The surprising robustness of dynamic Mean-Variance portfolio optimization to model misspecification errors

In single-period portfolio optimization settings, Mean-Variance (MV) optimization can result in notoriously unstable asset allocations due to small changes in the underlying asset parameters. This has resulted in the widespread questioning of whether and how MV optimization should be implemented in practice, and has also resulted in a number of alternatives being proposed to the MV objective for asset allocation purposes. In contrast, in dynamic or multi-period MV portfolio optimization settings, preliminary numerical results show that MV investment outcomes can be remarkably robust to model misspecification errors, which arise when the investor derives an optimal investment strategy based on some chosen model for the underlying asset dynamics (the investor model), but implements this strategy in a market driven by potentially completely different dynamics (the true model). In this paper, we systematically investigate the causes of this surprising robustness of dynamic MV portfolio optimization to model misspecification errors under both the pre-commitment MV (PCMV) and time-consistent MV (TCMV) approaches. We identify particular combinations of parameters that play a key role in explaining the observed model misspecification errors. We investigate the impact of the chosen dynamic MV approach, underlying model formulation, portfolio rebalancing frequency and the application of multiple realistic investment constraints on the robustness of investment outcomes, as well as the implications for model calibration.