Quantitative portfolio selection: using density forecasting to find consistent portfolios

C.J. Adcock; J.E. Beasley; N. Meade

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 8 references

Quantitative portfolio selection: using density forecasting to find consistent portfolios

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that portfolios whose ex-ante risk-return estimates pass a density-forecast consistency test deliver better out-of-sample performance than portfolios chosen purely from the Markowitz efficient frontier.

desk verdict The consistency-region idea is worth engaging with, but the headline performance claim rests on a two-treatment comparison with a cash overlay and a 43-week sample, so the central empirical claim is not yet demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08442 v2 pith:WAUQEM2R submitted 2019-08-22 q-fin.PM

N. Meade , J.E. Beasley , C.J. Adcock This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-fin.PM MSC 91G10

keywords portfolioselectionmean-varianceoptimisationdensityforecastingBerkowitzstatisticconsistencyregionex-postefficientfrontierestimationerrorsSharperatio

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Markowitz's efficient frontier promises minimum risk for a given return, but in practice portfolios on that frontier routinely deliver worse out-of-sample results than their in-sample estimates suggest. This paper tries to locate the part of risk-return space where that promise actually holds: portfolios whose out-of-sample returns are judged consistent with their in-sample density forecasts, using the Berkowitz statistic and a new exponentially weighted version of it. In simulated data the resulting consistency region behaves sensibly and contains the estimated ex-post frontier; on the Dow Jones 30 the region shrinks in volatile periods and can vanish entirely. The paper's central demonstration is that an investment strategy restricted to consistent portfolios with the highest Sharpe ratio beats the corresponding strategy based on efficient portfolios out of sample. If correct, investors can improve realized performance by screening portfolios this way, and go to cash when no consistent portfolio exists.

What carries the argument

The central object is the consistency region: a set of grid points in expected-return/standard-deviation space below the estimated efficient frontier at which the Berkowitz statistic fails to reject, at a 20% level with simulation-calibrated critical values, the null hypothesis that out-of-sample returns are drawn from the portfolio's in-sample empirical distribution. The grid is built by fixing expected return levels along the frontier, generating random dominated portfolios for each return, and choosing portfolio weights that minimize variance subject to those return and risk coordinates. For each grid point, overlapping in-sample returns produce an empirical cdf; the out-of-sample return is mapped through that cdf and the inverse normal cdf, and the log-likelihood ratio of the resulting series is computed. The paper's extension replaces the equally weighted likelihood with an exponentially weighted average (discount factor $\gamma$), making the statistic react to recent changes in the data-generating process. The other load-bearing piece is the ex-post efficient set mathematics extended from Adcock (2013): under a joint normal model of returns and forecasts, portfolio return is an extended quadratic form, and the paper derives its ex-post mean and variance with active linear equality constraints and a simulation method (Method 1) for inequality-constrained portfolios.

What would settle it

Re-run the DJ30 analysis with the Berkowitz critical values replaced by quantiles from a block bootstrap of the actual weekly returns, preserving non-normality and time dependence; if portfolios labeled consistent no longer match their ex-ante promises more often than those labeled inconsistent, or if the consistent-portfolio strategy no longer beats the efficient-portfolio strategy, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that portfolio selection should be confined to a consistency region: the set of risk-expected return points, bounded above by the efficient frontier, at which ex-post portfolio returns cannot be statistically distinguished from ex-ante density forecasts. Consistency is judged with a likelihood-ratio test derived from Berkowitz, which transforms realized out-of-sample returns into standard normal quantities through the empirical cumulative distribution function of in-sample returns; the paper recalibrates the test's critical values by simulation and extends it with exponential weighting so that recent observations react faster to a changing data-generating process. Under simulated multivariate normal data, the consistency region encloses the estimated ex-post efficient frontier, and portfolios on that frontier become inconsistent at high expected returns, where the model overestimates mean return and underestimates volatility. On Dow Jones 30 data the consistency region is time dependent and, in volatile conditions, disappears. Comparing strategies, the consistent-portfolio rule (highest in-sample Sharpe ratio among portfolios that pass the test, cash when none do) produces higher out-of-sample mean returns and Sharpe ratios than the efficient-portfolio rule over the 1996–2015 evaluation window, with the exponentially weighted statistic at discount factors 0.94 and 0.96 giving the strongest improvement.

Load-bearing premise

The whole consistency screen stands on the calibrated cutoffs of the test statistic, which come from simulations of an idealized market where returns are independent, identically distributed and normal; real returns are neither, so the boundary between consistent and inconsistent may be drawn at the wrong place.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Restricting portfolio choice to the consistency region should yield out-of-sample risk and return closer to what the investor was promised, because the screen removes portfolios whose density forecasts fail out of sample.
In stable simulated markets, longer estimation windows enlarge the consistency region and pull the consistency frontier closer to the efficient frontier, so more history helps when the data-generating process is constant.
In real markets the consistency region can collapse: when no portfolio passes the test, the honest action is to hold cash rather than a portfolio whose ex-ante promise is unreliable.
The exponentially weighted Berkowitz statistic shrinks the consistency region in advance of the conventional statistic after volatility shocks, giving an earlier warning that ex-ante estimates are becoming unreliable.
The extended ex-post frontier mathematics and its simulation method (Method 1) produce volatility and CVaR estimates that track the consistency frontier, offering a practical way to correct the optimistic bias of the estimated frontier.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension, not pursued in the paper, would be to treat the consistency region as a data-driven uncertainty set and combine it with robust optimization, replacing a fixed parameter box with the region that density forecasting says is reliable.
The episodes where the consistency region vanishes suggest a standalone market-timing rule—move to cash when the region empties and re-enter when it reappears—that could be tested with transaction costs and compared against buy-and-hold benchmarks.
Because the critical values are calibrated under an idealized normal model, one could use a nonparametric or block-bootstrap calibration to test whether the strategy's advantage survives under the actual return distribution; this is a testable robustness check rather than a claim of the paper.
The same density-forecast consistency screen could be applied to other objectives, such as tracking-error minimization or Omega-ratio maximization, where ex-ante promises may also be optimistically biased.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

You should read this one for the consistency-region idea, not for the backtest. The paper proposes a genuinely new way to carve out the part of risk/return space in which density forecasts of out-of-sample returns pass a Berkowitz test, and it adds an EWMA variant that reacts more quickly to regime change. That is a real contribution. The simulation validation under multivariate normality is carefully done and shows the region behaves sensibly as the estimation window length changes. The extension of Adcock's ex-post frontier mathematics to inequality-constrained portfolios (Method 1) is a modest but usable addition.

The problem is the empirical headline. Table 6 compares Strategy A, which always holds the max-Sharpe efficient portfolio, with Strategy B, which holds the max-Sharpe consistent portfolio and, when no portfolio is consistent, holds cash. Those are two simultaneous changes. The paper's own Figure 4 shows long runs, including stretches of the 2012-2015 evaluation window, in which the consistency region collapses. On those weeks B is simply out of the market. If the market is turbulent or falling, that mechanically raises B's mean and lowers its standard deviation. No significance test is reported, so we cannot tell whether the Sharpe gap (0.18 vs 0.28 at gamma=0.94) is anything beyond noise on 43 weekly observations.

Worse, the discount factor gamma=0.94 is selected on periods 1-200 of the same DJ30 series and then evaluated on periods 201-243. That is not an out-of-sample test of gamma; the reported performance is partly in-sample-selected. The critical values for the Berkowitz statistic are also calibrated under an IID normal DGP, while the real data are non-normal with time-varying moments. The paper's own plots show that the null asymptotics do not carry over cleanly. These issues are addressable: add the cash option to A, run a Ledoit-Wolf or similar Sharpe-ratio test, use a longer evaluation period, and handle gamma selection honestly (e.g., cross-validation).

I want to be clear about what is not wrong. The consistency region is not circular: it is defined by a real density-forecast test. The simulation work in Section 6 is internally consistent. The authors are honest about the region's tendency to reappear after shocks drop out of the window, which they flag as less attractive. The flaws are in the investment-strategy evidence, not in the core methodology.

Who should read it: anyone working on portfolio selection under estimation error, and empirically-minded researchers who worry about backtest overfitting. It deserves peer review, but with a request for major revision: either identify the cash-overlay effect empirically or redesign the comparison. I would cite the consistency-region idea, not the performance claim.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a portfolio selection methodology that identifies a 'consistency region' in risk-expected return space, defined as the set of portfolios whose ex-post returns are statistically consistent with ex-ante density forecasts, using the Berkowitz statistic. The authors extend the Berkowitz statistic to an exponentially weighted version intended to react more quickly to changes in the data-generating process, and they extend ex-post efficient set mathematics to incorporate constraints. The consistency region is validated on simulated multivariate normal data and then estimated on DJ30 constituent data, where its size fluctuates over time and can vanish. The paper's headline empirical claim is that an investment strategy based on consistent portfolios (Strategy B) outperforms a strategy based on efficient portfolios (Strategy A) out-of-sample.

Significance. If the empirical claim were properly identified, the paper would make a useful contribution to the portfolio selection literature by connecting density forecast accuracy to portfolio choice and by providing a tractable way to restrict attention to portfolios whose ex-post behavior matches ex-ante estimates. The paper has genuine strengths: the simulation validation in Section 6 is internally consistent and shows sensible behavior of the consistency region under multivariate normality; the extension of ex-post efficient set mathematics in Section 5 is nontrivial; and the explicit calibration of Berkowitz critical values in Appendix A is a careful step. However, the headline empirical comparison in Table 6 is confounded, and the real-data calibration of the test statistic rests on a normality assumption that the authors themselves show is violated. The methodology is promising, but the central performance claim currently lacks a clean empirical demonstration.

major comments (3)

[Section 7.2, Table 6] Strategy B differs from Strategy A in two simultaneous ways: it selects portfolios using the consistency screen, and it holds cash whenever no consistent portfolio exists. Because Figure 4 shows that the consistency region is empty for substantial runs, the cash option mechanically contributes zero return and zero variance to B during those periods, which can improve both the mean and the Sharpe ratio relative to A without reflecting any benefit from consistency. The out-of-sample period contains only 43 weekly observations, so a few cash weeks can drive the reported difference. The authors should isolate the consistency effect by comparing, for example, (i) A versus A with the same cash option when the consistency region is empty, and (ii) B versus a strategy that always invests in the maximum-Sharpe efficient portfolio when the consistency region is empty. They should also report a formal comparison of Sharpe ratios, such as the Ledoit and Wolf (2008) test, rather than only point estimates.
[Section 7.2, Table 6] The discount factor gamma is selected by maximizing in-sample mean return over evaluation periods 1 to 200 on the same DJ30 data, and the same table then reports periods 201 to 243 as 'out-of-sample' performance. This is in-sample model selection on a single historical path; even though the selection window precedes the evaluation window, no allowance is made for the selection, and the reported superiority of gamma = 0.94 is not accompanied by any measure of uncertainty. The authors should either pre-specify gamma, report performance for all gamma values with an appropriate multiple-testing correction, or validate the selected gamma on a separate holdout period.
[Appendix A and Section 7.2] The critical values used to define the consistency region on real data are calibrated by simulation under an IID multivariate normal data-generating process, yet the authors document in Table 5 and Figure 2 that the DJ30 returns are non-normal and time-dependent. If the finite-sample null distribution of the Berkowitz statistic differs under the actual data-generating process, the boundary of the consistency region will not accurately separate consistent from inconsistent portfolios, and the strategy comparison inherits this miscalibration. The authors should provide a robustness check, for example by recalibrating the critical values under a block bootstrap of the actual returns or under a time-varying volatility model, and show that the consistency region and the Table 6 results are not materially affected.

minor comments (5)

[Section 7] The subsection numbering is duplicated: '7.2 Consistency regions computed using DJ30 data' is followed by another '7.2 Investment strategy implications of the consistency region'.
[Figure 3] The axis labels are inconsistent and contain typos: 'Average Exapected Return' appears in Figure 1, while Figure 3 uses both 'Average Mean Return' and 'Average mean Return', and the risk axis is labelled 'Average SD' in some panels; these should be standardized.
[Table 4] The entry for Chevron appears garbled ('Chevron 1930 1999 2008'), making it unclear whether the intended entry is Chevron or a different company; this should be corrected.
[References] There is a mismatch between text and reference list: the text cites 'Barndorff-Nielson (1977)' but the reference list contains 'Barndorff-Nielsen, O.E., 1997'; similarly the text cites 'Huang et al (2018)' while the reference list has 'Hwang, I., S. Xu, and F. In, 2018'.
[Equation (4)] The displayed formula for the exponentially weighted log-likelihood appears to have unbalanced parentheses in the typeset version; the authors should verify the equation as it will appear in print.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the consistency region is defined by a genuine density-forecast hypothesis test, and the strategy comparison uses a disjoint evaluation window; the cash-option confound is an identification issue, not circularity.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain: (i) The Berkowitz statistic (Eq. 3, extended to Eq. 4) is a likelihood-ratio test whose null hypothesis is stated at Eq. 9: the cdf of the realized out-of-sample return equals the in-sample empirical cdf. The consistency region is then the set of grid points where this hypothesis is not rejected at the 20% level (Section 4.4). This is a definition plus a statistical test; the region is not defined in terms of the later strategy performance. (ii) Critical values are calibrated by simulation under the IID normal null (Appendix A), which is an independent calibration rather than a fit to the DJ30 data. (iii) The ex-post efficient-set mathematics (Section 5) is a separate analytic contribution, partly cited from Adcock (2013); it is not an input to the construction of the consistency region or to the Table 6 strategy comparison. (iv) Table 6 compares Strategy A and Strategy B; B differs from A by the consistency screen plus a cash option when no consistent portfolio exists. That is a treatment confound that weakens identification of the headline claim, but it is not a circular reduction: the consistency screen is computed from past density-forecast accuracy, not from future returns. (v) The discount factor gamma is selected using periods 1-200 and evaluated on periods 201-243; this is in-sample model selection with a disjoint evaluation window, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to another, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a same-author citation. The self-citation to Adcock (2013) supplies supporting mathematics for a secondary contribution and does not feed the central consistency-region or Sharpe-ratio comparison. Therefore there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central methodology rests on the Berkowitz test's calibration, which is carried out under an IID normal model, and on several domain assumptions such as known covariance and multivariate normality for the ex-post frontier. The consistency region itself is defined by a hand-chosen 20% threshold and a grid of portfolios, and the strategy comparison introduces a cash option that is not available to the baseline. These choices are not derived from theory but are imposed by the authors, and they materially affect the reported results.

free parameters (4)

Discount factor gamma for ewma Berkowitz statistic = 0.94 (selected from {0.90, 0.92, 0.94, 0.96, 0.98, 1.00} based on in-sample Sharpe ratio)
Gamma controls the exponential weighting in Eq. (4); the value 0.94 was chosen because it produced the highest returns in evaluation period 1-200, then evaluated out-of-sample. This is a parameter fitted to the first half of the DJ30 backtest.
Significance level for consistency acceptance = 20%
Set to 20% to make acceptance of the null hypothesis a demanding requirement (Section 4.4). This is a hand-chosen threshold that directly affects the size of the consistency region.
Grid dimensions B and C = B=11, C=50
Resolution of the risk-return grid; chosen for computational convenience. The consistency region boundary may depend on grid resolution.
Upper bound on asset weight U = 0.33
Constraint in Eq. (5) limiting any single asset weight; a modeling choice that shapes the feasible frontier and consistency region.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Asset returns follow a multivariate normal distribution in the ex-post math and simulation calibration.
Section 5.1 states R ~ N(mu, Sigma); Appendix A calibrates critical values using IID normal simulations. Real DJ30 returns show skewness and kurtosis, so this is an idealization that may affect the ex-post frontier and test critical values.
domain assumption The covariance matrix Sigma is known in the ex-post efficient set derivation.
Section 5.2 explicitly assumes the covariance matrix is known when deriving ex-post moments. In practice Sigma is estimated, which adds error not captured by the theoretical frontier.
domain assumption The 2n-vector of returns and forecasts is multivariate normal in Method 1 simulations.
Section 5.4 assumes an IID multivariate normal joint distribution for returns and forecasts to estimate the ex-post frontier under inequality constraints.
domain assumption The empirical cdf of in-sample returns is a valid density forecast for the out-of-sample return under the null.
Section 4.3 constructs the empirical cdf from M-H+1 overlapping in-sample returns; the Berkowitz test then assumes this cdf describes the out-of-sample return distribution. Overlapping returns induce dependence that the calibration in Appendix A addresses only under normality.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative portfolio selection: using density forecasting to find consistent portfolios." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAUQEM2R

@misc{pith2026190808442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative portfolio selection: using density forecasting to find consistent portfolios},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAUQEM2R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08442}
}

read the original abstract

In the knowledge that the ex-post performance of Markowitz efficient portfolios is inferior to that implied ex-ante, we make two contributions to the portfolio selection literature. Firstly, we propose a methodology to identify the region of risk-expected return space where ex-post performance matches ex-ante estimates. Secondly, we extend ex-post efficient set mathematics to overcome the biases in the estimation of the ex-ante efficient frontier. A density forecasting approach is used to measure the accuracy of ex-ante estimates using the Berkowitz statistic, we develop this statistic to increase its sensitivity to changes in the data generating process. The area of risk-expected return space where the density forecasts are accurate, where ex-post performance matches ex-ante estimates, is termed the consistency region. Under the 'laboratory' conditions of a simulated multivariate normal data set, we compute the consistency region and the estimated ex-post frontier. Over different sample sizes used for estimation, the behaviour of the consistency region is shown to be both intuitively reasonable and to enclose the estimated ex-post frontier. Using actual data from the constituents of the US Dow Jones 30 index, we show that the size of the consistency region is time dependent and, in volatile conditions, may disappear. Using our development of the Berkowitz statistic, we demonstrate the superior performance of an investment strategy based on consistent rather than efficient portfolios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08442 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The Dow Jones Industrials Index from January 1988 to July 2015 is shown on left hand axis, an annualised return on the index (dashed line) and the index volatility (solid line) are shown on right hand axis. The evaluation dates used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Summary efficient frontiers for a universe of 30 memb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Considering acceptance at the more lenient 5% critic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A comparison of time series of the proportion of con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Adcock, C. J., M. C. Cortez, M. R. Armada and F. Silva, 2012, T ime Varying Betas and The Unconditional Distribution of Asset Returns, Quantitative Finance, 12, no. 6:951-967. Adcock, C. J., 2013, Ex Post Efficient Set Mathematics, The Journal of Mathematical Finance , 3, no.1A: 201-210. Adcock, C.J., 2014, Mean–varian ce–skewness efficient surfaces, Stei...

work page 2012
[4]

Jobson, J.D

Berkeley: University of California Press, 361-379. Jobson, J.D. and B. Korkie, 19 80, Estimation for Markowitz effi cient portfolios, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(371), 544-554. Jorion, P., 1985, International portfolio diversification with estimation risk. Journal of Business , 58(3), 259-278. Jorion, P., 1986, Bayes-Stein estimati...

work page 1985
[28]

Mitchell, J. and S.G. Hall, 2005, Evaluating, comparing and com bining density forecasts using the KLIC with an application to the Bank of England and NIESR ‘fan’ charts of inflation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67, Supplement s1, 995-1033. Palczewski, A. and J. Palczewski, 2014, Theoretical and empiric al estimates of mean–variance portf...

work page 2005
[187]

Yu, J-R., W-J

34 Wang, Z.Y., 2005, A shrinkage approach to model uncertainty and asset allocation, The Review of Financial Studies, 18(2), 673-705. Yu, J-R., W-J. P. Chiou, W-Y. Lee, and T-Y. Chuang, 2019, Reali zed performance of robust portfolios: worst-case Omega vs CVaR related models, Computers and Operations Research , 104, 239-255

work page 2005
[400]

Tu, J. and G.F. Zhou, 2004, Data-generating process uncertainty : What difference does it make in portfolio decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 72(2), 385-421. Tütüncü, R.H. and M. Koenig, 2004, Robust asset allocation. Annals of Operations Research, 132(1), 157 -

work page 2004
[1952]

Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91

Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91. Markowitz, H., 2014, Mean–variance approximations to expected u tility. European Journal of Operational Research, 234, 346–355. Mathai, A.M. and S. B. Prevost, 1992, Quadratic Forms in Random Variables, Heidelberg, Springer. Meade, N., 2010, Oil prices - Brownian motion or mean reversion ? A study usin...

work page 2014
[2003]

Journal of Finance, 58(4), 1651-1683

Risk reduction in large port folios: Why imposing the wrong constraints helps. Journal of Finance, 58(4), 1651-1683. 33 James, W. and C. Stein, 1961, Es timation with quadratic loss. Proceedings of the 4 th Berkeley Symposium on Probability and Statistics

work page 1961
[2007]

New York: Wiley Fabozzi, F.J., D.S

Robust portfolio optimization and management. New York: Wiley Fabozzi, F.J., D.S. Huang, and G.F. Zhou, 2010, Robust portfoli os: contributions from operations research and finance, Annals of Operations Research, 176(1), 191-220. Frankfurter, G.M., H.E. Phillips and J.P. Seagle, 1971, Portfol io selection, the effects of uncertain means, variances, and co...

work page 2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adcock, C. J., M. C. Cortez, M. R. Armada and F. Silva, 2012, T ime Varying Betas and The Unconditional Distribution of Asset Returns, Quantitative Finance, 12, no. 6:951-967. Adcock, C. J., 2013, Ex Post Efficient Set Mathematics, The Journal of Mathematical Finance , 3, no.1A: 201-210. Adcock, C.J., 2014, Mean–varian ce–skewness efficient surfaces, Stei...

work page 2012

[2] [4]

Jobson, J.D

Berkeley: University of California Press, 361-379. Jobson, J.D. and B. Korkie, 19 80, Estimation for Markowitz effi cient portfolios, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(371), 544-554. Jorion, P., 1985, International portfolio diversification with estimation risk. Journal of Business , 58(3), 259-278. Jorion, P., 1986, Bayes-Stein estimati...

work page 1985

[3] [28]

Mitchell, J. and S.G. Hall, 2005, Evaluating, comparing and com bining density forecasts using the KLIC with an application to the Bank of England and NIESR ‘fan’ charts of inflation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67, Supplement s1, 995-1033. Palczewski, A. and J. Palczewski, 2014, Theoretical and empiric al estimates of mean–variance portf...

work page 2005

[4] [187]

Yu, J-R., W-J

34 Wang, Z.Y., 2005, A shrinkage approach to model uncertainty and asset allocation, The Review of Financial Studies, 18(2), 673-705. Yu, J-R., W-J. P. Chiou, W-Y. Lee, and T-Y. Chuang, 2019, Reali zed performance of robust portfolios: worst-case Omega vs CVaR related models, Computers and Operations Research , 104, 239-255

work page 2005

[5] [400]

Tu, J. and G.F. Zhou, 2004, Data-generating process uncertainty : What difference does it make in portfolio decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 72(2), 385-421. Tütüncü, R.H. and M. Koenig, 2004, Robust asset allocation. Annals of Operations Research, 132(1), 157 -

work page 2004

[6] [1952]

Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91

Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91. Markowitz, H., 2014, Mean–variance approximations to expected u tility. European Journal of Operational Research, 234, 346–355. Mathai, A.M. and S. B. Prevost, 1992, Quadratic Forms in Random Variables, Heidelberg, Springer. Meade, N., 2010, Oil prices - Brownian motion or mean reversion ? A study usin...

work page 2014

[7] [2003]

Journal of Finance, 58(4), 1651-1683

Risk reduction in large port folios: Why imposing the wrong constraints helps. Journal of Finance, 58(4), 1651-1683. 33 James, W. and C. Stein, 1961, Es timation with quadratic loss. Proceedings of the 4 th Berkeley Symposium on Probability and Statistics

work page 1961

[8] [2007]

New York: Wiley Fabozzi, F.J., D.S

Robust portfolio optimization and management. New York: Wiley Fabozzi, F.J., D.S. Huang, and G.F. Zhou, 2010, Robust portfoli os: contributions from operations research and finance, Annals of Operations Research, 176(1), 191-220. Frankfurter, G.M., H.E. Phillips and J.P. Seagle, 1971, Portfol io selection, the effects of uncertain means, variances, and co...

work page 2010