Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Q1LPr-I-----?-------_I_
__
_____
In a
In the
-1-
----I
--
--------iL__i.._l_._.
...
elements of the theory along with the results of some of the more important
empirical tests.
Section 2 introduces
-2-
model explains the relationship between risk and return that exists in
the securities market.
11 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-1_1~~~~~~------
----s---------.--
1.
INVESTMENT RETURN
The
R
R
p
p
+ AV
P
(1)
Vp
where
-~
AV
dividends received
invested prior to the end of the interval, the calculation would have to
be modified to consider gains or losses on the amount reinvested.
-4____
_111_1_________1_1_11-
Thus, given the beginning and ending portfolio values and distributions received, we can measure the investor 's return using
Equation (1).
To
and R 3 .
The arithmetic return measures the average portfolio return
realized during successive 1-year periods.
(R1 + R 2 + R 3 ) / 3.
The
3 )]
1/-
1.0 .
the portfolio is 2.9% per annum compounded annually, for a total 3-year
return of 8.9%3.
The geometric average measures the true rate of return while
the arithmetic average is simply an average of successive period returns.
The distinction can perhaps be made clear by an example.
Consider an
-5-
II__
. _____1_1___
__
1___1__1111111_______
_.---_
Suppose the
assets price rises to $200 at the end of the first year and then falls
back to $100 by the end of the second year.
But an asset
purchased for $100 and having a value of $100 two years later did not '
earn 25%;
defined above;
that is,
[(2.0) (0.5)]
-1.0
0.
-6-
2.
PORTFOLIO RISK
The
borne risk.
A measure of risk is the extent to which the future
portfolio values are likely to diverge from the expected or predicted
value.
Thus,
-7-
--.__.._____1___
_-
1___
--~-l__.
I_.---. _-_-
_-
identified five possible outcomes for his portfolio return during the
next year.
outcomes are:
Possible 1Return
Subjective Probability
50%
o
0.1
30%
0.2
i0%
0.4
-10%
0.2
-30%
0. 1
1.00
Note that the probabilities sum to 1 so that the actual portfolio return is
confined to take one of the five possible values.
distribution, we can measure the expected return and risk for the portfolio.
The expected return is simply the weighted average of possible
outcomes, where the weights are the relative chances of occurrence.
The expected return on the portfolio is 10%, given by
-8-
5
E(Rp)
Pj R
j=1
=
where the R.'s are the possible returns and the Pj's the associated
probabilities.
However,
The
If the shapes of
_1111_1____--.
symmetric.
risk rankings for a group of portfolios will be the same as when variability below the expected return is used.
0.1(50.0- 10.0) 2
0.4(10.0-
0.1(-30.0-
+ 0.2(30.0- 10.0)2
10.0) .2
0.2(-10.0-
10.0)2
10.0)2
(3)
It is
-10-
The arithmetic
per month.
The
An
obvious question relates to the effect of holding the portfolio for several
periods, such as the next 20 years: will the 1-year risks tend to cancel
out over time?
maintained during each year, the portfolio risk for longer horizons will
-11-
times the
We have
implicitly assumed that investors are risk averse, i.e., they seek to
minimize risk for a given level of return.
portfolio selection and capital asset pricing. is based on the belief that
investors on the average are risk averse.
-12-
_______1_1
3.
DIVERSIFICATION
While the
standard deviation of returns for the security is doublt that of the portfolio, its average return is less.
a long period of time (25 years) it rewarded substantially higher risk with
lower average return?
No so.
Since
much of the total risk could be eliminated simply by holding the stock in
a portfolio, there was no economic requirement for the return earned to
be in line with the total risk.
The
same portfolio diversification effect accounts for the low standard deviation
of return for the 100-stock portfolio.
Much of
the total risk of the component securities has been eliminated by diversification.
Diversification results from combining securities which have less
than perfect correlation (dependence) among their returns in order to
reduce portfolio risk without sacrificing portfolio return.
-13-
In general, the
lower the correlation among security returns, the greater the impact of
diversification.
However, this
Thus, while
then averaged.
Table 1 shows the average return and standard deviation for portfolios from the first subgroup (A+ quality stocks).
However, it is
The 20-security
Correlation in
It measures
Thus, R
-15-
Note
which comprise this group are more homogeneous than the companies
grouped under the other quality codes.
The results show that some risks can be eliminated via diversification, others cannot.
The figure shows total portfolio risk declining with increasing numbers of
holdings.
The systematic
risk is due to the fact that the return on nearly every security depends to
some degree on the overall performance of the stock market.
Investors
-16-
4.
Portfolio
risk can be divided into two parts: systematic and unsystematic risk.
Unsystematic risk can be eliminated by portfolio diversification,
systematic risk cannot.
The
Thus,
Systematic Return
+ Unsystematic Return
(4)
-17-
Thus,
ORm + E
(5)
stock), then a 10% market return would generate a systematic return for
the stock of 20%.
factors unique to the company, such as labor difficulties, higher-thanexpected sales, etc.
The security returns model given by Equation (5) is usually written
in a way such that the average value of the residual term,
This is accomplished by adding a factor,
alpha (),
E,
is zero.
to the model to
That
is,
R
a+
(6)
-18-
security.
The beta factor can be thought of as the slope of the line.
It gives
The
/(rm
(7)
rE
(8)
m'
=
(9)
j=1
Xj
(10)
(10)
where
X
represented by security j
N
If the portfolio
is composed of an equal dollar investment in each stock (as was the case
for the 100-security portfolio of Figure 2), the
p is simply an unweighted
With
standard deviations for each of the six groups are approaching different
limits.
risks ()
-20____11_1_____1_______________
1____11____1____._____
).
predicted values.
Thirdly, portfolio
First, we would
Since
The
It is
-21-
5. MEASUREMENT OF SECURITY
AND PORTFOLIO BETA VALUES
The basic data for estimating betas are past rates of return earned
over a series of relatively short intervals --
months.
the fact that observed returns may be higher in some years simply
because risk-free rates of interest are higher.
a +
r mm +
-22-
/I
_ .-111111
(11)
where
~A
o
is the intercept of the fitted line and
systematic risk.
The
/%~~~~
over the C0, i and E terms to indicate that these are estimated values.
It is
The estimated alpha is -0. 05% per month, indicating that the non-
market-related component of return averaged -0. 60% per year over the
25-year period.
The
bility is about 66% that the true beta will lie between 1.26 + 0. 12, and
about 95% between 1.26 0.24 (i.e., plus or minus two times the
standard error).
-23^11_1___________1_11
__1__
columns (2) and (3) the estimated alpha (a) and its standard error, columns
(4) and (5) the estimated beta ()
last two rows of the table give average values and standard deviations for
the sample.
One
method is to computer the beta of all portfolio holdings and weight the
results by portfolio representation.
-24-
____II_
___11_1_1_1__1______-
The second
method is to use the same computation procedures used for stocks, but
applied to the portfolio returns.
As in
the case of National Department Stores, the best-fit line has been put
through the points using regression analysis.
Again, we
Note that the
points group much closer to the line than in the National Department
Store plot.
The reduction is
for National
as much of the return variation of the portfolio than for the stock.
Table 5 gives regression results for a sample of 49 mutual funds.
The calculations are based on monthly returns for the period January 1960
to December 1971.
500 Stock Index.
in the sample are shown in the last two rows of the table.
The average
beta value for the group is 0.92 indicating, on the average, the funds were
-25-
B2, and
Now,
if the beta values are to be useful for investment decision making, they
must be predictable.
How predictable are the betas estimated for stocks, portfolios of stocks,
and mutual funds?
level.
Robert A. Levy [ 13] has conducted tests of the short-run predictability (also referred to as stationarity) of beta coefficients for securities
and unmanaged portfolios of securities.
weekly returns for 500 NYSE stocks for the period December 30, 1960
through December 18, 1970 (520 weeks).
To measure stationarity,
Levy correlated the 500 security betas from each 52-week period (the historical
historical betas) with the 52-week betas in the following period (the future
Thus, nine correlation studies were performed for the ten
betas).
periods.
-26____
_1_11
I____
The portfolios
Each
10,
25,
0. 769,
0.853,
Correspondingly,
62-63,
15/
folios are very predictable, there is no a priori need for mutual fund
betas to be comparatively stable.
managed, and as such, the betas may change substantially over time
by design.
-27-
_*_ILil.--l--.--.
l_____n.._l-
I-___I_____________llsl__l___
risk exposure of his fund prior to an expected market decline and raise
it prior to an expected market upswing.
values for beta will tend to be restricted, at least in the longer run, by
the fund's investment objective.
through May 1970 were correlated with values from the subsequent period
from June 1970 through October 1971.
results to changes in the return measurement interval, the betas for each
sub-period were measured for daily, weekly, and monthly returns.
The
were 0.915, 0.895, and 0.703 for daily, weekly, and monthly betas,
respectively.
second-period betas explained by first-period values are 84, 81, and 49,
respectively.
shift from monthly to daily returns reduced the average standard error
of the estimated beta values from 0. 11 to 0. 03, a 75% reduction.
The
-28__
-......
the
The
results of the Pogue and Conway study (among others, see footnote 16)
show that fund betas are not as stable as those for unmanaged portfolios.
On the average, two-thirds to three-quarters of the variation in fund
betas can be explained by historical values.
Further, it should be remembered that a significant portion of
the measured changes in estimated beta values may not be due to changes
in the true values, but rather the result of measurement errors.
This
-29 W__I________I____)_11___1____1
Returns
underlying the model is that assets with the same risk should have the
same expected rate of return.
capital markets should adjust until equivalent risk assets have identical
expected returns.
"equilibrium" condition.
To see the implications of this postulate, consider an investor
18/
who holds a portfolio
with the same risk as the market portfolio (beta
equal to 1.0).
Logically, he should
-30-
____^
By taking no risk,
weighted average of the component security betas, where the weights are
Thus, the portfolio beta,
Bp, is a weighted
an average of
Thus
p
(1 - X)
0 +
(12)
=x
Thus,
portfolio.
If he
borrows at the risk-free rate and invests the proceeds in the risky portfolio, his portfolio beta will be greater than 1.0.
The expected return of the composite portfolio is also a weighted
average of the expected returns on the two-component portfolios; that is,
E(Rp)
(1 - X)
RF + X'
E(R )
-31-._..__~~~__1__--_-11-~ ~-------__._____1______~~~~~_~___1~~~~~__
~ ~ ^1_^.___~~.~~__
_~ ~~I----..
~1_11_~
~1___~1_~~~1
(13)
where E(Rp),
E(Rp)
p.
(1-
p)
RF
RF + fp*
+
(E(R
Up
m
E(R
m )
RF)
(14)
It is
E(r m )
(15)
where E(rp) and E(rm) are the expected portfolio and market risk
premiums, formed by subtracting the risk-free rate from the rates of
return.
In this form the model states that the expected risk premium for
the investor I's portfolio is equal to its beta value times the expected
market risk premium.
We can illustrate the model by assuming that the short-term (riskfree) interest rate is 6% and the expected return on the market with a
relative risk (beta) of 1.0 is 10%.
the market portfolio is just the difference between the 10% and the shortterm interest rate of 6%,
or 4%.
-32-
____---
I-------
"-
Expected Return
0.0
6%
0.5
8%
1.0
10%
1.5
12%
2.0
14%
For safe
> 0)
of the stock.
-33-
return.
This
Without this
Capital markets are perfect in the sense that all assets are
completely divisible, there are no transactions costs or
differential taxes, and borrowing and lending rates are
equal to each other and the same for all investors.
Without
-34-
__1_111_
_I___
121
which should be zero on the average, but not necessarily zero for any
single stock of single period of time.
observe
Rj
Rf +
j(R
-Rf)
Ej
(16)
where Rj, Rm, and Rf are the realized returns on stock j, the market
index,and the riskless asset; and
The term Ej reflects the firm's unsystematic risk -- the risk due
I --
~-
+ 0 77
j + Pi
(17 a)
j is a residual term.
j is its estimated
o, the intercept of the fitted line on the return axis, should have the
where RM and Rf are the averages of the market returns and risk-free
rates of interest during the period studied.
Expressed in risk premium form, the equation of the fitted line is
=
70 +
-1
j +
pj
(17b)
where rj is the average realized risk premium stock j, that is, Rj - Rf.
The only difference is that the predicted value of 70 under the capital
asset pricing model hypothesis is zero.
---
I_
Rj
1 j
2(SE)
(18)
~ ~hA
~A ~
j is a measure of systematic risk and SE. a measure of unsystem20/
Of course, if the capital asset pricing model is exactly true,
atic risk.
Here
then 2
will be zero -- that is, SEj will contribute nothing to the explana-
2.
3.
Readers wishing
to skip the details may proceed to the summary at the end of this section.
We will begin by summarizing results from studies based on
individual securities.
-3 7-
__ ------
performed for the 1946-55 and 1956-65 periods, using both monthly and
annual security returns.
For example,
in 1956-65 there was a 6.7 percent per year increase in average return
for a one-unit increase in beta.
are all positive, they are weaker than predicted by the capital asset pricing
model.
In each period
The tests are (1) mean return versus beta, (2) mean return
^2
versus unsystematic risk, (SEj) , and (3) mean return versus both beta
and unsystematic risk.
-38-
..
..
_.
The results for the first test show a significant positive relationship
between mean return and beta. A one-unit increase in beta is associated
with a 7.1 percent increase in mean return.
The results for the second test do not agree with the capital asset
pricing model' s predictions.
show that this correlation may be largely spurious (i.e., it may be due to
statistical sampling problems).
This sort of
statistical correlation need not imply a causal link between the variables.
2
Test number (3) includes both beta and (SEj)
equation.
return.
in the regression
that stocks with high systematic risk tend to have higher rates of return.
-39-
'-------"^----"I----II-----
however, are not the most efficient method of obtaining estimates of the
magnitude of the risk-return tradeoff.
It is called
"errors in variables bias" and results from the fact that beta, the
independent variable in the test, is typically measured with some error.
These errors are random in their effect -- that is,
Nevertheless, when
these estimated beta values are used in the test, the measurement errors
tend to attenuate the relationship between mean return and risk.
By carefully grouping the securities into portfolios, much of this
measurement error problem can be eliminated.
stocks ' betas cancel out so that the portfolio beta can be measured with
much greater precision.
By grouping
-40-
_____I
l______I___Y______1_1_11_1__11_____
We will review the results from four studies based on portfolios -two by Professors M. Blume and I. Friend [3] [8], a third by Professors
F. Black, M. Jensen, and M. Scholes [ 1], and a fourth by E. Fama and
J. MacBeth [6].
Blume and Friend's Study
Professors Blume and Friend have conducted two inter-related
risk-return studies.
The
The
securities were assigned on the basis of their betas during the preceding
4 years -- the 10 percent of securities with the lowest betas to the first
portfolio, the group with the next lowest betas to the second portfolio,
and so on.
After the start of the test periods, the securities were reassigned
annually.
That is, each stock's estimated beta was recomputed at the end
of each successive year, the stocks were ranked again on the basis of
their betas, and new portfolios were formed.
___
iCIII_-_-
higher beta portfolios had higher returns than portfolios with lower betas,
there was little difference in return among portfolios with betas greater
than 1.0.
added a factor to the regression equation to test for the linearity of the
22/
/0
and
These
results imply that yl, the slope of the fitted line, is less than predicted
in the first two periods and greater in the third.
-42 -
_____I___
_ _____1___________11___
1_
_____
The number of
securities in each portfolio increased over the 35-year period from a low
of 58 securities per portfolio in 1931 to a high of 110 in 1965.
Month-by-month returns for the portfolios were computed from
January 1931 to December 1965. Average portfolio returns and portfolio
betas were computed for the 35-year period and for a variety of subperiods.
The results for the complete period are shown in Table 9.
The
average monthly portfolio returns and beta values for the 10 portfolios
are plotted in Figure 12.
The results indicate that over the complete 35-year period,
average return increased by approximately 1.08 percent per month (13
percent per year) for a one-unit increase in beta.
As
most periods to understate the theoretical values, but are generally of the
correct sign.
Also, it
1-111---1-_ 111_
111__
---
_1._____
designated
The
all stocks in portfolio p, designated SEp. The first term tests for
nonlinearities in the risk-return relationship, the second for the impact
of residual variation.
The equation of the fitted line for the Fama-MacBeth study is
given by
Rp -T
O0
71p+
- _
^2
2/+ 3pp
73SEA
SE p + fp p
(19)
(19)
and
values .
The results of the Fama-MacBeth tests show that while estimated
values of
interval
that the realized values of y0 are not equal to Rf, as predicted by the
capital asset pricing model.
-44-
-----
1.
However,
However, we
partly reflecting
view that beta is a useful risk measure and that investors in high beta
stocks expect correspondingly high rates of return.
-45-
______1_______1_I_
8.
The basic concept underlying investment performance measurement follows directly from the risk-return theory.
If the
The
The return
in the average returns between the portfolio and the standard; that is,
p
RF
p(RM - RF)
(20)
where Rp, RM, and RF are the average returns for the portfolio,
market index, and riskless bond during the test period.
Estimated values of alphs ()
and beta (
) are determined
-46-
__I_
_________ls____llll_111_1_
--
--
,18nl8s
ake
As discussed
The t
oap
=
(21)
gives a measure of the extent to which the true value of alphs can
If the absolute
Absolute values of t
in excess of 2. 0
indicate a probability of less than about 2. 5% that the true value of alpha
could equal zero.
These methods of performance measurement were originally
devised by Michael Jensen [ 10] [11] and have been widely used in many
studies of investment performance, including that of the recent SEC
Institutional Investor Study [ 20].
However, the tests of the capital asset pricing model summarized
in Section 7 indicate that the average returns over time on securities and
portfolios deviate systematically from the predictions of the rno del
Though the observed average risk-return relationships seem to be linear,
the tradeoff of risk for return is, in general, less than would be predicted
-47n r a~~~
CIQ"
~~~~~I
~~-
1__-___
_'_____~___~__
---_'_-------
selected portfolios, the analysis could proceed in exactly the same manner
as described above.
the average return from naively selected portfolios, when plotted against
risk, tends to lie along a straight line with slope somewhat less than
implied by the CAPM.
-48-
;,,,II-'^-------------------------
In the
interim, the familiar market line benchmarks can provide useful information regarding relative performance, but care must be exercised to avoid
drawing fine distinctions among portfolio results.
-49-
9.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
view of the subject in hopes that his interest will be whetted for further
27
study.
The major topics dealt with were the specification and measurement of security and portfolio risk, the development of a hypothesis for
the relationship between expected return and risk, and the use of the
resulting model to measure the performance of institutional investors.
We have not provided a set of final answers to questions in these areas
because none currently exist.
-50-
__
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
1
4
5
..
....
. .
...
57
58
. .
. .
. . ..
...........
....
. .
59
60
61
....
62
....
63
. . .
. .
-51-
X__III
1931-1965 .
13
55
56
.
...............
12
54
11
....
10
53
..............
100 Securities
52
__I___
_I___
. .
64
Figure 1
POSSIBLE SHAPES FOR PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS
1.
R
E
2.
4:-
a---
-I
L_
R
E
3.
p
a0
-~~~_
R
E
-52-
^'CII1------ -_.____I__II---II__.1
...11_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I C.
lL)
I
I
I
4'
4'
.'
.k
I
I
I Lt1
'
4'
I.
4'$'
4'
-'
*'
I .
U)
E--
I
I.
0
lLO
IC.
-4
0
0
.* *k
-'
4
- $4
.
$
-* .
I C
I.
I
l
~~~~I.
t'N
*-*
~~~~~i
0H
;
I .
I.I L'
:
I
I .
fz
l4
-I
I C
I'
~~~L,
,.--4
E
I
~]~
Q2
4*.
*4
.* 4,* k *
* *9 * $.'
' ,c $ * $ *
-*
4'
* *M k $' * -,
,
4' tl ,k'* . ' .*
* -M .M
$ ,k
,
*
~ .N
.N
O0
*4''4
* ' * * . '4 'O,4.'
* M
*l
4.
4'
' ' ~o' ' '
''':
rl
4.,-4'4--I
4'".,I4'4L~I~l~
'.. 4' 4'4,'
4* * 4 000c
~~I
* t
10 N
I C
<
Y
4*
*
4c
$
.k4-'
$l '* t~ 4'4' * Ic
$- -
$...N*X
*'
4''4
* *4'4*
4
* 4'
*
* ,K .It
.!
O0-)
.*
0 4.,o
.'.
-tt 4"'p"
M.
O4
,]v
CN (N V Co
UL)0
IC
I~~~~~~~ C. (c
o --I
t'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
0 UO
L
L C L O
C1
O Ln C L. C
r
,--. O !LO , r-I o0 L ( C, -I
L(0 C) ,- .. LO C,
0
,-0 LAO ;1 C ) LO C (0 -I (0 r- r-.N
,. N
L
,L 00 n
I 0 _
O N0
C)'
m
.DOC
I- 0
'
ml CU!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*.* .
-'4.
$
~ .!
*K $4 $
* *i4'
$ -* .*
$M
I4 '4
'4'
***
*
4' .$4$4'N
4' $'
*
4'
ICI.t
X s
-4
~~~~
I
I
I
I
I
* 4
* $
* $
*$
*k **
N
*l
tlc
K k* $ *
F7
O0
C)
0
il
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
XO
0
a)
04
, -,,4
->
a)
I
(
.I
,''
0
I I
N1
l-
A
r-
C
I UII
I0
-I
Ir-.
U-
hr
--
a.
L00 . C)
. . ( . I.
LA C L. C Lr II II I III
( 0 CG( u- -s
0
C-, l- Ic 1(.21 I
II LL.II
aP
4
11 0
. Mcd
.
.
.
.
rn
0. C). I(. . L I. I . I . I .1 II. .
I 'I
0 L C LAO L
OLC
LAO
LC OLC
v-I 00 ( 0 tb - 00 (0 I A v- Co (
C )
0,I tOI
rt-- L, C
C
c LW O-10
*4
(1
II
o= O --cd
I
I -
11
r- =
I (I I
I
I
*
.I
LtL I" CO Cr)0 0 v-I
-'l ! ,I ,
1. LA I% 00 0'1 CD I
I
u-- v- v- r 4 v- v- -I - v- v-I ( N I
I
I
I
Q
H
I
I-)
-
.k
I L
4'
4'
4'
4c
4k
I
* I
I*
4
4'
Ez
,,k
4'
*4 4' 4'
4' .k
.k
,,ic
4k
.k
.'
C*
4'
*
4'
4'
4'
4k
*
* I
I
4'
rz
Eplr
Pc
<I
4(*4'
* *,(4*'
I
*
*' *
o~~~~~~~~~~~44
* I
a *a
9c ic . 4(4'
*a
'
k .k
'
k
4..k k
4(
oOOO
4,
C ,'4k
*
,I
4'
4' 4.
I
4'
CO
4'
4'
4'
4'(
4'
4' L
Ia
4o
4't
to rs
OG
I
~
I
4'
4'
4'
u-4 O C
r--! r;
-. V
r-
Co o
-1 U) r-. L
f CO Ln r
T'. C
r-^ _-r -- V
" " r-4 r-
t-4-C) rn n P_
a a
I
a I
(.0
C:) CO L.
t0 Lun Lu U
I.0 r-t (to Ln o LD
(.
Co r--I rI
ULn
CD
- L
oI
00 r
oo
a^
I. Z a
I
I
*
I
rs
O
I
I
oC
Qooo
a
I
II
I
I
D oC
C)
(.0 LCO II
aI
I'. U C
r -. c,
r O
Is
(0
tr*~
1
'I
CI
I
I
,,
I
I
N))
rl
sc
a aa a
eo ICI1 a
*
rI c
J'-"' a
I
Lt3(.0o
iIal
(..
oo
c o
I : UI I
CIH-(.
- N~ 3 Ia < ~ II
oo
Io
!-r-~
G-C r-I r
I,
I
I-r -I
-D -
-54-
o
Co
O'3
co
c*
!0)
,
,t
Ia
I
I
CC . N c"
ox
c
.00CC0
c--f
-_ Usr-
cI
T'- C,
r-I3 CO PI% T-JC)!~ L I
JMNtl
t Lrn
s) CO
C4 C4
-r~ L) L
Ct cIo r
Lo r-i OI
I
I 00
n LD L rL L 00I 00 C) CD
* .
) .
. .
.
C
N- I- rc- o U) IN O O
tNN a1 C
a C14 C ' -c c- c-I a a I
*;
n
N C
I
I
I
I
I
c0
I
I
00
CT 00 00
= rn Un Or-4. -- r-
Ln
Ln LA Ln
a LL
c-
I
i
I
a
I
a
I
i
I
a
a
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
a
a
I
I
a
I
a
I
I
I
I
a
I
a
a
I
I
I
4'
* *4'
I
.'
:4
'
4'
4' * 4
49c4
'.
,I
4(4'
cs
k .k
* k .ic
4cc
, 4' 4'
k
4 -kS
4c'
I
oo o0c cO
00C c~
cO 4'
4(*4*'
4'
4(4'* 4'* Ic .k
Ia *
. a
I
CO
_=
4'
k
4'
-I*
o: oo
c o c4(4'o
E
.)
_x
4'
Q)
E-a
'
4'
* k 4'
*
Cn
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
a
I
a
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
*
4k
.k
-'
*.t
.!
4'4'
I
IL III
*
'C
I
* I
I I II
a
a
a
. .*
*I
a
I
I
I
.'
.'
*
.k
k 4k
I.
I
CoZCs
a)
,.0
Figure 4
STANDARD DEVIATION VERSUS
NUMBER OF ISSUES IN PORTFOLIO
STANDARD
DEVIATION
,
.-
Source:
10
15
-55-
20
Figure 5
CORRELATION VERSUS NUMBER OF
ISSUES IN PORTFOLIO
R-SQUARE
1 2
3 4 5
Source:
10 -
15
-56-
20
Exhibit 2.
Figure 6
SYSTEMATIC AND UNSYSTEMATIC RISK
Standard
Deviation of
Portfolio
R eturn
Unsystematic or
'Diversifiable Risk
Total Risk
Systematic or
Market-Related
Risk
Number of
Holdings
-57-
Figure 7
THE MARKET MODEL FOR SECURITY RETURNS
Security
Return
j. = 1.0
*
*
*
*,
Beta (3),
the line.
-58-
e-
LO
0
CO
CO
0
I
II
II
II
CD
LO
14
CO
*
C1-4
II
II
-4
0cOd
c)
II
II
II
II
ii
t<(
co
Ca
W
<
bD
1;4
P4
WC
x
w
e-
'
eS
t-
00
X
>:
I>I
II
It X
I I
>I
.1
Ca
'CIE
.,
z
a
*
*G0
*L
*'
VI
Ca
H
f
Ca
Cf
zi
'*
C,
*'
+I
o
'-
4'
4'
rn
z
00
E-
\
4'
4'
44
C\
CC
0)
I4C'44
*( *
*
',
(D
4'
zH
4*
* C
.0
*
* *
oc
o0
,
C;
N
I,
4'
* u*:
* *
4'
e-4
COco+
C4
*
*
.00
*0
00
*0
*
4
* '
*
4'
..
::
a
*~~053
*WN
4'
07'
*0
.
PPw
<11
Cd
03
t
fr hi
4'
4'
*'
4 C14
t
CO
4' N
co
C itO
00
* *
*s
r^*
.
0
P.,
w
c4
GO
00
Co
COi
C'
CC
a)
* I
''
4' 4'
*
.*C?I
O*
* * *
4'
*C
*C,
-4
*
*'
.C
*
.CI
C4
4
4
4'
*
*' 4'
*
~C
~I
14:1
C74
*
>
*
COf
C-4
<
LIN
4'
E--q
4'
*'
>
u-a
-l
I?~~~~~'
C)
I-.
l_
Co
r-4
C-i
z
i
'-
ta
I~~~~~~~~
:,
59
-59-
X
cc
Co
-4
I
U,',
tr
fI
co
I
Itx
I
rN,
LN
c14
o
0
r-4
-4
C)
d4
Oo
Co
CO
II
II
Co
CO
It
II
II
II
(n
it
0
Q
w
M
zJ
11
N
w
Vt
(b
0
II
II
Ib
W 9
.s
-,
I >:,,,
:,,,,
>
> :,
- ,,,
I.,
i,
I,,
to
gI
*0
I.-
.9,
.
0
0
0
0
49
a)~'a
1
b13
3-1
H
0
*3U.
*
49
a,
o
pq
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*9*.
'k
*
49
'K
49
x
-
. o
.
N
o~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~
*K
49 t*. CC
*
*
v--
'K
C -
\-N
: CNt
*
. (N
:
c'
Lr
I
wrn
z(/2
(/2
'P:;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*cN
co
oc
t49
r; >
cl
tt-* C*.,
- C
cCi
t
t
.99
ca
*0
.
C
; t'f44. Z
C
ca , t -1
'K
t
'K
'
'K
D
zr
4, rc
a
*
*
C
w0
cd
*C.
C:
*
4e
C4
C
(N
te'
,-
**
* 41
49494
(N
qK
C"';
k\,
.9
'K
,1
c.
C-iC
'.
* C
'K
.o
C.
C:
-0
cei
* C,
'
C:
W
FC
C _
Lr?
.9
t,'*
*C4*
(N'~
to
*
'
*NJ
*'
'K
'K
\K
'K
*
0
*
C
*
0
+ a
.9
. I_
*N
.*
Co
C'4
'K
*0
X< I
.
t ',
'-
>:
I
9
;'
L7
t>
LC.
5=
I
_ 0 0-
'
1
!
C.
C.,
C)
X
03
I9s
co
C
Figure 10
INTERPERIOD BETA COMPARISON:
DAILY DATA FOR 90 MUTUAL FUNDS
Beta -Second
Period
(June '70
to Oct '71)
.o
a
a
a
S.
,~~~~4
r~~~~~
*
a
a
ji.~~~a
.tv ..
~~~~~~~
c~~~~~~~~~~
~~ ~ ~~~
r~~~~~~
*.No
a.
Ht.
0
Beta -- First Period (Jan '69 to May '70)
-61-
Figure 11
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AVERAGE RETURN (Rj)
AND SECURITY RISK (j)
Average
Security
Return
Theoretical Li ne /
I-/
x
x
x
x
RM
Fitted
Line
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
0.5
1.0
1.5
-62-
2.0
Security Risk 1j
Figure 12
RESULTS OF BLACK, JENSEN AND SCHOLES STUDY
1931 - 1965
.11.10
_I_
l_
ItNTEPUPT
F
O
0.
19
STD.EPR.
El
. .A:53
S.OPE
= O. ia tI
5TD.ERA.
ER . O.Se
(,
.03c-
,I-:
.02-
-.I...C -
0.0
1 0. S
--- 1
-.
1.6
1.5
SYSTEMATIC RISK
2.0
--I
----------
Figure 13
MEASUREMENT OF INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE:
MARKET LINE VERSUS EMPIRICAL STANDARD
Rz
1.0
0.5
Symbols:
Rz
RF
X
=
=
=
=
= Market Index
RM
1.5
,p
-64-
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Page
Risk versus Diversification for Randomly Selected
..
Portfolios of A+ Quality Securities . ..
66
67
68
. ....
......
69
.....
...
....
. .
71
..
72
. . . . . . . . ..
-65-
........
70
73
74
Table 1
RISK VERSUS DIVERSIFICATION FOR
RANDOMLY SELECTED PORTFOLIOS
OF A+ QUALITY SECURITIES
June 1960 - May 1970
Number of
Securities in
Portfolio
0.88
7.0
0.54
0.29
0.69
5.0
0.63
0.40 ,
0.74
4.8
0.75
0.56
0.65
4.6
0.77
0.59
0.71
4.6
0.79
- 0.62
10
0.68
4.2
0.85
0.72
15
0.69
4.0
0.88
0.77
20
0.67
3.9
0.89
0.80
Source:
-66-
Table 2
STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF 20-STOCK PORTFOLIOS
AND PREDICTED LOWER LIMITS
June 1960 - May 1970
(2)
(1)
Stock
Qroup
(3)
Standard Deviation
of 20-Stock
Portfolios
Group%/mo
(4)
Average Beta
Value for
Quality Group
Lower
Limit
0
* am
%/mo
A+
3.94
0. 74
3.51
4.17
0.80
3.80
A-
4.52
0.89
4.22
B+
4.45
0.87
4.13
6.27
1.24
5.89
B- & C
6.32
1.23
5.84
* am
m
Source:
-67-
1-1
O rn o
-.
3 C
c a
.. I
-
() r-40
w-I r-
r.)
W
iL
o)
0*
n lU
,A l_ C;.o
0
co -
_ oo -
C4o L
ot
00
-4 I0
Cn
oO
b L ir
*
t--. Ot
re
r-to
(C"
0)
C( ao oO
cn
.?r-4 "
*
, O*
"ooo O
O oo r..
Lt C4
rl
00 C
r,
a00 ooD L
Coor-
0 L
r.W,-i
" r,
0
- L
w
0
00 r-
: t0
r- m Lr
m
Ln . I
00c-o
I
0
,* .:
r-4
r, I,- o"1 0o LC oo C4
0 0000
-4
r4 -1~ Loon
m Ln t
0
<
r-4
a)
0 C0
CD
0
CO
0 0 0
0 r 00000000000
oooo,;,:;~:;o,:
o0M
rn ;O w
X ,-i - o
Uw wO W
0
CC
r
-
C,
rtn
C4 (D
cao w Kt
'
_
00co
_
o00 o
C1 ,-4 LAI 0o r.
O
.t
00
IAn
C)
0000 C
-40
O
00
-t M oo
CD LAon
-r
TC 00000
-i
Wto
000
00
F4
H
C r4
03
M-I
, t. ,c
c1 ro
t; oo
C4
w
CO
-
to to
m .:
WL * 0( a 0000
tl m cl
oO
O
L'-
00
_-
N W--C14
4 to
O
mmI
0
-ILAto
tn
c n)O
L ,I"
C)to
UL 0
CI4 r-
a'
t
LU C4(, 000
,-t
4Ca
0*
,: ;l
OV
-
0
'i - 0 00
0) O tD
C
;000
04 tn r
w-
C4
oo0'ooo oo
-looF-.
...-IC
r-l-Ir 0-I
Io
-IO
00-! 00
r-
r--I
-rI
m0 C
-4 O
. wtO %Ln
1-- m
r-
L W
V ,44
r-I
O4,'-'
,O O
- MO
0M
0
0
0
0
(DL Ln _ALO C
00
00
00 00 O
o4
Ln
Co* C CO t_
V OO -O
-40O : 1_
O
rt_ -f
oJ, *_, ,:
*~
~~~~~~~~~
O~C~ IN~ ~.-' ~ ,mt
H~
c4
00
CO
O,
*
(D 0
OO
Cn4C rF
in uLntt
C-
'IC ,
co
00
,: r;
D C
.--I 000
C-I
ooo)
C 00;
c00
,--
-4o
.
'vd4
.-I
m<i-
00
LI.
*
0-I o L-
LA
.
W w inr- O Lw 4
4n
N
4n N
4
*
C4 r-I co
r-4 O
o
o
C" r4 r
0
rn
*
r-I r-c0
v-I4
v-0I
c
o)
co Lrn
- t
c) o)0COr-
-40 000 C C
I
tO
Ce4 c-s C to to oC
0f LA -t to (4
-t
r- wLo
v-40
:oj
ttr-I
O Ol
00
0000000000
LO
rn n
dq
m-
0C)
H
E-C
Lu
0 o
0 0 0 0
0* 0
I
() o
0
!0
0
t000000
C 00000
Ln
-I
,-
0 C
OC
"'I
0;
C0000 030
*
00
. C
O ,- 00CoI C'0 t -I
oo,,
OG
0rn
000
.*
000
Z:
z -J
-J
z<
<x
CD
!I-- Z
(> LU 0
O
J:
Q,
0O0
UrA- (4
C.nt-
OZ -
= ZJ
-i :-ic.J
0 I-- <,
-.Iz
-
--
J >
O
O 0ou
LD
000
totoO
tD
totot
>
0 =C -oo C-)
nC,,-00
z
-L
-0O
LL
m: wI-- HJ
-
n z
,:Z oZ
<
--wo
0<
Li
_
<
--I *C)Z
0
'
rI
VI
-68 -
v-
v-I (-4
-<
C
WW cZ)--
- z LL
i- cc
U.
v- cI ro1L.4 I(L4I'
C
c-n rH -
"W-
zZ:
F-*.00
". I--'C
U=
OC-)> ""="
o,)
cx c
04 ,c--
0 <
I-I-L,
0
l.O
000
000
0
<
O--
--
C)C 0 C-0C L.
J <c
0
0 i
OC00O rl
nOC
IC,,
I I
0
,J
-1
O- -
I-
0O
0O
000
to CO
to CD
O O
o to O
o
oC
o to o CO00tCO ) CO
toDO ( to to tD tO to
r; OC
,NON
g
t(N00C
r
O
OO
CD OO
000
*O*OO*O C;
A tn m
rn ,J,
% O 00
I CDOO
Cl C)
r )C
a_
O
C CJ
O 00000000
oc
n Z
C)
C-)
c; ;
o CO
000
Ln
P;-
000000
C O C
O O
ao n r
LI
LO
C 0
CDOO
Cl Co C
LAn uD (0
0 0
.. j
< 0000
Co C
0 00 Cl
=
-
;in
CNO 0)0)0
o i.-(
oD No to P C4 C4
C'400 to .. Ln _:.
t
-t
Ln o
0)
LA
('4
u v
LL Z
op fM C.
IWr
LL
Table 4
REGRESSION STATISTICS FOR 49 MUTUAL FUNDS
January 1960 - December 1971
(1)
(2)
NOBS
ALPH
SECURITY
1MCDONNELL FND INCOR 144.00
0.58
2VALUE LINE SPECIAL S 144.00' 0.02
3 KEYSTO'NE S -t
144.00
0.03
0.11
4CHASE FUND OF BOSTON 144.00
144.00 -0.54
5EQUITY PROCRESS
144.0 0
0.79
GFIDELITY TREND FUND
0.41
7FIDELITY CAPITAL FUN 144.00
144.00
0.08
8KEYSTONE K-2
144.00
0.67
9OPPENHEIMER FUND
10DELAWARE FUND
144.00
0.18
11KEYSTONE S-3
144.00
0.18
12PUTNAH GROCWTH FUND
144.00
0.21
13SCUDDER SPECIAL FUND 144.00
0.39
14ENERGY FUND
144.00
0.06
15ONE WILLIA1M STREET F 144.00
0.13
144.00
0.17
16THE DREYFUS FUlND
17t1ASSACHUSETTS INVEST 144I.00
0.15
18WINDSOR FUN!D
0.18
144.00
19AXE-HOUGTON STOCK FU 144.00
0.39
2(:&P 500 STOCK INDEX
144;.00
0.0
21T ROWE PRICE GROWTH
144.00
0.05
22MASSACHUSETTS INVEST 144.00
-0.02
23BUI LnCK FUIJID
144.00
0.09
24KEYSTnONE S-2
144.00
0.0;
25EATON & HOWARD STOCK 144.00 -0.05
2GTHE COLONIAL FUN!D
1414.00
0.06
27FIDELITY FUND
144.00
0.15
28INVESTMENT CO OF AHE 144.00
0.2F
29HAMII TON FUJNDS-SERIE 144.n00
-0.12
30AFFILIATEI) FUND
144.00
0.08
31KEYSTONE S-1
144.00
0.03
32AXE-HOUGHTONl FUND B 144.00
0.01
33AMERICAN fMtUTUAL FUND 144.00
0.20
34 PIOIJEER FUI!D
1144.00
0.24
35CHE1ICAL FUND
144.00
0.57
36STEIN ROW FARNHAM BA 144.00
0.06
37PURITAN FUND
144.00
0.19
38THE VALUE LINE INCOM 144.00
0.07
39THE GEORGE PUTNAM FU 14 4 .0.Q _ Q.07
-0.03
49NCHOR INCOME
:144.00
0.05
41 LOOMIS-SAYLES MUTUAL 144.00
-0.12
42WELLINGTON FUND
144.00
0.04
144. 00
43MASSACHUSETTS FUND
-0.32
44NATION!WIDE SECURITIE 144.00
-0.07
45 EATON & HOWARD BALAN 144.00
0.12
46fiA!ERICAN BUSINESS SH 144.00
0.01
i 7 EYSTONE K-1
144.00
0.12
144.00
4 'EYSTOtNE-B-4
!
144.00
0.05
'I FtEYSTONE-B- 2
144.00
-0.08
5!: EYSTOIt,!E B-I
5130 DAY TREAS. BI.LLS
144.00
0.0
,I . IEAN SEC. VALUES
.,.STANDARD DEVIATIONfS
144.00
0.0
0.12
0.23
(3)
(4)
BETA
1.50
0.40
1.48
0.28
1. 43
1.42
0.33
0.41
1.26
0.29
1.23
1.20
0.24;
0. 22
1.17
0.22
0.31
1.16
0.19
1.15
0.19
1.14
0.19
1.13
0.28
1.12
0.18
1.10
0.22
1.06
0.14
1.04
0.16
1.03
0.16
1.03
0.30
1.02
1.00
0.0
0. 11
0.98
0.14
0.97
0. 19
0.96
0.12
0.96
0.13
0.95
0.19
0.95
0.11
0.95
0.20
0.95
0.23
0.93
0.14
0.89
0.10
0.88
0.20
0.86
0.20
0.85
0.16
0.8 I
0.25
0.83
0.10
0.79
0.15
0.78
0.17
0.78
0.10
0.77
0.13
0.74
0.10
0.74
0.13
0.72
0.11
0.72
0.15
0.67
0.12
0.62
0.53
0.09
0.11
0.53
0.30
0.13
0.10
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.0
0.0
SE .
0.20
-0.12
0.92
0.30
-69-
___CIII__II__LI____a_____ll--1_
---
(5)
(6)
(7)
SE.B
0.22
SE.R
9.76
R**2
25.18
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.04
'0.04
0.01
0.08
0.0
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.0
0.05
0.03
4.78
57.62
3.38
71.77
3.94 64.78
4.85 48.89
3.52
63.39
2.81
72.17
2.63 73.90
3.66 58.86
2.32 77.62
2.32
77.50
2.25
78.19
3.33 61.93
2.18
78.39
2.66 69.33
84.40
1.69
1.96
79.65
1.95
79.87
3.62 52.96
0.0
0.0
1.72
82.08
82.07
1.72
2.32
71.10
1.45 86.12
1.52 84.75
2.27 71.24
1.31
88.08
2.4 0 68.79
2.73 62.55
1.71 79.31
1.21 88.18
2.44 63.68
2.38
64.35
1.88
73.85
3.03
51.50
1.21
86.05
1.79
72.89
2.01
67.96
1.18
85.75
.60' 75.24
1.22
83.96
75.60
1.54
82.16
1.26
1.78
66.45
1. 46
71.62
1.10
76.96
69.59
1.32
35.82
1.51
1.16
22.03
1.21
4.43
0.0
0.0
2.35
-1.42
68.79
17.39
(9)
(10)
ARPJ
1.13
0.57
0.55
0.63
-0.08
1.24
0.85
0.51
1.10
0.60
0.60
0.62
0.80
0.4;6
0.52
0.55
0.52
0.56
0.76
0.37
0.41
0.34
0.44
0.39
0.30
0.4/1
0.50
0.61
0.22
0. 41
0.35
0.32
0.51
0.55
0.88
0.35
0.48
0.36
0.35
0.24
0.32
0.14
0.30
-0.08
0.16
0.31
0.21
0.23
0.11
-0.06
0.34t
SD. R
11.24
7.32
C.34
6.61
6.77
5.80
5.31
5.13
5.69
4.90
4.88
4.80
5.37
4.67
4.78
4.26
4.34
4.33
5.26
3.76
4.06
4.04
4.29
3.89
3.89
4.23
3.79
I4.29
4.44
3.74
3.51
4.03
3.97
3.67
4.33
3.22
3.43
3.54
3.12
3.21
3.04
3.11
2.98
3.07
2.74
2.28
2.39
1.88
1.31
1.23
0.12
CRPJ
0.67,
0.3
0.35
0. 1
-0.31
1.07 ,
0.71
0.38
0.94
0.48
0.48
0.51
0.66
0.35
0.41
0.46
0.43
0.47
0.62
0.30
0.32
0.26
0.35
0.31
0.23
0.32
0.43
0.51
0.12
0.34
0.29
0.24
0.43
0.48
0.79
0.30
0.42
0.29
0.30
0.19
0.27
0.09
0.26
-0.12
0.12
0.29
0.18
0.21
0.10
-0.07
0.34
0.46
0.28
4.25
1.65
0.36
0.24
(8)
Table 5
CORRELATION OF 52-WEEK BETA FORECASTS WITH
MEASURED VALUES FOR PORTFOLIOS OF N SECURITIES
1962 - 1970
Forecast for
52 Weeks
Ended
10
25
50
12/28/ 62
.385
.711
.803
.933
.988
12/27/63
.492
.806
.866
.931
.963
12/25/64
.430
.715
.825
.945
.970
12/24/65
.451
.730
.809
.936
.977
12/23/66
.548
.803
.869
.952
.974
12/22/67
.474
.759
.830
.900
.940
12/20/68
.455
.732
.857
.945
.977
12/19/69
.556
.844
.922
.965
.973
12/18/70
.551
.804
.888
.943
.985
Mean
dratic
Mean
.486
.769
.853
.939
.972
Source:
-70-
Table 6
RESULTS OF JACOB'S STUDY
A
rj
+ 'Yj
Pj
Return
Interval
46-55
56-65
Regression Resultsa
2
'y 0
' 1
Theoretical Values
=
Y
' 0
1R M
1.10
Monthly
0.80
0 02
0.30
( 0 0 7 )(b)
Yearly
8.9
5.10
(0.53)
0.14
14.4
Monthly
0.70
0.30
(0.06)
0.03
0.8
6.7
6.7
(0.53)
0.21
10.8
Yearly
-71-
RF
Table 7
RESULTS OF THE MILLER AND SCHOLES STUDY
Rj
'Y
(SEj)
yY1
12.2
( 0 .7 )
.7
-2
4.2
(0.6)
Y21
0.19
2.8
8.5
39.3
(2.5)
0.28
2.8
8.5
31.0
(2.6)
0.33
2.8
8.5
)'
7.1
(0.6)
16.3
(0.4)
12.7
(0.6)
;_
Theoretical Values
-72-
2 Y
Table 8
RESULTS OF FRIEND-BLUME STUDY
Returns from a yearly revision policy for
stocks classified by beta for various periods
Holding Period
Port-
1929-1969
folio
Number
1948-1969
Mean
Return
Mean
Return
Mean
Return
Beta
Beta
Beta
1956-1969
0.19
0.79
0.45
0.99
0.28
0.95
0.49
1.00
0.64
1.01
0.51
0.98
0.67
1.10
0.76
1.25
0.66
1.12
0.81
1.28
0.85
1.30
0.80
1.18
0.92
1.26
0.94
1.35
0.91
1.17
1.02
1.34
1.03
1.37
1.03
1.14
1.15
1.42
1.12
1.32
1.16
1.10
1.29
1.53
1.23
1.33
1.30
1.18
1.49
1.55
1.36
1.39
1.48
1.15
10
2.02
1.59
1.67
1.36
1.92
1.10
_-
,,...................
Source:
-73-
---^--"-----~111------I-i--
Table 9
RESULTS OF BLACK-JENSEN-SCHOLES STUDY
+
Rp =0
01p + PUp
1931 - 1965
'0
)X1
0.519
1.08
(0. 0 5 )(b)
(a)
Theoretical Values
R2
/0
0.90
RF
0.16
(0.05)
-74-
'1
RM - RF
1.42
FOOTNOTES
1.
2.
The general expression for the arithmetic mean return for a series
of N periods is given by
- _1
Rt
t=1
where Rt is the investment return during period t, as measured
by Equation (1).
3.
[(1 + R 1 ) (1 + R 2 ) ...
[ 7
(1 + RN)]
- 1
1IN
(1 +Rt)]
- 1
t=1
The total return for the period is given by (1 +
4.
)N - 1.
R=
[G +
a 2 (R)]1/2
-75-
I______________I____________
where
R
a (R)
Rearranging,
G
[/R2
2(R)1/2
For given R, as
(R) increases,
Thus, R
(1 + Rp) M 0
M 0 Rp
where
MT
Rp
= portfolio return
p
Since MT is a linear function of Rp, any risk measures
developed for the portfolio return will apply equally to the
terminal market value.
6.
H. Markowitz, in Chapter 9
-76-
8.
R2 +
..
+ RN
fNa.
The reader may wish to verify that total risk (as measured by
variance) really does equal the sum of systematic and unsystematic
i-4 -
-77-
U =PU
2 2
(5a)
3 am
to a.
of securities to be uncorre-
N
X2
j
2(p)
j=l
where
2(E
Assume the
2(
Up)
(
-2
(N2 ()
-78-
_____
_l__L_II
Then, Xj.=
2( 1
I
/N and
(E)
2 (E)
Rt
rt, is given by
- RF t
where
Rt
RFt
risk-free ree
return in month t
definition.
15.
-79-
This results
from the fact that it is not possible to correlate the true beta values
but only estimates which contain varying degrees of measurement
error.
calendar year betas for a sample of 99 funds for the period 1960
through 1971.
The
18.
-80-
____1_1
20.
(Ej), the
See column (6)
of Tables 3 and 4 for typical values for securities and mutual funds.
21.
See
+ 72(j
2 is zero.
23.
24.
25-
26.
and SEa
values.
27.
REFERENCES
1.
Black, F.,
Blume, Marshall E., and Irwin Friend, "A New Look at the
Capital Asset Pricing Model", Working Paper No. 1-71, Wharton
School of Finance and Commerce, Rodney L. White Center for
Financial Research.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Friend, I.,
and M. Blume,
-82-
10.
11.
"Capital Markets:
Journal of
November-Decemb er
Lintner, John,
15.
Lintner, John,
Diversification",
pp. 587-616.
16.
18.
Journal of
of Investments.
19.
"Portfolio Selection'',
published in
-83-
____1
____111_
1_
20.
21.
Pogue, Gerald A., and Walter Conway, "On the Stability of Mutual
Fund Beta Values", Unpublished Working Paper, MIT Sloan School
of Management, June 1972.
22.
Pogue, G. A.,
25.
-84-
__
II_
_I