Journal of Banking & Finance


 John Heath
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Banking & Finance journal homepage: Characteristicbased meanvariance portfolio choice Erik Hjalmarsson a,, Petar Manchev b a School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E 4NS, UK b Risk Engineering Ltd., Vihren Str., Sofia 68, Bulgaria article info abstract Article history: Received 8 June 2 Accepted 4 December 2 Available online 3 December 2 JEL classification: C22 C23 G G5 Keywords: Meanvariance analysis Momentum strategies Portfolio choice Stock characteristics Value strategies We study empirical meanvariance optimization when the portfolio weights are restricted to be direct functions of underlying stock characteristics such as value and momentum. he closedform solution to the portfolio weights estimator shows that the portfolio problem in this case reduces to a meanvariance analysis of assets with returns given by singlecharacteristic strategies (e.g., momentum or value). In an empirical application to international stock return indexes, we show that the direct approach to estimating portfolio weights clearly beats a naive regressionbased approach that models the conditional mean. However, a portfolio based on equal weights of the singlecharacteristic strategies performs about as well, and sometimes better, than the direct estimation approach, highlighting again the difficulties in beating the equalweighted case in meanvariance analysis. he empirical results also highlight the potential for stockpicking in international indexes using characteristics such as value and momentum with the characteristicbased portfolios obtaining Sharpe ratios approximately three times larger than the world market. Ó 2 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.. Introduction he theoretical portfolio choice literature provides seemingly clear prescriptions for asset allocations, subject to preferences and return distributions. However, given the difficulties of estimating either conditional or unconditional moments of asset returns, the practical applicability of modern portfolio choice theory has typically been limited to simple and smalldimensional cases. Perhaps the strongest case in point is the difficulty of practically implementing the traditional meanvariance analysis of Markowitz (952), where it is very challenging to obtain useful estimates of the variancecovariance matrix for any sizeable number of assets. Although the focus in the meanvariance literature has typically been on the difficulties in estimating the covariance matrix, the vast empirical literature on the crosssection of stock returns also shows that conditional expected returns are likely to vary across stocks (e.g., Fama and French, 992, 996, 2 and Subrahmanyam, 2). Corresponding author. el.: +44 () ; fax: +44 () addresses: (E. Hjalmarsson), yahoo.com (P. Manchev). DeMiguel et al. (29a, 2, 2) are recent examples of attempts at obtaining better covariance matrix estimates. A related literature studies the performance of naive equalweighted portfolios relative to more sophisticated diversification approaches; see, for instance, DeMiguel et al. (29b), Plyakha et al. (2), u and Zhou (2), and Pflug et al. (22). Explicitly taking into account these crosssectional differences in expected returns adds extra complexity to the problem. In order to avoid the difficulties in estimating the conditional moments of the return distribution, some recent studies have suggested methods for directly estimating the portfolio weights, which are the ultimate object of interest (e.g., Brandt, 999; AïtSahalia and Brandt, 2; Brandt and SantaClara, 26; and Brandt et al., 29). Brandt et al. (BSCV, hereafter), in particular, study largescale portfolio choice problems where asset returns are functions of individual stock characteristics such as value, momentum, and size. Assuming that the portfolio weights are (linear) functions of the portfolio characteristics, they show how the weights can be estimated for arbitrary utility functions. his leads to a tightly parameterized problem, where the parameter space only increases with the number of stock characteristics, rather than the number of assets. 2 his paper builds upon the idea of directly modeling portfolio weights. We first show how the weights in a meanvariance optimization problem can be directly estimated as functions of the underlying stock characteristics, such as value and momentum. he meanvariance formulation offers a closedform solution to the portfolio weights estimator and thus permits a deeper 2 Plazzi et al. (2) provide an application of the BSCV techniques to investments in commerical real estate /$  see front matter Ó 2 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:.6/j.jbankfin.2.2.2
2 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) understanding of the mechanics of the portfolio weights estimator. his is in contrast to BSCV, who work with general utility functions, rather than a meanvariance setup, and express their weight estimators as extremum estimators without closedform solutions, which makes it harder to fully comprehend the properties of these estimators. he closedform solution shows how the direct parameterization of the weights reduces the original meanvariance problem with n assets to a much smaller kdimensional meanvariance problem, where k is the number of stock characteristics. Specifically, the direct estimator of the portfolio weights, expressed in terms of the stock characteristics, turns out to be the sampleefficient solution to a different, and much smaller, meanvariance problem where the new set of assets is made up of portfolios of the original assets with weights that are proportional to the (standardized) values of a given single stock characteristic (e.g., momentum). his is an interesting finding since the original motivation for parameterizing and directly estimating portfolio weights is to avoid the poor (outofsample) properties of sampleefficient solutions. However, by drastically reducing the dimension of the problem, the primary drawbacks of the sampleefficient meanvariance solution are avoided. By specifying a simple conditional CAPM framework for the returns process, we also compare the directly parameterized portfolio weights estimator to a naive weight estimator based solely on the conditional expected returns, and show that the former reduces to the latter if one imposes the assumption that the covariance matrix of the idiosyncratic innovations to returns is diagonal and homoskedastic. We consider an empirical application to international stock index returns. In particular, we analyze the monthly returns on MSCI indexes for 8 developed markets, and use three different characteristics: the booktomarket value, the dividendprice ratio, and momentum. We focus on international index returns since the crosssection of these has been studied relatively less than for individual stock returns. In addition, it is interesting to see how powerful these methods of crosssectional stock picking are when applied to a fairly small number of indexes rather than a vast number of individual stocks, where the scope for crosssectional variation in the stock characteristics is obviously much greater. he empirical analysis shows that the approach of directly parameterizing the portfolio weights as functions of the stock characteristics delivers clearly superior results compared to the simple baseline strategy, which only uses a prediction of the conditional mean in the portfolio choice. he portfolio with directly estimated weights also performs extremely well in absolute terms, delivering Sharpe ratios around one, which is almost three times greater than that of the market portfolio, and with a world CAPM beta that is indistinguishable from zero. hese results hold in outofsample exercises, and the insample and outofsample results are, in fact, very close. here is thus ample scope for characteristicbased stockpicking in international return indexes, even though the crosssection is only made up of 8 assets. Since the direct parameterization of the weights reduces the portfolio problem to a meanvariance analysis of singlecharacteristic strategies (e.g., pure value and momentum portfolios), the equalweighted portfolio of these singlecharacteristic strategies provides another natural comparison to the directlyestimated portfolio. Our empirical analysis shows that the results for the portfolio with directlyestimated weights are very close to those of this equalweighted portfolio. his finding appears to partly reflect the fact that the optimal weights on these singlecharacteristic portfolios are sometimes close to the equalweighted case, but also partly the fact that it is difficult, even in smalldimensional settings, to beat the equalweighted portfolio. his result also relates to recent work by Asness et al. (29), who show the benefits of combining momentum and value strategies in a simple equalweighted manner; as seen in the current paper, the optimal combination is, in fact, very close to the equalweighted one. he rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the basic CAPM framework in which the portfolio choice estimators are analyzed, and derives the direct estimator of the portfolio weights. Section 3 presents the empirical results, and Section 4 concludes. 2. Modeling framework In this section, we specify the returns process and detail the specification and estimation of the investor s portfolio choice problem. he direct estimation of portfolio weights, based on stock characteristics, avoids the need to explicitly model the returns process. However, an explicit returns specification allows for the derivation of the theoretically optimal portfolio weights, and hence a better understanding of the functioning and (dis) advantages of the empirical portfolio weight estimators. In addition, the returns equation will form the basis for a naive plugin regressionbased approach to portfolio choice, which will serve as a useful comparison to the directly estimated strategies. he returns specification is kept deliberately simple in order to facilitate the subsequent analytics; the purpose of the paper is not to validate this model, but rather, use it as a basic framework for understanding and motivating our estimation procedures. 2.. he returns generating process It is assumed that the returns satisfy a conditional CAPM model, which, given the subsequent empirical application, will be interpreted as an international world CAPM. Let r i,t+, i =,...,n, t =,...,, be the excess returns on asset, or country index, i, from period t to t +, and let x i,t be the corresponding k vector of predictor variables, such as value and momentum. he (world) market excess returns are denoted r m tþ and the individual excess returns r i,t+ are assumed to satisfy, r i;tþ ¼ b i r m tþ þ h x i;t þ u i;tþ : hat is, the returns on asset i are a function of both the contemporaneous market factor and the lagged predictor variable x i,t. hus, b i represents the CAPM beta for asset i, after controlling for the idiosyncratic predictability in the returns. he innovations u i,t are assumed to be iid and normally distributed with mean zero and variancecovariance matrix R. hroughout the study, we will focus on the case where x i,t is mean zero in the crosssection, and thus represents deviations from a crosssectional mean. his returns specification captures the stylized facts that the marketbased CAPM model will explain a significant proportion of the crosssection of expected stockreturns, and that conditioning variables such as value and momentum have crosssectional predictive power for future returns. For the data used in the current paper, countrybycountry estimates of the unconditional version of the CAPM (see able ), with x i,t excluded but with intercepts included, show that the individual intercepts in these regressions tend not to be statistically significantly different from zero, and that the R 2 of the regressions typically range from 3 to 5 percent, providing some validation of the CAPM model. A common slope coefficient h, across all i, for the predictive part of the model is imposed. Although this may be hard to defend from a theoretical view point, from a modeling parsimony aspect it is quite natural and frequently done (see Hjalmarsson, 2, for an ðþ
3 394 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) extensive discussion on this pooling assumption). Eq. () is estimated by pooling the data across i and using least squares. 3 In the subsequent analysis, it will be useful to write the returns model in matrix form, as follows, r tþ ¼ br m tþ þ x th þ u tþ ; where r t+ is the n vector of country returns at time t, b is the n vector of CAPM betas, and x t is the n k matrix of asset characteristics. he expected returns, conditional on x t, at time t are thus l t ¼ be t r m tþ þ xt h: ð3þ 2.2. Portfolio choice he investor s problem and the benchmark portfolio weights We consider a meanvariance investor who pursues zerocost strategies. he zerocost restriction is imposed because it is natural to think of the return characteristics as deviations from a crosssectional average, where an above (below) average ranking indicates an above (below) average expected return. In addition, it will also be assumed that the portfolios are market neutral in the sense that x b =, where x is the n vector of portfolio weights. his restriction is imposed in order to eliminate the effects of the expected market returns, E t r m tþ, in the portfolio choice, and thus avoid explicitly modeling this conditional mean. Since the CAPM betas are all fairly similar, as seen in the application below, we will not attempt to actually enforce this constraint in the empirical portfolios, but take it as given. hat is, it is assumed that the zerocost constraint x =, where is an n vector of ones, implies that the marketneutral constraint x b = is satisfied. his would obviously hold if b i b for all i, but will also be approximately satisfied in most situations where the b i s do not exhibit too much crosssectional variation. 4 hus, the meanvariance investor maximizes expected utility according to max x x t tl t c 2 x Rx t t; s:t: x t ¼ ; ð4þ where c can be interpreted as the coefficient of relative risk aversion and x t =(x,t,...,x n,t ) are the portfolio weights. he solution to the investor s problem, assuming that b i b, follows from straightforward calculations and is given by 3 As shown in Hjalmarsson (2), in case the true slope coefficients vary across i, the pooled estimate of a common slope coefficient will in general converge to a welldefined average parameter value. hus, the econometric estimation of a model with a common slope coefficient is generally welldefined, also when the slope homogeneity assumption does not hold. In practice, the use of a common slope coefficient therefore becomes a biasvariance tradeoff: pooling the data and estimating a common slope coefficient should reduce the overall variance in the estimator, but, to the extent that the true individual slope coefficients differ across i, the bias for each individual slope coefficient may increase. In terms of mean squared forecasting error, the results in Hjalmarsson (2) suggest that the variance reduction often outweighs any increases in individual biases. Of course, if one is interested in the relationship for a specific i, the common pooled estimate could potentially be very misleading. However, for the current purposes, where the slope coefficient is merely used as a tool for portfolio choice, the average accuracy of the estimates is obviously of central importance. 4 he general case where the b i s differ across i, and the constraint x b = is explicitly imposed, can easily be solved for and implemented using estimates of the b i s obtained from estimating Eq. (). However, empirical results not presented in the paper clearly show that the subsequent portfolio weights often tend to differ substantially from the ones that do not impose the zerobeta constraint, even though the unconstrained solution typically has a beta that is very close to zero empirically. his follows because in order to exactly satisfy the zerobeta constraint insample, the weights might have to shift substantially. Since correlations and betas move over time, and there is thus no guarantee that the outofsample portfolio will have a beta closer to zero if the constraint is imposed, there seems little point in pursuing this constraint. ð2þ x t ¼ c R x t R x t h: ð5þ R In the special case that R = r 2 I, and provided that x t is crosssectionally demeaned (i.e., x t = ), the weights simplify to x t ¼ c r 2 x t h: Eq. (6) thus provides the solution to the investor s problem when only the mean aspects of the returns are taken into account and the covariance structure is completely ignored. Estimating Eq. () gives an estimate of h and the pooled sample standard deviation of the residuals from Eq. () provides an estimate of r. Given the difficulties of estimating large scale covariance matrices, we restrict our empirical attention to this special case with R = r 2 I, and the weights ^x t ¼ c ^r 2 x t^h will serve as the benchmark strategy against which the direct estimation approach, described below, is compared Direct estimation of the portfolio weights As shown above, in the special case with R = r 2 I, and assuming that x t is crosssectionally demeaned, the portfolio weights, up to a multiplicative constant, are given by x t h. In the spirit of BSCV, we can therefore consider a procedure that directly estimates the weights, or rather estimates h, from a portfolio choice perspective rather than a pure return predictability perspective. In general, one would not expect this estimator to converge to the true value of h in Eq. (), since the objective function is based on portfolio optimization rather than fitting the data generating process. o avoid any potential confusion, the parameter in the objective function below is therefore labeled h p and the corresponding estimator ~ h p. hus, consider the following sample analogue of the investor s problem: X max x x t t r tþ c 2 ðx t r tþþ 2 ; ð7þ Substitute in the weights x t = x t h p, and we get the following estimation problem, X max h p h p ~ r tþ c 2 ðh ~ p r tþ Þ 2 ; ð8þ where ~r tþ x t r tþ. he first order conditions are given by X ð~r tþ cðh ~ p r tþ Þ~r tþ Þ¼; and the estimator of h p is given by,! ~h p ¼ X ~r c tþ ~r X tþ ~r tþ!: ðþ Several features of ~ h p are worth pointing out. First, ~ h p is proportional to the OLS regression coefficient in a regression of ones on ~r t and the variancecovariance matrix of ~ h p is therefore given by the standard formula for OLS regressions (see also BrittenJones, 999). 5,6 Second, note that within the framework of the current simple conditional CAPM, the optimal weights are generally proportional to R ðx t R xt Þh, rather than x R th. hus, by restricting the weights to be proportional to x t h p, the optimal weights will in general not lie in the range of the weights obtained via ~ h p. hat is, even though the above procedure for choosing the weights should dominate the 5 Alternatively, by noting that ~ h p is an extremum estimator, the asymptotic covariance matrix could be derived in the ususal fashion (e.g., Newey and McFadden, 994). 6 Note that the relative size of the components in ~ h p is not affected by whether the demeaned or nondemeaned squared returns are used as penalty in Eq. (7), as discussed in BrittenJones (999). ð6þ ð9þ
4 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) naive regressionbased approach, it will in general not be able to recover the theoretically optimal weights. Further, and most interestingly, from the above derivations and the results in BrittenJones (999) it follows that the estimator ~ h p is proportional to the sample meanvariance efficient portfolio weights for the k assets with return vector ~r tþ. his makes good intuitive sense. he estimated weights are equal to ~x t ¼ x t ~ hp ¼ ~h p; x t; þ...þ ~ h p;k x t;k, with weight i given by ~x t;i ¼ ~ h p; x i;t; þ... þ ~ h p;k x i;t;k. he return on this portfolio is ~x t r tþ ¼ ~ h p; x t; r tþ þ...þ ~h p;k x t;k r tþ ¼ ~ h p; ~r tþ; þ...þ ~ h p;k ~r tþ;k, and the components of ~ h p thus provide the portfolio weights on the assets in the vector ~r t. hus, by forcing the estimated weights to be of the form x t h p, and directly solving for the optimal value of h p, the general meanvariance problem described by Eq. (4) is reduced to the problem of finding the sample efficient solution for the assets with returns ~r tþ ¼ð~r tþ; ;...; ~r tþ;k Þ, where asset j =,...,k represents a portfolio of the underlying assets with weights given by the characteristic x j,t. It is also interesting to compare ~ h p to the regressionbased estimate ^h. Assuming that b i = b for all i, the pooled OLS estimate of h in Eq. () is given by ^h ¼ ¼ where X X!! x t M r m x X t x tþ t M r m r tþ ðþ tþ!! x t x X t x t r tþ ; ð2þ x t M r m ¼ x tþ t I n r m tþ r m tþ r m tþ r m tþ ¼ x t ; ð3þ provided that x t is crosssectionally demeaned. hat is, if one imposes a common beta, and x t is crosssectionally demeaned, the effects of the market factor disappear. Write the estimator ~ h p as, ~h p ¼ X x t r tþr tþ x t!! X x t tþ ; ð4þ and it is easy to see that ^h, up to a constant of scale, is a special case of ~ h p where one has imposed the assumption that the returns r t+ are homoskedastic with a diagonal covariance matrix and independent of x t. he regressionbased estimate ^h therefore only takes into account the covariance structure in x t, but ignores the one in r t+. 7 hese derivations shed some additional light on the work by BSCV, by explicitly deriving the closed form solutions for the directly estimated weights. BSCV, who work with general utility functions rather than a meanvariance setup, express their weight estimators as extremum estimators without closedform solutions, which makes it harder to fully comprehend the properties of these estimators. In particular, the formulas above, which obviously are restricted to the meanvariance case, highlight the fact that by adopting the approach of parameterizing the weights as (linear) functions of the stock characteristics, the portfolio problem is reduced to a meanvariance analysis of assets with returns given 7 Note that the numerators in both ^h and ~ h p are identical and given by the sample mean of the returns ~r tþ ¼ x t r tþ. he directestimation approach thus allows for a more general covariance structure but uses the same mean estimate as the regressionbased approach. Although it is well known that mean estimates of returns suffer from great sampling uncertainty, differences in performance between the benchmark strategy and the directestimation strategy should primarily reflect the differing use of the covariance information and not sampling errors in the mean estimates, since the use of the mean information does not differ. by the singlecharacteristic strategies. his result also highlights the possibility for further improving upon the approach by using techniques developed for making meanvariance analysis both more robust or more flexible, such as estimating the covariance matrix (i.e., the denominator in ~ h p ) using a shrinkage estimator, or allowing for timevariation in the covariance matrix by fitting, for instance, a multivariate GARCH model. With the availability of highfrequency data, and the low dimension of the problem, one might also consider using realized covariance matrices that allow for more timely estimates of the variancecovariance structure of the relevant returns. In the current study, we do not pursue these extensions, however, but find that also in the basic setup the procedure tends to work very well. 3. Empirical results for international portfolio choice 3.. Data and preliminary results 3... Data description he data are obtained from the MSCI database and consist of total returns for stock market indexes in 8 developed markets. In addition, the MSCI world index is used as a proxy for the world market return. 8 he data are on a monthly frequency and span the period December 974 through December 28, for a total of 49 monthly observations. All returns are expressed in U.S. dollars as excess returns over the month U.S. bill rate. In order to form the initial parameter estimates, the earliest starting date for measuring portfolio performance is January 98, and portfolio results for the periods and are provided, where the latter period is used to evaluate the more recent performance of the strategies over the last ten years. hroughout the empirical analysis, all portfolio weights are updated on a monthly frequency, simulating monthly portfolio rebalancing, and all portfolio returns are calculated on a monthly basis. hree separate characteristics are considered: the booktomarket value (BM), the dividendprice ratio (DP), and the cumulative returns over the past t 2 to t months (MOM). he first two variables obviously represent measures of value and the last one is a measure of momentum in returns. For individual stocks, momentum is often captured by the cumulative returns over the past t 2 to t 2 months, excluding the most recent month s return, since shortterm return reversals in individual stocks are recorded at the monthly level (e.g., Lo and MacKinlay, 99; Jegadeesh, 99 and Jegadeesh and itman, 995). Since there are no such return reversals evident in index returns (e.g., Patro and Wu, 24), we use the above definition of momentum. he list of countries is shown in able, along with countrybycountry OLS estimates from an unconditional world CAPM model, where the individual country (excess) returns are regressed on the world market index. As is seen, the CAPM betas are all fairly similar and none of the intercepts are statistically significantly different from zero at the five percent level. he basic assumptions underlying the model of the paper thus seem to be reasonably satisfied. It should be stressed again, however, that Eq. () merely serves as a simple framework for the analysis of characteristicbased portfolio policies; the aim of the paper is not to examine whether Eq. () is, in fact, an adequate representation of international stock returns. For each crosssection, i.e., each timeperiod t, the characteristics are demeaned and rankstandardized. In particular, at each time t, the crosssection of each stock characteristic takes on 8 he MSCI world index is a market capitalization weighted index intended to capture the equity market performance of developed markets, which makes it a suitable benchmark for the analysis here. As of June 27, the MSCI world index consisted of the 8 country indexes in able, plus Finland, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand, and Portugal.
5 Std.dev.of DP (%) Std.dev.of BM Std.dev.of MOM(%) 396 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) able Estimates of the unconditional CAPM for individual countries. his table reports countrybycountry estimates from regressing monthly individual country excess returns on the world market excess returns and a constant. he first two columns report the estimate and tstatistic for the intercept, respectively, and the following two columns report the estimated CAPM beta and corresponding tstatistic. he final column shows the R 2 of the regression. he sample spans the period from December 974 to December 28, for a total of 49 monthly observations. Country a i t ai b i t bi R 2 i Australia Austria Belgium Canada Denmark France Germany Hong Kong Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland U.K U.S.A equidistant values between and, where, for instance, the standardized characteristic for the stock with the lowest booktomarket value is assigned and the stock with highest value +. he crosssection demeaning is performed since we are interested in ranking stocks in the crosssection, rather than in the timeseries, and the zerocost strategies naturally leads to this demeaning in any case. he rankstandardization is performed to avoid outliers leading to large positions in single assets; Asness et al. (29) pursue a similar approach. he matrix of characteristics, x t =[x t, x t,k ], is thus made up of the vectors of these crosssectional ranks for the different characteristics. Fig. shows the crosssectional means and standard deviations, calculated monthbymonth, of the nonstandardized characteristics. here is a fair degree of variation across time, both in the means and the standard deviations, suggesting that standardizing each crosssection is appropriate in order to achieve wellbehaved portfolio strategies Singlecharacteristic portfolios As pointed out previously in the paper, the portfolio strategies analyzed here can be thought of as weighted combinations of simple strategies that use portfolio weights identical to the values of a given single standardized characteristic (e.g., x t,j ). hat is, these simple strategies represent, for instance, the pure value strategy using the standardized values of the booktomarket variable as portfolio weights in each period. Although the primary interest of the current study is on the optimal combination of such simple portfolios, it is nevertheless interesting to first study the return characteristics of these underlying building blocks for the composite strategies. Since there are no parameters to estimate in order to implement these strategies, the results are comparable to the outofsample results for the combined strategies below. In order to set the scale for these zerocost strategies, it is simply assumed that one dollar is allocated to the short part of the portfolio and one dollar to the long part; the rankstandardization leads to a permutation of the same values for the characteristics in each crosssection, so this merely sets the scale of the portfolio and does not lead to any timing of the portfolio. he portfolios are rebalanced on a monthly frequency. able 2 shows annualized statistics for the monthly excess returns on the singlecharacteristic strategies for the full examination period 9828, as well as for the more recent subsample. Statistics for the world market portfolio and the 8 Average MOM(%) Jan8 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec8 Jan8 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec8.5.8 Average BM.5 Jan8 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec Jan8 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec8 Avearge DP(%) Jan8 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec8 Jan8 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec8 Fig.. Summary statistics of characteristics. he figure shows the crosssectional means and crosssectional standard deviations of the (nonstandardized) characteristics. Results for momentum (MOM) are shown in the top panels, results for the booktomarket ratio (BM) are shown in the middle panels, and results for the dividendprice ratio (DP) are shown in the bottom panels. he left hand panels show the crosssectional means and the right hand panels show the crosssectional standard deviations.
6 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) able 2 Annualized performance statistics for the singlecharacteristic portfolios. he table reports annualized summary statistics for the monthly excess returns on the pure momentum (MOM), booktomarket (BM), and dividendprice ratio (DP) portfolios, as well as for the equalweighted (/n) portfolio of the 8 country indexes and the MSCI world index (Market) portfolio. he scale of the characteristicbased portfolios is set such that one dollar is allocated to the short part of the portfolio and one dollar to the long part of the portfolio in each period. Panel A reports the results for the full sample and Panel B reports the results for the subsample. he statistics in Panel A and Panel B are thus based on 348 and 2 monthly observations of portfolio returns, respectively. he first five rows report the annualized mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and Sharpe ratio for the excess returns on each portfolio. he following four rows report the annualized world CAPM alpha and beta, with tstatistics in parentheses below the point estimates. he final rows in the table show the correlation between the excess returns on the portfolios. Panel A. Jan 98  Dec 28 Panel B. Jan Dec 28 MOM BM DP /n Market MOM BM DP /n Market Mean Std. dev Skewness Kurtosis Sharpe ratio a (3.3) (.86) (.957) (.598) (.65) (.843) (.779) (2.66) b (.88) (.547) (.59) (4.574) ( 2.956) (.925) (2.79) (35.377) Correlation matrix Correlation matrix MOM BM DP /n Market.. equalweighted (labelled /n) portfolio of the 8 country indexes which simply puts a weight of /n on each country index are shown as well. Starting with the results for the sample, the longshort portfolios based on momentum, booktomarket value, and the dividendprice ratio, respectively, all deliver returns that are virtually uncorrelated with the world market (the world CAPM beta is never significant) and with positive CAPM alphas that are all statistically significant at the percent level. he Sharpe ratios for the booktomarket and the dividendprice ratio strategies are both around.3, whereas the portfolio strategy based on momentum delivers a Sharpe ratio of.6. he Sharpe ratios for the world market portfolio and the /n portfolio over this period were equal to.35 and.44, respectively. he bottom rows of Panel A also show the correlation between the returns on the various strategies. As might be expected, momentum is fairly strongly negatively correlated with the two value measures, which are positively correlated with each other. he more recent subsample from spans a very difficult time period for stock investments, during which the world market portfolio delivered an average negative excess return of about two percent. he /n portfolio performed somewhat better than the world market portfolio during this period, yielding an average return of about two percent and a Sharpe ratio of about.. he momentum and dividendprice ratio strategies both resulted in Sharpe ratios of around.2, and only the booktomarket strategy delivered a somewhat sizeable Sharpe ratio of Empirical results Empirical implementation We analyze the empirical performance of the zerocost characteristicbased strategies outlined previously in the paper. hat is, if x t =[x t, x t,k ] denote the n k matrix of standardized stock characteristics at time t, the portfolio weights x t are proportional to x t h, for some h. In particular, we consider three different estimates of the parameter h: (i) the regressionbased estimate, denoted ^h, which is obtained from the estimation of Eq. () and effectively ignores the covariance structure of the returns and focuses only on the conditional mean; (ii) the estimate of h resulting from the direct estimation of the weights in Eq. (), denoted ~ h p, which solves the sample analogue of the investor s problem subject to the restriction of a portfolio policy linear in the characteristics; and (iii) a scheme that sets all components in h equal, which can be seen as a portfolio strategy that takes equal positions in each of the singlecharacteristic portfolios. he equalweighted scheme thus provides a benchmark for the two data driven approaches and can be seen as an analogue to the usual equalweighted portfolio that is typically used to evaluate the success of ordinary meanvariance analysis (e.g., DeMiguel et al., 29b) and which is shown here as the /n portfolio in able 2. For the regressionbased ^h, the final weights are given by x t ¼ c ^r 2 x t^h, where ^r is the pooled sample standard deviation of the residuals from the regression Eq. (), and c is formally the coefficient of relative risk aversion. For the directlyestimated ~h p ; c is already part of the estimator and the weights are simply given by x t ¼ x t ~ hp. In order to fix the scale in the equalweighted portfolio, we set each of the individual components of h equal to the average of the components of ~ h p in the fullsample estimate. Since this merely sets the scale of the weights, using the fullsample estimate does not lead to any lookahead bias in the portfolio evaluation, but provides results that are easy to compare. Changing c scales up or down the mean and volatility of the returns on the portfolio. For the purposes here, choosing c is therefore primarily a matter of choosing a convenient scale in which to express the results. We set c = 5, which is in line with many previous studies. Given that the portfolio weights can be scaled up or down arbitrarily (as long as the scaling constant is identical in all periods), it is the relative size of the components in h that is of primary interest. In the result table, we therefore report estimates of h that have been standardized such that the components in h add up to unity. Each component of h can therefore be interpreted as the relative weight given to the corresponding stock characteristic. Note, however, that the actual weights given to the singlecharacteristic portfolios typically add up to more than one for c = 5 and the combined portfolio can therefore have an average return greater than any of the singlecharacteristic portfolios. hat is, the multicharacteristic longshort portfolio will typically allocate more than one dollar on the long and short sides, allowing for average returns that are greater than those of any of the singlecharacteristic portfolios
7 398 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) shown in able 2, where exactly one dollar is invested in the long and short parts of the portfolios. We present both insample and outofsample results for the portfolio strategies. hat is, the estimates of h used to calculate the portfolio weights are either obtained using the full sample or are recursively updated using only information available at the time of the portfolio formation. o be precise, for a given estimation approach (e.g., regressionbased), the insample method first finds the fullsample estimate of h and, for each point in time during the evaluation period, this estimate is used to form portfolio weights. he portfolio weights at all times are thus formed using the same full sample estimate of h. he outofsample results are created as follows. Suppose the first return in the evaluation period is between time s and s +. Using data from the beginning of the sample (i.e., December 974) to time s, an estimate of h is formed and this estimate is used to form portfolio weights for the portfolio held from s to s +. At time s +, we form a new estimate of h using data up to time s + and this estimate is used to form portfolio weights for the portfolio held from time s + to time s +2. his procedure is repeated for times s +2,s +3,..., until the end of the evaluation period. Since the portfolio weights are available in real time, statistics for the subsequent portfolio returns represent an outofsample test of the portfolio choice method. From a practical portfolio management perspective, the outofsample approach is clearly the relevant one, but comparison with the insample results show how much the performance of the portfolio strategies deteriorates due to poor estimates in a realtime setting. In order to form the initial estimates of h, the earliest starting date for measuring portfolio performance is January 98. As before, the portfolios are rebalanced each month. hat is, the portfolio weights are updated monthly, as new data on the characteristics governing the portfolio choice become available. Likewise, the recursive estimates of h in the outofsample exercises are updated monthly. All portfolio returns are calculated on a monthly basis. We consider two different combinations of characteristics: (i) momentum and booktomarket value, and (ii) momentum, booktomarket value, and the dividendprice ratio. In general, booktomarket is considered a better measure of value than the dividendprice ratio (although this is only weakly supported by the results in able 2), and the combination with both value measures included can be seen as a test of whether the dividendprice ratio contributes any extra information over and above that of the booktomarket value. BSCV provide an indepth analysis of transaction costs in their related setup and show that their portfolio results and conclusions remain fairly unchanged when transaction costs are taken into account. Since there is little reason to believe that these findings would not apply to the current analysis as well, we keep the empirical application simple and omit the effects of transaction costs Portfolio results able 3 shows the results for the multicharacteristic portfolio choice strategies, for the full period (Panel A), and the recent subsample (Panel B). Annualized summary statistics for the monthly portfolio returns for the different combinations of characteristics and estimation approaches are shown, for both outofsample and insample exercises. In addition, the estimates of the parameters determining the portfolio choices are also provided. he outofsample results are formed by using parameter estimates for the portfolio choice that are recursively updated, based on all available data up till that period. In the table, the average estimates over the evaluation period are shown. he insample estimates that are shown, and used to form the insample portfolios, are defined as follows. For the evaluation period (Panel A), the insample estimates are obtained from using the entire data set from For the subsample (Panel B), the insample estimates represent the estimates using data only from the actual portfolio formation period; i.e. from 999 to 28. We adopt this approach to make the most use of the data in the long sample and to investigate whether the parameters have changed much over time by using a shorter insample period in the recent subsample. tstatistics for the fullsample estimates are shown in parentheses below the point estimates. Starting with the full sample in able 3, Panel A, several interesting results stand out. First, during this sample period, the multicharacteristic portfolios always outperform the singlecharacteristic portfolios, regardless of the way the weights are obtained; the virtues of diversification are thus clearly present also in zerocost characteristicbased portfolios. his is true both for the outofsample and insample exercises. In general, the Sharpe ratios are upwards of one in value, which is almost three times the market Sharpe ratio and more than twice the Sharpe ratio of the /n portfolio. Second, the portfolios based on the directweightestimation approach (denoted Dir. in the table) substantially outperform the portfolios using naive regressionbased weights (denoted Reg.), with Sharpe ratios that are about one third larger. hird, the equalweighted portfolios (denoted EW) always perform better than the regressionbased ones in terms of Sharpe ratios, and very similarly to the portfolios with directly estimated weights; note that the EW portfolios refer to the equalweighted portfolios of the singlecharacteristic portfolios, as opposed to the /n portfolio shown in able 2, which is equalweighted in the individual stock indexes. One interpretation is thus that even with as few as two or three effective assets over which to choose, it is difficult to beat an equalweighted portfolio in a meanvariance setup. his need not only be due to poor estimates of the variancecovariance matrix and mean parameters as such, which is typically the case in largescale meanvariance analysis, but likely also reflects changes over time in these parameters. However, the strong performance of the equalweighted portfolio also partly reflects the fact that, at least in the portfolios based on just momentum and booktomarket value, the equalweighting scheme is in fact very close to the optimal insample scheme. his result also helps explain the strong findings by Asness et al. (29), who explicitly analyze the benefits of combining momentum and value portfolios and always consider the equalweighted case. As seen here, the equal weighting is, in fact, very close to the insample optimal weights. In terms of higher moments, the equalweighted portfolios have the thinnest tails, and the regressionbased ones by far the heaviest. he regressionbased weights also lead to more leftskewness than the two other approaches. Further, for all strategies the CAPM betas are very close to zero in absolute value and none of the tstatistics are significant, whereas the CAPM alphas are all highly statistically significant. Finally, the insample and outofsample results are very similar for the directestimation approach, highlighting the robustness of the method. he regressionbased approach does surprisingly well insample, suggesting that part of the gains from the directestimation approach are due to stable estimates over time. his is confirmed by Fig. 2, which shows the recursive estimates of h, from both the regressionbased approach and the directestimation approach. he estimates are standardized to add up to one in each period, and it is clear that the directlyestimated parameters remain much more stable over the sample period than the regressionbased ones. he estimates of the parameters governing the portfolio choice are also of interest and reveal the differences between the regressionbased and directoptimization approaches; the estimates of h shown in able 3 have also been standardized to add up to unity and thus reflect the relative weights on the singlecharacteristic
8 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) able 3 Annualized performance statistics for the multicharacteristic portfolios. he table reports annualized summary statistics for the monthly excess returns on the momentum and booktomarket (MOM,BM) portfolios, and the momentum, booktomarket, and dividendprice ratio (MOM,BM,DP) portfolios, with c = 5. Panel A reports the results for the full sample and Panel B reports the results for the subsample. he statistics in Panel A and Panel B are thus based on 348 and 2 monthly observations of portfolio returns, respectively. he columns labeled Reg., Dir., and EW, show the results for the portfolios based on regressionbased, directoptimization, and equalweighted estimates of h, respectively. he top part of the table shows the outofsample results, using recursively updated estimates of h, and the bottom part of the table shows the insample results. he first five rows in each section report the annualized mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and Sharpe ratio for the excess returns on each portfolio. he following four rows report the annualized CAPM alpha and beta, with tstatistics in parentheses below the point estimates. he final rows show the standardized estimates of h. For the outofsample results, the average estimate of h used over the portfolio evaluation period is shown and for the insample results, the fullsample estimates are shown with tstatistics in parentheses below; in the evaluation period, the insample estimates use data for the full sample, and for the evaluation period, the insample estimates only use data from the period. he estimates of h have been standardized such that the components add up to one. Panel A. Jan 98  Dec 28 Panel B. Jan Dec 28 MOM,BM MOM,BM,DP MOM,BM MOM,BM,DP Reg. Dir. EW Reg. Dir. EW Reg. Dir. EW Reg. Dir. EW Outofsample results Mean Std. dev Skewness Kurtosis Sharpe ratio a (3.949) (5.48) (5.68) (3.958) (5.276) (5.353) (.473) (2.) (2.64) (.467) (.958) (2.227) b (.687) (.9) (.487) (.87) (.57) (.458) ( 2.9) (.8) (.3) (.837) (.6) (.557) h MOM h BM h DP Insample results Mean Std. dev Skewness Kurtosis Sharpe ratio a (4.824) (5.653) (5.68) (5.75) (5.846) (5.353) (2.34) (2.298) (2.64) (2.346) (2.355) (2.227) b (.73) (.596) (.487) (.276) (.29) (.458) (.288) (.28) (.3) (.665) (.43) (.557) h MOM (5.768) (5.689) (5.746) (5.869) (.98) (.67) (.2) (.664) h BM (3.27) (4.85) (2.443) (3.37) (2.6) (2.2) (.999) (.945) h DP (.24) (.94) (.48) (.469) θ Dir MOM θ Dir BM θ Reg MOM .2 Jan8 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec8 Fig. 2. Recursive estimates of h. he figure shows the standardized recursive estimates of h from either the estimation of the regression Eq. (), denoted h Reg, or from the direct estimation of the weights in Eq. (), denoted hdir MOM h Reg BM θ Reg BM MOM and and hdir BM. Data from December 974 up till the date in the graph are used to form each estimate. strategies. he regressionbased weights always put a very large weight on momentum (around 6 to 7 percent), which is the strategy that delivers by far the highest mean in Panel A, able 2, and subsequently smaller weights on the other characteristic(s). his is not surprising since the regression weights effectively only take into account the expected returns. he directoptimization weights, on the other hand, put a much larger weight on the valuation characteristics, since the returns on the portfolios formed on the booktomarket or the dividendprice ratio are negatively correlated with the momentum returns and thus reduce the variance in the combined portfolio. As seen from the fullsample weight estimates, the characteristics typically enter with statistically significant coefficients into the portfolio choice. he only exception is the dividendprice ratio in the regressionbased threecharacteristic portfolio; all other estimates are significant at the percent level, and the momentum and booktomarket value are always highly significant. Although the dividendprice ratio shows up as statistically significant in the directlyestimated portfolio weights, its impact on the performance characteristics is slightly negative outofsample. Adding the dividendprice ratio to the equalweighted portfolio does reduce the kurtosis and increase the rightskewness somewhat, without much effect on the Sharpe ratio.
9 SR SR 4 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) MOM, BM .5 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec MOM, BM, DP Reg. Dir. EW .5 Jan85 Jan9 Jan95 Jan Jan5 Dec8 Fig. 3. Outofsample 5year rolling Sharpe ratios. he figure shows rolling Sharpe ratios for the 5year periods ending at the date indicated in the graphs. Results for the regressionbased estimation approach (Reg.), the directweightestimation approach (Dir.) and the equalweighted approach (EW) are shown. he parameter estimates used in the regressionbased approach and in the directweightestimation approach are formed using all data available at the time of the portfolio formation. hat is, the data used for parameter estimation always start at the beginning of the sample (December 974) and end in the period of the portfolio formation. he top panel shows the results for the momentum and booktomarket (MOM,BM) portfolios and the bottom panel shows the results for the momentum, booktomarket, and dividendprice ratio (MOM,BM,DP) portfolios. Panel B of able 3 reports the portfolio results for the most recent year episode from 999 to 28, which covers both the extremely tumultuous times in international stock markets due to the recent credit crisis as well as the sharp decline in stock markets at the start of the millennium. Qualitatively, the results are very similar to those for the full sample, with the directoptimization approach clearly outperforming the regressionbased approach in terms of Sharpe ratios. he overall performances of all the strategies are much weaker than in the full sample, reflecting the weak results seen in able 2 for the singlecharacteristic strategies. Compared to the performance of the market index, however, the characteristicbased strategies perform very well: he equalweighted strategy in all three characteristics delivers an annual mean return of % with a 6% annual volatility resulting in a Sharpe ratio of.7, whereas the market returned an average of 2% during the same period. he /n portfolio returned an average of 2% during the period, with a Sharpe ratio just above.. he outofsample and insample results are again fairly similar for the directlyestimated weights, which is somewhat striking given that the insample results only use data from , whereas the outofsample results use data recursively all the way back to 974. Given the short sample period, it is not surprising that many of the estimated parameters are not statistically significant. he equalweighted portfolio again performs very well and, in fact, dominates the directly estimated portfolio strategy along all dimensions in the outofsample results. As a final robustness check, Fig. 3 shows 5year rolling outofsample Sharpe ratios for the portfolio strategies. hat is, for a given date in the graphs, the Sharpe ratio based on the portfolio performance over the previous 5 years is shown. he parameter estimates governing the regressionbased and directestimation approaches are updated recursively using all available data at the time of portfolio formation. hat is, the parameter estimates are always based on data that starts at the beginning of the sample (December 974) and ends at the time of portfolio formation. he parameter estimates are thus available in real time and the results are comparable to the outofsample results in able 3. he most noticeable feature in the figure is the tendency for most strategies to reach a low, in terms of Sharpe ratios, in the 5year period ending around 997. hat is, the strategies all perform extremely well early in the sample, but they all also appear to perform quite well towards the end of it. Nonsurprisingly, the Sharpe ratios for the three different estimation approaches mostly track each other over time, although it is evident that the regressionbased approach on average performs worse than the other two strategies. 4. Conclusion We study the empirical implementation of meanvariance portfolio choice when the distribution of the crosssection of returns can, at least partially, be described by characteristics such as value and momentum. Following the work of Brandt et al. (29), we analyze a method that directly parameterizes the portfolio weights as a function of these underlying characteristics. In the meanvariance case, this allows for a closed form solution of the parameters governing the portfolio choice, which provides for additional insights into the mechanics of this approach for obtaining portfolio weights. In particular, it turns out that the direct estimator of the portfolio weights is the sampleefficient solution to the meanvariance problem where the set of assets is made up of portfolios based on individual stock characteristics, which is typically of a much smaller dimension. In an empirical application, we study longshort portfolio choice in international MSCI indexes for 8 developed markets, using three different characteristics: booktomarket, the dividend priceratio, and momentum. he results for the directlyestimated portfolio weights are compared to a naive regressionbased approach, which effectively only considers the conditional mean returns when assigning weights, as well as to an equalweighted scheme in the characteristicbased portfolios. he empirical results highlight several important findings. First, the benefits from combining several characteristics are clear, and the improvement in portfolio performance is substantial compared to the singlecharacteristic strategies. Second, using the directestimation approach generally outperforms the naive regressionbased approach by a wide margin. hird, there is also evidence that a simple equalweighted characteristicbased portfolio does almost as well, and sometimes better, than the directestimation approach. he paper highlights the strong and robust performance that is achieved by parameterizing portfolio weights directly as functions of underlying characteristics, as opposed to methods where the distribution of returns is modelled and estimated in an intermediate step. However, the results of the paper also suggest that much of the strong performance that is seen derives simply from the diversification benefits of combining several strategies, such as value and momentum, rather than the optimal choice of the weights put on each strategy. Acknowledgements Helpful comments have been provided by an anonymous referee as well as Lennart Hjalmarsson and Randi Hjalmarsson. he
10 E. Hjalmarsson, P. Manchev / Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (22) original draft of this paper was written while both authors were at the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC. References AïtSahalia, Y., Brandt, M.W., 2. Variable selection for portfolio choice. Journal of Finance 56, Asness, C.S., Moskowitz,.J., Pedersen, L., 29. Value and momentum everywhere. Working paper, Stern School of Business, New York University. Brandt, M.W., 999. Estimating portfolio and consumption choice: A conditional euler equations approach. Journal of Finance 54, Brandt, M.W., SantaClara, P., 26. Dynamic portfolio selection by augmenting the asset space. Journal of Finance 6, Brandt, M.W., SantaClara, P., Valkanov, R., 29. Parametric portfolio policies: exploiting characteristics in the crosssection of equity returns. Review of Financial Studies 22, BrittenJones, M., 999. he sampling error in estimates of meanvariance efficient portfolio weights. Journal of Finance 54, DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., Nogales, F.J., Uppal, R., 29a. A generalized approach to portfolio optimization: Improving performance by constraining portfolio norms. Management Science 55, DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., Uppal, R., 29b. Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the /N portfolio strategy. Review of Financial Studies 22, DeMiguel, V., Nogales, F.J., Uppal, R., 2. Stock return serial dependence and outofsample portfolio performance. Working paper, London Business School. DeMiguel, V., Plyakha, Y., Uppal, R., Vilkov., 2. Improving portfolio selection using optionimplied volatility and skewness. Working paper, London Business School. Fama, E.F., French, K.R., 992. he crosssection of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance 47, Fama, E.F., French, K.R., 996. Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. Journal of Finance 5, Fama, E.F., French, K.R., 2. Size, value, and momentum in international stock returns. Working paper, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago. Hjalmarsson, E., 2. Predicting global stock returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 45, Jegadeesh, N., 99. Evidence of predictable behavior of security returns. Journal of Finance 45, Jegadeesh, N., itman, S., 995. Overreaction, delayed reaction, and contrarian profits. Review of Financial Studies 8, Lo, A.W., MacKinlay, A.C., 99. When are contrarian profits due to stock market overreaction? Review of Financial Studies 3, Markowitz, H.M., 952. Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance 7, Newey, W.K., McFadden, D.L., 994. Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. In: Engle, R.F., McFadden, D.L. (Eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. IV. NorthHolland, Amsterdam. Patro, D.K., Wu, Y., 24. Predictability of shorthorizon returns in international equity markets. Journal of Empirical Finance, Plazzi, A., orous, W., Valkanov, R., 2. Exploiting property characteristics in commercial real estate portfolio allocation. Journal of Portfolio Management 35, Pflug, G.C., Pichler, A., Wozabal, D., 22. he /N investment strategy is optimal under high model ambiguity. Journal of Banking and Finance 36, Plyakha, Y., Uppal, R., Vilkov, G., 2. Why does an equalweighted portfolio outperform value and priceweighted portfolios? Working paper, Goethe University Frankfurt. Subrahmanyam, A., 2. he crosssection of expected stock returns: What have we learnt from the past twentyfive years of research? European Financial Management 6, u, J., Zhou, G., 2. Markowitz meets almud: A combination of sophisticated and naive diversification strategies. Journal of Financial Economics 99,
Investing for the Long Run when Returns Are Predictable
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LV, NO. 1 FEBRUARY 2000 Investing for the Long Run when Returns Are Predictable NICHOLAS BARBERIS* ABSTRACT We examine how the evidence of predictability in asset returns affects
More informationJournal of Financial Economics
Journal of Financial Economics 99 (2011) 427 446 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Financial Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfec Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries
More informationThe Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests
The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests Fischer Black* Deceased Michael C. Jensen Harvard Business School MJensen@hbs.edu and Myron Scholes Stanford University  Graduate School of Business
More informationOptimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy?
Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy? Victor DeMiguel London Business School Lorenzo Garlappi University of Texas at Austin Raman Uppal London Business School
More informationThe Persistence and Predictability of ClosedEnd Fund Discounts
The Persistence and Predictability of ClosedEnd Fund Discounts Burton G. Malkiel Economics Department Princeton University Yexiao Xu School of Management The University of Texas at Dallas This version:
More informationBeyond Baseline and Followup: The Case for More T in Experiments * David McKenzie, World Bank. Abstract
Beyond Baseline and Followup: The Case for More T in Experiments * David McKenzie, World Bank Abstract The vast majority of randomized experiments in economics rely on a single baseline and single followup
More informationGrowth Is Good for the Poor
Forthcoming: Journal of Economic Growth Growth Is Good for the Poor David Dollar Aart Kraay Development Research Group The World Bank First Draft: March 2000 This Draft: March 2002 Abstract: Average incomes
More informationDIVERSIFICATION, REBALANCING, AND THE GEOMETRIC MEAN FRONTIER. William J. Bernstein. David Wilkinson
DIVERSIFICATION, REBALANCING, AND THE GEOMETRIC MEAN FRONTIER William J. Bernstein wbern@mail.coos.or.us and David Wilkinson DaveWilk@worldnet.att.net November 24, 1997 Abstract The effective (geometric
More informationThe Best of Both Worlds:
The Best of Both Worlds: A Hybrid Approach to Calculating Value at Risk Jacob Boudoukh 1, Matthew Richardson and Robert F. Whitelaw Stern School of Business, NYU The hybrid approach combines the two most
More informationworking papers Rita Soares April 2011
working papers 11 2011 ASSESSING MONETARY POLICY IN THE EURO AREA: A FACTORAUGMENTED VAR APPROACH Rita Soares April 2011 The analyses, opinions and findings of these papers represent the views of the
More informationHave Financial Markets Become More Informative?
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports Have Financial Markets Become More Informative? Jennie Bai Thomas Philippon Alexi Savov Staff Report No. 578 October 2012 FRBNY Staff REPORTS This paper presents
More informationHow and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement? C h a r l e s T. Clotfelter
How and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement? C h a r l e s T. Clotfelter H e l e n F. Ladd J a c o b L. Vigdor w o r k i n g p a p e r 2 m a r c h 2 0 0 7 How and why do teacher credentials
More informationThe bullwhip effect and the Great Trade Collapse
The bullwhip effect and the Great Trade Collapse Veronika Zavacka Summary This paper demonstrates the bullwhip effect in a simple framework and tests its predictions using US industry level import data.
More informationExplaining Cointegration Analysis: Part II
Explaining Cointegration Analysis: Part II David F. Hendry and Katarina Juselius Nuffield College, Oxford, OX1 1NF. Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Abstract We describe the concept
More informationInternational risk sharing is better than you think, or exchange rates are too smooth $
Journal of Monetary Economics 53 (2006) 671 698 www.elsevier.com/locate/jme International risk sharing is better than you think, or exchange rates are too smooth $ Michael W. Brandt a, John H. Cochrane
More informationCass Consulting www.cassknowledge.com
Cass Consulting www.cassknowledge.com An evaluation of alternative equity indices Part 2: Fundamental weighting schemes Andrew Clare, Nick Motson and Steve Thomas March 2013 Executive Summary Last summer
More informationAn Introduction into the SVAR Methodology: Identification, Interpretation and Limitations of SVAR models
Kiel Institute of World Economics Duesternbrooker Weg 120 24105 Kiel (Germany) Kiel Working Paper No. 1072 An Introduction into the SVAR Methodology: Identification, Interpretation and Limitations of SVAR
More informationThe High Cost of Low Educational Performance
The High Cost of Low Educational Performance THE LONGRUN ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMPROVING PISA OUTCOMES While governments frequently commit to improving the quality of education, it often slips down the policy
More informationHow do firms agglomerate? A study of FDI in France
Regional Science and Urban Economics 34 (2004) 27 54 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase How do firms agglomerate? A study of FDI in France Matthieu Crozet a, Thierry Mayer b, *, JeanLouis Mucchielli a a
More informationWHY DO MORE OPEN ECONOMIES HAVE BIGGER GOVERNMENTS? Dani Rodrik. Harvard University
Forthcoming, Journal of Political Economy WHY DO MORE OPEN ECONOMIES HAVE BIGGER GOVERNMENTS? Dani Rodrik Harvard University February 1996 Revised, March 1996 Revised April 1997 This revision, January
More informationHave We Underestimated the Likelihood and Severity of Zero Lower Bound Events?
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO WORKING PAPER SERIES Have We Underestimated the Likelihood and Severity of Zero Lower Bound Events? Hess Chung Federal Reserve Board of Governors JeanPhilippe Laforte
More informationHave Financial Markets Become More Informative?
Have Financial Markets Become More Informative? Jennie Bai, Thomas Philippon, and Alexi Savov April 2014 Abstract The finance industry has grown, financial markets have become more liquid, and information
More informationBIS Working Papers. Credit and growth after financial crises. No 416. Monetary and Economic Department. by Előd Takáts and Christian Upper.
BIS Working Papers No 416 Credit and growth after financial crises by Előd Takáts and Christian Upper Monetary and Economic Department July 213 JEL classification: G1; E32. Keywords: creditless recovery;
More informationSwiss National Bank Working Papers
211 Swiss National Bank Working Papers The TimeVarying Systematic Risk of Carry Trade Strategies Charlotte Christiansen, Angelo Ranaldo and Paul Söderlind The views expressed in this paper are those
More informationProspect Theory and the Disposition Effect
Prospect Theory and the Disposition Effect Markku Kaustia Abstract This paper shows that prospect theory is unlikely to explain the disposition effect. Prospect theory predicts that the propensity to sell
More informationSteering User Behavior with Badges
Steering User Behavior with Badges Ashton Anderson Daniel Huttenlocher Jon Kleinberg Jure Leskovec Stanford University Cornell University Cornell University Stanford University ashton@cs.stanford.edu {dph,
More informationMatching and the changing properties of accounting earnings over the last 40 years
Matching and the changing properties of accounting earnings over the last 40 years Ilia D. Dichev Stephen M. Ross School of Business University of Michigan Vicki Wei Tang McDonough School of Business Georgetown
More informationMore Than Words: Quantifying Language to Measure Firms Fundamentals
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LXIII, NO. 3 JUNE 2008 More Than Words: Quantifying Language to Measure Firms Fundamentals PAUL C. TETLOCK, MAYTAL SAARTSECHANSKY, and SOFUS MACSKASSY ABSTRACT We examine whether
More informationThe real effects of debt
Stephen G Cecchetti, M S Mohanty and Fabrizio Zampolli * September 2011 Abstract At moderate levels, debt improves welfare and enhances growth. But high levels can be damaging. When does debt go from good
More informationCurrency Choice and Exchange Rate Passthrough
Currency Choice and Exchange Rate Passthrough Gita Gopinath Department of Economics, Harvard University and NBER Oleg Itskhoki Department of Economics, Harvard University Roberto Rigobon Sloan School
More information