Hvass Laboratories
Blog on Investment Finance
 
TensorFlow Videos SourceCode Investing Books Blog Videos Source Code FinanceOps MetaOps SwarmOps RandomOps ArrayOps Author Publications Thesis Citations Schoolwork Contact Hvass Labs 
Portfolio Variance is Not Riskby Magnus Erik Hvass Pedersen, May 17, 2014 Meanvariance portfolios are commonly believed to minimize risk for a given level of expected return, because variance is believed to measure risk. But this is incorrect as proven with a short example. Negative ReturnsLet asset A be a stochastic variable with negative returns (4%), (5%) or (6%) and let asset B be a stochastic variable with positive returns 5%, 10% or 15%. The returns have equal probability of occurring and are dependent in the order they are listed so that if asset A has return (4%) then asset B has return 5%, etc. The asset returns are perfectly anticorrelated with coefficient 1. The longonly, minimumvariance portfolio lies on the efficient frontier and is when the weight for asset A is 5/6 and the weight for asset B is 1/6. This gives a portfolio with mean (2.5%) and zero variance, that is, all possible returns of the portfolio are losses of exactly (2.5%). But an investor could instead have chosen a portfolio consisting entirely of asset B which would always give a positive return of either 5%, 10% or 15%. An investment entirely in asset B is clearly superior to an investment in the minimumvariance portfolio even though asset B has higher variance. Positive ReturnsThe above example had an asset with negative returns which could be avoided by adding the constraint that returns must be positive; but the problem also exists for assets with partly negative returns or all positive returns. To see this, change asset A's possible returns to 3%, 2% or 1%. Then the minimum variance portfolio still has asset A weight 5/6 and asset B weight 1/6 which gives a portfolio return of about 3.3% with zero variance. But asset B alone would give a higher return of either 5%, 10% or 15%. So although the minimumvariance portfolio has no return spread, it has a lower return with certainty. Overlapping Return DistributionsThe problem also exists for assets that have overlapping return distributions. Let asset A's possible returns be 6%, 5% or 4%. Then the minimum variance portfolio still has asset A weight 5/6 and asset B weight 1/6 which always gives a portfolio return of about 5.8% with zero variance. But asset B alone would give a higher return of either 10% or 15% with probability 2/3 (or about 67%) and a slightly lower return of 5% with probability 1/3 (or about 33%). Variance is Not RiskThe reason asset A is included in the efficient frontier and minimumvariance portfolio is that its return has a low (sample) standard deviation of 1% while asset B has a higher standard deviation of 5%. The two assets have negative correlation so combining them in a portfolio lowers the combined standard deviation. The meanvariance efficient frontier is optimized for low variance (and standard deviation) which gives a low spread of the possible returns from the portfolio. But the spread of possible returns is not a useful measure of risk because it does not consider the probability of loss and the probability of other assets having a higher return. So the meanvariance portfolio is not optimized for risk in the traditional sense of the word which is defined in a dictionary as "the chance of injury or loss". Further Reading
This example is taken from the paper Portfolio Optimization and Monte Carlo Simulation. 
