IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/inteco/v179y2024ics2110701724000489.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The equally weighted portfolio still remains a challenging benchmark

Author

Listed:
  • Gelmini, Matteo
  • Uberti, Pierpaolo

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gelmini, Matteo & Uberti, Pierpaolo, 2024. "The equally weighted portfolio still remains a challenging benchmark," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:inteco:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s2110701724000489
    DOI: 10.1016/j.inteco.2024.100525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2110701724000489
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.inteco.2024.100525?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Replication study; Portfolio choice; Investment decisions; Naive diversification; Out-of-sample performance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G10 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:inteco:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s2110701724000489. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/21107017 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.