The opportunity cost of mean–variance choice under estimation risk
Mean–variance portfolio choice is often criticized as sub-optimal in the more general expected utility framework. It is argued that the expected utility framework takes into consideration higher moments ignored by mean variance analysis. A body of research suggests that mean–variance choice, though arguably sub-optimal, provides very close-to-expected utility maximizing portfolios and their expected utilities, basing its evaluation on in-sample analysis where mean–variance choice is sub-optimal by definition. In order to clarify this existing research, this study provides a framework that allows comparing in-sample and out-of-sample performance of the mean variance portfolios against expected utility maximizing portfolios. Our in-sample results confirm the results of earlier studies. On the other hand, our out-of-sample results show that the expected utility model performs worse. The out-of-sample inferiority of the expected utility model is more pronounced for preferences and constraints under which in-sample mean variance approximations are weakest. We argue that, in addition to its elegance and simplicity, the mean–variance model extracts more information from sample data because it uses the covariance matrix of returns. The expected utility model may reach its optimal solution without using information from the covariance matrix.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Yusif Simaan, 1993. "Portfolio Selection and Asset Pricing---Three-Parameter Framework," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 568-577, May.
- Kroll, Yoram & Levy, Haim & Markowitz, Harry M, 1984. " Mean-Variance versus Direct Utility Maximization," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(1), pages 47-61, March.
- Hlawitschka, Walter, 1994. "The Empirical Nature of Taylor-Series Approximations to Expected Utility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 713-19, June.
- Levy, H & Markowtiz, H M, 1979. "Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(3), pages 308-17, June.
- Hanoch, Giora & Levy, Haim, 1970. "Efficient Portfolio Selection with Quadratic and Cubic Utility," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 181-89, April.
- Arditti, Fred D & Levy, Haim, 1975. "Portfolio Efficiency Analysis in Three Moments: The Multiperiod Case," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 30(3), pages 797-809, June.
- Yusif Simaan, 1993. "What is the Opportunity Cost of Mean-Variance Investment Strategies?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 578-587, May.
- Chamberlain, Gary, 1983. "A characterization of the distributions that imply mean--Variance utility functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 185-201, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:234:y:2014:i:2:p:382-391. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.