Search results

Since equity markets have a dynamic nature, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the performance of a revision procedure for domestic and international portfolios, and provides an empirical selection strategy for optimal diversification from an American investor's point of view. This paper considers the impact of estimation errors on the optimization processes in financial portfolios.

This paper introduces the concept of portfolio resampling using Monte Carlo method. Statistical inferences methodology is applied to construct the sample acceptance regions and confidence regions for the resampled portfolios needing revision. Tracking error variance minimization (TEVM) problem is used to define the tracking error efficient frontiers (TEEF) referring to Roll (1992). This paper employs a computation method of the periodical after revision return performance level of the dynamic diversification strategies considering the transaction cost.

The main finding is that the global portfolio diversification benefits exist for the domestic investors, in both the mean-variance and tracking error analysis. Through TEEF, the dynamic analysis indicates that domestic dynamic diversification outperforms international major and emerging diversification strategies. Portfolio revision appears to be of no systematic benefit. Depending on the revision of the weights of the assets in the portfolio and the transaction costs, the revision policy can negatively affect the performance of an investment strategy. Considering the transaction costs of portfolios revision, the results of the return performance computation suggest the dominance of the global and the international emerging markets diversification over all other strategies. Finally, an assessment between the return and the cost of the portfolios revision strategy is necessary.

The innovation of this paper is to introduce a new concept of the dynamic portfolio management by considering the transaction costs. This paper investigates the performance of a revision procedure for domestic and international portfolios and provides an empirical selection strategy for optimal diversification. The originality of the idea consists on the application of a new statistical inferences methodology to define portfolios needing revision and the use of the TEVM algorithm to define the tracking error dynamic efficient frontiers.

This paper aims to perform an analytical analysis on portfolio allocation when a tracking error volatility (TEV) constraint holds, drawing specific attention to the portfolio efficiency issue. Indeed, it is well known that investors can assign part of their funds to asset managers who are given the task of beating a benchmark portfolio. However, the risk management office often imposes a TEV constraint to the asset managers’ activity to maintain the portfolio risk near to the risk of the benchmark. This situation could lead asset managers to select non efficient portfolios in the total return and absolute risk perspective. However, the risk management office can impose further constraints, such as on maximum variance or maximum value at risk (VaR) to maintain the overall portfolio risk under control.

First the authors define the TEV constrained-efficient frontier (ECTF), a set of TEV constrained portfolios that are mean–variance efficient. Second, they define two new portfolio frontiers analyzing how the imposition of a maximum variance or maximum VaR restriction can reduce the ECTF. Third, they investigate the feasibility of such portfolio frontiers and their relationships.

The authors find that variance or VaR constraint can force asset managers to pursue portfolio efficiency.

This is a practically important issue given that asset managers often receive a constraint on TEV from the risk management office, but the risk management office does not ask them to minimize the TEV as often assumed in the optimizations performed in the literature on this topic.

Using a portfolio comprising liquid global stocks and bonds, this study aims to limit absolute risk to that of a standardised benchmark and determine whether this has a significant impact on expected return in both high volatility period (HV) and low volatility period (LV).

Using a traditional benchmark comprising 40% equity and 60% bonds, a constant tracking error (TE) frontier was constructed and implemented. Portfolio performance for different TE constraints and different economic periods (expansion and contraction) was explored.

Results indicate that during HV, replicating benchmark portfolio risk produces portfolios that outperform both the maximum return (MR) portfolio and the benchmark. MR portfolios outperform those with the same risk as that of the benchmark in LV. The MR portfolio weights assets to obtain the highest return on the TE frontier. During HV, the benchmark replicated risk portfolio obtained a higher absolute risk value than that of the MR portfolio because of an inefficient benchmark. In HV, the benchmark replicated risk portfolio favoured intermediate maturity treasury bills.

There is a dearth of literature exploring the performance of active portfolios subject to TE constraints. This work addresses this gap and demonstrates, for the first time, the relative portfolio performance of several standard portfolio choices on the frontier.

Stock selection models often use momentum and analysts’ expectation data. We find that earnings forecast revisions and direction of forecast revisions are more important than analysts’ forecasts in identifying mispriced securities. Investing with expectations data and momentum variables is consistent with maximizing the geometric mean and Sharpe ratio over the long run. Additional evidence is revealed that supports the use of multifactor models for portfolio construction and risk control. The anomalies literature can be applied in real-world portfolio construction in the U.S., international, and global equity markets during the 1998–2009 time period. Support exists for the use of tracking error at risk estimation procedures.

While perfection cannot be achieved in portfolio creation and modeling, the estimated model returns pass the Markowitz and Xu data mining corrections test and are statistically different from an average financial model that could have been used to select stocks and form portfolios. We found additional evidence to support the use of Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) and statistically-based and fundamentally-based multifactor models for portfolio construction and risk control. Markets are neither efficient nor grossly inefficient; statistically significant excess returns can be earned.

In September‐October 2008 the Russian stock markets came under severe strain amidst the global financial crisis. During this time the Russian government intervened several times to halt the trade to impede the continuous slide. The government justified its actions owing to the argument that the crisis was due to a trickledown effect from the financial crisis in the USA and the other developed markets. The purpose of this paper is to put to test the government's claim by exploring the level of integration between Russia and the USA and European equity markets.

The study employs Markov Regime Switching Model for tracking structural breaks in the time series. This method divides the data into three periods, i.e. pre crisis, during crisis and post crisis. Next the Multivariate GARCH‐DCC model technique is used to establish the time varying linkages in order to verify the contagion effect. In the final step the Markowitz mean‐variance framework is used to position each individual index portfolio with respect to the efficient frontier to analyze the impact of crisis as well as Russian government intervention.

The findings suggest that the Russian equity market is weakly integrated with US and strongly integrated with European markets. The results correspond to the underlying financial and economic linkages between Russia, the US and Europe. When examined in a portfolio setup, the results show sudden fall in correlation among the Russian, US and European equity markets suggesting weak linkages among these markets. Finally, the Markowitz Efficient frontier indicates dramatic rise in volatility on the day intervention began and ended which signifies the increased uncertainty among the investors owing to Russian government ad hoc interventions.

The paper attempts to examine the Russian government intervention in the backdrop of financial crisis 2008 and concludes that the government intervention essentially increased the uncertainty in the local as well as international markets. Therefore, it is essential that the government should avoid direct intervention in its stock market.

Financial analysts are frequently viewed as information intermediaries who process and interpret firms' financial reports for other market participants. Much recent research, however, has cast doubts on analysts' ability to fully utilize the information in firms' financial reports. Using an alternative approach, this study aims to provide evidence on how sophisticated analysts are at using information in firms' financial reports.

The paper estimates different measures of firms' operational efficiency, all of which are derived from financial statement data, and compares the strength of the association between these measures and analysts' absolute forecast errors. It then compares a sophisticated frontier‐based measure of firms' operational efficiency that evaluates firms' performance relative to their competitors with three more traditional efficiency measures; specifically the return on asset (ROA) ratio, industry‐adjusted ROA, and the return on equity ratio.

The results indicate that the more sophisticated frontier‐based measure is more strongly negatively associated with analysts' absolute forecast errors than the other three measures. The results thus suggest that analysts are capable of undertaking a sophisticated analysis of the information in firms' financial reports, at least as it pertains to operational efficiency.

To the extent that analysts serve as a key group of users of financial information, these results are likely to be of interest to accounting policy makers.

In the build-up of an investment decision, the existence of both active and passive investment vehicles triggers a puzzle for investors. Indeed the confrontation between active and index replication equity funds in terms of risk-adjusted performance and alpha generation has been a bone of contention since the inception of these investment structures. Accordingly, the objective of this chapter is to distinctly underscore whether an investor should be concerned in choosing between active and diverse passive investment structures.

The survivorship bias-free dataset consists of 776 equity funds which are domiciled either in America or Europe, and are likewise exposed to the equity markets of the same regions. In addition to geographical segmentation, equity funds are also categorised by structure and management type, specifically actively managed mutual funds, index mutual funds and passive exchange traded funds (‘ETFs’). This classification leads to the analysis of monthly net asset values (‘NAV’) of 12 distinct equally weighted portfolios, with a time horizon ranging from January 2004 to December 2014. Accordingly, the risk-adjusted performance of the equally weighted equity funds’ portfolios is examined by the application of mainstream single-factor and multi-factor asset pricing models namely Capital Asset Pricing Model (Fama, 1968; Fama & Macbeth, 1973; Lintner, 1965; Mossin, 1966; Sharpe, 1964; Treynor, 1961), Fama French Three-Factor (1993) and Carhart Four-Factor (1997).

Solely examination of monthly NAVs for a 10-year horizon suggests that active management is equivalent to index replication in terms of risk-adjusted returns. This prompts investors to be neutral gross of fees, yet when considering all transaction costs it is a distinct story. The relatively heftier fees charged by active management, predominantly initial fees, appear to revoke any outperformance in excess of the market portfolio, ensuing in a Fool’s Errand Hypothesis. Moreover, both active and index mutual funds’ performance may indeed be lower if financial advisors or distributors of equity funds charge additional fees over and above the fund houses’ expense ratios, putting the latter investment vehicles at a significant handicap vis-à-vis passive low-cost ETFs. This chapter urges investors to concentrate on expense ratios and other transaction costs rather than solely past returns, by accessing the cheapest available vehicle for each investment objective. Put simply, the general investor should retreat from portfolio management and instead access the market portfolio using low-cost index replication structures via an execution-only approach.

The battle among actively managed and index replication equity funds in terms of risk-adjusted performance and alpha generation has been a grey area since the inception of mutual funds. The interest in the subject constantly lightens up as fresh instruments infiltrate financial markets. Indeed the mutual fund puzzle (Gruber, 1996) together with the enhanced growth of ETFs has again rejuvenated the active versus passive debate, making it worth a detailed analysis especially for the benefit of investors who confront a dilemma in choosing between the two management styles.

The risk/return trade‐off has been a central tenet of portfolio management since the seminal work of Markowitz [1952]. The basic premise, that higher (expected) returns can only be achieved at the expense of greater risk, leads naturally to the concept of an efficient frontier. The efficient frontier defines the maximum return that can be achieved for a given level of risk or, alternatively, the minimum risk that must be incurred to earn a given return. Traditionally, market risk has been measured by the variance (or standard deviation) of portfolio returns, and this measure is now widely used for credit risk management as well. For example, in the popular Credit‐Metrics methodology (J.P. Morgan [1997]), the standard deviation of credit losses is used to compute the marginal risk and risk contribution of an obligor. Kealhofer [1998] also uses standard deviation to measure the marginal risk and, further, discusses the application of mean‐variance optimization to compute efficient portfolios. While this is reasonable when the distribution of gains and losses is normal, variance is an inappropriate measure of risk for the highly skewed, fat‐tailed distributions characteristic of portfolios that incur credit risk. In this case, quantile‐based measures that focus on the tail of the loss distribution more accurately capture the risk of the portfolio. In this article, we construct credit risk efficient frontiers for a portfolio of bonds issued in emerging markets, using not only the variance but also quantile‐based risk measures such as expected shortfall, maximum (percentile) losses, and unexpected (percentile) losses.

Air carriers and aircraft manufacturers are investing in technologies and strategies to reduce fuel consumption and associated emissions. This chapter reviews related issues to assess airline fuel efficiency and offers various empirical evidences from our recent work that focuses on the U.S. domestic passenger air transportation system. We begin with a general presentation of four methods (ratio-based, deterministic frontier, stochastic frontier, and data envelopment analysis) and three perspectives for assessing airline fuel efficiencies, the latter covering consideration of only mainline carrier operations, mainline–subsidiary relations, and airline routing circuity. Airline fuel efficiency results in the short run, in particular the correlations of the results from using different methods and considering different perspectives, are discussed. For the long-term efficiency, we present the development of a stochastic frontier model to investigate individual airline fuel efficiency and system overall evolution between 1990 and 2012. Insight about the association of fuel efficiency with market entry, exit, and airline mergers is also obtained.

The purpose of this paper is to estimate the performance of 188 mutual funds relative to the risk/return frontier accounting for the transaction costs of producing a portfolio of investments.

The directional output distance function is used to estimate mutual fund performance. The method allows the data to define a frontier of return and risk accounting for the transaction costs associated with securities management and production of risky returns. Proxies for the transaction costs of producing a portfolio of securities include the turnover ratio, load, expense ratio, and net asset value. The estimates of mutual fund performance are bootstrapped to account for the unknown data generating process. By comparing each mutual fund’s performance relative to the capital market line the authors determine how the fund should adjust their portfolio in regard to risk and return in order to maximize the inefficiency adjusted Sharpe ratio.

The bootstrapped estimates indicate that the average mutual fund could simultaneously expand return and contract risk by 3.2 percent if it were to operate on the efficient frontier. After projecting each mutual fund’s return and risk to the efficient frontier the authors find that a majority of the mutual funds should reduce risk to be consistent with the capital market line.

Many researchers have used data envelopment analysis to estimate a piecewise linear frontier of risk and return to measure mutual fund performance. To the authors’ knowledge the research is the first to use a twice-differentiable quadratic directional distance function to measure the managerial performance and risk/return tradeoff of mutual funds.