PurposeMotivated by the recent theoretical rehabilitation of mean-variance analysis, the authors revisit the question of whether minimum variance (MinVar) or maximum Sharpe ratio (MaxSR) investment weights are preferable in practical portfolio formation.Design/methodology/approachThe authors answer this question with a focus on mainstream investors which can be modeled by a preference for simple portfolio optimization techniques, a tendency to cling to past asset characteristics and a strong interest in index products. Specifically, in a rolling-window approach, the study compares the out-of-sample performance of MinVar and MaxSR portfolios in two asset universes covering multiple asset classes (via investable indices and their subindices) and for two popular input estimation methods (full covariance and single-index model).FindingsThe authors find that, regardless of the setting, there is no statistically significant difference between MinVar and MaxSR portfolio performance. Thus, the choice of approach does not matter for mainstream investors. In addition, the analysis reveals that, contrary to previous research, using a single-index model does not necessarily improve out-of-sample Sharpe ratios.Originality/valueThe study is the first to provide an in-depth comparison of MinVar and MaxSR returns which considers (1) multiple asset classes, (2) a single-index model and (3) state-of-the-art bootstrap performance tests.
Estimation for Functional Single Index Models with Unknown Link Functions
