ebook

EXAMPLE 11.4 Portfolio Variance and Standard Deviations

✓ In Example 11.3, what are the standard deviations of the two portfolios?
To answer, we first have to calculate the portfolio returns in the two states. We
CHECK THIS
will work with the second portfolio, which has 50 percent in Stock A and 25 percent
in each of stocks B and C. The relevant calculations are summarized as follows:

State of Probability of Returns
Economy State of Economy
Boom Stock A Stock B Stock C Portfolio
Bust .50 10% 13.75%
.50 8 15% 20%
5.00
40

The portfolio return when the economy booms is calculated as:

RP ‫ ؍‬.50 ؋ 10% ؉ .25 ؋ 15% ؉ .25 ؋ 20% ‫ ؍‬13.75%

The return when the economy goes bust is calculated the same way. Check that it’s
5 percent and also check that the expected return on the portfolio is 9.375 percent.
Expressing returns in decimals, the variance is thus:

␴ 2 ‫؍‬ .50 ؋ (.1375 ؊ .09375)2 ؉ .50 ؋ (.05 ؊ .09375)2 ‫؍‬ .0019141
P

The standard deviation is:

_________

␴P ‫͙ ؍‬.0019141 ‫ ؍‬.04375, or 4.375%

Check: Using equal weights, verify that the portfolio standard deviation is 5.5 percent.
Note: If the standard deviation is 4.375 percent, the variance should be somewhere

between 16 and 25 (the squares of 4 and 5, respectively). If we square 4.375, we get
19.141. To express a variance in percentage, we must move the decimal four places to
the right. That is, we must multiply .0019141 by 10,000—which is the square of 100.

11.2a What is a portfolio weight?
11.2b How do we calculate the variance of an expected return?

11.3 Diversification and Portfolio Risk

Our discussion to this point has focused on some hypothetical securities. We’ve seen that
portfolio risks can, in principle, be quite different from the risks of the assets that make up
the portfolio. We now look more closely at the risk of an individual asset versus the risk of a
portfolio of many different assets. As we did in Chapter 1, we will examine some stock mar-
ket history to get an idea of what happens with actual investments in U.S. capital markets.

THE EFFECT OF DIVERSIFICATION: ANOTHER LESSON
FROM MARKET HISTORY
In Chapter 1, we saw that the standard deviation of the annual return on a portfolio of large-
company common stocks was about 20 percent per year. Does this mean that the standard
deviation of the annual return on a typical stock in that group is about 20 percent? As you
might suspect by now, the answer is no. This observation is extremely important.

To examine the relationship between portfolio size and portfolio risk, Table 11.7 illus-
trates typical average annual standard deviations for equally weighted portfolios that contain
different numbers of randomly selected NYSE securities.

356 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

TABLE 11.7 Portfolio Standard Deviations

(1) (2) (3)
Number of Stocks Average Standard Deviation of Ratio of Portfolio Standard
in Portfolio
Annual Portfolio Returns Deviation to Standard
1 49.24% Deviation of a Single Stock
2 37.36
4 29.69 1.00
6 26.64 .76
8 24.98 .60
10 23.93 .54
20 21.68 .51
30 20.87 .49
40 20.46 .44
50 20.20 .42
100 19.69 .42
200 19.42 .41
300 19.34 .40
400 19.29 .39
500 19.27 .39
1,000 19.21 .39
.39
.39

Source: These figures are from Table 1 in Meir Statman, “How Many Stocks Make a Diversified Portfolio?” Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis 22 (September 1987), pp. 353–64. They were derived from E. J. Elton and M. J. Gruber,
“Risk Reduction and Portfolio Size: An Analytic Solution,” Journal of Business 50 (October 1977), pp. 415–37.

In column 2 of Table 11.7, we see that the standard deviation for a “portfolio” of one
security is just under 50 percent per year at 49.24 percent. What this means is that if you
randomly select a single NYSE stock and put all your money into it, your standard deviation
of return would typically have been about 50 percent per year. Obviously, such a strategy
has significant risk! If you were to randomly select two NYSE securities and put half your
money in each, your average annual standard deviation would have been about 37 percent.

The important thing to notice in Table 11.7 is that the standard deviation declines as
the number of securities is increased. By the time we have 100 randomly chosen stocks
(and 1 percent invested in each), the portfolio’s volatility has declined by 60 percent, from
50 percent per year to 20 percent per year. With 500 securities, the standard deviation
is 19.27 percent per year, similar to the 20 percent per year we saw in Chapter 1 for large-
company common stocks. The small difference exists because the portfolio securities, port-
folio weights, and the time periods covered are not identical. The nearby Investment Updates
box offers further historical perspective on the need for diversification.

THE PRINCIPLE OF DIVERSIFICATION

Figure 11.1 illustrates the point we’ve been discussing. What we have plotted is the standard
deviation of the return versus the number of stocks in the portfolio. Notice in Figure 11.1 that
the benefit in terms of risk reduction from adding securities drops off as we add more and
more. By the time we have 10 securities, most of the diversification effect is already realized,
and by the time we get to 30 or so, there is very little remaining benefit.

The diversification benefit does depend on the time period over which returns and vari-
ances are calculated. For example, the data in Table 11.7 precede 1987. Scholars recently
revisited diversification benefits by looking at stock returns and variances from 1986 to
1997 and found that 50 stocks were needed to build a highly diversified portfolio in this time
period. The point is that investors should be thinking in terms of 30 to 50 individual stocks
when they are building a diversified portfolio.

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 357

INVESTMENT UPDATES

WHY A BROAD MIX HELPS IN LONG TERM

Stock-market diversification is sold as a short-term seda- tight through the unnerving stock-market declines of
tive for antsy investors. But it’s also your best bet for en- 1973–74, 1976–78, 1980–82, 1987, and 1990. That would
suring decent long-run returns. In recent columns, I’ve have been tough with an all-stock portfolio. But even
written a lot about diversification. There’s a good reason if you had an unflinching determination to stick with
for that: If this 2001 bear market has anything to teach stocks, you would have been constantly second-guessing
us, it is the value of spreading your stock-market bets your commitment to blue-chip companies. For instance,
widely. Over the past year, the hardest-hit investors have in the 1970s, you would have been tempted to swap
been those who pooh-poohed diversification and loaded into small companies and foreign shares, both of which
up on technology stocks, only to see their portfolios deci- outpaced U.S. large-company stocks. In the 1980s, for-
mated by NASDAQ’s implosion. Clearly, these folks would eign markets again outstripped U.S. large companies.
have fared far better with a broader array of stocks. But Indeed, it was only in the 1990s that these blue-chip
diversification is more than just a defense against short- stocks reigned supreme.
run market gyrations. To understand why, consider the
performance of large, small, and foreign stocks over the Out of Time: Planning on sticking with U.S. large-
past 30 years. company stocks for the next three decades? Circum-
stances may intervene. Maybe you will be forced to
At first blush, the results seem to encourage investors liquidate your stock portfolio early because you get
to shun diversification and instead stick with the big divorced, lose your job, or get hit with hefty medical
blue-chip stocks they know and love. After all, over the bills. Alternatively, maybe your time horizon isn’t quite
30 years, large, small, and foreign stocks generated almost as long as you imagine. For instance, you might be look-
exactly the same average annual total return. According ing at a 30-year retirement. But if you are living off your
to Chicago researchers Ibbotson Associates, Standard & portfolio, you will probably have to sell many of your
Poor’s 500-stock Index of large-company stocks was up stocks before the 30 years are up.
an average 13.2% a year, smaller U.S. companies gained
14.7%, and Morgan Stanley’s Europe, Australasia, and In that case, you will definitely want to be globally
Far East index climbed 13.1%. In other words, if all diversified, because that will provide vital portfolio protec-
you owned was a smattering of blue-chip stocks, you tion over this shorter period. For proof, check out the ac-
should have done just fine over the past 30 years. companying table. It takes the past 30 years, picks out the
roughest 5, 10, 15, and 20-year stretches for large-company
But the raw data don’t tell the whole story. Here’s stocks, and then shows how other investments fared.
why:
“In each of these bad periods, small stocks and
Tenacity Tested: Suppose that in 1970 you settled on international stocks did better,” notes William
a portfolio consisting exclusively of large U.S. stocks. Reichenstein, an investments professor at Baylor Univer-
Would you have hung onto that portfolio through the sity. “There’s a lot to be said for a portfolio that includes
entire 30 years? I doubt it. For starters, you had to sit a little bit of everything.”

FIGURE 11.1 Portfolio Diversification

49.2 Average annual standard deviation (%)

Diversifiable risk

23.9 Nondiversifiable 1,000
19.2 risk

1 10 20 30 40
358 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management Number of stocks in portfolio

On Target: Diversification won’t just limit your losses would have gained 14.2% a year before taxes and
during rough markets. When it’s combined with regular trading costs, compared with 13.7% if you had never
rebalancing, it can also boost returns. When you rebal- rebalanced. You are most likely to get this performance
ance, you set targets for what percentage of your portfo- bonus when you rebalance among different stock-
lio is in different investments. Then, every so often, you market sectors, which should have roughly comparable
re-jigger your portfolio to get back to these targets. If long-run returns. But sometimes, you can also bolster
you invest in two market sectors, “a rebalanced portfo- returns by rebalancing between stocks and bonds.
lio may actually do better than the two assets on their Consider, for instance, the 10 years through December
own, because rebalancing forces you to buy low and sell 1981. Over that stretch, large stocks struggled, climb-
high,” says William Bernstein, an investment adviser in ing just 6.5% a year, but they still outpaced intermedi-
North Bend, Ore., and author of “The Intelligent Asset ate government bonds, which returned 5.8%. But an
Allocator.” “Rebalancing is the only form of market tim- annually rebalanced mix of 50% stocks and 50% bonds
ing that works.” did even better, gaining 6.6% a year, Mr. Reichenstein
calculates.
Suppose you held a portfolio that was one-third
large stocks, one-third small stocks, and one-third Source: Jonathan Clements, The Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2001.
foreign stocks. At the end of each year, you rebalanced © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
to get back to these portfolio targets. Result? Accord-
ing to Ibbotson, over the past 30 years, your portfolio

Hiding Places: How various investments fared during the roughest patches
for large-company stocks over the past 30 years

Worst 30 Years
(through Dec. 2000)
5 Years* 10 Years* 15 Years* 20 Years*
Ϫ0.2% ϩ11.2% ϩ13.2%
Large companies ϩ6.5% ϩ9.9% ϩ13.3 ϩ14.7
Small companies ϩ10.8 ϩ15.4 ϩ13.1
Foreign stocks ϩ2.6 ϩ17.3 ϩ16.2
Intermediate bonds ϩ6.4 ϩ9.1 ϩ8.5
Inflation ϩ7.9 ϩ10.6 ϩ15.6 ϩ6.3 ϩ5.0

ϩ5.8 ϩ9.2

ϩ8.6 ϩ6.9

Note: The results shown are annual averages and include reinvested dividends.
*Through year-end 1977, 1981, 1987, and 1990, respectively.
Source: Jonathan Clements, The Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2001. © 2001 Dow Jones and Company Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.

principle of Figure 11.1 illustrates two key points. First, some of the riskiness associated with indi-
diversification vidual assets can be eliminated by forming portfolios. The process of spreading an invest-
Spreading an investment across ment across assets (and thereby forming a portfolio) is called diversification. The principle
a number of assets will eliminate of diversification tells us that spreading an investment across many assets will eliminate
some, but not all, of the risk. some of the risk. Not surprisingly, risks that can be eliminated by diversification are called
“diversifiable” risks.
✓
The second point is equally important. There is a minimum level of risk that cannot be
CHECK THIS eliminated by simply diversifying. This minimum level is labeled “nondiversifiable risk” in
Figure 11.1. Taken together, these two points are another important lesson from financial
market history: Diversification reduces risk, but only up to a point. Put another way, some
risk is diversifiable and some is not.

11.3a What happens to the standard deviation of return for a portfolio if we
11.3b increase the number of securities in the portfolio?

What is the principle of diversification?

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 359

11.4 Correlation and Diversification

We’ve seen that diversification is important. What we haven’t discussed is how to get the
most out of diversification. For example, in our previous section, we investigated what hap-
pens if we simply spread our money evenly across randomly chosen stocks. We saw that
significant risk reduction resulted from this strategy, but you might wonder whether even
larger gains could be achieved by a more sophisticated approach. As we begin to examine
that question here, the answer is yes.

WHY DIVERSIFICATION WORKS

Why diversification reduces portfolio risk as measured by the portfolio standard deviation is

correlation important and worth exploring in some detail. The key concept is correlation, which is the
The tendency of the returns on two
assets to move together. extent to which the returns on two assets move together. If the returns on two assets tend to

www move up and down together, we say they are positively correlated. If they tend to move in

Measure portfolio diversification opposite directions, we say they are negatively correlated. If there is no particular relation-
using Instant X-ray at
www.morningstar.com ship between the two assets, we say they are uncorrelated.
(use the search feature)
The correlation coefficient, which we use to measure correlation, ranges from Ϫ1 to

ϩ1, and we will denote the correlation between the returns on two assets, say A and B,

as Corr(RA, R ). The Greek letter ␳ (rho) is often used to designate correlation as well.
B
A correlation of ϩ1 indicates that the two assets have a perfect positive correlation.

For example, suppose that whatever return Asset A realizes, either up or down, Asset B

does the same thing by exactly twice as much. In this case, they are perfectly correlated

because the movement on one is completely predictable from the movement on the other.

Notice, however, that perfect correlation does not necessarily mean they move by the same

amount.

A zero correlation means that the two assets are uncorrelated. If we know that one asset

is up, then we have no idea what the other one is likely to do; there simply is no relation

between them. Perfect negative correlation [Corr(RA, RB) ϭ Ϫ1] indicates that they always
move in opposite directions. Figure 11.2 illustrates the three benchmark cases of perfect

positive, perfect negative, and zero correlation.

Diversification works because security returns are generally not perfectly correlated. We

will be more precise about the impact of correlation on portfolio risk in just a moment. For

now, it is useful to simply think about combining two assets into a portfolio. If the two assets

FIGURE 11.2 Correlations

Perfect positive correlation Perfect negative correlation Zero correlation
Corr (RA, RB) ϭ ϩ1 Corr (RA, RB) ϭ Ϫ1 Corr (RA, RB) ϭ 0
Returns
Returns Returns
ϩ
ϩ1 ϩB B
0 A
02 0 Ϫ
ϪA
ϪA Time
B Time
Time Security A has a higher-than- The return on Security A is
average return when Security completely unrelated to the
Both the return on Security A and B has a lower-than-average return on Security B.
the return on Security B are higher return, and vice versa.
than average at the same time.
Both the return on Security A and
the return on Security B are lower
than average at the same time.

360 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

TABLE 11.8 Annual Returns on Stocks A and B

Year Stock A Stock B Portfolio AB
2003 10% 15% 12.5%
2004 30 10
2005 Ϫ10 7.5
2006 Ϫ10 25 12.5
2007 5 20 12.5
Average returns 15 11
Standard deviations 10 13 2.2
9 13.5

14.3

are highly positively correlated (the correlation is near ϩ1), then they have a strong tendency
to move up and down together. As a result, they offer limited diversification benefit. For
example, two stocks from the same industry, say, General Motors and Ford, will tend to be
relatively highly correlated because the companies are in essentially the same business, and
a portfolio of two such stocks is not likely to be very diversified.

In contrast, if the two assets are negatively correlated, then they tend to move in oppo-
site directions; whenever one zigs, the other tends to zag. In such a case, the diversification
benefit will be substantial because variation in the return on one asset tends to be offset by
variation in the opposite direction from the other. In fact, if two assets have a perfect nega-
tive correlation [Corr(RA, RB) ϭ Ϫ1], then it is possible to combine them such that all risk
is eliminated. Looking back at our example involving Jpod and Starcents in which we were
able to eliminate all of the risk, what we now see is that they must be perfectly negatively
correlated.

To further illustrate the impact of diversification on portfolio risk, suppose we
observed the actual annual returns on two stocks, A and B, for the years 2003–2007. We
summarize these returns in Table 11.8. In addition to actual returns on stocks A and B,
we also calculated the returns on an equally weighted portfolio of A and B in Table 11.8.
We label this portfolio as AB. In 2003, for example, Stock A returned 10 percent and
Stock B returned 15 percent. Because Portfolio AB is half invested in each, its return for
the year was:

1/2 ϫ 10% ϩ 1/2 ϫ 15% ϭ 12.5%

The returns for the other years are calculated similarly.
At the bottom of Table 11.8, we calculated the average returns and standard deviations on

the two stocks and the equally weighted portfolio. These averages and standard deviations
are calculated just as they were in Chapter 1 (check a couple just to refresh your memory).
The impact of diversification is apparent. The two stocks have standard deviations in the
13 percent to 14 percent per year range, but the portfolio’s volatility is only 2.2 percent. In
fact, if we compare the portfolio to Stock A, it has a higher return (11 percent vs. 9 percent)
and much less risk.

Figure 11.3 illustrates in more detail what is occurring with our example. Here we
have three bar graphs showing the year-by-year returns on Stocks A and B and Portfolio
AB. Examining the graphs, we see that in 2004, for example, Stock A earned 30 percent
while Stock B lost 10 percent. The following year, Stock B earned 25 percent, while A lost
10 percent. These ups and downs tend to cancel out in our portfolio, however, with the
result that there is much less variation in return from year to year. In other words, the cor-
relation between the returns on stocks A and B is relatively low.

Calculating the correlation between stocks A and B is not difficult, but it would require
us to digress a bit. Instead, we will explain the needed calculation in the next chapter, where
we build on the principles developed here.

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 361

FIGURE 11.3 Impact of Diversification

Stock A Annual Stock B Annual Portfolio AB Annual
Returns Returns Returns

2003–2007 2003–2007 2003–2007
30 30 30

Annual return % 20 20 Annual return % Annual return % 20

10 10 10

00 0

Ϫ10 Ϫ10 Ϫ10

2003 2003 Year
2004 2004 2003
2005 2005 2004
2006 2006 2005
2007 2007 2006
2007

Year Year

CALCULATING PORTFOLIO RISK

We’ve seen that correlation is an important determinant of portfolio risk. To further pur-

sue this issue, we need to know how to calculate portfolio variances directly. For a port-

folio of two assets, A and B, the variance of the return on the portfolio, ␴ 2 , is given by
P

equation (11.3):

␴ 2 ϭ x A2 ␴ 2 ϩ x 2B␴ 2 ϩ 2xAxB␴A␴BCorr(RA, RB) (11.3)
P A B

In this equation, xA and xB are the percentages invested in assets A and B. Notice that
ϩ ϭ
x x 1. (Why?)
A B
For a portfolio of three assets, the variance of the return on the portfolio, ␴ P2, is given by

equation (11.4):

␴ 2 ϭ x 2A␴ 2 ϩ x B2␴ 2 ϩ x2C␴ 2 ϩ 2xAxB␴A␴BCorr(RA, RB) (11.4)
P A B C

ϩ2xAxC␴A␴CCorr(RA, RC) ϩ 2xBxC␴B␴CCorr (RB, RC)

Note that six terms appear in equation (11.4). There is a term involving the squared weight

and the variance of the return for each of the three assets (A, B, and C) as well as a cross-term

for each pair of assets. The cross-term involves pairs of weights, pairs of standard deviations

of returns for each asset, and the correlation between the returns of the asset pair. If you

had a portfolio of six assets, you would have an equation with 21 terms. (Can you write this

equation?) If you had a portfolio of 50 assets, the equation for the variance of this portfolio

would have 1,275 terms! Let’s return to equation (11.3).

Equation (11.3) looks a little involved, but its use is straightforward. For example, sup-

pose Stock A has a standard deviation of 40 percent per year and Stock B has a standard

deviation of 60 percent per year. The correlation between them is .15. If you put half your

money in each, what is your portfolio standard deviation?

To answer, we just plug the numbers into equation (11.3). Note that x and x are each equal
A B
to .50, while ␴A and ␴B are .40 and .60, respectively. Taking Corr(RA, RB) ϭ .15, we have:

␴ 2 ϭ .502 ϫ .402 ϩ .502 ϫ .602 ϩ 2 ϫ .50 ϫ .50 ϫ .40 ϫ .60 ϫ .15
P

ϭ .25 ϫ .16 ϩ .25 ϫ .36 ϩ .018

ϭ .148

Thus, the portfolio variance is .148. As always, variances are not easy to interpret since

they are based on squared returns, so we calculate the standard deviation by taking the

square root:

____

␴P ϭ ͙.148 ϭ .3847 ϭ 38.47%

362 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

Once again, we see the impact of diversification. This portfolio has a standard deviation of
38.47 percent, which is less than either of the standard deviations on the two assets that are
in the portfolio.

EXAMPLE 11.5 Portfolio Variance and Standard Deviation

In the example we just examined, Stock A has a standard deviation of 40 percent per

year and Stock B has a standard deviation of 60 percent per year. Suppose now that

the correlation between them is .35. Also suppose you put one-fourth of your money

in Stock A. What is your portfolio standard deviation?

If you put 1/4 (or .25) in Stock A, you must have 3/4 (or .75) in Stock B, so xA ‫ ؍‬.25
and xB ‫ ؍‬.75. Making use of our portfolio variance equation (11.3), we have:

␴ 2 ‫؍‬ .252 ؋ .402 ؉ .752 ؋ .602 ؉ 2 ؋ .25 ؋ .75 ؋ .40 ؋ .60 ؋ .35
P

‫ ؍‬.0625 ؋ .16 ؉ .5625 ؋ .36 ؉ .0315

‫ ؍‬.244

Thus the portfolio variance is .244. Taking the square root, we get:

_____

␴P ‫͙ ؍‬.244 ‫ ؍‬.49396 Ϸ 49%

This portfolio has a standard deviation of 49 percent, which is between the indi-
vidual standard deviations. This shows that a portfolio’s standard deviation isn’t
necessarily less than the individual standard deviations.

asset allocation THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSET ALLOCATION, PART 1
How an investor spreads portfolio
dollars among assets. Why are correlation and asset allocation important, practical, real-world considerations?
Well, suppose that as a very conservative, risk-averse investor, you decide to invest all of
investment your money in a bond mutual fund. Based on your analysis, you think this fund has an
opportunity set expected return of 6 percent with a standard deviation of 10 percent per year. A stock fund
Collection of possible risk–return is available, however, with an expected return of 12 percent, but the standard deviation of
combinations available from 15 percent is too high for your taste. Also, the correlation between the returns on the two
portfolios of individual assets. funds is about .10.

Is the decision to invest 100 percent in the bond fund a wise one, even for a very risk-
averse investor? The answer is no; in fact, it is a bad decision for any investor. To see why,
Table 11.9 shows expected returns and standard deviations available from different combi-
nations of the two mutual funds. In constructing the table, we begin with 100 percent in the
stock fund and work our way down to 100 percent in the bond fund by reducing the per-
centage in the stock fund in increments of .05. These calculations are all done just like our
examples just above; you should check some (or all) of them for practice.

Beginning on the first row in Table 11.9, we have 100 percent in the stock fund, so our
expected return is 12 percent, and our standard deviation is 15 percent. As we begin to
move out of the stock fund and into the bond fund, we are not surprised to see both the
expected return and the standard deviation decline. However, what might be surprising to
you is the fact that the standard deviation falls only so far and then begins to rise again. In
other words, beyond a point, adding more of the lower risk bond fund actually increases
your risk!

The best way to see what is going on is to plot the various combinations of expected
returns and standard deviations calculated in Table 11.9 as we do in Figure 11.4. We simply
placed the standard deviations from Table 11.9 on the horizontal axis and the corresponding
expected returns on the vertical axis.

Examining the plot in Figure 11.4, we see that the various combinations of risk and return
available all fall on a smooth curve (in fact, for the geometrically inclined, it’s a hyperbola).
This curve is called an investment opportunity set because it shows the possible combina-
tions of risk and return available from portfolios of these two assets. One important thing to
notice is that, as we have shown, there is a portfolio that has the smallest standard deviation

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 363

TABLE 11.9 Risk and Return with Stocks and Bonds

Portfolio Weights

Stocks Bonds Expected Return Standard Deviation (Risk)
12.00% 15.00%
1.00 .00 11.70 14.31
11.40 13.64
.95 .05 11.10 12.99
10.80 12.36
.90 .10 10.50 11.77
10.20 11.20
.85 .15 9.90 10.68
9.60 10.21
.80 .20 9.30 9.78
9.00 9.42
.75 .25 8.70 9.12
8.40 8.90
.70 .30 8.10 8.75
7.80 8.69
.65 .35 7.50 8.71
7.20 8.82
.60 .40 6.90 9.01
6.60 9.27
.55 .45 6.30 9.60
6.00 10.00
.50 .50

.45 .55

.40 .60

.35 .65

.30 .70

.25 .75

.20 .80

.15 .85

.10 .90

.05 .95

.00 1.00

FIGURE 11.4 Risk and Return with Stocks and Bonds

Expected return (%) 13 100%
Stocks
12
100% Bonds
11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Minimum Standard deviation (%)

10 variance
portfolio

9

8

7

6

5
789

www (or variance—same thing) of all. It is labeled “minimum variance portfolio” in Figure 11.4.
What are (approximately) its expected return and standard deviation?
Review modern portfolio theory at
www.moneychimp.com Now we see clearly why a 100 percent bonds strategy is a poor one. With a 10 per-
cent standard deviation, the bond fund offers an expected return of 6 percent. However,
Table 11.9 shows us that a combination of about 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds
has almost the same standard deviation, but a return of about 9.6 percent. Comparing

364 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

efficient portfolio 9.6 percent to 6 percent, we see that this portfolio has a return that is fully 60 percent greater
A portfolio that offers the highest (6% ϫ 1.6 ϭ 9.6%) with the same risk. Our conclusion? Asset allocation matters.
return for its level of risk.
Going back to Figure 11.4, notice that any portfolio that plots below the minimum vari-
ance portfolio is a poor choice because, no matter which one you pick, there is another port-
folio with the same risk and a much better return. In the jargon of finance, we say that these
undesirable portfolios are dominated and/or inefficient. Either way; we mean that given their
level of risk, the expected return is inadequate compared to some other portfolio of equiva-
lent risk. A portfolio that offers the highest return for its level of risk is said to be an efficient
portfolio. In Figure 11.4, the minimum variance portfolio and all portfolios that plot above
it are therefore efficient.

EXAMPLE 11.6 More Portfolio Variance and Standard Deviation

Looking at Table 11.9, suppose you put 57.627 percent in the stock fund. What is your
expected return? Your standard deviation? How does this compare with the bond
fund?

If you put 57.627 percent in stocks, you must have 42.373 percent in bonds, so
xA ‫ ؍‬.57627 and xB ‫ ؍‬.42373. From Table 11.9, you can see that the standard
deviation for stocks and bonds is 15% and 10%, respectively. Also, the correlation
between stocks and bonds is .10. Making use of our portfolio variance equation
(11.3), we have:

␴ 2 ‫؍‬ .576272 ؋ .152 ؉ .423732 ؋ .102 ؉ 2 ؋ .57627 ؋ .42373 ؋ .15 ؋ .10 ؋ .10
P

‫ ؍‬.332 ؋ .0225 ؉ .180 ؋ .01 ؉ .0007325

‫ ؍‬.01

Thus, the portfolio variance is .01, so the standard deviation is .1, or 10 percent.
Check that the expected return is 9.46 percent. Compared to the bond fund, the
standard deviation is now identical, but the expected return is almost 350 basis
points higher.

MORE ON CORRELATION AND THE RISK-RETURN
TRADE-OFF

Given the expected returns and standard deviations on the two assets, the shape of the
investment opportunity set in Figure 11.4 depends on the correlation. The lower the cor-
relation, the more bowed to the left the investment opportunity set will be. To illustrate,
Figure 11.5 shows the investment opportunity for correlations of Ϫ1, 0, and ϩ1 for two
stocks, A and B. Notice that Stock A has an expected return of 12 percent and a standard
deviation of 15 percent, while Stock B has an expected return of 6 percent and a standard
deviation of 10 percent. These are the same expected returns and standard deviations we
used to build Figure 11.4, and the calculations are all done the same way; just the cor-
relations are different. Notice also that we use the symbol ␳ to stand for the correlation
coefficient.

In Figure 11.5, when the correlation is ϩ1, the investment opportunity set is a straight
line connecting the two stocks, so, as expected, there is little or no diversification benefit. As
the correlation declines to zero, the bend to the left becomes pronounced. For correlations
between ϩ1 and zero, there would simply be a less pronounced bend.

Finally, as the correlation becomes negative, the bend becomes quite pronounced, and
the investment opportunity set actually becomes two straight-line segments when the
correlation hits Ϫ1. Notice that the minimum variance portfolio has a zero variance in
this case.

It is sometimes desirable to be able to calculate the percentage investments needed to
create the minimum variance portfolio. For a two-asset portfolio, Equation (11.5) shows the
weight in asset A, xA*, that achieves the minimum variance.

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 365

FIGURE 11.5 Risk and Return with Two Assets

14 Stock A

Expected return (%) 12
ϭ Ϫ1

10

8 ϭ0

ϭ ϩ1
6

Stock B

4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Standard deviation (%)

Correlation coefficients

Corr ϭ Ϫ1 Corr ϭ 0 Corr ϭ ϩ1

x * ϭ ____␴_B2_Ϫ___␴_A_␴_B_C_o_r_r_(R__A_, _R_B_) ___ (11.5)
A
␴ 2 ϩ ␴ 2 Ϫ 2␴A␴BCorr(RA, RB)
A B

A question at the end of the chapter asks you to prove that Equation (11.5) is correct.

EXAMPLE 11.7 Finding the Minimum Variance Portfolio

Looking back at Table 11.9, what combination of the stock fund and the bond fund
has the lowest possible standard deviation? What is the minimum possible standard
deviation?

Recalling that the standard deviations for the stock fund and bond fund were .15
and .10, respectively, and noting that the correlation was .1, we have:

x * ‫؍‬ ______.1_0__2 _؊__._1_5_؋___.1_0__؋__._1_0______
A .152 ؉ .102 ؊ 2 ؋ .15 ؋ .10 ؋ .10

‫ ؍‬.288136

Ϸ 28.8%

Thus, the minimum variance portfolio has 28.8 percent in stocks and the balance,
71.2 percent, in bonds. Plugging these into our formula for portfolio variance, we have:

␴ 2 ‫؍‬ .2882 ؋ .152 ؉ .7122 ؋ .102 ؉ 2 ؋ .288 ؋ .712 ؋ .15 ؋ .10 ؋ .10
P

‫ ؍‬.007551

The standard deviation is the square root of .007551, about 8.7 percent. Notice that
this is where the minimum occurs in Figure 11.5.

✓ 11.4a Fundamentally, why does diversification work?
11.4b If two stocks have positive correlation, what does this mean?
CHECK THIS 11.4c What is an efficient portfolio?

366 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

11.5 The Markowitz Efficient Frontier

In the previous section, we looked closely at the risk-return possibilities available when we
consider combining two risky assets. Now we are left with an obvious question: What hap-
pens when we consider combining three or more risky assets? As we will see, at least on
a conceptual level, the answer turns out to be a straightforward extension of our previous
examples that use two risky assets.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSET ALLOCATION, PART 2

As you saw in equation (11.4), the formula to compute a portfolio variance with three assets
is a bit cumbersome. Indeed, the amount of calculation increases greatly as the number of
assets in the portfolio grows. The calculations are not difficult, but using a computer is
highly recommended for portfolios consisting of more than three assets!

We can, however, illustrate the importance of asset allocation using only three assets.
How? Well, a mutual fund that holds a broadly diversified portfolio of securities counts as
only one asset. So, with three mutual funds that hold diversified portfolios, we can construct
a diversified portfolio with these three assets. Suppose we invest in three index funds—one
that represents U.S. stocks, one that represents U.S. bonds, and one that represents foreign
stocks. Then we can see how the allocation among these three diversified portfolios matters.
(Our Get Real box at the end of the chapter presents a more detailed discussion of mutual
funds and diversification.)

Figure 11.6 shows the result of calculating the expected returns and portfolio stan-
dard deviations when there are three assets. To illustrate the importance of asset alloca-
tion, we calculated expected returns and standard deviations from portfolios composed
of three key investment types: U.S. stocks, foreign (non-U.S.) stocks, and U.S. bonds.
These asset classes are not highly correlated in general; therefore, we assume a zero

FIGURE 11.6 Markowitz Efficient Portfolio

Portfolio expected return (%) 20
18
35 40
Markowitz efficient portfolios
16
14
12
10

8
6
4
2
0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Portfolio standard deviation (%)

U.S. bonds and foreign stocks
U.S. bonds and U.S. stocks
U.S. stocks and foreign stocks
U.S. bonds and U.S. stocks and foreign stocks

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 367

correlation in all cases. When we assume that all correlations are zero, the return to this
portfolio is still:

RP ‫ ؍‬xF RF ؉ xS RS ؉ xB RB (11.6)
But when all correlations are zero, the variance of the portfolio becomes:

␴ 2 ‫؍‬ x 2 ␴ 2 ؉ x 2 ␴ 2 ؉ x 2 ␴ 2 (11.7)
P F F S S B B

Suppose the expected returns and standard deviations are as follows:

Foreign stocks, F Expected Standard
U.S. stocks, S Returns Deviations
U.S. bonds, B
18% 35%
12 22
14
8

Markowitz efficient We can now compute risk-return combinations as we did in our two-asset case. We create
frontier tables similar to Table 11.9, and then we can plot the risk-return combinations.
The set of portfolios with the
maximum return for a given In Figure 11.6, each point plotted is a possible risk-return combination. Comparing the
standard deviation. result with our two-asset case in Figure 11.4, we see that now not only do some assets plot
below the minimum variance portfolio on a smooth curve, but we have portfolios plotting
www inside as well. Only combinations that plot on the upper left-hand boundary are efficient;
all the rest are inefficient. This upper left-hand boundary is called the Markowitz efficient
Check out the online journal at frontier, and it represents the set of risky portfolios with the maximum return for a given
www.efficientfrontier.com standard deviation.

Figure 11.6 makes it clear that asset allocation matters. For example, a portfolio of
100 percent U.S. stocks is highly inefficient. For the same standard deviation, there is a port-
folio with an expected return almost 400 basis points, or 4 percent, higher. Or, for the same
expected return, there is a portfolio with about half as much risk! Our nearby Work the Web
box shows you how an efficient frontier can be created online.

The analysis in this section can be extended to any number of assets or asset classes.
In principle, it is possible to compute efficient frontiers using thousands of assets. As a
practical matter, however, this analysis is most widely used with a relatively small number
of asset classes. For example, most investment banks maintain so-called model portfolios.
These are simply recommended asset allocation strategies typically involving three to six
asset categories.

A primary reason that the Markowitz analysis is not usually extended to large collec-
tions of individual assets has to do with data requirements. The inputs into the analysis are
(1) expected returns on all assets; (2) standard deviations on all assets; and (3) correlations
between every pair of assets. Moreover, these inputs have to be measured with some preci-
sion, or we just end up with a garbage-in, garbage-out (GIGO) system.

Suppose we just look at 2,000 NYSE stocks. We need 2,000 expected returns and stan-
dard deviations. We already have a problem because returns on individual stocks cannot
be predicted with precision at all. To make matters worse, however, we need to know the
correlation between every pair of stocks. With 2,000 stocks, there are 2,000 ϫ 1,999/2 ϭ
1,999,000, or almost 2 million unique pairs!3 Also, as with expected returns, correlations
between individual stocks are very difficult to predict accurately. We will return to this
issue in our next chapter, where we show that there may be an extremely elegant way
around the problem.

3 With 2,000 stocks, there are 2,0002 ϭ 4,000,000 possible pairs. Of these, 2,000 involve pairing a stock with
itself. Further, we recognize that the correlation between A and B is the same as the correlation between B and A,
so we only need to actually calculate half of the remaining 3,998,000 correlations.

368 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

WORK THE WEB

Several Web sites allow you to perform a Markowitz-type Annual return data were gathered and input into the
analysis. Here is an example from www.effisols.com (you program. The data input screen shows the returns and
must purchase this product). This portfolio has three as- standard deviations for these three assets.
sets: S&P 500, U.S. 10-year bonds, and U.S. Treasury bills.

The program calculates the weights necessary to have The resulting portfolio has an expected return of about
a portfolio with a standard deviation of 10 percent. These 11.8 percent. Note that T-bills have a historic distribution
weights are about 52 percent placed in the S&P 500, of returns. If we look forward in time, however, T-bills
39 percent in U.S. 10-year bonds, and 9 percent in T-bills. have a known, and therefore riskless, return.

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 369

✓ 11.5a What is the Markowitz efficient frontier?
11.5b
CHECK THIS Why is Markowitz portfolio analysis most commonly used to make asset
allocation decisions?

11.6 Summary and Conclusions

In this chapter, we covered the basics of diversification and portfolio risk and return. The
most important thing to carry away from this chapter is an understanding of diversification
and why it works. Once you understand this concept, then the importance of asset allocation
becomes clear.

Our diversification story is not complete, however, because we have not considered
one important asset class: riskless assets. This will be the first task in our next chapter.
However, in this chapter, we covered many aspects of diversification and risky assets.
We recap some of these aspects, grouped below by the learning objectives of the
chapter.

1. How to calculate expected returns and variances for a security.

A. In Chapter 1, we discussed how to calculate average returns and variances using his-
torical data. When we calculate expected returns and expected variances, we have to
use calculations that account for the probabilities of future possible returns.

B. In general, the expected return on a security is equal to the sum of the possible
returns multiplied by their probabilities. So, if we have 100 possible returns, we
would multiply each one by its probability and then add up the results. The sum is
the expected return.

C. To calculate the variances, we first determine the squared deviations from the
expected return. We then multiply each possible squared deviation by its probability.
Next we add these up, and the result is the variance. The standard deviation is the
square root of the variance.

2. How to calculate expected returns and variances for a portfolio.

A. A portfolio’s expected return is a simple weighted combination of the expected re-
turns on the assets in the portfolio. This method of calculating the expected return on
a portfolio works no matter how many assets are in the portfolio.

B. The variance of a portfolio is generally not a simple combination of the variances of
the assets in the portfolio. Review Table 11.6 to verify this fact.

3. The importance of portfolio diversification.

A. Diversification is a very important consideration. The principle of diversification tells
us that spreading an investment across many assets can reduce some, but not all, of
the risk. Based on U.S. stock market history, for example, about 60 percent of the risk
associated with owning individual stocks can be eliminated by naïve diversification.

B. Diversification works because asset returns are not perfectly correlated. All else the
same, the lower the correlation, the greater is the gain from diversification.

C. It is even possible to combine some risky assets in such a way that the resulting port-
folio has zero risk. This is a nice bit of financial alchemy.

4. The efficient frontier and importance of asset allocation.

A. When we consider the possible combinations of risk and return available from port-
folios of assets, we find that some are inefficient (or dominated portfolios). An inef-
ficient portfolio is one that offers too little return for its risk.

370 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

B. For any group of assets, there is a set that is efficient. That set is known as the
Markowitz efficient frontier. The Markowitz efficient frontier simultaneously rep-
resents (1) the set of risky portfolios with the maximum return for a given standard
deviation, and (2) the set of risky portfolios with the minimum standard deviation
for a given return.

GET REAL

This chapter explained diversification, a very important consideration for real-world
investors and money managers. The chapter also explored the famous Markowitz
efficient portfolio concept, which shows how (and why) asset allocation affects port-
folio risk and return.

Building a diversified portfolio is not a trivial task. Of course, as we discussed
many chapters ago, mutual funds provide one way for investors to build diversi-
fied portfolios, but there are some significant caveats concerning mutual funds
as a diversification tool. First of all, investors sometimes assume a fund is diversi-
fied simply because it holds a relatively large number of stocks. However, with the
exception of some index funds, most mutual funds will reflect a particular style of
investing, either explicitly, as stated in the fund’s objective, or implicitly, as favored
by the fund manager. For example, in the mid- to late-1990s, stocks as a whole did
very well, but mutual funds that concentrated on smaller stocks generally did not do
well at all.

It is tempting to buy a number of mutual funds to ensure broad diversification,
but even this may not work. Within a given fund family, the same manager may
actually be responsible for multiple funds. In addition, managers within a large fund
family frequently have similar views about the market and individual companies.

Thinking just about stocks for the moment, what does an investor need to
consider to build a well-diversified portfolio? At a minimum, such a portfolio
probably needs to be diversified across industries, with no undue concentra-
tions in particular sectors of the economy; it needs to be diversified by company
size (small, midcap, and large), and it needs to be diversified across “growth”
(i.e., high-P/E) and “value” (low-P/E) stocks. Perhaps the most controversial di-
versification issue concerns international diversification. The correlation between
international stock exchanges is surprisingly low, suggesting large benefits from
diversifying globally.

Perhaps the most disconcerting fact about diversification is that it leads to the
following paradox: A well-diversified portfolio will always be invested in something
that does not do well! Put differently, such a portfolio will almost always have both
winners and losers. In many ways, that’s the whole idea. Even so, it requires a lot of
financial discipline to stay diversified when some portion of your portfolio seems to
be doing poorly. The payoff is that, over the long run, a well-diversified portfolio
should provide much steadier returns and be much less prone to abrupt changes in
value.

Key Terms Markowitz efficient frontier 368
portfolio 353
asset allocation 363 portfolio weight 353
correlation 360 principle of diversification 359
efficient portfolio 365
expected return 350
investment opportunity set 363

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 371

Chapter Review Problems and Self-Test

Use the following table of states of the economy and stock returns to answer the review problems:

State of Probability of Security Returns
Economy State of Economy If State Occurs

Bust .40 Roten Bradley
.60
Boom 1.00 Ϫ10% 30%
40 10

1. Expected Returns Calculate the expected returns for Roten and Bradley.
2. Standard Deviations Calculate the standard deviations for Roten and Bradley.
3. Portfolio Expected Returns Calculate the expected return on a portfolio of 50 percent Roten

and 50 percent Bradley.
4. Portfolio Volatility Calculate the volatility of a portfolio of 50 percent Roten and 50 percent

Bradley.

Answers to Self-Test Problems

1. We calculate the expected return as follows:

www.mhhe.com/jm5e Roten Bradley

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
State of Probability of Return If Product Return If Product
Economy State of Economy State Occurs (2) ϫ (3) State Occurs (2) ϫ (5)

Bust .40 Ϫ10% Ϫ.04 30% .12

Boom .60 40 .24 10 .06

E(R) ϭ 20% E(R) ϭ 18%

2. We calculate the standard deviation as follows:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
State of Probability of Return Deviation Squared Return Product
Economy State of Economy from Expected Return (2) ϫ (4)
Roten Deviation
.40 .036
Bust .60 Ϫ.30 .09 .024
Boom .20 .04 ␴ 2 ϭ.06
.40
Bradley .60 .12 .0144 .00576
Bust Ϫ.08 .0064 .00384
Boom ␴ 2 ϭ.0096

Taking square roots, the standard deviations are 24.495 percent and 9.798 percent.

3. We calculate the expected return on a portfolio of 50 percent Roten and 50 percent Bradley as
follows:

(1) (2) (3) (4)
State of Probability of Portfolio Return Product
Economy State of Economy If State Occurs (2) ϫ (3)

Bust .40 10% .04

Boom .60 25 .15

E(RP) ϭ 19%

372 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

4. We calculate the volatility of a portfolio of 50 percent Roten and 50 percent Bradley as follows:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
State of Probability of Portfolio Return Squared Deviation Product
Economy State of Economy If State Occurs from Expected Return (2) ϫ (4)

Bust .40 .10 .0081 .00324

Boom .60 .25 .0036 .00216

␴ 2 ϭ .00540
P

␴ P ϭ 7.3485%

Test Your Investment Quotient

IQ For the remaining questions and problems, the circled numbers in the margin refer to the
corresponding learning objective in this chapter.
www.mhhe.com/jm5e
3 1. Diversification Starcents has an expected return of 25 percent and Jpod has an expected
return of 20 percent. What is the likely investment decision for a risk-averse investor?

a. Invest all funds in Starcents.
b. Invest all funds in Jpod.
c. Do not invest any funds in Starcents and Jpod.
d. Invest funds partly in Starcents and partly in Jpod.

1 2. Return Standard Deviation Starcents experiences returns of 5 percent or 45 percent, each
with an equal probability. What is the return standard deviation for Starcents?

a. 30 percent
b. 25 percent
c. 20 percent
d. 10 percent

1 3. Return Standard Deviation Jpod experiences returns of 0 percent, 25 percent, or 50 percent,
each with a one-third probability. What is the approximate return standard deviation for Jpod?

a. 30 percent
b. 25 percent
c. 20 percent
d. 10 percent

1 4. Expected Return An analyst estimates that a stock has the following return probabilities and
returns depending on the state of the economy:

State of Economy Probability Return
Good .1 15%
Normal .6 13
Poor .3 7

What is the expected return of the stock?

a. 7.8 percent
b. 11.4 percent
c. 11.7 percent
d. 13.0 percent

3 5. Risk Aversion Which of the following statements best reflects the importance of the asset
allocation decision to the investment process? The asset allocation decision

a. Helps the investor decide on realistic investment goals.
b. Identifies the specific securities to include in a portfolio.
c. Determines most of the portfolio’s returns and volatility over time.
d. Creates a standard by which to establish the appropriate investment time horizon.

4 6. Efficient Frontier The Markowitz efficient frontier is best described as the set of portfolios that has

a. The minimum risk for every level of return.
b. Proportionally equal units of risk and return.
c. The maximum excess rate of return for every given level of risk.
d. The highest return for each level of beta used on the capital asset pricing model.

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 373

3 7. Diversification An investor is considering adding another investment to a portfolio. To
achieve the maximum diversification benefits, the investor should add an investment that has

a correlation coefficient with the existing portfolio closest to

a. Ϫ1.0
b. Ϫ.5
c. .0
d. ϩ1.0

2 8. Risk Premium Starcents has an expected return of 25 percent, Jpod has an expected return
of 20 percent, and the risk-free rate is 5 percent. You invest half your funds in Starcents and the
other half in Jpod. What is the risk premium for your portfolio?

a. 20 percent
b. 17.5 percent
c. 15 percent
d. 12.5 percent

2 9. Return Standard Deviation Both Starcents and Jpod have the same return standard deviation
of 20 percent, and Starcents and Jpod returns have zero correlation. You invest half your funds
in Starcents and the other half in Jpod. What is the return standard deviation for your portfolio?

a. 20 percent
b. 14.14 percent
c. 10 percent
d. 0 percent

www.mhhe.com/jm5e 2 10. Return Standard Deviation Both Starcents and Jpod have the same return standard deviation
of 20 percent, and Starcents and Jpod returns have a correlation of ϩ1. You invest half your funds
in Starcents and the other half in Jpod. What is the return standard deviation for your portfolio?

a. 20 percent
b. 14.14 percent
c. 10 percent
d. 0 percent

2 11. Return Standard Deviation Both Starcents and Jpod have the same return standard deviation
of 20 percent, and Starcents and Jpod returns have a correlation of Ϫ1. You invest half your funds
in Starcents and the other half in Jpod. What is the return standard deviation for your portfolio?

a. 20 percent
b. 14.14 percent
c. 10 percent
d. 0 percent

2 12. Minimum Variance Portfolio Both Starcents and Jpod have the same return standard devia-
tion of 20 percent, and Starcents and Jpod returns have zero correlation. What is the minimum
attainable standard deviation for a portfolio of Starcents and Jpod?

a. 20 percent
b. 14.14 percent
c. 10 percent
d. 0 percent

2 13. Minimum Variance Portfolio Both Starcents and Jpod have the same return standard devia-
tion of 20 percent, and Starcents and Jpod returns have a correlation of Ϫ1. What is the mini-
mum attainable return variance for a portfolio of Starcents and Jpod?

a. 20 percent
b. 14.14 percent
c. 10 percent
d. 0 percent

2 14. Minimum Variance Portfolio Stocks A, B, and C each have the same expected return and
standard deviation. The following shows the correlations between returns on these stocks:

Stock A Stock A Stock B Stock C
Stock B ϩ1.0 ϩ1.0
Stock C ϩ0.9 ϩ1.0
ϩ0.1 Ϫ0.4

374 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

Given these correlations, which of the following portfolios constructed from these stocks would
have the lowest risk?

a. One equally invested in stocks A and B.
b. One equally invested in stocks A and C.
c. One equally invested in stocks B and C.
d. One totally invested in stock C.

4 15. Markowitz Efficient Frontier Which of the following portfolios cannot lie on the efficient
frontier as described by Markowitz?

Portfolio Expected Return Standard Deviation

a. W 9% 21%

b. X 5 7

c. Y 15 36

d. Z 12 15

Concept Questions

3 1. Diversification and Market History Based on market history, what is the average annual
standard deviation of return for a single, randomly chosen stock? What is the average annual
standard deviation for an equally weighted portfolio of many stocks?

2 2. Interpreting Correlations If the returns on two stocks are highly correlated, what does this www.mhhe.com/jm5e
mean? If they have no correlation? If they are negatively correlated?

4 3. Efficient Portfolios What is an efficient portfolio?

2 4. Expected Returns True or false: If two stocks have the same expected return of 12 percent,
then any portfolio of the two stocks will also have an expected return of 12 percent.

2 5. Portfolio Volatility True or false: If two stocks have the same standard deviation of 45 percent,
then any portfolio of the two stocks will also have a standard deviation of 45 percent.

3 6. Diversification You are an investment adviser and a client makes the following statement:
I do not want a diversified portfolio since I will never get the highest possible return. How do
you respond to your client?

4 7. Investment Opportunity Set You have a portfolio created from two assets. As you add more
of the lower risk asset to your portfolio, the risk of your portfolio increases. What do you know
about your current portfolio?

2 8. Minimum Variance Portfolio Why is the minimum variance portfolio important in regard to
the Markowitz efficient frontier?

4 9. Markowitz Efficient Frontier True or false: It is impossible for a single asset to lie on the
Markowitz efficient frontier.

2 10. Portfolio Variance Suppose two assets have zero correlation and the same standard deviation.
What is true about the minimum variance portfolio?

Questions and Problems

Core Questions 1 1. Expected Returns Use the following information on states of the economy and stock returns
to calculate the expected return for Dingaling Telephone:

State of Probability of Security Return
Economy State of Economy If State Occurs
Recession
Normal .20 Ϫ8%
Boom .60 13
.20
23

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 375

1 2. Standard Deviations Using the information in the previous question, calculate the standard
deviation of returns.

1 3. Expected Returns and Deviations Repeat Questions 1 and 2 assuming that all three states
are equally likely.

Use the following information on states of the economy and stock returns to answer
Questions 4–7:

State of Probability of Security Returns
Economy State of Economy If State Occurs

Bust .30 Roll Ross

Boom .70 Ϫ10% 21%
28 8

1 4. Expected Returns Calculate the expected returns for Roll and Ross by filling in the following
table (verify your answer by expressing returns as percentages as well as decimals):

Roll Ross

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
State of Probability of Return If Product Return if Product
Economy State of Economy State Occurs (2) ؋ (3) State Occurs (2) ؋ (5)

Bust

Boom

www.mhhe.com/jm5e 1 5. Standard Deviations Calculate the standard deviations for Roll and Ross by filling in the
following table (verify your answer using returns expressed in percentages as well as decimals):

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
State of Probability of Return Deviation Squared Return Product
Economy State of Economy from Expected Return (2) ؋ (4)
Roll Deviation

Bust
Boom
Ross
Bust
Boom

2 6. Portfolio Expected Returns Calculate the expected return on a portfolio of 45 percent Roll
and 55 percent Ross by filling in the following table:

(1) (2) (3) (4)
State of Probability of Portfolio Return Product
Economy State of Economy If State Occurs (2) ؋ (3)

Bust

Boom

2 7. Portfolio Volatility Calculate the volatility of a portfolio of 65 percent Roll and 35 percent
Ross by filling in the following table:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
State of Probability of Portfolio Return Squared Deviation Product
Economy State of Economy If State Occurs from Expected Return (2) ؋ (4)

Bust

Boom

␴ 2 ϭ
p

␴p ϭ

376 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

1 8. Calculating Returns and Standard Deviations Based on the following information, calcu-
late the expected return and standard deviation for the two stocks.

State of Probability of Rate of Return
Economy State of Economy If State Occurs

Recession .10 Stock A Stock B
Normal .65
Boom .25 .04 Ϫ.20

.09 .13

.12 .33

2 9. Returns and Standard Deviations Consider the following information:

State of Probability of Rate of Return If State Occurs
Economy State of Economy
Boom Stock A Stock B Stock C
Good .20
Poor .40 .18 .48 .33
Bust .30
.10 .11 .18 .15

.05 Ϫ.09 Ϫ.05

Ϫ.03 Ϫ.32 Ϫ.09

a. Your portfolio is invested 25 percent each in A and C, and 50 percent in B. What is the www.mhhe.com/jm5e
expected return of the portfolio?

b. What is the variance of this portfolio? The standard deviation?

2 10. Portfolio Returns and Volatilities Fill in the missing information in the following table.
Assume that Portfolio AB is 30 percent invested in Stock A.

Year Stock A Stock B Portfolio AB
2003 11% 21%
2004 37
2005 Ϫ38
2006 Ϫ21 48
2007 26 16
Average return 13 24
Standard deviation

Intermediate Questions 11. Portfolio Returns and Volatilities Given the following information, calculate the expected
2 return and standard deviation for a portfolio that has 45 percent invested in Stock A, 35 percent
in Stock B, and the balance in Stock C.

State of Probability of Stock A Returns Stock C
Economy State of Economy 15% Stock B 20%
10
Boom .70 18% Ϫ10
0
Bust .30

2 12. Portfolio Variance Use the following information to calculate the expected return and
standard deviation of a portfolio that is 40 percent invested in 3 Doors, Inc., and 60 percent
invested in Down Co.:

3 Doors, Inc. Down Co.

Expected return, E(R) 14% 10%

Standard deviation, ␴ 42 31

Correlation .15

4 13. More Portfolio Variance In the previous question, what is the standard deviation if the corre-
lation is ϩ1? 0? Ϫ1? As the correlation declines from ϩ1 to Ϫ1 here, what do you see happen-
ing to portfolio volatility? Why?

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 377

4 14. Minimum Variance Portfolio In Problem 12, what are the expected return and standard
deviation on the minimum variance portfolio?

4 15. Asset Allocation Fill in the missing information assuming a correlation of .15.

Portfolio Weights

Stocks Bonds Expected Return Standard Deviation
12% 21%
1.00
6% 9%
.80

.60

.40

.20

.00

www.mhhe.com/jm5e 4 16. Minimum Variance Portfolio Consider two stocks, Stock D with an expected return of
13 percent and a standard deviation of 39 percent and Stock I, an international company, with
an expected return of 16 percent and a standard deviation of 53 percent. The correlation between
the two stocks is Ϫ.10. What is the weight of each stock in the minimum variance portfolio?

2 17. Minimum Variance Portfolio What are the expected return and standard deviation of the
minimum variance portfolio in the previous problem?

4 18. Minimum Variance Portfolio Asset K has an expected return of 15 percent and a standard
deviation of 41 percent. Asset L has an expected return of 6 percent and a standard deviation of
10 percent. The correlation between the assets is .09. What are the expected return and standard
deviation of the minimum variance portfolio?

4 19. Minimum Variance Portfolio The stock of Bruin, Inc., has an expected return of 14 per-
cent and a standard deviation of 57 percent. The stock of Wildcat Co. has an expected return
of 12 percent and a standard deviation of 42 percent. The correlation between the two stocks
is .25. Is it possible for there to be a minimum variance portfolio since the highest-return
stock has the lowest standard deviation? If so, calculate the expected return and standard
deviation of the minimum variance portfolio. Graph the investment opportunity set for these
two stocks.

2 20. Portfolio Variance You have a three-stock portfolio. Stock A has an expected return of
12 percent and a standard deviation of 41 percent, Stock B has an expected return of 16 percent
and a standard deviation of 58 percent, and Stock C has an expected return of 13 percent and a
standard deviation of 48 percent. The correlation between Stocks A and B is .30, between
Stocks A and C is .20, and between Stocks B and C is .05. Your portfolio consists of 55 percent
Stock A, 20 percent Stock B, and 25 percent Stock C. Calculate the expected return and standard
deviation of your portfolio. The formula for calculating the variance of a three-stock portfolio is:

␴P2 ϭ x A2 ␴ A2 ϩ x B2 ␴ B2 ϩ xC2 ␴C2 ϩ 2xAxB␴A␴BCorr(RA, R )
B

ϩ 2xAxC␴A␴CCorr(RA, RC) ϩ 2xBxC␴B␴CCorr(RB, RC)

4 21. Minimum Variance Portfolio You are going to invest in Asset J and Asset S. Asset J has an
expected return of 14 percent and a standard deviation of 49 percent. Asset S has an expected
return of 10 percent and a standard deviation of 19 percent. The correlation between the two
assets is .50. What are the standard deviation and expected return of the minimum variance
portfolio? What is going on here?

2 22. Portfolio Variance Suppose two assets have perfect positive correlation. Show that the
standard deviation on a portfolio of the two assets is simply:

␴P ϭ xA ϫ ␴A ϩ xB ϫ ␴B

(Hint: Look at the expression for the variance of a two-asset portfolio. If the correlation is ϩ1,
the expression is a perfect square.)
2 23. Portfolio Variance Suppose two assets have perfect negative correlation. Show that the
standard deviation on a portfolio of the two assets is simply:

␴P ϭ Ϯ(xA ϫ ␴A Ϫ xB ϫ ␴B)
(Hint: See previous problem.)

378 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

2 24. Portfolio Variance Using the result in Problem 23, show that whenever two assets have
perfect negative correlation it is possible to find a portfolio with a zero standard deviation.

What are the portfolio weights? (Hint: Let x be the percentage in the first asset and (1 Ϫ x) be

the percentage in the second. Set the standard deviation to zero and solve for x.)

2 25. Portfolio Variance Derive our expression in the chapter for the portfolio weight in the
minimum variance portfolio. (Danger! Calculus required!) (Hint: Let x be the percentage in
the first asset and (1 Ϫ x) the percentage in the second. Take the derivative with respect to x,

and set it to zero. Solve for x.)

www.mhhe.com/jm5e

Chapter 11 ■ Diversification and Risky Asset Allocation 379

CHAPTER 12

Return, Risk, and the
Security Market Line

“To win, you have to risk loss.”

–Franz Klammer

Learning Objectives An important insight of modern financial theory is that some investment risks
yield an expected reward, while other risks do not. Essentially, risks that can be elimi-
Studying some topics nated by diversification do not yield an expected reward, and risks that cannot be
will yield an expected eliminated by diversification do yield an expected reward. Thus, financial markets are
reward. For example, somewhat fussy regarding what risks are rewarded and what risks are not. ■
make sure you know:
Chapter 1 presented some important lessons from capital market history. The most notewor-
1. The difference thy, perhaps, is that there is a reward, on average, for bearing risk. We called this reward a
between expected risk premium. The second lesson is that this risk premium is positively correlated with an
and unexpected investment’s risk.
returns.
In this chapter, we return to an examination of the reward for bearing risk. Specifically, we
2. The difference have two tasks to accomplish. First, we have to define risk more precisely and then discuss
between systematic how to measure it. Second, once we have a better understanding of just what we mean by
risk and unsystematic “risk,” we will go on to quantify the relation between risk and return in financial markets.
risk.
When we examine the risks associated with individual assets, we find there are two types
3. The security market of risk: systematic and unsystematic. This distinction is crucial because, as we will see,
line and the capital systematic risk affects almost all assets in the economy, at least to some degree, whereas
asset pricing model. unsystematic risk affects at most only a small number of assets. This observation allows us
to say a great deal about the risks and returns on individual assets. In particular, it is the basis
4. The importance of
beta.

for a famous relationship between risk and return called the security market line, or SML.
To develop the SML, we introduce the equally famous beta coefficient, one of the center-
pieces of modern finance. Beta and the SML are key concepts because they supply us with at
least part of the answer to the question of how to go about determining the expected return
on a risky investment.

12.1 Announcements, Surprises,
and Expected Returns

In our previous chapter, we discussed how to construct portfolios and evaluate their returns.
We now begin to describe more carefully the risks and returns associated with individual
securities. Thus far, we have measured volatility by looking at the difference between the
actual return on an asset or portfolio, R, and the expected return, E(R). We now look at why
those deviations exist.

EXPECTED AND UNEXPECTED RETURNS

To begin, consider the return on the stock of a hypothetical company called Flyers. What will
determine this stock’s return in, say, the coming year?

The return on any stock traded in a financial market is composed of two parts. First, the
normal, or expected, return from the stock is the part of the return that investors predict or
expect. This return depends on the information investors have about the stock, and it is based
on the market’s understanding today of the important factors that will influence the stock in
the coming year.

The second part of the return on the stock is the uncertain, or risky, part. This is the por-
tion that comes from unexpected information revealed during the year. A list of all possible
sources of such information would be endless, but here are a few basic examples:

News about Flyers’s product research.
Government figures released on gross domestic product.
The latest news about exchange rates.
The news that Flyers’s sales figures are higher than expected.
A sudden, unexpected drop in interest rates.

Based on this discussion, one way to express the return on Flyers stock in the coming
year would be:

Total return ؊ Expected return ‫ ؍‬Unexpected return (12.1)

or
R Ϫ E(R) ϭ U

where R stands for the actual total return in the year, E(R) stands for the expected part of the
return, and U stands for the unexpected part of the return. What this says is that the actual
return, R, differs from the expected return, E(R), because of surprises that occur during the
year. In any given year, the unexpected return will be positive or negative, but, through time,
the average value of U will be zero. This simply means that, on average, the actual return
equals the expected return.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND NEWS

We need to be careful when we talk about the effect of news items on stock returns.
For example, suppose Flyers’s business is such that the company prospers when gross
domestic product (GDP) grows at a relatively high rate and suffers when GDP is relatively
stagnant. In this case, in deciding what return to expect this year from owning stock in
Flyers, investors either implicitly or explicitly must think about what GDP is likely to be
for the coming year.

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 381

www When the government actually announces GDP figures for the year, what will happen to
the value of Flyers stock? Obviously, the answer depends on what figure is released. More
Visit the earnings calendar at to the point, however, the impact depends on how much of that figure actually represents
www.individualinvestor.com new information.

www At the beginning of the year, market participants will have some idea or forecast of what
the yearly GDP figure will be. To the extent that shareholders have predicted GDP, that
See recent earnings surprises at prediction will already be factored into the expected part of the return on the stock, E(R).
earnings.nasdaq.com On the other hand, if the announced GDP is a surprise, then the effect will be part of U, the
unanticipated portion of the return.

As an example, suppose shareholders in the market had forecast that the GDP increase this
year would be .5 percent. If the actual announcement this year is exactly .5 percent, the same
as the forecast, then the shareholders don’t really learn anything, and the announcement isn’t
news. There will be no impact on the stock price as a result. This is like receiving redundant
confirmation about something that you suspected all along; it reveals nothing new.

To give a more concrete example, Nabisco once announced it was taking a massive
$300 million charge against earnings for the second quarter in a sweeping restructuring
plan. The company also announced plans to cut its workforce sharply by 7.8 percent,
eliminate some package sizes and small brands, and relocate some of its operations. This
all seems like bad news, but the stock price didn’t even budge. Why? Because it was
already fully expected that Nabisco would take such actions, and the stock price already
reflected the bad news.

A common way of saying that an announcement isn’t news is to say that the market has
already discounted the announcement. The use of the word “discount” here is different
from the use of the term in computing present values, but the spirit is the same. When we
discount a dollar to be received in the future, we say it is worth less to us today because of
the time value of money. When an announcement or a news item is discounted into a stock
price, we say that its impact is already a part of the stock price because the market already
knew about it.

Going back to Flyers, suppose the government announces that the actual GDP increase
during the year has been 1.5 percent. Now shareholders have learned something, namely,
that the increase is 1 percentage point higher than they had forecast. This difference between
the actual result and the forecast, 1 percentage point in this example, is sometimes called the
innovation or the surprise.

This distinction explains why what seems to be bad news can actually be good news. For
example, Gymboree, a retailer of children’s apparel, had a 3 percent decline in same-store sales
for a particular month, yet its stock price shot up 13 percent on the news. In the retail business,
same-store sales, which are sales by existing stores in operation at least a year, are a crucial
barometer, so why was this decline good news? The reason was that analysts had been expect-
ing significantly sharper declines, so the situation was not as bad as previously thought.

A key fact to keep in mind about news and price changes is that news about the future is
what matters. For example, America Online (AOL) once announced third-quarter earnings
that exceeded Wall Street’s expectations. That seems like good news, but America Online’s
stock price promptly dropped 10 percent. The reason was that America Online also an-
nounced a new discount subscriber plan, which analysts took as an indication that future
revenues would be growing more slowly. Similarly, shortly thereafter, Microsoft reported
a 50 percent jump in profits, exceeding projections. That seems like really good news, but
Microsoft’s stock price proceeded to decline sharply. Why? Because Microsoft warned that
its phenomenal growth could not be sustained indefinitely, so its 50 percent increase in cur-
rent earnings was not such a good predictor of future earnings growth.

To summarize, an announcement can be broken into two parts, the anticipated, or
expected, part plus the surprise, or innovation:

Announcement ‫ ؍‬Expected part ؉ Surprise (12.2)

The expected part of any announcement is the part of the information that the market uses to
form the expectation, E(R), of the return on the stock. The surprise is the news that influences
the unanticipated return on the stock, U.

382 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

EXAMPLE 12.1 Our discussion of market efficiency in a previous chapter bears on this discussion. We
are assuming that relevant information known today is already reflected in the expected
✓ return. This assumption is identical to saying that the current price reflects relevant publicly
available information. We are thus implicitly assuming that markets are at least reasonably
CHECK THIS efficient in the semistrong-form sense. Henceforth, when we speak of news, we will mean
the surprise part of an announcement and not the portion that the market had expected and
therefore already discounted.

In the News

Suppose Intel were to announce that earnings for the quarter just ending were up
by 40 percent relative to a year ago. Do you expect that the stock price would rise or
fall on the announcement?

The answer is that you can’t really tell. Suppose the market was expecting a
60 percent increase. In this case, the 40 percent increase would be a negative surprise,
and we would expect the stock price to fall. On the other hand, if the market was
expecting only a 20 percent increase, there would be a positive surprise, and we
would expect the stock to rise on the news.

12.1a What are the two basic parts of a return on common stock?
12.1b
Under what conditions will an announcement have no effect on common
stock prices?

systematic risk 12.2 Risk: Systematic and Unsystematic
Risk that influences a large
number of assets. Also called It is important to distinguish between expected and unexpected returns because the unan-
market risk. ticipated part of the return, that portion resulting from surprises, is the significant risk of any
investment. After all, if we always receive exactly what we expect, then the investment is
unsystematic risk perfectly predictable and, by definition, risk-free. In other words, the risk of owning an asset
Risk that influences a single comes from surprises—unanticipated events.
company or a small group of
companies. Also called unique There are important differences, though, among various sources of risk. Look back at our
or asset-specific risk. previous list of news stories. Some of these stories are directed specifically at Flyers, and
some are more general. Which of the news items are of specific importance to Flyers?

Announcements about interest rates or GDP are clearly important for nearly all compa-
nies, whereas the news about Flyers’s president, its research, or its sales is of specific interest
to Flyers investors only. We distinguish between these two types of events, because, as we
will see, they have very different implications.

SYSTEMATIC AND UNSYSTEMATIC RISK
The first type of surprise, the one that affects most assets, we label systematic risk.
A systematic risk is one that influences a large number of assets, each to a greater or
lesser extent. Because systematic risks have marketwide effects, they are sometimes called
market risks.

The second type of surprise we call unsystematic risk. An unsystematic risk is one that
affects a single asset, or possibly a small group of assets. Because these risks are unique to
individual companies or assets, they are sometimes called unique or asset-specific risks. We
use these terms interchangeably.

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 383

As we have seen, uncertainties about general economic conditions, such as GDP,
interest rates, or inflation, are examples of systematic risks. These conditions affect nearly
all companies to some degree. An unanticipated increase, or surprise, in inflation, for
example, affects wages and the costs of supplies that companies buy; it affects the value
of the assets that companies own; and it affects the prices at which companies sell their
products. Forces such as these, to which all companies are susceptible, are the essence of
systematic risk.

In contrast, the announcement of an oil strike by a particular company will primarily
affect that company and, perhaps, a few others (such as primary competitors and suppliers).
It is unlikely to have much of an effect on the world oil market, however, or on the affairs of
companies not in the oil business, so this is an unsystematic event.

www SYSTEMATIC AND UNSYSTEMATIC
Analyze risk at COMPONENTS OF RETURN
www.portfolioscience.com
The distinction between a systematic risk and an unsystematic risk is never really as exact
as we would like it to be. Even the most narrow and peculiar bit of news about a company
ripples through the economy. This ripple effect happens because every enterprise, no mat-
ter how tiny, is a part of the economy. It’s like the proverb about a kingdom that was lost
because one horse lost a horseshoe nail. However, not all ripple effects are equal—some
risks have a much broader effect than others.

The distinction between the two types of risk allows us to break down the surprise por-
tion, U, of the return on the Flyers stock into two parts. Earlier, we had the actual return
broken down into its expected and surprise components: R Ϫ E(R) ϭ U. We now recognize
that the total surprise component for Flyers, U, has a systematic and an unsystematic com-
ponent, so:

R ؊ E(R) ‫ ؍‬Systematic portion ؉ Unsystematic portion (12.3)

Because it is traditional, we will use the Greek letter epsilon ⑀ to stand for the unsystematic
portion. Because systematic risks are often called “market” risks, we use the letter m to stand
for the systematic part of the surprise. With these symbols, we can rewrite the formula for
the total return:

R ؊ E(R) ‫ ؍‬U ‫ ؍‬m ؉ ⑀ (12.4)

The important thing about the way we have broken down the total surprise, U, is that the
unsystematic portion, ⑀, is unique to Flyers. For this reason, it is unrelated to the unsystem-
atic portion of return on most other assets. To see why this is important, we need to return to
the subject of portfolio risk.

EXAMPLE 12.2 Systematic versus Unsystematic Events

Suppose Intel were to unexpectedly announce that its latest computer chip con-
tains a significant flaw in its floating point unit that left it unable to handle num-
bers bigger than a couple of gigatrillion (meaning that, among other things, the
chip cannot calculate Intel’s quarterly profits). Is this a systematic or unsystematic
event?

Obviously, this event is for the most part unsystematic. However, it would also
benefit Intel’s competitors to some degree and, at least potentially, harm some users
of Intel products such as personal computer makers. Thus, as with most unsystematic
events, there is some spillover, but the effect is mostly confined to a relatively small
number of companies.

384 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

✓ 12.2a What are the two basic types of risk?
12.2b What is the distinction between the two types of risk?
CHECK THIS

12.3 Diversification, Systematic Risk,
and Unsystematic Risk

In the previous chapter, we introduced the principle of diversification. What we saw was that
some of the risk associated with individual assets can be diversified away and some cannot.
We are left with an obvious question: Why is this so? It turns out that the answer hinges on
the distinction between systematic and unsystematic risk.

DIVERSIFICATION AND UNSYSTEMATIC RISK

By definition, an unsystematic risk is one that is particular to a single asset or, at most, a small
group of assets. For example, if the asset under consideration is stock in a single company,
such things as successful new products and innovative cost savings will tend to increase the
value of the stock. Unanticipated lawsuits, industrial accidents, strikes, and similar events
will tend to decrease future cash flows and thereby reduce share value.

Here is the important observation: If we hold only a single stock, then the value of our
investment will fluctuate because of company-specific events. If we hold a large portfolio,
on the other hand, some of the stocks in the portfolio will go up in value because of positive
company-specific events, and some will go down in value because of negative events. The
net effect on the overall value of the portfolio will be relatively small, however, because
these effects will tend to cancel each other out.

Now we see why some of the variability associated with individual assets is eliminated
by diversification. When we combine assets into portfolios, the unique, or unsystematic,
events—both positive and negative—tend to “wash out” once we have more than just a few
assets. This is an important point that bears repeating:

Unsystematic risk is essentially eliminated by diversification, so a portfolio
with many assets has almost no unsystematic risk.

In fact, the terms diversifiable risk and unsystematic risk are often used interchangeably.

DIVERSIFICATION AND SYSTEMATIC RISK

We’ve seen that unsystematic risk can be eliminated by diversification. What about system-
atic risk? Can it also be eliminated by diversification? The answer is no because, by defini-
tion, a systematic risk affects almost all assets. As a result, no matter how many assets we
put into a portfolio, systematic risk doesn’t go away. Thus, for obvious reasons, the terms
systematic risk and nondiversifiable risk are used interchangeably.

Because we have introduced so many different terms, it is useful to summarize our dis-
cussion before moving on. What we have seen is that the total risk of an investment can be
written as:

Total risk ‫ ؍‬Systematic risk ؉ Unsystematic risk (12.5)

Systematic risk is also called nondiversifiable risk or market risk. Unsystematic risk is
also called diversifiable risk, unique risk, or asset-specific risk. Most important, for a well-
diversified portfolio, unsystematic risk is negligible. For such a portfolio, essentially all risk
is systematic.

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 385

✓ 12.3a Why is some risk diversifiable? Why is some risk not diversifiable?
12.3b Why can’t systematic risk be diversified away?
CHECK THIS

12.4 Systematic Risk and Beta

systematic risk principle We now begin to address another question: What determines the size of the risk premium on
The reward for bearing risk a risky asset? Put another way, why do some assets have a larger risk premium than other
depends only on the systematic assets? The answer, as we discuss next, is also based on the distinction between systematic
risk of an investment. and unsystematic risk.

beta coefficient (␤) THE SYSTEMATIC RISK PRINCIPLE
Measure of the relative systematic
risk of an asset. Assets with betas Thus far, we’ve seen that the total risk associated with an asset can be decomposed into two
larger (smaller) than 1 have more components: systematic and unsystematic risk. We have also seen that unsystematic risk can
(less) systematic risk than average. be essentially eliminated by diversification. The systematic risk present in an asset, on the
other hand, cannot be eliminated by diversification.
www
Find betas at Based on our study of capital market history in Chapter 1, we know that there is a reward,
finance.yahoo.com on average, for bearing risk. However, we now need to be more precise about what we mean
and by risk. The systematic risk principle states that the reward for bearing risk depends only
www.smartmoney.com on the systematic risk of an investment.

The underlying rationale for this principle is straightforward: Because unsystematic risk
can be eliminated at virtually no cost (by diversifying), there is no reward for bearing it. In
other words, the market does not reward risks that are borne unnecessarily.

The systematic risk principle has a remarkable and very important implication:

The expected return on an asset depends only on its systematic risk.

There is an obvious corollary to this principle: No matter how much total risk an asset has,
only the systematic portion is relevant in determining the expected return (and the risk pre-
mium) on that asset.

MEASURING SYSTEMATIC RISK

Because systematic risk is the crucial determinant of an asset’s expected return, we need
some way of measuring the level of systematic risk for different investments. The specific
measure we will use is called the beta coefficient, designated by the Greek letter ␤. A beta
coefficient, or just beta for short, tells us how much systematic risk a particular asset has
relative to an average asset. By definition, an average asset has a beta of 1.0 relative to itself.
An asset with a beta of .50, therefore, has half as much systematic risk as an average asset.
Likewise, an asset with a beta of 2.0 has twice as much systematic risk.

Table 12.1 presents the estimated beta coefficients for the stocks of some well-known
companies. (Note that Value Line rounds betas to the nearest .05.) The range of betas in
Table 12.1 is typical for stocks of large U.S. corporations. Betas outside this range occur,
however, as you can see in our nearby Work the Web.

The important thing to remember is that the expected return, and thus the risk premium,
on an asset depends only on its systematic risk. Because assets with larger betas have greater
systematic risks, they will have greater expected returns. Thus, from Table 12.1, an investor
who buys stock in ExxonMobil, with a beta of .90, should expect to earn less and lose less,
on average, than an investor who buys stock in General Motors, with a beta of about 1.45.

One cautionary note is in order: Not all betas are created equal. For example, in
Table 12.1, Value Line, a widely used source of betas, reports a beta for IBM of 1.10. At the
same time, however, another widely used source, S&P Stock Reports, puts IBM’s beta at 1.62,

386 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

WORK THE WEB

Suppose you want to find the beta for a company like Airlines (CAL), and followed the “Key Statistics” link.
Continental Airlines, Inc. One way is to go to the Web. This is part of what we found:
We went to finance.yahoo.com, looked up Continental

The reported beta for Continental Airlines is 2.74, which
means that Continental Airlines has about 2.74 times the
systematic risk of a typical stock.

TABLE 12.1 Beta Coefficients

Beta, ␤

Company Value Standard
ExxonMobil Line & Poor’s
IBM 0.90
Starbucks 1.10 0.75
Wal-Mart 0.80 1.62
General Motors 0.80 0.59
Microsoft 1.45 0.54
Harley-Davidson 1.00 1.21
eBay 0.90 0.94
Nordstrom 1.15 0.88
Southwest Airlines 1.25 1.37
Yahoo 1.05 1.41
1.50 0.98
1.53

Source: Value Line Investment Survey and S&P Stock Reports.

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 387

EXAMPLE 12.3 substantially larger. The difference results from the different procedures used to calculate beta
EXAMPLE 12.4 coefficients. We will have more to say on this subject when we explain how betas are calcu-
lated in a later section. Our nearby Work the Web box shows one way to find betas online.

Total Risk versus Beta

Consider the following information on two securities. Which has greater total risk?
Which has greater systematic risk? Greater unsystematic risk? Which asset will have a
higher risk premium?

Security A Standard Deviation Beta
Security B 40% .50
20
1.50

From our discussion in this section, Security A has greater total risk, but it has
substantially less systematic risk. Because total risk is the sum of systematic and
unsystematic risk, Security A must have greater unsystematic risk. Finally, from the
systematic risk principle, Security B will have a higher risk premium and a greater
expected return, despite the fact that it has less total risk.

PORTFOLIO BETAS

Earlier, we saw that the riskiness of a portfolio has no simple relation to the risks of the assets in
the portfolio. By contrast, a portfolio beta can be calculated just like a portfolio expected return.
For example, looking again at Table 12.1, suppose you put half of your money in Starbucks
and half in eBay. Using Value Line betas, what would the beta of this combination be? Because
Starbucks has a beta of .80 and eBay has a beta of 1.15, the portfolio’s beta, ␤p would be:

␤p ϭ .50 ϫ ␤Starbucks ϩ .50 ϫ ␤eBay
ϭ .50 ϫ .80 ϩ .50 ϫ 1.15
ϭ .975

In general, if we had a large number of assets in a portfolio, we would multiply each
asset’s beta by its portfolio weight and then add the results to get the portfolio’s beta.

Portfolio Betas

Suppose we have the following information

Security Amount Expected Beta
Stock A Invested Return .80
Stock B $1,000 8% .95
Stock C 12
Stock D 2,000 15 1.10
3,000 18 1.40
4,000

What is the expected return on this portfolio? What is the beta of this portfolio?
Does this portfolio have more or less systematic risk than an average asset?

To answer, we first have to calculate the portfolio weights. Notice that the total
amount invested is $10,000. Of this, $1,000/$10,000 ‫ ؍‬10% is invested in Stock A.
Similarly, 20 percent is invested in Stock B, 30 percent is invested in Stock C, and
40 percent is invested in Stock D. The expected return, E(RP), is thus:

E(Rp) ‫ ؍‬.10 ؋ E(RA) ؉ .20 ؋ E(RB) ؉ .30 ؋ E(RC) ؉ .40 ؋ E(RD)
‫ ؍‬.10 ؋ 8% ؉ .20 ؋ 12% ؉ .30 ؋ 15% ؉ .40 ؋ 18%

‫ ؍‬14.9%

(continued)

388 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

Similarly, the portfolio beta, ␤P, is:

␤P ‫ ؍‬.10 ؋ ␤A ؉ .20 ؋ ␤B ؉ .30 ؋ ␤C ؉ .40 ؋ ␤D
‫ ؍‬.10 ؋ .80 ؉ .20 ؋ .95 ؉ .30 ؋ 1.10 ؉ .40 ؋ 1.40
‫ ؍‬1.16

This portfolio thus has an expected return of 14.9 percent and a beta of 1.16. Because the
beta is larger than 1, this portfolio has greater systematic risk than an average asset.

✓ 12.4a What is the systematic risk principle?
12.4b What does a beta coefficient measure?
CHECK THIS 12.4c How do you calculate a portfolio beta?
12.4d True or false: The expected return on a risky asset depends on that asset’s
total risk. Explain.

www 12.5 The Security Market Line

For more information on We’re now in a position to see how risk is rewarded in the marketplace. To begin, suppose
risk management visit that Asset A has an expected return of E(RA) ϭ 16% and a beta of ␤A ϭ 1.6. Further suppose
that the risk-free rate is Rf ϭ 4%. Notice that a risk-free asset, by definition, has no system-
www.fenews.com atic risk (or unsystematic risk), so a risk-free asset has a beta of zero.

BETA AND THE RISK PREMIUM
Consider a portfolio made up of Asset A and a risk-free asset. We can calculate some
different possible portfolio expected returns and betas by varying the percentages invested
in these two assets. For example, if 25 percent of the portfolio is invested in Asset A, then
the expected return is:

E(Rp) ϭ .25 ϫ E(RA) ϩ (1 Ϫ .25) ϫ Rf
ϭ .25 ϫ 16% ϩ .75 ϫ 4%
ϭ 7%

Similarly, the beta on the portfolio, ␤p, would be:
␤p ϭ .25 ϫ ␤A ϩ (1 Ϫ .25) ϫ 0
ϭ .25 ϫ 1.6
ϭ .40

Notice that, because the weights have to add up to 1, the percentage invested in the risk-free
asset is equal to 1 minus the percentage invested in Asset A.

One thing that you might wonder about is whether the percentage invested in Asset A can
exceed 100 percent. The answer is yes. This can happen if the investor borrows at the risk-free
rate and invests the proceeds in stocks. For example, suppose an investor has $100 and bor-
rows an additional $50 at 4 percent, the risk-free rate. The total investment in Asset A would be
$150, or 150 percent of the investor’s wealth. The expected return in this case would be:

E(Rp) ϭ 1.50 ϫ E(RA) ϩ (1 Ϫ 1.50) ϫ Rf
ϭ 1.50 ϫ 16% Ϫ .50 ϫ 4%
ϭ 22%

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 389

The beta on the portfolio would be:

␤p ϭ 1.50 ϫ ␤A ϩ (1 Ϫ 1.50) ϫ 0
ϭ 1.50 ϫ 1.6
ϭ 2.4

We can calculate some other possibilities, as follows:

Percentage of Portfolio Portfolio
Portfolio in Asset A Expected Return Beta
.0
0% 4% .4
25 7 .8
50 10 1.2
75 13 1.6
100 16 2.0
125 19 2.4
150 22

In Figure 12.1A, we plot these portfolio expected returns against portfolio betas. Notice that
all the combinations fall on a straight line.

THE REWARD-TO-RISK RATIO

What is the slope of the straight line in Figure 12.1A? As always, the slope of a straight
line is equal to the rise over the run. In this case, as we move out of the risk-free asset into
Asset A, the expected return goes from 4 percent to 16 percent, a rise of 12 percent. At the
same time, the beta increases from zero to 1.6, a run of 1.6. The slope of the line is thus
12%/1.6 ϭ 7.5%.

Notice that the slope of our line is just the risk premium on Asset A, E(RA) Ϫ Rf, divided
by Asset A’s beta, ␤A:

Slope ϭ _E_(R__A)__Ϫ__R_f
␤A

ϭ _1_6_%__Ϫ___4_%_
1.6

ϭ 7.50%

What this tells us is that Asset A offers a reward-to-risk ratio of 7.5 percent.1 In other words,
Asset A has a risk premium of 7.50 percent per “unit” of systematic risk.

THE BASIC ARGUMENT

Now suppose we consider a second asset, Asset B. This asset has a beta of 1.2 and an ex-
pected return of 12 percent. Which investment is better, Asset A or Asset B? You might think
that we really cannot say—some investors might prefer A; some investors might prefer B.
Actually, however, we can say: A is better because, as we will demonstrate, B offers inad-
equate compensation for its level of systematic risk, at least relative to A.

To begin, we calculate different combinations of expected returns and betas for portfolios
of Asset B and a risk-free asset, just as we did for Asset A. For example, if we put 25 percent
in Asset B and the remaining 75 percent in the risk-free asset, the portfolio’s expected return
will be:

E(Rp) ϭ .25 ϫ E(RB) ϩ (1 Ϫ .25) ϫ Rf
ϭ .25 ϫ 12% ϩ .75 ϫ 4%

ϭ 6%

1 This ratio is sometimes called the Treynor index, after one of its originators.

390 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

FIGURE 12.1 Betas and Portfolio Returns

A. Portfolio expected returns and betas for Asset A

Portfolio expected
return (E(Rp))

ϭ E(RA) Ϫ Rf ϭ 7.5%
␤A
E(RA) ϭ 16%

Rf ϭ 4%

1.6 ϭ ␤A Portfolio beta
(␤p)

B. Portfolio expected returns and betas for Asset B

Portfolio expected
return (E(Rp))

ϭ E(RB) Ϫ Rf ϭ 6.67%
␤B

E(RB) ϭ 12%
Rf ϭ 4%

1.2 ϭ ␤B Portfolio beta
(␤p)

C. Portfolio expected returns and betas for both assets

Portfolio expected
return (E(Rp))

Asset A

E(RA) ϭ 16% ϭ 7.50% Asset B
ϭ 6.67%

E(RB) ϭ 12%

Rf ϭ 4%

1.2 ϭ ␤B 1.6 ϭ ␤A Portfolio beta
(␤p)

Similarly, the beta on the portfolio, ␤p, would be:
␤p ϭ .25 ϫ ␤B ϩ (1 Ϫ .25) ϫ 0
ϭ .25 ϫ 1.2
ϭ .30

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 391

Some other possibilities are as follows:

Percentage of Portfolio Portfolio
Portfolio in Asset B Expected Return Beta
.0
0% 4% .3
25 6 .6
50 8 .9
75 10 1.2
100 12 1.5
125 14 1.8
150 16

When we plot these combinations of portfolio expected returns and portfolio betas in
Figure 12.1B, we get a straight line, just as we did for Asset A.

The key thing to notice is that when we compare the results for Assets A and B, as
in Figure 12.1C, the line describing the combinations of expected returns and betas for
Asset A is higher than the one for Asset B. What this result tells us is that for any given
level of systematic risk (as measured by beta), some combination of Asset A and the risk-
free asset always offers a larger return. Therefore, we can state that Asset A is a better
investment than Asset B.

Another way of seeing that Asset A offers a superior return for its level of risk is to note
that the slope of our line for Asset B is:

Slope ϭ _E_(R__B)__Ϫ__R_f
␤B

ϭ _1_2_%__Ϫ___4_%_
1.2

ϭ 6.67%

Thus, Asset B has a reward-to-risk ratio of 6.67 percent, which is less than the 7.5 percent
offered by Asset A.

T HE F UND A M E N TA L R E S ULT

The situation we described for Assets A and B could not persist in a well-organized,
active market because investors would be attracted to Asset A and away from Asset B. As
a result, Asset A’s price would rise and Asset B’s price would fall. Because prices and
expected returns move in opposite directions, A’s expected return would decline and B’s
would rise.

This buying and selling would continue until the two assets plot on exactly the same line,
which means they would offer the same reward for bearing risk. In other words, in an active,
competitive market, we must have the situation that:

_E_(_R_A_)_؊___R_f ‫؍‬ _E_(R__B)__؊__R_f (12.6)
␤A ␤B

This is the fundamental relation between risk and return.
Our basic argument can be extended to more than just two assets. In fact, no matter how

many assets we had, we would always reach the same conclusion:

The reward-to-risk ratio must be the same for all assets in a competitive
financial market.

This result is really not too surprising. What it says is that, for example, if one asset has twice
as much systematic risk as another asset, its risk premium will simply be twice as large.

392 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

EXAMPLE 12.5 Using Reward-to-Risk Ratios
FIGURE 12.2
Suppose we see that the reward-to-risk ratio for all assets equals 7.2. If the risk-free
rate is 4 percent, what is the required return for an arbitrary asset i, with (1) beta
equal 1? (2) beta equal 0?

To answer question (1), write down the reward-to-risk equation, and set it equal
to 7.2. Because we know the risk-free rate and the beta of the asset, we can easily
solve for the expected return of the asset:

_E_(R__i)_؊___R_f ‫؍‬ 7.2
␤i

_E_(R__i)_؊___4_.0_ ‫؍‬ 7.2
1

Therefore, E(Ri) ‫ ؍‬11.2 percent.
Question (2) is a bit trickier. We cannot use the approach of (1) directly, because

we would have to divide by zero. But let’s think. Beta is the measure of risk in the

reward-to-risk equation. If the portfolio has zero risk, its expected return should

not reflect a premium for carrying risk. Therefore, the answer is 4 percent, the rate

of return on the risk-free asset.

Because all assets in the market must have the same reward-to-risk ratio, they all must
plot on the same line. This argument is illustrated in Figure 12.2, where the subscript i on the
return Ri and beta ␤i indexes Assets A, B, C, and D. As shown, Assets A and B plot directly
on the line and thus have the same reward-to-risk ratio.

If an asset plotted above the line, such as C in Figure 12.2, its reward-to-risk ratio is too
high because its expected return is too high. An expected return has two inputs: the expected
price and the price today. The expected return is calculated as E(R) ϭ [E(P) Ϫ Ptoday]/Ptoday,
or [E(P)/Ptoday] Ϫ 1. To lower the expected return for Asset C, its price today must increase
until the reward-to-risk ratio for Asset C plots exactly on the line. Similarly, if an asset is
plotted below the line, such as D in Figure 12.2, its reward-to-risk ratio is too low because its
expected return is too low. To increase the expected return for Asset D, its price today must
fall until the reward-to-risk ratio for Asset D also plots exactly on the line.

The arguments we have presented apply to active, competitive, well-functioning markets.
Active financial markets, such as the NYSE, best meet these criteria. Other markets, such as
real asset markets, may or may not. For this reason, these concepts are most useful in exam-
ining active financial markets.

Expected Returns and Systematic Risk

Asset expected
return (E(Ri))

E(RC) C ϭ E(Ri) Ϫ Rf
E(RD) ␤i
D
E(RB)
B
E(RA)
Rf A

Asset beta

␤A ␤B ␤C ␤D (␤i)

The fundamental relationship between beta and expected return is that all

assets must have the same reward-to-risk ratio, [E(Ri) – Rf]/␤i. This means that
they would all plot on the same straight line. Assets A and B are examples of

this behavior. Asset C’s expected return is too high; Asset D’s is too low.

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 393

EXAMPLE 12.6 Buy Low, Sell High

A security is said to be overvalued relative to another security if its price today is too
high given its expected return and risk. Suppose you observe the following:

Security Beta Expected
Melan Co. 1.3 Return
Choly Co. 14%
Baby Co. .8 10
1.0 11.5

The risk-free rate is currently 6 percent. Is one of the securities overvalued relative to
the others?

To answer, we compute the reward-to-risk ratios. For Melan, this ratio is (14% ؊
6%)/1.3 ‫ ؍‬6.15%; for Choly, this ratio is 5 percent; and for Baby, it is 5.5 percent. What
we conclude is that Choly offers an insufficient expected return for its level of risk, at
least relative to Melan and Baby. Because its expected return is too low, its price is too
high. In other words, Choly is overvalued relative to Melan and Baby, and we would
expect to see its price fall relative to Melan and Baby. Notice that we could also say
Melan and Baby are undervalued relative to Choly. What can you say about the rela-
tive pricing of Melan and Baby?

security market THE SECURITY MARKET LINE
line (SML)
Graphical representation of the The line that results when we plot expected returns and beta coefficients is obviously of
linear relationship between some importance, so it’s time we gave it a name. This line, which we use to describe the
systematic risk and expected relationship between systematic risk and expected return in financial markets, is usually
return in financial markets. called the security market line (SML), and it is one of the most important concepts in
modern finance.
market risk premium
The risk premium on a market MARKET PORTFOLIOS We will find it very useful to know the equation of the SML.
portfolio, i.e., a portfolio made of
all assets in the market. Although there are many different ways we could write it, we will discuss the most fre-

quently seen version. Suppose we consider a portfolio made up of all of the assets in the

market. Such a portfolio is called a market portfolio, and we will express the expected return

on this market portfolio as E(RM).
Because all the assets in the market must plot on the SML, so must a market portfolio

made up of those assets. To determine where it plots on the SML, we need to know the beta
of the market portfolio, ␤M. Because this portfolio is representative of all of the assets in the
market, it must have average systematic risk. In other words, it has a beta of 1. We could

therefore express the slope of the SML as:

SML slope ϭ _E_(_R_M_)_Ϫ___R_f ϭ _E_(_R_M_)_Ϫ___R_f ϭ E(RM) Ϫ Rf
␤M 1

The term E(RM) Ϫ R is often called the market risk premium because it is the risk premium
f

on a market portfolio.

THE CAPITAL ASSET PRICING MODEL To finish up, if we let E(Ri) and ␤i stand for
the expected return and beta, respectively, on any asset in the market, then we know that the

asset must plot on the SML. As a result, we know that its reward-to-risk ratio is the same as

that of the overall market:

_E_(_R_i)_Ϫ___R_f ϭ E(RM) Ϫ Rf
␤i

If we rearrange this, then we can write the equation for the SML as:

E(Ri) ‫ ؍‬Rf ؉ [E(RM) ؊ Rf] ؋ ␤i (12.7)

394 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

FIGURE 12.3 Security Market Line (SML)

Asset
expected
return (E(Ri))

E(RM) ϭ E(RM) Ϫ Rf

Rf

␤M ϭ 1.0 Asset
beta (␤i)

The slope of the security market line is equal to the market risk premium,
i.e., the reward for bearing an average amount of systematic risk. The
equation describing the SML can be written as:

E(Ri) ϭ Rf ϩ [E(RM) Ϫ Rf] ϫ ␤i
which is the capital asset pricing model (CAPM).

EXAMPLE 12.7 Risk and Return

capital asset pricing Suppose the risk-free rate is 4 percent, the market risk premium is 8.6 percent, and a
model (CAPM) particular stock has a beta of 1.3. Based on the CAPM, what is the expected return on
A theory of risk and return for this stock? What would the expected return be if the beta were to double?
securities in a competitive
capital market. With a beta of 1.3, the risk premium for the stock is 1.3 ؋ 8.6%, or 11.18 per-
cent. The risk-free rate is 4 percent, so the expected return is 15.18 percent. If the
www beta were to double to 2.6, the risk premium would double to 22.36 percent, so the
expected return would be 26.36 percent.
There’s a CAPM calculator
(if you really need it!) at Equation (12.7) is the famous capital asset pricing model (CAPM).2 What the CAPM
www.moneychimp.com shows is that the expected return for an asset depends on three things:

1. The pure time value of money. As measured by the risk-free rate, R , this is the
f

reward for merely waiting for your money, without taking any risk.

2. The reward for bearing systematic risk. As measured by the market risk premium,

E(RM) Ϫ Rf, this component is the reward the market offers for bearing an average
amount of systematic risk.

3. The amount of systematic risk. As measured by ␤i, this is the amount of systematic
risk present in a particular asset relative to that in an average asset.

By the way, the CAPM works for portfolios of assets just as it does for individual assets. In

an earlier section, we saw how to calculate a portfolio’s beta in the CAPM equation.

Figure 12.3 summarizes our discussion of the SML and the CAPM. As before, we plot

expected return against beta. Now we recognize that, based on the CAPM, the slope of the

SML is equal to the market risk premium, E(RM) Ϫ R .
f

This concludes our presentation of concepts related to the risk-return trade-off. Table 12.2

summarizes the various concepts in the order in which we discussed them.

2 Our discussion of the CAPM is actually closely related to the more recent development, arbitrage pricing theory
(APT). The theory underlying the CAPM is more complex than we have indicated here, and it has implications
beyond the scope of this discussion. As we present it here, the CAPM has essentially identical implications to those
of the APT, so we don’t distinguish between them.

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 395

TABLE 12.2 Risk and Return Summary

1. Total risk. The total risk of an investment is measured by the variance or, more commonly,
the standard deviation of its return.

2. Total return. The total return on an investment has two components: the expected return
and the unexpected return. The unexpected return comes about because of unanticipated
events. The risk from investing stems from the possibility of an unanticipated event.

3. Systematic and unsystematic risks. Systematic risks (also called market risks) are
unanticipated events that affect almost all assets to some degree because the effects are
economywide. Unsystematic risks are unanticipated events that affect single assets or small
groups of assets. Unsystematic risks are also called unique or asset-specific risks.

4. The effect of diversification. Some, but not all, of the risk associated with a risky investment
can be eliminated by diversification. The reason is that unsystematic risks, which are unique
to individual assets, tend to wash out in a large portfolio, but systematic risks, which affect
all of the assets in a portfolio to some extent, do not.

5. The systematic risk principle and beta. Because unsystematic risk can be freely eliminated
by diversification, the systematic risk principle states that the reward for bearing risk
depends only on the level of systematic risk. The level of systematic risk in a particular
asset, relative to the average, is given by the beta of that asset.

6. The reward-to-risk ratio and the security market line. The reward-to-risk ratio for Asset i is
the ratio of its risk premium, E(Ri) Ϫ Rf, to its beta, ␤i.
_E_(R__i)_Ϫ___R_f
␤i

In a well-functioning market, this ratio is the same for every asset. As a result, when asset
expected returns are plotted against asset betas, all assets plot on the same straight line,
called the security market line (SML).

7. The capital asset pricing model. From the SML, the expected return on Asset i can be
written:

E(Ri) ϭ Rf ϩ [E(RM) Ϫ Rf] ϫ ␤i
This is the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). The expected return on a risky asset thus has
three components. The first is the pure time value of money (Rf ); the second is the market
risk premium, E(RM) Ϫ Rf; and the third is the beta for the asset (␤i).

✓ 12.5a What is the fundamental relationship between risk and return in active
12.5b markets?
CHECK THIS 12.5c
What is the security market line (SML)? Why must all assets plot directly on
it in a well-functioning market?

What is the capital asset pricing model (CAPM)? What does it tell us about
the required return on a risky investment?

12.6 More on Beta

In our last several sections, we discussed the basic economic principles of risk and return.
We found that the expected return on a security depends on its systematic risk, which is mea-
sured using the security’s beta coefficient, ␤. In this final section, we examine beta in more
detail. We first illustrate more closely what it is that beta measures. We then show how betas
can be estimated for individual securities, and we discuss why it is that different sources
report different betas for the same security.

396 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

A CLOSER LOOK AT BETA

Going back to the beginning of the chapter, we discussed how the actual return on a security,
R, could be written as follows:

R ؊ E(R) ‫ ؍‬m ؉ ⑀ (12.8)

Recall that in equation (12.8), m stands for the systematic or marketwide portion of the un-

expected return. Based on our discussion of the CAPM, we can now be a little more precise

about this component.

Specifically, the systematic portion of an unexpected return depends on two things. First,

it depends on the size of the systematic effect. We will measure this as R Ϫ E(RM), which
M

is simply the difference between the actual return on the overall market and the expected

return. Second, as we have discussed, some securities have greater systematic risk than oth-

ers, and we measure this risk using beta. Putting it together, we have:

m ‫[ ؍‬RM ؊ E(RM)] ؋ ␤ (12.9)

In other words, the marketwide, or systematic, portion of the return on a security depends

on both the size of the marketwide surprise, R Ϫ E(RM), and the sensitivity of the security
M
to such surprises, ␤.

Now, if we combine equations (12.8) and (12.9), we have:

R ؊ E(R) ‫ ؍‬m ؉ ⑀ (12.10)

‫[ ؍‬RM ؊ E(RM)] ؋ ␤ ؉ ⑀

Equation (12.10) gives us some additional insight into beta by telling us why some securities
have higher betas than others. A high-beta security is simply one that is relatively sensitive to
overall market movements, whereas a low-beta security is one that is relatively insensitive.
In other words, the systematic risk of a security is just a reflection of its sensitivity to overall
market movements.

A hypothetical example is useful for illustrating the main point of equation (12.10). Sup-
pose a particular security has a beta of 1.2, the risk-free rate is 5 percent, and the expected
return on the market is 12 percent. From the CAPM, we know that the expected return on
the security is:

E(R) ϭ Rf ϩ [E(RM) Ϫ Rf] ϫ ␤
ϭ .05 ϩ (.12 Ϫ .05) ϫ 1.2

ϭ .134

Thus, the expected return on this security is 13.4 percent. However, we know that in any year
the actual return on this security will be more or less than 13.4 percent because of unantici-
pated systematic and unsystematic events.

Columns 1 and 2 of Table 12.3 list the actual returns on our security, R, for a five-year
period along with the actual returns for the market as a whole, RM, for the same period. Given
these actual returns and the expected returns on the security (13.4 percent) and the market

TABLE 12.3 Decomposition of Total Returns into Systematic and Unsystematic
Portions

Actual Unexpected Systematic Unsystematic
Returns Returns Portion Portion (⑀)

Year R RM R ؊ E(R) RM ؊ E(RM) [RM ؊ E(RM)] ؋ ␤ [R ؊ E(R)] ؊ [RM ؊ E(RM)] ؋ ␤
2003 20% 15% 6.6% 3% 3.6% 3%
2004
2005 Ϫ24.6 Ϫ3 Ϫ38 Ϫ15 Ϫ18 Ϫ20
2006 Ϫ2.4 12
2007 23 10 9.6 Ϫ2 14.4 9
Ϫ6 Ϫ4
36.8 24 23.4 12

3.4 7 Ϫ10 Ϫ5

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 397

FIGURE 12.4 Unexpected Returns and Beta

Unexpected return on the security (%) 30 2005 2003
20
10 2006

0 2007
Ϫ10
Ϫ20 2004
Ϫ30
Ϫ40 Ϫ15 Ϫ10 Ϫ5 0 5 10 15 20
Unexpected return on the market (%)
Ϫ20

Total unexpected return Systematic portion

as a whole (12 percent), we can calculate the unexpected returns on the security, R Ϫ E(R),

along with the unexpected return on the market as a whole, R Ϫ E(RM). The results are
M

shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 12.3.

Next we decompose the unexpected returns on the security—that is, we break them down

into their systematic and unsystematic components in columns 5 and 6. From equation (12.9),

we calculate the systematic portion of the unexpected return by taking the security’s beta,

1.2, and multiplying it by the market’s unexpected return:

Systematic portion ϭ m ϭ [RM Ϫ E(RM)] ϫ ␤

Finally, we calculate the unsystematic portion by subtracting the systematic portion from the
total unexpected return:

Unsystematic portion ϭ ⑀ ϭ [R Ϫ E(R)] Ϫ [RM Ϫ E(RM)] ϫ ␤

Notice that the unsystematic portion is essentially whatever is left over after we account for
the systematic portion. For this reason, it is sometimes called the “residual” portion of the
unexpected return.

Figure 12.4 illustrates the main points of this discussion by plotting the unexpected
returns on the security in Table 12.3 against the unexpected return on the market as a whole.
These are the individual points in the graph, each labeled with its year. We also plot the
systematic portions of the unexpected returns in Table 12.3 and connect them with a straight
line. Notice that the slope of the straight line is equal to 1.2, the beta of the security. As
indicated, the distance from the straight line to an individual point is the unsystematic por-
tion of the return, ⑀, for a particular year.

WHERE DO BETAS COME FROM?

As our discussion to this point shows, beta is a useful concept. It allows us to estimate the
expected return on a security, it tells how sensitive a security’s return is to unexpected mar-
ket events, and it lets us separate out the systematic and unsystematic portions of a security’s
return. In our example just above, we were given that the beta was 1.2, so the required calcu-
lations were all pretty straightforward. Suppose, however, that we didn’t have the beta ahead
of time. In this case, we would have to estimate it.

A security’s beta is a measure of how sensitive the security’s return is to overall market
movements. That sensitivity depends on two things: (1) how closely correlated the security’s
return is with the overall market’s return and (2) how volatile the security is relative to the

398 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

TABLE 12.4 Calculating Beta

Returns Return Deviations Squared Deviations

Year Security Market Security Market Security Market Product of Deviations
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
2003
2004 .10 .08 .00 Ϫ.04 .0000 .0016 .0000
2005 .0432
2006 Ϫ.08 Ϫ.12 Ϫ.18 Ϫ.24 .0324 .0576
2007 Ϫ.0056
Totals Ϫ.04 .16 Ϫ.14 .04 .0196 .0016 .0420
.0020
.40 .26 .30 .14 .0900 .0196 .0816

.12 .22 .02 .10 .0004 .0100

.50 .60 00 .1424 .0904

Security Average Returns Variances Standard Deviations
Market .50/5 ϭ .10 ϭ 10% .1424/4 ϭ .0356
.60/5 ϭ .12 ϭ 12% .0904/4 ϭ .0226 ______

͙.0356 ϭ .1887 ϭ 18.87%

______

͙.0226 ϭ .1503 ϭ 15.03%

Covariance ϭ Cov(Ri , RM) ϭ .0816/4 ϭ .0204
Correlation ϭ Corr(Ri , RM) ϭ .0204/(.1887 ϫ .1503) ϭ .72
Beta ϭ ␤ ϭ .72 ϫ (.1887/.1503) ϭ .9039 Ϸ .9

market. Specifically, going back to our previous chapter, let Corr(Ri, RM) stand for the cor-
relation between the return on a particular security i and the overall market. As before, let ␴i
and ␴M be the standard deviations on the security and the market, respectively. Given these
numbers, the beta for the security, ␤i, is simply:

␤i ‫ ؍‬Corr(Ri, RM) ؋ ␴i /␴M (12.11)

covariance In other words, the beta is equal to the correlation multiplied by the ratio of the standard
A measure of the tendency of two deviations.
things to move or vary together.
From previous chapters, we know how to calculate the standard deviations in equa-
tion (12.11). However, we have not yet discussed how to calculate correlations. A simple
and straight-forward way to proceed is to construct a worksheet like Table 12.4.

The first six columns of Table 12.4 are familiar from Chapter 1. The first two contain
five years of returns on a particular security and the overall market. We add these up and
divide by 5 to get the average returns of 10 percent and 12 percent for the security and the
market, respectively, as shown in the table. In the third and fourth columns we calculate the
return deviations by taking each individual return and subtracting out the average return. In
columns 5 and 6 we square these return deviations. To calculate the variances, we total these
squared deviations and divide by 5 Ϫ 1 ϭ 4. We calculate the standard deviations by taking
the square root of the variances, and we find that the standard deviations for the security and
the market are 18.87 percent and 15.03 percent, respectively.

Now we come to the part that’s new. In the last column of Table 12.4, we have calculated
the product of the return deviations by simply multiplying columns 3 and 4. When we total
these products and divide by 5 Ϫ 1 ϭ 4, the result is called the covariance.

Covariance, as the name suggests, is a measure of the tendency of two things to vary
together. If the covariance is positive, then the tendency is to move in the same direction, and
vice versa for a negative covariance. A zero covariance means there is no particular relation.
For our security in Table 12.4, the covariance is ϩ.0204, so the security tends to move in the
same direction as the market.

A problem with covariances is that, like variances, the actual numbers are hard to interpret
(the sign, of course, is not). For example, our covariance is .0204, but, just from this number,

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 399

SPREADSHEET ANALYSIS

ABC DE F GH

1

2 Using a Spreadsheet to Calculate Beta

3

4 To illustrate how to calculate betas, correlations, and covariances using a spreadsheet,

5 we have entered the information from Table 12.4 into the spreadsheet below. Here, we

6 use Excel functions to do all the calculations.

7

8 Returns

9 Security Market

10 2003 10% 8% Note: The Excel Format is

11 2004 – 8% –12% set to percent, but the

12 2005 – 4% 16% numbers are entered as

13 2006 40% 26% decimals.

14 2007 12% 22%

15

16 Average: 10% 12% (Using the =AVERAGE function)

17 Std. Dev.: 18.87% 15.03% (Using the =STDEV function)

18 Correlation: 0.72 =CORREL(D10:D14,E10:E14)

19

20 Beta: 0.90

21
22 Excel also has a covariance function, =COVAR, but we do not use it because it divides
23 by n instead of n-1. Verify that you get a Beta of about 0.72 if you use the COVAR
24 function divided by the variance of the Market Returns (Use the Excel function, =VAR).

25
26 Question 1: How would you correct the covariance calculation?
27 Question 2: What happens when you use =SLOPE, an Excel function?

28

we can’t really say if the security has a strong tendency to move with the market or only a
weak one. To fix this problem, we divide the covariance by the product of the two standard
deviations. The result is the correlation coefficient, introduced in the previous chapter.

From Table 12.4, the correlation between our security and the overall market is .72.
Recalling that correlations range from Ϫ1 to ϩ1, this .72 tells us that the security has a fairly
strong tendency to move with the overall market, but that tendency is not perfect.

Now, we have reached our goal of calculating the beta coefficient. As shown in the last
row of Table 12.4, from equation (12.11), we have:

␤i ϭ Corr(Ri, RM) ϫ ␴i /␴M
ϭ .72 ϫ (.1887/.1503)
ϭ .90

We find that this security has a beta of .9, so it has slightly less than average systematic risk.
As our nearby Spreadsheet Analysis box shows, these calculations can be done easily with
a spreadsheet.

WHY DO BETAS DIFFER?
Finally, we consider why different sources report different betas. The important thing to
remember is that betas are estimated from actual data. Different sources estimate differently,
possibly using different data. We discuss some of the key differences next.

First, there are two issues concerning data. Betas can be calculated using daily, weekly,
monthly, quarterly, or annual returns. In principle, it does not matter which is chosen, but
with real data, different estimates will result. Second, betas can be estimated over relatively
short periods such as a few weeks or over long periods of 5 to 10 years (or even more).

The trade-off here is not hard to understand. Betas obtained from high-frequency
returns, such as daily returns, are less reliable than those obtained from less frequent

400 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

returns, such as monthly returns. This argues for using monthly or longer returns. On the
other hand, any time we estimate something, we would like to have a large number of
recent observations. This argues for using weekly or daily returns. There is no ideal bal-
ance; the most common choices are three to five years of monthly data or a single year of
weekly data. The betas we get from a year of weekly data are more current in the sense
that they reflect only the previous year, but they tend to be less stable than those obtained
from longer periods.

Another issue has to do with choice of a market index. All along, we have discussed the
return on the “overall market,” but we have not been very precise about how to measure this.
By far the most common choice is to use the S&P 500 stock market index to measure the
overall market, but this is not the only alternative. Different sources use different indexes
to capture the overall market, and different indexes will lead to different beta estimates.

You might wonder whether some index is the “correct” one. The answer is yes, but a
problem comes up. In principle, in the CAPM, when we speak of the overall market, what we
really mean is the market for every risky asset of every type. In other words, what we would
need is an index that included all the stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, and every-
thing else in the entire world (not just the United States). Obviously, no such index exists, so
instead we must choose some smaller index to proxy for this much larger one.

Last, a few sources (including Value Line, one source for Table 12.1) calculate betas the
way we described in Table 12.4, but then they go on to adjust them for statistical reasons.
The nature of the adjustment goes beyond our discussion, but such adjustments are another
reason why betas differ across sources.

12.7 Extending CAPM

The previous two sections introduced you to the famous capital asset pricing model, or
CAPM for short. For investors, the CAPM has a stunning implication: What you earn,
through time, on your portfolio depends only on the level of systematic risk you bear. The
corollary is equally striking: As a diversified investor, you do not need to be concerned with
the total risk or volatility of any individual asset in your portfolio—it is simply irrelevant.

Of course, we should note that the CAPM is a theory, and, as with any theory, whether it
is correct is a question for the data. So does the CAPM work or not? Put more directly, does
expected return depend on beta, and beta alone, or do other factors come into play? There is
no more hotly debated question in all of finance.

In this section, we first present a short history of attempts to test the CAPM. Then we dis-
cuss one of the most important extensions of the CAPM, the so-called Fama-French three-
factor model.

A (VERY) BRIEF HISTORY OF TESTING CAPM

The CAPM was introduced in the mid-1960s (but, perhaps surprisingly, tests of this model
began to appear only in the early 1970s). When researchers test the CAPM, they essentially
look to see whether average returns are linearly related to beta. That is, they want to know
if asset returns and beta line up as shown in Figure 12.3. The earliest tests of the CAPM
suggested that return and risk (as measured by beta) showed a reasonable relationship. How-
ever, the relationship was not so strong that financial researchers were content to move on
and test other theories.

To summarize years of testing, the relationship between returns and beta appeared to
vary depending on the time period that was studied. Over some periods, the relationship was
strong. In others, it was apparent but not strong. In others, it was seemingly nonexistent.
Over the years, researchers refined their techniques to measure betas. In addition, the ques-
tion was raised whether researchers could calculate betas at all. The basic argument was
that betas could not be calculated relative to the overall market portfolio because we cannot
observe the true market portfolio. Nonetheless, despite this insightful critique, researchers
continue to test CAPM and debate the findings of CAPM research to this day.

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 401

INVESTMENT UPDATE

SMALL CAP VALUE MAY NO LONGER BE A VALUE

Good things come in small packages. Just ask investors in Growth stocks tend to have higher growth rates and
small-cap value stocks. valuations.

Value stocks in the Russell 2000 Index, a benchmark The question is, how long can the current run for small
for small stocks, have done twice as well as the Standard caps last?
& Poor’s 500 has over the last 24 months.
Small-cap stocks outperformed others for nearly a
And over the past decade small-cap value stocks are decade during the bull market that began in 1974, says
up an eye-popping 168%, easily outpacing the S&P’s Roger Ibbotson, chief executive officer of the Chicago
103% advance and the Russell 2000 Growth Index’s mere research firm Ibbotson Associates.
44% gain.
But in the fourth year of the two most recent bull
So, not surprisingly, some small value stocks are start- markets (which is where we are in the current one), small
ing to look pricey. caps have underperformed big-cap stocks, according to
Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P.
The Russell 2000, whose median market cap is about
$576 million, fetches 23.4 times earnings estimates for “I would not be optimistic about small caps in 2006,”
the next four quarters. That’s far richer than the S&P Ibbotson says. “The run has got to be about over, even
500’s 15.5 times forward earnings, according to Thomson though momentum is working for the seventh year in a
Financial/Baseline. row.”

That’s why some money managers advise taking prof- Barry James, a portfolio manager at James Investment
its in the priciest value small caps and replacing them Research near Dayton, Ohio, recommends that investors
with shares of larger companies. cut their allocations for small caps to 10 to 15% of their
portfolios, from 25%.
“We think it would be a good idea for investors to sell
some of their small-cap stocks,” says Ned Notzon, chair- He’s looking for small caps in the technology sector to
man of the asset allocation committee at T. Rowe Price hold up well, however, and expects smaller energy stocks
Associates. to resist a broader market decline, even if oil prices drop.

Small caps (which typically have a market capitalization Arthur Nunes, at IMS Capital, says that in the past
of $1 billion or less) can be great long-term-investments, 20 years, mid-cap stocks—those whose market capital-
even though their returns can fluctuate much more than ization is between $1 billion and $5 billion—have been
shares of large, well-known companies. silent winners, offering 15.2% returns with a lower risk
than small caps.
For the last 78 years, small caps have generated com-
pound annual returns of 12.7%, compared with 10.4% for Ultimately, investors who have profited by thinking
large caps, according to Ibbotson Associates. Historically, small over the last few years may now need to look at
small-cap value stocks do best—they’ve risen nearly 15% the bigger picture.
compared with the 9.6% returns for small-cap growth.
Source: Dimitra Defotis, October 11, 2005. Reprinted by permission of
Value stocks typically have stable earnings growth Dow Jones and Company Inc. via Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
and lower price-to-book and price-to-earnings ratios.

Despite the debate between CAPM critics and CAPM champions, some important ideas
have emerged. Few researchers question these general principles:

• Investing has two dimensions: risk and return.
• It is inappropriate to look at the risk of an individual security. What is appropriate is

how the individual security contributes to the risk of a diversified portfolio.
• Risk can be decomposed into systematic risk and nonsystematic risk.
• Investors will be compensated only for taking systematic risk.

THE FAMA-FRENCH THREE-FACTOR MODEL
To illustrate some aspects of the debate surrounding CAPM, we now briefly explore the
Fama-French three-factor model, which gets its name from its creators, Gene Fama and Ken
French. Table 12.5 illustrates an important finding from years of research into stock market
returns. As shown, two groups of stocks have tended to do noticeably better than the market

402 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

TABLE 12.5 Average Annual Percentage Returns from 25 Portfolios Formed
on Size (Cap) and Book to Market, 1926–2006

1 (smallest cap) (Lowest B/M) 2 3 4 (Highest B/M)
2 1 19.44 21.43 24.86 5
3 17.21 19.45 19.76
4 11.68 16.04 17.06 17.80 31.08
5 (largest cap) 11.76 13.68 15.81 16.95 20.47
12.39 12.59 13.67 14.48 19.64
12.36 18.35
11.04 15.31

Source: Author calculations using data from the Web site of Ken French.

www as a whole: (1) stocks with a small-market capitalization (small-cap stocks) and (2) stocks
that have a higher than average ratio of book (or accounting) value to market value of equity
You can download lots of data (so-called value stocks).
behind the Fama-French model at
http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/ Table 12.5 is formed as follows. First, for each year of historical data, a large set of
stocks are ranked on the basis of their market cap, or size. The smallest 20 percent of the
pages/faculty/ken.french/ stocks are placed into the market cap quintile number 1, the next smallest 20 percent are
placed into market cap quintile number 2, and so on. Then, the same set of stocks are ranked
on the basis of their book/market (B/M) ratio. The smallest 20 percent are placed into B/M
quintile number 1, the next smallest 20 percent are placed into B/M quintile number 2, and
so on.

Let’s look at the cell with an average annual return of 11.68 percent. This number is cal-
culated as follows. After the sorting described above, we put stocks into portfolios according
to both of their quintile scores, for a total of 25 (ϭ 5 ϫ 5) portfolios. So, for example, the
stocks with both the smallest cap and the lowest B/M end up in the quintile 1–1 portfolio. As
shown in Table 12.5, over the time period 1926 to 2006, the average annual return for stocks
in the quintile 1–1 portfolio is 11.68 percent.

Three things should jump out at you in Table 12.5. Notice that the cell 1–5, which con-
tains stocks with the smallest cap and highest B/M, has had the highest returns. Looking
down each column, you can see that in four columns the highest return belongs to the small-
est cap quintile (this happens in columns 2, 3, 4, and 5). Looking across each row, you can
see that in every row, the highest return belongs to the highest B/M quintile.

Based on further analysis of these data, Professors Fama and French concluded that dif-
ferences in beta were not sufficient to explain the differences in returns in Table 12.5. They
therefore argue that two additional factors beyond beta must be considered to understand
differences in expected returns on stocks, namely, market cap and B/M. Thus, their model
of stock returns has a total of three factors. Whether these extra factors are truly sources of
systematic risk is a subject of ongoing debate.

12.8 Summary and Conclusions

This chapter covers the essentials of risk and return. Along the way, we introduced a number
of definitions and concepts. The most important of these is the security market line, or SML.
The SML is important because it tells us the reward offered in financial markets for bearing
risk. Because we covered quite a bit of ground, it’s useful to summarize the basic economic
logic underlying the SML as follows.

1. The difference between expected and unexpected returns.

A. The return on any stock traded in a financial market is composed of two parts. The
expected return from the stock is the part of the return that investors predict or expect.
This return depends on the information investors have about the stock, and it is based on
the market’s understanding today of the important factors that will influence the stock
in the coming year.

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 403

B. The second part of the return on the stock is the uncertain, or risky, part. This is the
portion that comes from unexpected information revealed during the year.

2. The difference between systematic risk and unsystematic risk.
A. Based on capital market history, there is a reward for bearing risk. This reward is the

risk premium on an asset.
B. The total risk associated with an asset has two parts: systematic risk and unsystematic

risk. Unsystematic risk can be freely eliminated by diversification (this is the principle
of diversification), so only systematic risk is rewarded. As a result, the risk premium
on an asset is determined by its systematic risk. This is the systematic risk principle.

3. The security market line and the capital asset pricing model.
A. An asset’s systematic risk, relative to the average, can be measured by its beta coef-

ficient, ␤i. The risk premium on an asset is then given by the market risk premium
multiplied by the asset’s beta coefficient, [E(RM) Ϫ Rf ] ϫ ␤i.
B. The expected return on an asset, E(Ri), is equal to the risk-free rate, Rf, plus the asset’s
risk premium: E(Ri) ϭ Rf ϩ [E(RM) Ϫ Rf] ϫ ␤i . This is the equation of the SML, and
it is often called the capital asset pricing model (CAPM).

4. The importance of beta.
A. Systematic risk is the crucial determinant of an asset’s expected return. Therefore, we

need some way of measuring the level of systematic risk for different investments.
B. The specific measure we use is called the beta coefficient, designated by the Greek

letter ␤. A beta coefficient, or just beta for short, tells us how much systematic risk a
particular asset has relative to an average asset.
C. By definition, an average asset has a beta of 1.0 relative to itself. An asset with a beta
of .50, therefore, has half as much systematic risk as an average asset.
D. Toward the end of the chapter, we showed how betas are calculated and we discussed
some of the main reasons different sources report different beta coefficients. We
closed the chapter by presenting a discussion of the Fama-French three-factor model,
an important extension to the basic CAPM.

GET REAL

An immediate implication of the CAPM is that you, as an investor, need to be aware
of the level of systematic risk you are carrying. Look up the betas of the stocks you
hold in your simulated brokerage account and compute your portfolio’s systematic
risk. Is it bigger or smaller than 1.0? More important, is the portfolio’s beta consistent
with your desired level of portfolio risk?

Betas are particularly useful for understanding mutual fund risk and return. Since
most mutual funds are at least somewhat diversified (the exceptions being sector
funds and other specialized funds), they have relatively little unsystematic risk, and
their betas can be measured with some precision. Look at the funds you own and
learn their betas (www.morningstar.com is a good source). Are the risk levels what
you intended? As you study mutual fund risk, you will find some other measures
exist, most of which are closely related to the measures discussed in this chapter. Take
a few minutes to understand these as well.

Does expected return depend on beta, and beta alone, or do other factors come
into play? There is no more hotly debated question in all of finance, and the research
that exists to date is inconclusive. (Some researchers would dispute this!) At a mini-
mum, beta appears to be a useful measure of market-related volatility, that is, risk.
Whether beta is a useful measure of expected return (much less a comprehensive
one) awaits more research. Lots more research.

404 Part 4 ■ Portfolio Management

Key Terms security market line (SML) 394
systematic risk 383
beta coefficient (␤) 386 systematic risk principle 386
capital asset pricing model (CAPM) 395 unsystematic risk 383
covariance 399
market risk premium 394

Chapter Review Problems and Self-Test

1. Risk and Return Suppose you observe the following situation:

Security Beta Expected
Sanders 1.8 Return
Janicek 1.6
22.00%

20.44

If the risk-free rate is 7 percent, are these two stocks correctly priced relative to each other?
What must the risk-free rate be if they are correctly priced?

2. CAPM Suppose the risk-free rate is 8 percent. The expected return on the market is 16 per-
cent. If a particular stock has a beta of .7, what is its expected return based on the CAPM? If
another stock has an expected return of 24 percent, what must its beta be?

Answers to Self-Test Problems www.mhhe.com/jm5e

1. If we compute the reward-to-risk ratios, we get (22% Ϫ 7%)/1.8 ϭ 8.33% for Sanders versus

8.4% for Janicek. Relative to Sanders, Janicek’s expected return is too high, so its price is too low.

If they are correctly priced, then they must offer the same reward-to-risk ratio. The risk-free

rate would have to be such that:

_2_2_%__Ϫ__R__f ϭ _2_0_.4_4_%__Ϫ___R_f
1.8 1.6

With a little algebra, we find that the risk-free rate must be 8 percent:

22% Ϫ Rf ϭ (20.44% Ϫ Rf )(1.8/1.6)

22% Ϫ 20.44% ϫ 1.125 ϭ R Ϫ R ϫ 1.125
f f

Rf ϭ 8%

2. Because the expected return on the market is 16 percent, the market risk premium is 16% Ϫ
8% ϭ 8% (the risk-free rate is also 8 percent). The first stock has a beta of .7, so its expected
return is 8% ϩ 8% ϫ .7 ϭ 13.6%.
For the second stock, notice that the risk premium is 24% Ϫ 8% ϭ 16%. Because this is
twice as large as the market risk premium, the beta must be exactly equal to 2. We can verify

this using the CAPM:

E(Ri) ϭ Rf ϩ [E(RM) Ϫ Rf] ϫ ␤i
24% ϭ 8% ϩ (16% Ϫ 8%) ϫ ␤i

␤i ϭ 16%/8% ϭ 2.0

IQ Test Your Investment Quotient

For the remaining questions and problems, the circled numbers in the margin refer to the
corresponding learning objective in this chapter.

3 1. Portfolio Return According to the CAPM, what is the rate of return of a portfolio with a beta of 1?

a. Between RM and Rf
b. The risk-free rate, Rf
c. Beta ϫ (RM Ϫ Rf)
d. The return on the market, RM

Chapter 12 ■ Return, Risk, and the Security Market Line 405