IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jfutmk/v45y2025i1p3-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Versus Naive Diversification in Commodity Futures Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Max Heide
  • Benjamin R. Auer
  • Frank Schuhmacher

Abstract

Motivated by the ongoing debate on whether optimal or naive diversification should be preferred when distributing wealth across investment alternatives, this article investigates how the choice of covariance estimator affects mean‐variance portfolio selection. In an environment tailored to ideal tradability, we construct optimal commodity futures portfolios based on 12 promising covariance matrix estimators and compare their out‐of‐sample investment performance to a simple, equally weighted investment strategy by means of bootstrap testing. We find that neither the naive allocation approach nor the advanced covariance estimators can outperform the traditional sample covariance matrix. Because this empirical result is robust to modifications of the research design (including alternative investigation periods, data frequencies, estimation window sizes, holding period lengths, weight constraint specifications, and transaction cost levels), it opposes the recurrent suggestion of the equity‐oriented literature that the sample covariance matrix should not be used for the purpose of portfolio optimization.

Suggested Citation

  • Max Heide & Benjamin R. Auer & Frank Schuhmacher, 2025. "Optimal Versus Naive Diversification in Commodity Futures Markets," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(1), pages 3-22, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jfutmk:v:45:y:2025:i:1:p:3-22
    DOI: 10.1002/fut.22550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.22550
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/fut.22550?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:wly:jfutmk:v:45:y:2025:i:1:p:3-22. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0270-7314/ .

    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.