Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alternatives To Cap-Weighted Indices
Alternatives To Cap-Weighted Indices
Lionel Martellini
lionel.martellini@edhec.edu
www.edhec-risk.com
2
Outline
3
Introduction: Beyond Cap-Weighting
4
Beyond Cap Weighting
Comparing Alternatives
8
In Search of Representative Indices
Cap-Weighting for Representativity?
Some have argued that they represent well the stock market but
not the economy.
9
In Search of Representative Indices
Fundamental Weighting for Representativity?
10
Introduction: Beyond Cap-Weighting
11
Designing Efficient Investment Benchmarks
Efficiency is Related to Diversification
In any case, it is not clear why investors would care about their
portfolios representing the economy.
12
Designing Efficient Investment Benchmarks
Cap-Weighting for Efficiency?
13
Designing Efficient Investment Benchmarks
CW leads to High Concentration
15
Ad-Hoc Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
Equal Weighting and Equal Risk Contribution
Naïve de-concentration:
– Equal-weighting simply gives the same weight to each of N stocks
in the index (“1/N rule”).
– Equal-weighting is the naïve route to constructing well diversified
portfolios.
Semi-naïve de-concentration:
– Equal risk contribution (ERC) takes into account contribution to risk.
– Contribution to risk is not proportional to dollar contribution.
– Find portfolio weights such that contributions to risk are equal
(Maillard, Roncalli and Teiletche (2010)):
∂σ p ∂σ p
wi = wj
∂wi ∂w j
16 16
Ad-Hoc Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
Maximum Diversification Benchmarks/Anti-Benchmark
Statistical de-concentration:
– Define a diversification index and try and maximize it by utilizing the
correlations that drive the magic of diversification: “The whole is
better than the sum of its parts”.
– Maximum Diversification (also known as anti-benchmark) aims at
generating portfolios with the highest possible diversification index
(Choueifaty and Coignard (2008)):
⎛ n ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ∑ w σ
i i ⎟
DI = Max ⎜ i =1 ⎟
w ⎜ n ⎟
⎜
⎜
∑ wi w j σ ij ⎟
⎟
⎝ i , j =1 ⎠
The weighted average risk (in the numerator) will be high compared
to portfolio risk (in the denominator) and thus DI will be high if the
portfolio weights exploit well the correlations.
17
Introduction: Beyond Cap-Weighting
18
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
Towards the Efficient Frontier
Volatility
The MSR provides the highest reward per unit of portfolio volatility:
needed optimization inputs are expected returns, correlations and
volatilities.
The GMV provides the lowest possible portfolio volatility: needed
optimization inputs are correlations and volatilities. 20
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
Minimum Variance Benchmarks (GMV)
21 21
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
Efficient Indexation (MSR)
23
(*) See also Barberis and Huang (2001) Malkiel and Yu (2002), Boyle, Garlappi, Uppal and Wang (2009) .
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
iv Puzzle – VW Portfolios over Short Horizons
Value Weighted Portfolios: Short Horizon (iVol)
25.0%
•Ang, Hodrick, Xing and Zhang (2006,
2009): “iv puzzle” 20.0%
-10.0%
Average Risk over Cross-Section
Value Weighted Portfolios: Short Horizon (iVol)
1000.00
100.00
Value of 1$ invested in 1964
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
No iv Puzzle – EW Portfolios over Short Horizons
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Short Horizon (iVol)
25.0%
• Return reversal : Huang, Liu, Rhee, and Zhang (2009)
• Extreme winners and losers (over the past month) 20.0%
-10.0%
Average Risk over Cross-Section
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Short Horizon (iVol)
10000.00
Value of 1$ invested in 1964
1000.00
0.10
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
What iv Puzzle ? – EW Portfolios over Long Horizons
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Long Horizon (iVol)
30.0%
•Positive risk-return relationship across all 25.0%
-10.0%
Average Risk over Cross-Section
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Long Horizon (iVol)
10000.00
Value of 1$ invested in 1964
1000.00
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
tv Puzzle – VW Portfolios over Short Horizons
Value Weighted Portfolios: Short Horizon (tVol)
25.0%
-10.0%
Average Risk over Cross-Section
Value Weighted Portfolios: Short Horizon (tVol)
1000.00
Value of 1$ invested in 1964
100.00
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
No tv Puzzle – EW Portfolios over Short Horizons
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Short Horizon (tVol)
25.0%
0.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
-5.0%
-10.0%
Average Risk over Cross-Section
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Short Horizon (tVol)
1000.00
Value of 1$ invested in 1964
100.00
•Again, Negative relationship disappears
when EW used.
10.00
• Extremely low return of High-Volatility
portfolio disappears.
1.00 •We still do not have a positive relationship.
64' 67' 70' 73' 76' 79' 82' 85' 88' 91' 94' 97' 00' 03' 06' 09'
0.10
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
What tv Puzzle? – EW Portfolios over Long Horizons
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Long Horizon (tVol)
•12 Month total volatility 30.0%
-10.0%
Average Risk over Cross-Section
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Long Horizon (tVol)
10000.00
Value of 1$ invested in 1964
1000.00
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
Downside Risk & Expected Returns
Evidence that stock downside risk is related to expected returns
25.0%
•12 Month Total Semi-Deviation
5.0%
0.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
-5.0%
-10.0%
Average Risk over Cross-Section
Equally Weighted Portfolios: Long Horizon (sem i-deviation)
10000.00
Value of 1$ invested in 1964
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
Downside Risk and Expected Returns
70% Port 2
Port 3
60% Port 4
Port 5
50% Port 6
Port 7
40% Port 8
Port 9
30% Port High
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Month after portfolio formation
Ten portfolios containing an equal number of stocks (extracted from the CRSP data base) are built every month after sorting the stocks
based on their semi-deviation (calculated using daily data for last 30 months); the cumulative returns of each of these portfolios are
calculated for various holding periods and averaged across the portfolio formation date.
32
Scientific Approach to Well-Diversified Portfolios
Long-Term Results
Ann.
Ann. std. Sharpe Information Tracking
Index average
Deviation Ratio Ratio Error
return
Efficient Index 11.63% 14.65% 0.41 0.52 4.65%
Cap-weighted 9.23% 15.20% 0.24 0.00 0.00%
Difference (Efficient
2.40% -0.55% 0.17 - -
minus Cap-weighted)
p-value for difference 0.14% 6.04% 0.04% - -
The table shows risk and return statistics portfolios constructed with using the same set of constituents as the cap-weighted S&P 500 index.
Rebalancing is quarterly subject to an optimal control of portfolio turnover (by setting the reoptimisation threshold to 50%). Portfolios are
constructed by maximising the Sharpe ratio given an expected return estimate and a covariance estimate. The expected return estimate is
set to the median total risk of stocks in the same decile when sorting on total risk. The covariance matrix is estimated using an implicit factor
model for stock returns. Weight constraints are set so that each stock's weight is between 1/2N and 2/N, where N is the number of index
constituents. P-values for differences are computed using the paired t-test for the average, the F-test for volatility, and a Jobson-Korkie test
for the Sharpe ratio. The results are based on weekly return data from 01/1959. We use a calibration period of 2 years and rebalance the
portfolio every three months (at the beginning of January, April, July and October).
33
Introduction: Beyond Cap-Weighting
34
Conditions for Optimality
Keep it Simple… But Not Too Simple
Each of the aforementioned weighting methods makes different
methodological choices.
35
Conditions for Optimality
Assumptions about Parameter Values
Expected Optimal
Return Portfolio
●
●●
●
● ●
Cap-weighted index
Volatility
● wˆ MSR = f (μˆ i , σˆ i , ρˆ ij )
Implementable proxies depend on
assumptions about parameter values
36
Conditions for Optimality
Indices aiming at Representativity
Cap-weighting:
– One simply turns to the market, and hope that everyone else has
done a careful job at estimating risk and return parameters and
designing efficient benchmarks so we simply do not have to it
ourselves!
– This would be a very naïve belief in the CAPM.
Fundamental weighting:
– Conditions under which this weighting scheme would be optimal
are not clear.
– As an example, it would be optimal if risk parameters are
identical and expected return is proportional to the four
fundamental variables used for the weighting.
37
Conditions for Optimality
De-Concentration Approaches
Equal-weighting:
– Optimal if and only if one assumes all stocks have the same
expected return and…
– … the same volatility and…
– … the same pairwise correlations!
Minimum Variance:
– Only optimal if one assumes that all stocks have the same
expected returns, hardly a neutral/reasonable choice.
Efficient Indexation:
– Optimal if one assumes that expected returns between stocks
are different, and positively related to downside risk.
39
Introduction: Beyond Cap-Weighting
40
Conclusion
41
References
Amenc, N., F. Goltz, L. Martellini, and P. Retkowsky, 2010, Efficient Indexation: An Alternative to
Cap-Weighted Indices," Journal of Investment Management, forthcoming.
Bali, Turan G., and Nusret Cakici, 2004, Value at Risk and Expected Stock Returns. Financial
Analysts Journal, 60(2), 57-73.
Barberis, N., and M. Huang, 2001, Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion and Individual Stock Returns,
Journal of Finance, 56, 1247-1292.
Barberis, N. and M. Huang, Stocks as lotteries: The implications of probability weighting for
security prices, 2007, working paper.
Boyer, B., and K. Vorkink, 2007, Equilibrium Underdiversification and the Preference for Skewness,
Review of Financial Studies, 20(4), 1255-1288.
Boyer, B., T. Mitton and K. Vorkink, 2009, Expected Idiosyncratic Skewness, Review of Financial
Studies, forthcoming.
Chen, D.H., C.D. Chen, and J. Chen, 2009, Downside risk measures and equity returns in the
NYSE, Applied Economics, 41, 1055-1070.
Connrad, J., R.F. Dittmar and E. Ghysels, Ex Ante Skewness and Expected Stock Returns, 2008,
working paper.
Choueifaty, Y., and Y. Coignard, 2008, Toward Maximum Diversification, The Journal of Portfolio
Management, 35, 1, 40-51.
Cochrane, John H., 2005, Asset Pricing (Revised), Princeton University Press
Estrada, J, 2000, The Cost of Equity in Emerging Markets: A Downside Risk Approach, Emerging
Markets Quarterly, 19-30.
Grinold, Richard C. “Are Benchmark Portfolios Efficient?”, Journal of Portfolio Management, Fall
1992.
42
References
Haugen, R. A., and Baker N. L., “The Efficient Market Inefficiency of Capitalization-weighted Stock
Portfolios”, Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 1991.
Malkiel, B., and Y. Xu, 2002, Idiosyncratic Risk and Security Returns, working Paper, University of
Texas at Dallas.
Maillard,, S., T. Roncalli and J. Teiletche, 2010, The Properties of Equally Weighted Risk
Contribution, Journal of Portfolio Management.
Markowitz, H. M., “Market efficiency: A Theoretical Distinction and So What?”, Financial Analysts
Journal, September/October 2005.
Merton, Robert, 1987, A Simple Model of Capital Market Equilibrium with Incomplete Information,
Journal of Finance, 42(3).
Schwartz, T., 2000, How to Beat the S&P500 with Portfolio Optimization, DePaul University,
working paper.
Sharpe, W.F., 1991 , “Capital Asset Prices with and without Negative Holdings”, Journal of
Finance, 46.
Tang, Y., and Shum, 2003, The relationships between unsystematic risk, skewness and stock
returns during up and down markets, International Business Review.
Tinic, S., and R. West, 1986, Risk, Return and Equilibrium: A revisit, Journal of Political Economy,
94, 1, 126-147.
Tobin, J., 1958, Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk, Review of Economic Studies, 67,
65-86.
Zhang, Y., 2005, Individual Skewness and the Cross-Section of Average Stock Returns, Yale
University, working paper.
43