等权重投资组合仍然是一个具有挑战性的基准

{"title":"等权重投资组合仍然是一个具有挑战性的基准","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.inteco.2024.100525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This research replicates the paper “Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy?”, DeMiguel et al. (2009b). Similar to the referring paper, working in the mean–variance context, we compare the out-of-sample performance of the same investment strategies on the basis of standard metrics (Sharpe ratio, certainty equivalent and turnover). We consider proportional transaction costs and estimation rolling windows of limited length. Our study updates the original paper for many interesting aspects. First, to exclude that the empirical evidence of DeMiguel et al. (2009b), whose data stopped in 2004, could depend on very specific market behavior, we use an updated version of the original databases that contains the returns of the last 20 years. Recent data are characterized by a few severe systemic events, the 2008 global financial crisis and the shock related to the pandemic, and a generally higher level of price volatility than the previous periods. In our opinion, this variation in the market’s conditions makes the replication very interesting. Second, we introduce the Equally Risk Contribution (ERC) portfolio within the allocation strategies under comparison. This allocation rule is strictly related to the mean–variance approach when the variance is used as the referring risk measure and it constitutes a very interesting alternative investment benchmark. Moreover, using real data, we study whether a variation of the holding period or the length of the estimation window can modify the performance of all the strategies under comparison. Our findings confirm the results of DeMiguel et al. (2009b), i.e. that the equally weighted portfolio still remains a challenging benchmark to beat. Nevertheless, we find a few significant differences: the number of strategies that outperform naive diversification is larger due to the increased market volatility; limiting the impact of transaction costs by investing in a portfolio with a stable allocation as the ERC, or modifying the lengths of the estimation window and the holding period, is not sufficient to beat naive diversification systematically.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13794,"journal":{"name":"International Economics","volume":"179 ","pages":"Article 100525"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2110701724000489/pdfft?md5=a20cc53ea1cfe2dde7b02370da4f61fa&pid=1-s2.0-S2110701724000489-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The equally weighted portfolio still remains a challenging benchmark\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.inteco.2024.100525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This research replicates the paper “Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy?”, DeMiguel et al. (2009b). Similar to the referring paper, working in the mean–variance context, we compare the out-of-sample performance of the same investment strategies on the basis of standard metrics (Sharpe ratio, certainty equivalent and turnover). We consider proportional transaction costs and estimation rolling windows of limited length. Our study updates the original paper for many interesting aspects. First, to exclude that the empirical evidence of DeMiguel et al. (2009b), whose data stopped in 2004, could depend on very specific market behavior, we use an updated version of the original databases that contains the returns of the last 20 years. Recent data are characterized by a few severe systemic events, the 2008 global financial crisis and the shock related to the pandemic, and a generally higher level of price volatility than the previous periods. In our opinion, this variation in the market’s conditions makes the replication very interesting. Second, we introduce the Equally Risk Contribution (ERC) portfolio within the allocation strategies under comparison. This allocation rule is strictly related to the mean–variance approach when the variance is used as the referring risk measure and it constitutes a very interesting alternative investment benchmark. Moreover, using real data, we study whether a variation of the holding period or the length of the estimation window can modify the performance of all the strategies under comparison. Our findings confirm the results of DeMiguel et al. (2009b), i.e. that the equally weighted portfolio still remains a challenging benchmark to beat. Nevertheless, we find a few significant differences: the number of strategies that outperform naive diversification is larger due to the increased market volatility; limiting the impact of transaction costs by investing in a portfolio with a stable allocation as the ERC, or modifying the lengths of the estimation window and the holding period, is not sufficient to beat naive diversification systematically.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Economics\",\"volume\":\"179 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100525\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2110701724000489/pdfft?md5=a20cc53ea1cfe2dde7b02370da4f61fa&pid=1-s2.0-S2110701724000489-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2110701724000489\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2110701724000489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究重复了 DeMiguel 等人(2009b)的论文 "最佳分散投资与天真分散投资:DeMiguel 等人(2009b)的论文 "Optimal Vers Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy?"。与参考文献类似,我们在均值-方差的背景下,根据标准指标(夏普比率、确定性等价物和周转率)比较相同投资策略的样本外绩效。我们考虑了比例交易成本和有限长度的估计滚动窗口。我们的研究在许多有趣的方面更新了原论文。首先,DeMiguel 等人(2009b)的数据于 2004 年停止使用,为了排除其经验证据可能依赖于非常特殊的市场行为,我们使用了原始数据库的更新版本,其中包含了过去 20 年的收益。近期数据的特点是发生了几起严重的系统性事件,即 2008 年全球金融危机和与大流行病相关的冲击,而且价格波动水平普遍高于之前的时期。我们认为,市场条件的这种变化使得复制非常有趣。其次,我们在比较的配置策略中引入了同等风险贡献(ERC)投资组合。当使用方差作为参考风险度量时,这种分配规则与均值-方差方法严格相关,它是一种非常有趣的替代投资基准。此外,我们利用真实数据研究了持有期或估算窗口长度的变化是否会改变所有比较策略的表现。我们的研究结果证实了 DeMiguel 等人(2009b)的研究结果,即等权投资组合仍然是一个难以超越的基准。然而,我们发现了一些显著的不同:由于市场波动性增加,表现优于天真的分散投资策略的数量增加了;通过投资于具有稳定配置的投资组合(如 ERC)来限制交易成本的影响,或修改估计窗口和持有期的长度,并不足以系统性地战胜天真的分散投资策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The equally weighted portfolio still remains a challenging benchmark

This research replicates the paper “Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy?”, DeMiguel et al. (2009b). Similar to the referring paper, working in the mean–variance context, we compare the out-of-sample performance of the same investment strategies on the basis of standard metrics (Sharpe ratio, certainty equivalent and turnover). We consider proportional transaction costs and estimation rolling windows of limited length. Our study updates the original paper for many interesting aspects. First, to exclude that the empirical evidence of DeMiguel et al. (2009b), whose data stopped in 2004, could depend on very specific market behavior, we use an updated version of the original databases that contains the returns of the last 20 years. Recent data are characterized by a few severe systemic events, the 2008 global financial crisis and the shock related to the pandemic, and a generally higher level of price volatility than the previous periods. In our opinion, this variation in the market’s conditions makes the replication very interesting. Second, we introduce the Equally Risk Contribution (ERC) portfolio within the allocation strategies under comparison. This allocation rule is strictly related to the mean–variance approach when the variance is used as the referring risk measure and it constitutes a very interesting alternative investment benchmark. Moreover, using real data, we study whether a variation of the holding period or the length of the estimation window can modify the performance of all the strategies under comparison. Our findings confirm the results of DeMiguel et al. (2009b), i.e. that the equally weighted portfolio still remains a challenging benchmark to beat. Nevertheless, we find a few significant differences: the number of strategies that outperform naive diversification is larger due to the increased market volatility; limiting the impact of transaction costs by investing in a portfolio with a stable allocation as the ERC, or modifying the lengths of the estimation window and the holding period, is not sufficient to beat naive diversification systematically.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Economics
International Economics Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
审稿时长
71 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信