Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

On mutual funds-of-ETFs asset allocation with rebalancing: sample covariance versus EWMA and GARCH

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our purpose in this article is to investigate the benefits of introducing quantitative strategies for the estimation of portfolio variance–covariance matrices, expecting that the stylized facts of asset returns and their economic impact will be effectively captured. More specifically, we are dealing with the process of portfolio optimization with rebalancing for ETFs portfolios, in a time-varying volatility environment. The aim of the analysis is to construct optimal portfolios, based on the econometric modelling and calculation of return covariances. Also, our target is to infer critical comparative insights, as far as the application of three popular quantitative frames: (a) the sample covariance or equal weighting model, (b) the EWMA model, and (c) the GARCH (1,1) model. The validity of the attempt is verified through an illustrative empirical testing procedure on an actively traded low-volatility momentum mutual fund-of-ETFs, consisting of a well-diversified investment universe of 150 ETFs. Additionally, we co-assess a set of non-convex investment policy restrictions, such as buy-in thresholds and compliance norms, modelling the corresponding portfolio selection process as a mixed-integer optimization problem. The qualitative and technical conclusions obtained, document superior out-of-sample returns for the portfolios constructed by means of the EWMA and GARCH (1,1) models. Moreover, other findings that confirm and expand the existing underlying research, are also reported.

This is a preview of subscription content,log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Adcock, C., & Meade, N. (1994). A simple algorithm to incorporate transaction costs in quadratic optimization.European Journal of Operational Research,79(1), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C. (2008).Practical financial econometrics: Market risk analysis (Vol. II). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arshanapalli, B., Coggin, T., & Nelson, W. (2001). Is fixed-weight asset allocation really better.The Journal of Portfolio Management,27, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity.Journal of Econometrics,31, 307–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, G., Singer, B., & Beebower, G. (1991). Determinants of portfolio performance II: An update.Financial Analysts Journal,47(3), 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, C., Burke, S., & Persand, G. (2003). Multivariate GARCH models: Software choice and estimation issues.Journal of Applied Econometrics,18, 725–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D., & Smith, J. (2011). Dynamic portfolio optimization with transaction costs: Heuristics and dual bounds.Management Science,57(10), 1752–1770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy?The Review of Financial Studies,22, 1915–1953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, J., Kwon, D., & Rowley, J. (2015).Choosing between ETFs and mutual funds: Strategy, then structure. Valley Forge: The Vanguard Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation.Econometrica,50, 987–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabozzi, F., Focardi, S., & Jonas, C. (2007). Trends in quantitative equity management: Survey results.Quantitative Finance,7, 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabozzi, F., Huang, D., & Zhou, G. (2010). Robust portfolios: Contributions from operations research and finance.Annals of Operations Research,176, 191–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibbotson, R., & Kaplan, P. (2000). Does asset allocation policy explain 40, 90, or 100 percent of performance?Financial Analysts Journal,56(1), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledoit, O., & Wolf, M. (2003). Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection.Journal of Empirical Finance,10, 603–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leland, H. (1999). Beyond mean-variance: Performance measurement in a non-symmetrical World.Financial Analysts Journal,55, 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maginn, J., Tuttle, D., Pinto, D., & McLeavey, D. (2007).Managing investment portfolios (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection.The Journal of Finance,7(1), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1956). The optimization of a quadratic function subject to linear constraints.Naval Research Logistics Quarterly,3, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moallemi, C., & Saglam, M. (2017). Dynamic portfolio choice with linear rebalancing rules.Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,52(3), 1247–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. P. (1996). RiskMetrics™ technical document.http://www.riskmetrics.com/rmcovv.html. Accessed Nov 2014.

  • Wallick, D., Shanahan, J., Tasopoulos, C., & Yoon, J. (2012).The global case for strategic asset allocation. Valley Forge: The Vanguard Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xidonas, P., & Mavrotas, G. (2014a). Multiobjective portfolio optimization with non-convex policy constraints: Evidence from the Eurostoxx 50.European Journal of Finance,20(11), 957–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xidonas, P., & Mavrotas, G. (2014b). Comparative issues between linear and non-linear risk measures for non-convex portfolio optimization: Evidence from the S&P 500.Quantitative Finance,14(7), 1229–1242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xidonas, P., Mavrotas, G., Zopounidis, C., & Psarras, J. (2011). IPSSIS: An integrated multicriteria DSS for equity portfolio construction and selection.European Journal of Operational Research,210(2), 398–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilbering, Y., Jaconetti, C., & Kinniry, F. (2015).Best practices for portfolio rebalancing. Valley Forge: The Vanguard Group.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESSCA Grande École, 55 quai Alphonse Le Gallo, 92513, Paris, France

    Panos Xidonas

  2. Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK

    Mike Tsionas

  3. Audencia Business School, 8 Route de la Joneliere, BP 31222, 44312, Nantes Cedex 3, France

    Constantin Zopounidis

Authors
  1. Panos Xidonas

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike Tsionas

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Constantin Zopounidis

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toPanos Xidonas.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Advertisement

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp