11.8 Summary
The assumed investment horizon plays a key role in portfolio analysis. This is obvious in the case where distributions are not stationary and are dependent over time. However, we show in this Chapter that M-V efficiency analysis, M-V portfolio diversification, Sharpe’s reward-to-variability ratio, beta, and correlations are all dependent on the assumed horizon even if distributions are independent and identical over time (i.i.d.), let alone if the i.i.d. assumption does not hold.
Stochastic dominance efficiency analyses are also dependent on the assumed horizon. The size of the M-V efficient set does not decrease (and may increase) with increase in the investment horizon: The opposite is true with SD efficient set. This apparent contradiction between M-V and SSD is resolved once we recall that if the one-period distributions are assumed to be normal, the multiperiod distributions cannot be normal. Thus, M-V and SSD coincide for n=1 (if the one-period distribution is assumed to be normal) but for n > 1, the two efficient sets may diverge. SD analysis is distribution-free and, therefore, it is correct and consistent with expected utility paradigm, but M-V is not consistent with this paradigm. Given that the one-period distributions are normal, the M-V multi-period efficient set is incorrect because the distributions are no longer normal and, therefore, it will include portfolios that are SSD inefficient.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Tobin, J., “The Theory of Portfolio Selection,” in F. H. Hahn and F.P.R. Brechling, eds., Theory of Interest Rates, New York, Macmillan, 1965.
Sharpe, W. F., “Mutual Fund Performance,” Journal of Business, January 1966.
Levy, H., “Portfolio Performance and the Investment Horizon,” Management Science, 18, 1972, pp. 645–653.
See Mark Hulbert, “Calculated Risk,” Forbes, Jan. 27, 1997, p. 114.
Levy, H., “Investment Diversification and Investment Specialization and the Assumed Holding Period.” Applied Mathematical Finance, 3, 1996, pp. 117–134.
Schneller, I.M., “Regression Analysis for Multiplicative Phenomenon and the Implication for the Measurement of Investment Risk,” Management Science, 22, 1975, pp. 422–426.
Levy, H., and Schwarz, G. “Correlation and Time Interval Over Which the Variables are Measured,” Journal of Econometrics, 76, 1997, pp. 341–350.
Gunthorpe, D. and Levy, H., “Portfolio Composition and the Investment Horizon,” Financial Analysts Journal, January–February, 1994, pp. 51–56.
Ferguson, R. and Simman, Y., “Portfolio Composition and the Investment Horizon Revisited,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Summer 96, pp. 62–67.
Levhari, D. and Levy, H., “The Capital Asset Pricing Model and the Investment Horizon,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 1977, pp. 92–104.
Levy, H., “Stochastic Dominance, Efficiency Criteria, and Efficient Portfolios: The Multi-Period Case,” American Economic Review, 63, 1973, pp. 986–994.
Levy, H. and Levy, A., “Stochastic Dominance and the Investment Horizon with Riskless Asset,” Review of Economic Studies, 49, 1982, pp. 427–438.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2006). Decision Making and the Investment Horizon. In: Stochastic Dominance. Studies in Risk and Uncertainty, vol 12. Springer, Boston, MA . https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29311-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29311-6_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-29302-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-29311-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)