IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ4/2161064.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How much structure is best? A comparison of market model, factor model and unstructured equity covariance matrices

Author

Listed:
  • Beat G. Briner
  • Gregory Connor

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper compares three approaches to estimating equity covariance matrices: a factor model, a market model and an unstructured asset-by-asset model. These approaches make different trade-offs between estimation variance and model specification error. We explore this trade-off with a simulation experiment and with an empirical analysis of UK equity portfolios. The factor model is found to perform best for large investment universes and typical sample lengths. The market model underperforms due to excessive specification error while an asset-by-asset model with a short half-life of 22 days underperforms due to high estimation variance. The importance of properly accounting for serial correlation is highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Beat G. Briner & Gregory Connor, . "How much structure is best? A comparison of market model, factor model and unstructured equity covariance matrices," Journal of Risk, Journal of Risk.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:2161064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk/2161064/how-much-structure-is-best-a-comparison-of-market-model-factor-model-and-unstructured-equity-covariance-matrices
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:2161064. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.