Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2002 iii Paper 32 2 c Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
The risk-free weight is , so a zero risk-free weight requires . Define . If , this condition gives andThese are the requested tangent-portfolio mean and variance under the usual condition . Then , the normalized portfolio lies on the upper efficient ray, and its Sharpe ratio is .
There is a real qualification if the data are allowed to be arbitrary. If , the efficient risky direction has zero total risky weight, and no finite multiple makes its risky weights sum to one. If , the formal normalized portfolio above has negative excess mean and lies on the lower, dominated branch; it is not an efficient tangent portfolio as described in the question. The sign of the normalized tangency portfolio must therefore be checked, rather than inferred from positive definiteness of alone.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2004 iii Paper 35 1 g Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
All three individual risky assets now have negative excess expected returns. The covariance matrix and the risky portfolio opportunity set remain unchanged, but the risk-free point moves above all three individual means. Solving the new tangency equations givesThe sign of the normalized tangency portfolio now matters. Normalizing to a unit risky budget givesand its Sharpe ratio is . This point touches the lower risky frontier, rather than being an efficient positive-premium market portfolio.
The positive-premium efficient direction is still , . It shorts the first two assets, holds a hedging long position in the third, and has negative total risky investment. Its risk-free investment exceeds its initial wealth: the net proceeds of short selling are lent. Equivalently it takes a negative position in the normalized tangency portfolio. ThusNegative excess means therefore do not eliminate efficient risky investments when unrestricted short selling is allowed. The second diagram shows both orientations; it would be incorrect to interpret the negative normalized ratio as a negative slope for the upper efficient ray.