Diverse US portfolios did well in 2011

May 8, 2012

Constraining the maximum asset-portfolio correlation gave bigger returns and smaller volatility.

Previously

“Portfolio diversity” introduced the topic of asset-portfolio correlations.  It also generated four sets of long-only random portfolios as of the start of 2011 using constituents of the S&P 500:

  1. exactly 20 names, weights between 1% and 10%
  2. exactly 20 names, maximum asset-portfolio correlation of 60%
  3. exactly 200 names, weights between 0.1% and 1%
  4. exactly 200 names, maximum asset-portfolio correlation of 60%

Here we see how those random portfolios performed during 2011.

2011 returns

Figures 1 and 2 show the distributions of the returns during the year.  The correlation constraint added substantial return for the year.

Figure 1: Distribution of 2011 returns of 20-name random portfolios: weight-constrained (gold) and correlation-constrained (blue).

Figure 2: Distribution of 2011 returns of 200-name random portfolios: weight-constrained (gold) and correlation-constrained (blue).

2011 realized volatility

The low correlation portfolios are also — in general — low volatility.  Perhaps that is the explanation of the high returns?

Figure 3: Distribution of 2011 realized volatility of 20-name random portfolios: weight-constrained (gold) and correlation-constrained (blue).

Figure 4: Distribution of 2011 realized volatility of 200-name random portfolios: weight-constrained (gold) and correlation-constrained (blue).

2011 information ratio

Figure 5: Distribution of 2011 information ratio of 20-name random portfolios: weight-constrained (gold) and correlation-constrained (blue).

Figure 6: Distribution of 2011 information ratio of 200-name random portfolios: weight-constrained (gold) and correlation-constrained (blue).

Summary

Adding the correlation constraint at the start of 2011 would have been quite useful.  I doubt that it is a magic bullet though.

Appendix R

The commands to generate the random portfolios were given in “Portfolio diversity”.

portfolio returns

The returns for the full year can be computed by giving valuation a two-row price matrix that has the first and last prices for the period.

> require(PortfolioProbe)
> divrp.20w.ret11 <- valuation(divrp.20w,
+    sp5.close11[c(1,253),], returns='simple')

portfolio volatilities

Computing the volatilities is only slightly more complicated.  We get the daily returns for the portfolios and then compute the standard deviation on the returns for each portfolio.

> divrp.20w.vol11 <- 100 * sqrt(252) * apply(valuation(
+    divrp.20w, sp5.close11, returns='simple'), 2, sd)

 

Subscribe to the Portfolio Probe blog by Email

Leave a Reply

Related posts

  • October 14, 2013

    What good are the skewness and kurtosis of portfolios? Previously The post "Cross-sectional skewness and kurtosis: stocks and portfolios" looked at skewness and kurtosis in portfolios.  The key difference [...]

  • October 7, 2013

    Get data that fit before you fit data. Why verify? Garbage in, garbage out. How to verify The example data used here is daily (adjusted) prices of stocks.  By [...]

  • June 10, 2013

    A few basics about the stable distribution. Previously "The distribution of financial returns made simple" satirized ideas about the statistical distribution of returns, including the stable distribution. Origin As [...]