P&G & Royal Bank of Canada’s Securities Valuation

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Executive summary

The discussion in the paper focuses on the Two-Fund Separation theorem. It is an expansion of the modern portfolio theorem. The data of adjusted closing prices for Proctor & Gamble Co. and Royal Bank of Canada is used in the analysis. An analysis of the securities shows that the two companies operate in different industries and they have different sizes. The discussion also reveals that the asset allocation problem focuses on the allocation of resources between two risky assets. Further, diversification helps in minimizing non-systematic risks when investing in risky assets. The capital allocation problem focuses on the allocation of resources between risk-free and risky assets. The optimal point of allocation is estimated using the Treynor-Black model.

Introduction

The paper seeks to use the Two-Fund Separation theorem to solve the asset and capital allocation problem. This theorem is an expansion of the modern portfolio theory that was developed by Harry Markowitz in the 1960s (Elton & Brown 2007). The portfolio theory outlines that investors need to control the risk of their portfolio by allocating resources between risky and risk-free assets. Thus, risk cannot be controlled by rearranging resources among risky assets. The theory also maintains that a portfolio should be well-diversified. Therefore, a portfolio of risky assets should contain several assets. The first part of the Two-Fund Separation theorem will be used to solve the asset allocation problem. It will focus on allocating resources between two or more risky assets. This section will focus on analyzing efficient frontier. The second part of the theorem will solve the capital allocation problem. In this case, the Treynor-Black model will be used to allocate resources between risk-free and risky assets.

Security analysis

The paper focuses on analyzing the stock for Proctor & Gamble Co. and Royal Bank of Canada. Proctor & Gamble Co. is a public company that is based in the United States. It trades on the New York Stock Exchange with the ticker symbol PG. Besides, it is a component of the S&P 500 index and the Dow Jones Industrial average. The company deals with the production of assorted consumer goods. From a financial point of view, the revenue of the company grew from $78,938 million to $84,167 million in 2013 while the net income dropped from $12,736 million in 2010 to $10,756 million in 2012. The value rose to $11,312 million in 2013. The total assets of the company fluctuated during the period. The balance in 2013 was $139,263 million. On the other hand, Royal Bank of Canada is also a public company that is based in Canada. The company trades on 3 stock exchange markets one of them is the New York Stock Exchange. The company’s ticker symbol is RY. Further, it operates in the financial services industry. The company prepares the financial statements using Canadian dollars. The revenue grew from CAD28,330 million in 2010 to CAD30,867 million in 2013. Further, the net income dropped from CAD5,223 million in 2010 to CAD4,852 million in 2011. The value later grew from CAD7,442 million in 2012 to CAD8,331 million in 2013. The total assets of the Bank amounted to CAD860,819million in 2013 (Yahoo Inc. 2009a; Yahoo Inc. 2009b; Yahoo Inc. 2009c). Thus, a comparison of books of account for the two companies shows that Proctor & Gamble Co. has higher revenue and net income than Royal Bank of Canada. However, Royal Bank of Canada has a larger asset base than Proctor & Gamble Co. The data of closing share prices and rate of return are presented in Appendix 1. The average rate of return for PG is 0.87%, while for RY is 0.71. Further, PG has a variance of 0.0014 and a standard deviation of 3.79%, while RY has a variance of 0.0042 and a standard deviation of 6.5%. Thus, it can be noted that PG has a higher rate of return and lower risk (standard deviation and variance) than RY. This can partly be attributed to the fact that Royal Bank of Canada operates in an extremely risky industry that offers low returns. The covariance between the two securities is 0.0007 while the correlation coefficient is 0.3029. This shows that there is a weak positive association between the two securities. The graph presented below shows the relationship between the returns of the two securities.

Security analysis

Apart from the data of the two companies, the closing prices for S&P 500 index and interest rate for the 60-days US Treasury Bill will be collected (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2013). The S&P 500 index represents the market index while the interest rate on the Treasury Bill is used to estimate the risk-free rate of return. The data for the index and Treasury Bill is presented in appendix 1.

Two-Fund separation theorem

Two–Fund Separation is an important extension of the modern portfolio theory. The theorem maintains that an investment problem can be disintegrated into two steps. The first step entails finding the optimal portfolio of risky securities. This optimal portfolio maximizes the Sharpe ratio. The second step entails finding the best mixture of risk-free assets and the optimal risky portfolio (Elton & Brown 2007). This section focuses on discussing the first part of the theorem with an aim of solving the asset allocation problem.

Optimization and efficient frontier

The first part of the Two-Fund Separation theorem focuses on finding the optimal allocation of two risky securities. There is no risk free asset. In this case, a possible set of expected returns and standard deviation for different combinations of securities will be plotted. In order to have these plots, it is important to first estimate the value of expected return and variance of the portfolio. The calculations are presented in appendix 2 below. When the possible combinations of the assets are plotted, it yields an efficient frontier. The frontier belongs to an investment opportunity set (Elton & Brown 2007). Therefore, an efficient frontier comprises of all attainable portfolios that generates the highest return at a given level of risk. The graph presented below shows the efficient frontier of the two companies.

Optimization and efficient frontier

In the graph above, the portfolios that are on the efficient frontier offer a higher amount of return than those that lie in the feasible region. Also, the portfolios on the efficient frontier have a low amount of risk at the same level of return as those that lie in the feasible region.

Minimum and maximum variance portfolios

On the efficient frontier presented above, there exists a portfolio that has a minimum risk (as measured by the variance). This point is called the minimum variance portfolio (Elton & Brown 2007). This point is also associated with minimum return. From the calculations presented in appendix 2, the minimum portfolio variance is at the point where the proportion of Proctor & Gamble stock is 83.41%, while the proportion of stock for Royal Bank Canada is 16.58%. The portfolio variance at this point is 3.64%, while the expected return is 0.84%.

On the other hand, maximum variance portfolio is associated with maximum return. In the case of the two companies, the combination that yields this portfolio is by investing 100% in stock of Proctor & Gamble Co. and 0% in Royal Bank of Canada. The resulting value of expected portfolio return is 0.87%, while the variance is 3.79%. The minimum and maximum variance portfolios are illustrated in the graph below.

Minimum variance portfolios

After locating the minimum and maximum variance portfolios on the frontier, the section of the graph that represents an efficient frontier is presented in the graph below. It is highlighted in pink.

Maximum variance portfolios

Relationship between correlation and portfolio variance

The calculations presented in appendix 2 show that estimation of variance depends on the correlation between the two stocks. Therefore, it is important to analyze how correlation affects the risks of the possible portfolio (Elton & Brown 2007). In this section, the minimum variance frontier will be derived under three different assumptions. In the first case, it is assumed that the correlation coefficient is 0.5. The resulting efficient frontier is presented below.

Relationship between correlation and portfolio variance

The second scenario is when the correlation coefficient is 1. The resulting efficient frontier curve is presented below.

Relationship between correlation and portfolio variance

The graph is similar to a scenario where there is one risky and one risk free asset in a portfolio. Since the two assets are perfectly correlated, then it is possible to come up with an artificial risk free asset. Thus, it is possible to form a perfect hedge made up of the two securities. The final scenario is when the correlation coefficient is -1. The efficient frontier curve is presented below.

Relationship between correlation and portfolio variance

In this case, the two assets are also perfectly correlated and it is possible to form a combination of artificial assets. However, some combinations are dominated.

Systematic and unsystematic risk

Systematic risk is uncertainty that is integral in an entire market. This type of risk cannot be reduced through diversification. Systematic risk is often measured using beta. From the calculations in appendix 3, the value of beta for Proctor & Gamble stock is 0.0163 while that of Royal Bank of Canada is -0.0744. This implies that Proctor & Gamble stock has a lower level of volatility as compared to the market (S&P 500 index) while the stock of Royal Bank Canada has an inverse relation to the market. On the other hand, unsystematic risk is uncertainty that is associated with an entity or the business sector that an individual invests in. This category of risk can be minimized through diversification (Elton & Brown 2007).

Diversification

The concept of diversification is based on the fact that the tradeoff between risk and return improves when an investor holds several assets that have less than perfect correlation. As the number of assets in a portfolio increases, then only the average covariance is significant. This implies that if the average covariance is zero, then the portfolio variance will be close to zero. It is worth mentioning that diversification reduces only the diversifiable risks. These are the non-systematic risks. The non-diversifiable risk remains unchanged. Further, if the covariance of a portfolio is positive, then diversification cannot reduce the risk. This is based on the fact that positive covariance is associated with systematic risk (Elton & Brown 2007).

Central tendency portfolio

This portfolio is based on the measures of central tendency. The proportion that is used for each stock is 50%. The resulting portfolio mean is 0.79%, while the variance is 0.18%.

Central tendency portfolio

Capital allocation problem

There are several approaches that can be used to solve the capital allocation problem. The first approach is based on the Two-Fund Separation theorem. As mentioned above, the second step of this theorem focuses on the combination of risk free asset and the optimal risky portfolio (Elton & Brown 2007). Thus, the portfolio will be expanded to include an asset that has zero risk. The optimal capital allocation, portfolio is obtained by selecting the point of tangency of the capital asset line and the utility function. Therefore, it will be important to come up with the capital asset line and indifference curves. The capital asset line shows all the possible combinations of risk and rate of a return of a risk free and a risky asset. The slope of the capital asset line yields the Sharpe ratio. Therefore, when the two curves are plotted together, the resulting point of tangency gives the optimal level of capital allocation (Elton & Brown 2007).

The second approach of solving capital allocation problem is by using Treynor-Black model. This model seeks to determine the optimal combination of passively and actively managed securities in a portfolio. The model makes use of systematic and unsystematic risk in such a way that assets that have high levels of unsystematic are assigned less weight (Bodie, Kane & Markus 2012).

The first step when using the Treynor-Black model is to estimate the values of alpha and beta of the two stocks. This is carried out using regression analysis. Based on the capital asset pricing model, the values of the rate of return for each stock are regressed on excess return (difference between market rate of return and risk free rate of return). The results of regression are presented in appendix 3 below. The value of alpha for Proctor & Gamble Co. is 0.00848 while that of Royal Bank of Canada is 0.00803. These are estimated values of the Y – intercept.

The next step of the model will be to allocate weights to the stock in the active portfolio. These weights are considered to be directly proportional to the ratio of alpha and unsystematic risks. This ratio is called the Treynor-Black ratio. It gives information on the value that a stock adds to the portfolio on a risk adjusted basis. The allocation will be done in a way that an asset that has a higher level of alpha is assigned higher weight. In the example above, the stock of Proctor & Gamble Co. has a higher value of alpha than that of Royal Canada Bank. Therefore, it is allocated more weight. The results of Treynor-Black model are presented in appendix 3 below.

The results show that the weight for Proctor & Gamble is 75%, while that of Royal Bank of Canada is 25%. The next step is to calculate the weighted averages of the active portfolio. Thus, the beta, alpha and idiosyncratic risk of the active portfolio are -0.00634, 0.00837, and 0.00109. The next step is to estimate the weight of the active portfolio in the overall portfolio. The estimated value of this weight is118.85%. A correction is then carried out to adjust beta of the active portfolio. This ensures that the overall portfolio does not become too risky. It also ensures that there is no variation of portfolio beta of the overall portfolio. The corrected value of beta is 54.12%, while the weight of the passive portfolio is 45.88%. These are optimal weights for the active and passive portfolio (Bodie, Kane & Markus 2012). The calculations of this model are based on the assumption that the security markets are nearly efficient.

Efficient market hypothesis

The theory of efficient market hypothesis holds that all relevant information about the ‘true’ value of an asset that can be found in the market is reflected in its market price. This indicates that a room for arbitrage does not exist in the market (Bodie, Kane & Markus 2012). Thus, if there is information, then it is disseminated and reflected in the prices of stock at a faster rate. This eliminates the possibility of using such kind of information to make gains. An efficient market is associated with the concept of ‘random walk’. Based on the random walk and efficient market hypothesis the stock prices follow a random pattern and future changes in prices cannot be predicted using past data. Thus, future changes in price are independent of previous prices. This is based on the idea that if there is free flow of information, then the information is immediately reflected in the stock prices. Therefore, future changes in prices will only reflect future information and are independent of current changes in price (Bodie, Kane & Markus 2012).

Portfolio valuation and performance (later time frame)

In this section data for the two stocks is collected for the period between 03/3/2013 to 06/3/2014. A summary of the results is presented below.

PG RY Expected return
Data after 03/03/2013
Capital allocation weight 75% 25% 7.42%
Minimum portfolio variance weight 83.41% 16.59 6.94%
Maximum portfolio variance weight 100% 0% 6%
Data before 03/03/2013
Capital allocation weight 75% 25% 0.83%
Minimum portfolio variance weight 83.41% 16.59 0.84%
Maximum portfolio variance weight 100% 0% 0.87%

The information in the table above shows that the expected rate of return of the portfolio for data that is collected after 03/03/2013 is higher than the rate of return for data collected before 03/03/2013. This represents a strong evidence of the efficient market and random walk hypothesis which states that the information on the past trend does not have any relationship with future trends.

Conclusion and recommendations

The discussion above focuses on how to solve the asset and capital allocation problem. An investor is often faced with a challenge of deciding on how to allocate the scarce resources among various securities. Therefore, the discussion above demonstrates how the two problems can be solved. The solution to the asset allocation problem focuses on how an investor can allocate resources between two risky assets. The discussion above indicates that this can be solved by finding a combination of the two securities that yield maximum possible return at a minimum variance. Further, correlation coefficient has an impact on the variance of a portfolio. In the second part, Treynor-Black model is used to solve the capital allocation problem. Based on this model, the optimal allocation of resources is achieved by using systematic and unsystematic risks to allocate weights. The discussion above also shows that the data follow the efficient market hypothesis. Thus, past trends do not have an impact on future trend. As a recommendation, an investor should use various tools of analyzing a portfolio when coming up with the optimal allocation of resources among various securities.

Reference list

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2013, Economic research & data – historical data. Web.

Bodie, Z, Kane, A & Markus, A 2012, Investments, McGraw Hill Publishing Company, USA.

Elton, G & Brown, G 2007, Modern portfolio theory and investment analysis, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, USA.

Yahoo, Inc. 2009a, .

Yahoo, Inc. 2009b, .

Yahoo, Inc. 2009c, .

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Data

Adjusted closing prices Rate of return
Date PG RY S&P PG RY S&P 6-month treasury bill rate Rate of return
01-03-10 52.277 46.106 1169.4 0.22
01-04-10 51.755 48.202 1186.7 -1.00% 4.55% 1.48% 0.24 9.09%
03-05-10 50.864 41.918 1089.4 -1.72% -13.04% -8.20% 0.22 -8.33%
01-06-10 49.94 38.063 1030.7 -1.82% -9.20% -5.39% 0.19 -13.64%
01-07-10 51.321 42.04 1101.6 2.77% 10.45% 6.88% 0.2 5.26%
02-08-10 50.071 38.452 1049.3 -2.44% -8.53% -4.74% 0.19 -5.00%
01-09-10 50.323 41.927 1141.2 0.50% 9.04% 8.76% 0.19 0.00%
01-10-10 53.753 43.316 1183.3 6.82% 3.31% 3.69% 0.18 -5.26%
01-11-10 51.64 43.487 1180.6 -3.93% 0.39% -0.23% 0.18 0.00%
01-12-10 54.396 42.489 1257.6 5.34% -2.30% 6.53% 0.19 5.56%
03-01-11 53.777 43.983 1286.1 -1.14% 3.52% 2.26% 0.18 -5.26%
01-02-11 53.709 47.972 1327.2 -0.13% 9.07% 3.20% 0.17 -5.56%
01-03-11 52.474 50.757 1325.8 -2.30% 5.81% -0.10% 0.16 -5.88%
01-04-11 55.743 51.992 1363.6 6.23% 2.43% 2.85% 0.12 -25.00%
02-05-11 57.547 48.375 1345.2 3.24% -6.96% -1.35% 0.09 -25.00%
01-06-11 54.601 47.095 1320.6 -5.12% -2.65% -1.83% 0.1 11.11%
01-07-11 53.247 44.817 1292.3 -2.48% -4.84% -2.15% 0.08 -20.00%
01-08-11 55.144 42.623 1218.9 3.56% -4.89% -5.68% 0.06 -25.00%
01-09-11 54.711 38.135 1131.4 -0.79% -10.53% -7.18% 0.04 -33.33%
03-10-11 55.864 41.266 1253.3 2.11% 8.21% 10.77% 0.05 25.00%
01-11-11 56.37 38.795 1247 0.91% -5.99% -0.51% 0.05 0.00%
01-12-11 58.238 42.987 1257.6 3.31% 10.81% 0.85% 0.05 0.00%
03-01-12 55.474 44.615 1312.4 -4.75% 3.79% 4.36% 0.07 40.00%
01-02-12 59.504 47.895 1365.7 7.27% 7.35% 4.06% 0.12 71.43%
01-03-12 59.143 49.454 1408.5 -0.61% 3.26% 3.13% 0.14 16.67%
02-04-12 56.476 49.746 1397.9 -4.51% 0.59% -0.75% 0.14 0.00%
01-05-12 55.278 42.81 1310.3 -2.12% -13.94% -6.27% 0.15 7.14%
01-06-12 54.355 44.075 1362.2 -1.67% 2.95% 3.96% 0.15 0.00%
02-07-12 57.771 44.49 1379.3 6.29% 0.94% 1.26% 0.15 0.00%
01-08-12 60.143 48.737 1406.6 4.11% 9.54% 1.98% 0.14 -6.67%
04-09-12 62.086 49.955 1440.7 3.23% 2.50% 2.42% 0.14 0.00%
01-10-12 62.487 50.137 1412.2 0.65% 0.37% -1.98% 0.15 7.14%
01-11-12 63.02 51.764 1416.2 0.85% 3.24% 0.28% 0.14 -6.67%
03-12-12 61.269 53.012 1426.2 -2.78% 2.41% 0.71% 0.12 -14.29%
02-01-13 68.38 55.334 1498.1 11.61% 4.38% 5.04% 0.11 -8.33%
01-02-13 69.308 55.139 1514.7 1.36% -0.35% 1.11% 0.12 9.09%
01-03-13 69.59 55.121 1518.2 0.41% -0.03% 0.23% 0.11 -8.33%

Appendix 2

Portfolio statistics

Proctor & Gamble-Royal Bank of Canada Portfolio
PG RY
Average, E(rPG) and E(rRY) 0.87% 0.71%
Variance, Var(rPG) and Var(rRY) 0.14% 0.42%
Sigma, sPG and sRY 3.79% 6.50%
Covariance of returns, Cov(rPG, rRY) 0.07%
Portfolio return and risk
Percentage in PG 50%
Percentage in RY 50%
Expected portfolio return, E(rp) 0.79% <– =B9*B3+B10*C3
Portfolio variance, Var(rp) 0.18% <– =B9^2*B4+B10^2*C4+2*B9*B10*B6
Portfolio standard deviation, sp 4.23% <– =SQRT(B13)

Different combinations of assets

Percentage in PG Sigma Expected return
0% 6.50% 0.71%
10% 5.98% 0.73%
20% 5.48% 0.74%
30% 5.01% 0.76%
40% 4.59% 0.77%
50% 4.23% 0.79%
60% 3.94% 0.81%
70% 3.74% 0.82%
80% 3.65% 0.84%
90% 3.66% 0.85%
100% 3.79% 0.87%

Minimum and maximum variance portfolio

Percentage in PG Sigma Expected return
4.23% 0.79%
0% 6.50% 0.71%
10% 5.98% 0.73%
20% 5.48% 0.74%
30% 5.01% 0.76%
40% 4.59% 0.77%
50% 4.23% 0.79%
55% 4.07% 0.80%
67% 3.79% 0.82%
83.41% 3.64% 0.84%
95% 3.71% 0.86%
100% 3.79% 0.87%

Correlation coefficient = 0.5

PG RY
Average, E(rPG) and E(rRY) 0.87% 0.71%
Variance, Var(rPG) and Var(rRY) 0.0014 0.0042
Sigma, sPG and sRY 3.79% 6.50%
Correlation coefficient, rPG,RY) 0.50
Covariance, Cov(rPG,rRY) 0.00 <– =B6*B5*C5

Possible combinations

Percentage in PG Sigma Expected return
0.0 6.50% 0.71%
0.1 6.05% 0.73%
0.2 5.62% 0.74%
0.3 5.21% 0.76%
0.4 4.84% 0.77%
0.5 4.51% 0.79%
0.6 4.23% 0.81%
0.7 4.00% 0.82%
0.8 3.85% 0.84%
0.9 3.78% 0.85%
1.0 3.79% 0.87%

Correlation coefficient = 1

PG RY
Average, E(rPG) and E(rRY) 0.87% 0.71%
Variance, Var(rPG) and Var(rRY) 0.0014 0.0042
Sigma, sPG and sRY 3.79% 6.50%
Correlation coefficient, rPG,RY) 1.00
Covariance, Cov(rPG,rRY) 0.00 <– =B6*B5*C5

Possible combinations

Percentage in PG Sigma Expected return
0.00 6.50% 0.71%
0.10 6.23% 0.73%
0.20 5.96% 0.74%
0.30 5.69% 0.76%
0.40 5.42% 0.77%
0.50 5.15% 0.79%
0.60 4.88% 0.81%
0.70 4.61% 0.82%
0.80 4.33% 0.84%
0.90 4.06% 0.85%
1.00 3.79% 0.87%

Correlation coefficient = -1

PG RY
Average, E(rPG) and E(rRY) 0.87% 0.71%
Variance, Var(rPG) and Var(rRY) 0.0014 0.0042
Sigma, sPG and sRY 3.79% 6.50%
Correlation coefficient, rPG,RY) -1.00
Covariance, Cov(rPG,rRY) 0.00 <– =B6*B5*C5

Possible combinations

Percentage in PG Sigma Expected return
0.0 6.50% 0.71%
0.1 5.47% 0.73%
0.2 4.44% 0.74%
0.3 3.41% 0.76%
0.4 2.38% 0.77%
0.5 1.35% 0.79%
0.632 0.00% 0.81%
0.7 0.70% 0.82%
0.8 1.73% 0.84%
0.9 2.76% 0.85%
1.0 3.79% 0.87%

Appendix 3

Regression results

Proctor & Gamble

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.073302307
R Square 0.005373228
Adjusted R Square -0.0238805
Standard Error 0.038923678
Observations 36
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 0.00027828 0.00027828 0.183676694 0.670935506
Residual 34 0.051511792 0.001515053
Total 35 0.051790072
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%
Intercept 0.00848 0.006503625 1.30432303 0.200884411 -0.004734129
MKT-Rf 0.01634 0.038121982 0.42857519 0.670935506 -0.061135052
RESIDUAL OUTPUT
Observation Predicted Stock PG Residuals Standard deviation residuals
1 0.007238681 -0.01722131 0.038
2 0.008505007 -0.02571867
3 0.009830417 -0.0280003
4 0.008746628 0.018906767
5 0.008524504 -0.03288684
6 0.00991325 -0.00488550
7 0.009944888 0.058234188
8 0.00844541 -0.04777215
9 0.008642035 0.044739349
10 0.009712717 -0.02109151
11 0.009912613 -0.01117986
12 0.009426784 -0.03242435
13 0.013032924 0.049275961
14 0.012346782 0.02001069
15 0.006369187 -0.05756321
16 0.011399603 -0.03619528
17 0.011639501 0.023976049
18 0.012756416 -0.02060820
19 0.006158288 0.014919652
20 0.008400178 0.000663724
21 0.008622238 0.024520058
22 0.00265964 -0.05012662
23 -0.002524112 0.075176408
24 0.006271717 -0.01233506
25 0.008360334 -0.05346771
26 0.006292222 -0.02750526
27 0.009129083 -0.02582522
28 0.008688649 0.05416603
29 0.009894934 0.031164889
30 0.008878802 0.02341763
31 0.006992496 -0.00052499
32 0.009618547 -0.00109739
33 0.010932329 -0.03871407
34 0.010668241 0.105392493
35 0.007178254 0.006392801
36 0.009882307 -0.00581309

Royal Bank of Canada

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.194872561
R Square 0.037975315
Adjusted R Square 0.009680471
Standard Error 0.065607824
Observations 36
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 0.00577704 0.00577704 1.342128 0.254731727
Residual 34 0.146349143 0.004304387
Total 35 0.152126183
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%
Intercept 0.00803 0.010962189 0.732326835 0.468988 -0.014249943
MKT-Rf -0.07444 0.064256524 -1.158502681 0.254732 -0.205026325
RESIDUAL OUTPUT
Observation Predicted Stock RY Residuals Standard deviation residuals
1 0.013696604 0.031765412 0.065
2 0.007926851 -0.13829697
3 0.001887893 -0.09385063
4 0.006825955 0.09763956
5 0.007838019 -0.09316424
6 0.001510482 0.08884722
7 0.001366329 0.031775277
8 0.008198394 -0.00426430
9 0.007302512 -0.03025454
10 0.002424172 0.032743175
11 0.001513384 0.08917563
12 0.003726965 0.05432326
13 -0.012703669 0.037045762
14 -0.009577405 -0.05999058
15 0.017658277 -0.04411784
16 -0.005261781 -0.04311939
17 -0.006354827 -0.04259366
18 -0.011443821 -0.09383987
19 0.018619195 0.063475883
20 0.008404483 -0.06829810
21 0.007392714 0.100674126
22 0.034560065 0.003317667
23 0.058178767 0.01533666
24 0.018102378 0.014448218
25 0.008586025 -0.00268232
26 0.01800895 -0.15743115
27 0.005083378 0.024464389
28 0.007090124 0.002328713
29 0.001593936 0.093848974
30 0.006223733 0.018771812
31 0.014818295 -0.01116618
32 0.002853234 0.029585884
33 -0.003132743 0.027249568
34 -0.001929477 0.045727638
35 0.013971931 -0.01750157
36 0.001651468 -0.00197343

Results of Treynor-Black model

Results estimation factor models
estimated alpha beta σ(εi)^2
Stock PG 0.008 0.0163 0.001
Stock RY 0.008 -0.0744 0.004
Determine stocks weights active portfolio
wi
Stock PG 5.764 75.0%
Stock RY 1.920 25.0%
Determine alpha, beta, and idiosyncratic risk of the active portfolio
Weighted averages
Beta of the active portfolio -0.00634
Alpha of the active portfolio 0.00837
Idiosyncratic risk of the active portfolio 0.00109
Determine weight active portfolio
118.85% formula
Perform correction to adjust beta active portfolio
54.12% formula
Determine weight passive portfolio
45.88% formula
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!