<![CDATA[MoneyScience: Quantitative Finance at arXiv's blog: Nash Bargaining Over Margin Loans to Kelly Gamblers. (arXiv:1904.06628v1 [econ.GN] CROSS LISTED)]]>
http://www.moneyscience.com/pg/blog/arXiv/read/853473/nash-bargaining-over-margin-loans-to-kelly-gamblers-arxiv190406628v1-econgn-cross-listed?view=rss
http://www.moneyscience.com/pg/blog/arXiv/read/853473/nash-bargaining-over-margin-loans-to-kelly-gamblers-arxiv190406628v1-econgn-cross-listedWed, 05 Jun 2019 23:02:19 -0500
http://www.moneyscience.com/pg/blog/arXiv/read/853473/nash-bargaining-over-margin-loans-to-kelly-gamblers-arxiv190406628v1-econgn-cross-listed
<![CDATA[Nash Bargaining Over Margin Loans to Kelly Gamblers. (arXiv:1904.06628v1 [econ.GN] CROSS LISTED)]]>I derive practical formulas for optimal arrangements between sophisticated
stock market investors (namely, continuous-time Kelly gamblers) and the brokers
who lend them cash for leveraged bets on a high Sharpe asset (i.e. the market
portfolio). Rather than, say, the broker posting a monopoly price for margin
loans, the gambler agrees to use a greater quantity of margin debt than he
otherwise would in exchange for an interest rate that is lower than the broker
would otherwise post. The gambler thereby attains a higher asymptotic capital
growth rate and the broker enjoys a greater rate of intermediation profit than
would obtain under non-cooperation. If the threat point represents a vicious
breakdown of negotiations (resulting in zero margin loans), then we get an
elegant rule of thumb: $r_L^*=(3/4)r+(1/4)(\nu-\sigma^2/2)$, where $r$ is the
broker's cost of funds, $\nu$ is the compound-annual growth rate of the market
index, and $\sigma$ is the annual volatility. We show that, regardless of the
particular threat point, the gambler will negotiate to size his bets as if he
himself could borrow at the broker's call rate.
]]>853473