Ever since it was first introduced in an article in the Journal of Finance 1952, Harry Markowitz’ mean - variance model for portfolio selection has become one of the best known models in finance. The model was one of the first in the world to deal with portfolio optimization mathematically and have directly or indirectly inspired the rest of the world to develop new portfolio optimization methods. Although the model is one of the greatest contributions to modern portfolio theory, critics claim that it may have practical difficulties. Partly because the Markowitz model is based on various assumptions which do not necessarily coincide with the reality. The assumptions which are based on the financial markets and investor behavior contain the simplification that there are no transaction costs associated with financial trading. However, in reality, all financial products are subject to transaction costs such as brokerage fees and taxes. To determine whether this simplification leads to inaccurate results or not, we derive an extension of the mean-variance optimization model which includes brokerage fees occurred under the construction of an investment portfolio. We then compare our extension of the Markowitz model, including transaction costs, with the standard model. The results indicate that brokerage fees have a negligible effect on the standard model if the investor's budget is relatively large. Hence the assumption that no brokerage fees occur when trading financial securities seems to be an acceptable simplification if the budget is relatively high. Finally, we suggest that brokerage fees are negligible if the creation of the portfolio and hence the transactions only occurs once. However if an investor is active and rebalances his portfolio often, the brokerage fees could be of great importance. / Harry Markowitz portföljoptimeringsmodell har sedan den publicerades år 1952 i en artikel i the journal of Finance, blivit en av de mest använda modellerna inom finansvärlden. Modellen var en av dem första i världen att hantera portföljoptimering matematiskt och har direkt eller indirekt inspirerat omvärlden att utveckla nya portföljoptimeringsmetoder. Men trots att Markowitz modell är ett av de största bidragen till dagens portföljoptimeringsteori har kritiker hävdat att den kan ha praktiska svårigheter. Detta delvis på grund av att modellen bygger på olika antaganden som inte nödvändigtvis stämmer överens med verkligheten. Antagandena, som är baserad på den finansiella marknaden och individers investeringsbeteende, leder till förenklingen att transaktionskostnader inte förekommer i samband med finansiell handel. Men i verkligheten förekommer transaktions-kostnader som courtageavgifter och skatter nästintill alltid vid handel av finansiella produkter som t.ex. värdepapper. För att avgöra om modellen påvisar felaktiga resultat på grund av bortfallet av courtageavgifter härleds en utvidgning av Markowitz modell som inkluderar courtageavgifter. Utvidgningen av Markowitz modell jämförs sedan med originalmodellen. Resultaten tyder på att courtageavgifter har en försumbar effekt på originalmodellen om investeraren har en stor investeringsbudget. Slutsatsen är därför att, förenklingen att inga courtageavgifter förekommer är en acceptabel förenkling om investeringsbudgeten är stor. Det föreslås slutligen att courtageavgiften är försumbar om transaktionen av aktier endast sker en gång. Men om en investerare är aktiv och ombalanserar sin portfölj flitigt, kan courtageavgifterna vara av stor betydelse.

The most popular and fundamental portfolio optimization problem is Markowitz&#039 / s one period mean-variance portfolio selection problem. However, it is criticized because of its one period static nature. Further, the estimation of the stock price expected return is a particularly hard problem. For this purpose, there are a lot of studies solving the mean-variance portfolio optimization problem in continuous time. To solve the estimation problem of the stock price expected return, in 1992, Black and Litterman proposed the Bayesian asset allocation method in discrete time. Later on, Lindberg has introduced a new way of parameterizing the price dynamics in the standard Black-Scholes and solved the continuous time mean-variance portfolio optimization problem. In this thesis, firstly we take up the Lindberg&#039 / s approach, we generalize the results to a jump-diffusion market setting and we correct the proof of the main result. Further, we demonstrate the implications of the Lindberg parameterization for the stock price drift vector in different market settings, we analyze the dependence of the optimal portfolio from jump and diffusion risk, and we indicate how to use the method. Secondly, we present the Lagrangian function approach of Korn and Trautmann and we derive some new results for this approach, in particular explicit representations for the optimal portfolio process. In addition, we present the L2-projection approach of Schweizer for the continuous time mean-variance portfolio optimization problem and derive the optimal portfolio and the optimal wealth processes for this approach. While, deriving these results as the underlying model, the market parameterization of Lindberg is chosen. Lastly, we compare these three different optimization frameworks in detail and their attractive and not so attractive features are highlighted by numerical examples.

Within the scope of this thesis, the Black-Litterman Asset Allocation Model (as presented in He & Litterman, 1999) is compared to the classical mean-variance framework by simulating past performance of portfolios constructed by both models using identical input data. A quantitative investment strategy which favours stocks with high dividend yield rates is used to generate private views about the expected excess returns for a fraction of the stocks included in the sample. By comparing the ex-post risk-return characteristics of the portfolios and performing ample sensitivity analysis with respect to the numerical values assigned to the input variables, we evaluate the two models’ suitability for different categories of portfolio managers. As a neutral benchmark towards which both portfolios can be measured, a third market-capitalization-weighted portfolio is constructed from the same investment universe. The empirical data used for the purpose of our simulations consists of total return indices for 23 of the 30 stocks included in the OMXS30 index as of the 21st of February 2014 and stretches between January of 2003 and December of 2013.   The results of our simulations show that the Black-Litterman portfolio has delivered risk-adjusted return which is superior not only to that of its market-capitalization-weighted counterpart but also to that of the classical mean-variance portfolio. This result holds true for four out of five simulated strengths of the investment strategy under the assumption of zero transaction costs, a rebalancing frequency of 20 trading days, an estimated risk aversion parameter of 2.5 and a five per cent uncertainty associated with the CAPM prior. Sensitivity analysis performed by examining how the results are affected by variations in these input variables has also shown notable differences in the sensitivity of the results obtained from the two models. While the performance of the Black-Litterman portfolio does undergo material changes as the inputs are varied, these changes are nowhere near as profound as those exhibited by the classical mean-variance portfolio.   In the light of our empirical results, we also conclude that there are mainly two aspects which the portfolio manager ought to consider before committing to one model rather than the other. Firstly, the nature behind the views generated by the investment strategy needs to be taken into account. For the implementation of views which are of an α-driven character, the dynamics of the Black-Litterman model may not be as appropriate as for views which are believed to also influence the expected return on other securities. Secondly, the soundness of using market-capitalization weights as a benchmark towards which the final solution will gravitate needs to be assessed. Managers who strive to achieve performance which is fundamentally uncorrelated to that of the market index may want to either reconsider the benchmark weights or opt for an alternative model.