Coca-Cola and Home Depot one
might expect the returns for the two stocks to have reasonably low covariance because of the
differences in the products of these firms. The expected returns E(R) were the arithmetic mean of
the monthly returns:
Interpretation of a number such as 6.37 is difficult; is it high or low for covariance? We know the
relationship between the two stocks is generally positive, but it is not possible to be more
specific.
Where:
rij=the correlation coefficient of returns
ri= the standard deviation of Rit
rj=the standard deviation of Rjt
Standardizing the covariance by the individual standard deviations yields the correlation
coefficient (rij), which can vary only in the range –1 to +1. A value of +1 would indicate a
perfect positive linear relationship between Ri and Rj, meaning the returns for the two stocks
movetogether in a completely linear manner. A value of –1 indicates a perfect negative
relationshipbetween the two return series such that when one stock’s rate of return is above its
mean, theother stock’s rate of return will be below its mean by the comparable amount.
To calculate this standardized measure of the relationship, you need to compute the standard
deviation for the two individual return series. We already have the values for Rit – E(Ri) and Rjt –
E(Rj) in last example. Then, we can square each of these values and sum them as shown in the
next exhibition to calculate the variance of each return series.
The standard deviation for each series is the square root of the variance for each, as follows:
Thus, based on the covariance between the two series and the individual standard deviations, we
can calculate the correlation coefficient between returns for Coca-Cola and Home Depot as
Obviously, thisformulaalsoimpliesthat
Covij=rijσiσj(.108) (5.80)(10.17)=6.37
As noted, a correlation of +1.0 would indicate perfect positive correlation, and a value of –1.0
would mean that the returns moved in a completely opposite direction. A value of zero would
mean that the returns had no linear relationship, that is, they were uncorrelated statistically. That
does not mean that they are independent. The value of rij = 0.108 is quite low. This relatively low
correlation is not unusual for stocks in diverse industries (i.e., beverages and building materials).
Correlation between stocks of companies within some industries approaches 0.85.
Portfolio Standard Deviation Formula Now that we have discussed the concepts of covariance
and correlation, we can consider the formula for computing the standard deviation of returns for
a portfolio of assets, our measure of risk for a portfolio. One might assume it is possible to derive
the standard deviation of the portfolio in the same manner, that is, by computing the weighted
average of the standard deviations for the individual assets. This would be a mistake. Markowitz
derived the general formula for the standard deviation of a portfolio as follows:
σPort = thestandarddeviationoftheportfolio
wi=theweightsoftheindividualassetsintheportfolio,whereweightsaredeterminedbythe
proportionofvalueintheportfolio
r2=thevarianceofrates of returnforassetsi
i
Covij=thecovariancebetweentheratesofreturnforassetsiandj,where Covij=rijrirj
This formula indicates that the standard deviation for a portfolio of assets is a function of the
weighted average of the individual variances (where the weights are squared), plus the weighted
covariances between all the assets in the portfolio. The standard deviation for a portfolio of
assets encompasses not only the variances of the individual assets but also includes the
covariances between pairs of individual assets in the portfolio. Further, it can be shown that, in a
portfolio with a large number of securities, this formula reduces to the sum of the weighted
covariances.
Although most of the subsequent demonstration will consider portfolios with only two assets
because it is possible to show the effect in two dimensions, we will demonstrate the
computations for a three-asset portfolio. Still, it is important at this point to consider what
happens in a large portfolio with many assets. Specifically, what happens to the portfolio’s
standard deviation when you add a new security to such a portfolio? As shown by the formula,
we see two effects. The first is the asset’s own variance of returns, and the second is the
covariance between the returns of this new asset and the returns of every other asset that is
already in the portfolio. The relative weight of these numerous covariances is substantially
greater than the asset’s unique variance; and the more assets in the portfolio, the more this is
true. This means that the important factor to consider when adding an investment to a portfolio
that contains a number of other investments is not the investment’s own variance but its average
covariance with all the otherinvestments in the portfolio.
In the following examples, we will consider the simple case of a two-asset portfolio. We do these
relatively simple calculations to demonstrate the impact of different covariances on the total risk
(standard deviation) of the portfolio.
To show the effect of different covariances, assume different levels of correlation between the
two assets. Consider the following examples where the two assets have equal weights in the
portfolio (W1 = 0.50; W2 = 0.50). Therefore, the only value that changes in each example is the
correlation between the returns for the two assets.
Recall that: Covij=rijσi σj
Consider the following alternative correlation coefficients and the covariances they yield. The
covariance term in the equation will be equal to r1,2 (0.10)(0.10) because both standard deviations
are 0.10.
Nowletusseewhathappenstothestandarddeviationoftheportfoliounderthesefiveconditions.
Recallthat:
In this case, where the returns for the two assets are perfectly positively correlated (r1,2 = 1.0), the
standard deviation for the portfolio is, in fact, the weighted average of the individual standard
deviations. The important point is that we get no real benefit from combining two assets that are
perfectly correlated; they are like one asset already because their returns move together.Now
consider Case b, where r1,2 equals 0.50:
The only term that changed from Case a is the last term, Cov 1,2, which changed from 0.01 to
0.005. As a result, the standard deviation of the portfolio declined by about 13 percent, from 0.10
to 0.0868. Note that the expected return did not change because it is simply the weighted average
of the individual expected returns; it is equal to 0.20 in both cases. You should be able to confirm
through your own calculations that the standard deviations for Portfolios c and d are as follows:
c. 0.0707 d. 0.05
The final case where the correlation between the two assets is –1.00 indicates the ultimate
benefits of diversification:
Here, the negative covariance term exactly offsets the individual variance terms, leaving an
overall standard deviation of the portfolio of zero. This would be a risk-free portfolio.
The following exhibition illustrates a graph of such a pattern. Perfect negative correlation gives a
mean combined return for the two securities over time equal to the mean for each of them, so the
returns for the portfolio show no variability. Any returns above and below the mean for each of
the assets are completely offset by the return for the other asset, so there is no variability in total
returns, that is, no risk, for the portfolio. This combination of two assets that are completely
negatively correlated provides the maximum benefits of diversification—it completely
eliminates risk.
Time Patterns of Returns for Two Assets with Perfect Negative Correlation:
The above graph shows the difference in the risk-return posture for these five cases. As noted,
the only effect of the change in correlation is the change in the standard deviation of this two-
asset portfolio. Combining assets that are not perfectly correlated does not affect the expected
return of the portfolio, but it does reduce the risk of the portfolio (as measured by its standard
deviation). When we eventually reach the ultimate combination of perfect negative correlation,
risk is eliminated.
Let’s see the portfolio of three asset classes including of stock, bond and cash equivalent:
Thecorrelationsareasfollows:
When we apply the generalized formula to the expected standard deviation of a three-asset class,
it is as follows:
It is important to keep in mind that the results of this portfolio asset allocation depend on the
accuracy of the statistical inputs. In the current instance, this means that for every asset (or asset
class) being considered for inclusion in the portfolio, you must estimate its expected returns and
standard deviation. In addition, the correlation coefficient among the entire set of assets must
also be estimated. The number of correlation estimates can be significant—for example, for a
portfolio of 100 securities, the number is 4,950 (that is, 99 + 98 + 97 + . . .). The potential source
of error that arises from these approximations is referred to as estimationrisk.
The above curve shows two sets of utility curves along with an efficient frontier of investments.
The curves labeled U1 are for a strongly risk-averse investor (with U3 U2 U1). These utility
curves are quite steep, indicating that the investor will not tolerate much additional risk to obtain
additional returns. The investor is equally disposed toward any E(R), σ combinations along a
specific utility curve, such as U1.The curves labeled U1′ (U3′ U2′ U1′) characterize a less-risk-
averse investor. Such an investor is willing to tolerate a bit more risk to get a higher expected
return. The optimal portfolio is the portfolio on the efficient frontier that has the highest utility
for a given investor. It lies at the point of tangency between the efficient frontier and the curve
withthe highest possible utility. A conservative investor’s highest utility is at point X in the above
curve where the curve U2 just touches the efficient frontier. A less-risk-averse investor’s highest
utility occurs at point Y, which represents a portfolio with a higher expected return and higher
risk than the portfolio at X.