Retail Financial Advice: Does One Size Fit All?

Using unique data on Canadian households, we show that financial advisors exert substantial influence over their clients' asset allocation, but provide limited customization. Advisor fixed effects explain considerably more variation in portfolio risk and home bias than a broad set of investor attributes that includes risk tolerance, age, investment horizon, and financial sophistication. Advisor effects remain important even when controlling flexibly for unobserved heterogeneity through investor fixed effects. An advisor's own asset allocation strongly predicts the allocations chosen on clients' behalf. This one‐size‐fits‐all advice does not come cheap: advised portfolios cost 2.5% per year, or 1.5% more than life cycle funds.     

Benefits of international diversification with investment constraints: An over-time perspective

This paper investigates the benefits and asset allocation of the optimal international diversification for the U.S.A. investor while considering various portfolio constraints. Although the global financial market is becoming more integrated, the findings suggest that adding lower and upper weighting bounds reduces, but does not completely eliminate, the potential economic value of international investment. The addition of investment constraints makes asset allocation more feasible and decreases the volatility in portfolio return. The time-variation in the optimal asset allocation implies that fund managers should rebalance international portfolios dynamically. The out-of-sample test suggests that the Markowitz model with constraints realizes trivial improvement in mean-variance efficiency but still demonstrates significant reduction in risk.     

Machine learning and asset allocation

Investors have access to a large array of structured and unstructured data. We consider how these data can be incorporated into financial decisions through the lens of the canonical asset allocation decision. We characterize investor preference for simplicity in models of the data used in the asset allocation decision. The simplicity parameters then guide asset allocation along with the usual risk aversion parameter. We use three distinct and diverse macroeconomic data sets to implement the model to forecast equity returns (the equity risk premium). The data sets we use are (a) price‐dividend ratios, (b) an array of macroeconomic series, and (c) text data from the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings.     

Portfolio choice with skewness preference and wealth-dependent risk aversion

This paper studies a dynamic portfolio choice problem for an investor with both wealth-dependent risk aversion and wealth-dependent skewness preferences. In a general economic setting, the solution is characterized in terms of a system of extended Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (EHJB) equations and the solution is given in closed form in some special cases. We demonstrate the effects of higher order risk preferences and state-dependent risk aversion on the optimal asset allocation decisions. We find that wealth-dependent risk aversion facilitates risk taking and the skewness preference leads to a more positively skewed portfolio in certain circumstances.     

Optimal portfolios when volatility can jump

We consider an asset allocation problem in a continuous-time model with stochastic volatility and jumps in both the asset price and its volatility. First, we derive the optimal portfolio for an investor with constant relative risk aversion. The demand for jump risk includes a hedging component, which is not present in models without volatility jumps. We further show that the introduction of derivative contracts can have substantial economic value. We also analyze the distribution of terminal wealth for an investor who uses the wrong model, either by ignoring volatility jumps or by falsely including such jumps, or who is subject to estimation risk. Whenever a model different from the true one is used, the terminal wealth distribution exhibits fatter tails and (in some cases) significant default risk.     

Optimal asset allocation under linear loss aversion

We study the asset allocation of a linear loss-averse (LA) investor and compare it to the more traditional mean-variance (MV) and conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) investors. First we derive conditions under which the LA problem is equivalent to the MV and CVaR problems and solve analytically the two-asset problem of the LA investor for a risk-free and a risky asset. Then we run simulation experiments to study properties of the optimal LA and MV portfolios under more realistic assumptions. We find that under asymmetric dependence LA portfolios outperform MV portfolios, provided investors are sufficiently loss-averse and dependence is large. Finally, using 13 EU and US assets, we implement the trading strategy of a linear LA investor who reallocates his/her portfolio on a monthly basis. We find that LA portfolios clearly outperform MV and CVaR portfolios and that incorporating a dynamic update of the LA parameters significantly improves the performance of LA portfolios.     

Investor Sentiment and the Closed‐end Fund Puzzle: Out‐of‐sample Evidence

In this paper we examine the proposition that small investor sentiment, measured by the change in the discount/premium on closed‐end funds, is an important factor in stock returns. We conduct an out‐of‐sample test of the investor sentiment hypothesis in a market environment that is more likely to be prone to investor sentiment than the USA. We fail to provide supporting evidence for the claim of Lee et al. (1991) that investor sentiment affects the risk of common stocks. Consistent with Elton et al. (1998) , who show that investor sentiment does not enter the return generating process, our tests do not detect investor sentiment in a capital market that is more susceptible to small investor sentiment. Our results provide additional support against the claim that investor sentiment represents an independent and systematic asset pricing risk.     

Optimal Hedging and Valuation of Nontraded Assets

This paper examines a number of valuation problems faced by an expected-utility-maximizing investor who, over a given time horizon, is constrained to hold an asset which cannot be replicated by dynamic trading and which therefore does not have a unique no-arbitrage price. We first derive the private valuation which the investor assigns to the nontradedasset in order to determine his optimal investment in the traded assets. We thereby show that, as part of this portfolio, the investor hedges the private valuation process of the nontraded asset, rather than its market price process. We also study the price at which the investor would be willing to sell the nontraded asset if he were subsequently prohibited from trading in it, as well as the amount the investor would be willing to pay to removethe trading restriction. All three values are shown to depend in an intuitive manner on the investor's risk aversion, the residual risk of the nontraded asset unhedged by the traded assets, the difference between the constrained holding and optimal unconstrained holding of the asset and the length of the time horizon over which the asset cannot be traded.     

Asset allocation and location over the life cycle with investment-linked survival-contingent payouts

This paper shows how survival-contingent investment-linked payouts can enhance investor wellbeing in the context of a portfolio choice model which integrates uninsurable labor income and asymmetric mortality expectations. In exchange for illiquidity, these products provide the consumer with access to mutual-fund style portfolio choice, as well as the survival credit generated from pooling mortality risk. Our model generates optimal asset location patterns indicating how much to hold in liquid versus illiquid survival-contingent payouts over the lifetime, and also asset allocation paths, showing how to invest in stocks versus bonds. We show that the investor who moves her money out of liquid saving into survival-contingent assets gradually from middle age to retirement and beyond, will enhance her welfare by as much as 50%. The results are robust to the introduction of uninsurable consumption shocks in housing expenses, income flows during the worklife and retirement, sudden changes in health status, and medical expenses.     

Asset allocation and investment horizon

Quarterly recommendations by national brokerage firms since the third quarter of 1989 provide an opportunity to compare different approaches to asset allocation. To follow a brokerage firm's recommendation every quarter is to practice tactical asset allocation. Both the length of the investor's decision horizon and brokerage commissions that are incurred when portfolio changes are made impact investment performance, and both contribute to the risk experienced by investors. Buy-and-hold and strategic asset allocation would have served investors better than tactical asset allocation during the first half of the 1990s.     

Predictability and Transaction Costs: The Impact on Rebalancing Rules and Behavior

Recent papers show that predictability calibrated to U.S. data has a large effect on the rebalancing behavior of a multiperiod investor. We find that this continues to be true in the presence of realistic transaction costs. In particular, predictability causes the no-trade region for the risky-asset holding to become state dependent and, on average, wider and higher. Predictability also motivates the investor to spend considerably more on rebalancing and to rebalance more often. In other results, we find that introducing costly liquidation of the risky asset for consumption lowers the average allocation to the risky asset, though only marginally early in life. Our experiments also vary the nature of the return predictability and introduce return heteroskedasticity.     

Does liquidity drive stock market returns? The role of investor risk aversion

In this paper, we explore the relations between liquidity, stock returns, and investor risk aversion as captured by the variance risk premium (VRP). This is motivated by theoretical and empirical evidence in the literature which suggests that investor risk aversion negatively correlates with asset liquidity, and ample empirical evidence documenting liquidity risk premium. We use monthly US data from January 1999 to December 2018 and show that innovations in the VRP Granger-cause stock returns, which in turn drive liquidity. Our findings are consistent with predictions of prior theories and highlight the predictability of the VRP. They also contribute to the on-going debate on the causal relation between stock returns and liquidity. Finally, we explore the channels through which the VRP impacts liquidity and find that the VRP influences market and momentum factors, and that movements in these factors lead to changes in liquidity.

     

Foreign institutional investors,information asymmetries,and asset valuation in emerging markets

This study investigates the effects of information asymmetries and asset valuation model differences (investor heterogeneity) between foreign and domestic investors on their distinct portfolio holdings in an emerging market setting. I argue that information asymmetry and investor heterogeneity views significantly interact in explaining the different asset allocation decisions of foreign and domestic investors. Employing a large dataset from Turkey, the findings suggest that both information asymmetry and investor heterogeneity view play a key role in explaining the investment decisions of different investor groups. Specifically, different from domestic investors, foreign investors are more likely to invest in firms with a higher global market performance which supports the investor heterogeneity view. However, this relationship only holds for firms with high information asymmetries. The difference in valuation models between foreign and domestic investors converge when asymmetric information problems between these investor groups weaken. This study contributes to the international finance literature by providing a new explanation of why foreign and domestic investors invest in different assets.     

Asset allocation in markets with contagion: The interplay between volatilities,jump intensities,and correlations

We study the impact of financial contagion on the dynamic asset allocation problem of a CRRA investor facing an incomplete market with two risky assets. We apply a Markov chain regime-switching framework with state-dependent jump intensities, diffusion volatilities and diffusion correlations. The key model feature that a switch to the bad contagion regime is triggered by a loss in one of the risky assets allows for the implementation of a hedging demand against contagion risk. Moreover, a state-dependent diffusion correlation combined with heterogeneity in jump intensities and volatilities can, e.g., generate a flight to quality effect upon a systemic jump.     

Extreme observations and diversification in Latin American emerging equity markets

In this paper, we focus on the tails of the unconditional distribution of Latin American emerging markets stock returns. We explore their implications for portfolio diversification according to the safety first principle, first proposed by Roy [Econometrica (1952) 20, 431]. We find that the Latin American emerging markets have significantly fatter tails than industrial markets, especially, the lower tail of the distribution. We consider the implication of the safety first principle for a US investor who creates a diversified portfolio using Latin American stock markets. We find that a US investor gains by adding Latin American equity markets to her purely domestic portfolio. For different parameter specifications, we find a more realistic asset allocation than the one suggested by the literature based on the traditional mean-variance framework.     

Voluntary disclosure of information when firms are uncertain of investor response

A firm may prefer not to disclose its private information if it is uncertain of investor response. In the setting under consideration, a firm needs to acquire capital from an investor. The investor can choose to invest in the firm, the risk free asset or in some alternative risky investment opportunity. It is shown that in a partial disclosure equilibrium, the firm discloses average information and withholds bad and good information. Disclosure of average information arises to attract the investor's capital away from the risk free asset.     

The Role of Learning in Dynamic Portfolio Decisions

This paper analyzes the effect of uncertainty about the mean return on the risky asset on the portfolio decisions of an investor who has a long investment horizon. Building on the earlier work of Detemple (1986), Dothan and Feldman (1986), and Gennotte (1986), it is shown that the possibility of future learning about the mean return on the risky asset induces the investor to take a larger or smaller position in the risky asset than she would if there were no learning, the direction of the effect depending on whether the investor is more or less risk tolerant than the logarithmic investor whose portfolio decisions are unaffected by the possibility of future learning. Numerical calculations show that uncertainty about the mean return on the market portfolio has a significant effect on the portfolio decision of an investor with a 20 year horizon if her assessment of the market risk premium is based solely on the Ibbotson and Sinquefield (1995) data.     

Time Diversification,Safety-First and Risk

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the effect of investment time horizon on the choice of risky assets in a portfolio when the investor in question is optimizing a Safety-First (downside risk-aversion) utility function. It is shown, under standard assumptions, that although shortfall risk decreases exponentially with investment time horizon, the portfolio asset allocation proportions remain invariant. In fact, in some instances, the optimal allocation will not even depend on the drift of the underlying assets. Thus, we extend the classical results of Samuelson and Merton, derived under conventional utility assumptions, to an individual optimizing an A.D. Roy Safety-First objective; a discontinuous utility function that has been extolled as conforming to observed investor behaviour. A numerical example is provided.     

Asset allocation when guarding against catastrophic losses: a comparison between the structure variable and joint probability methods

We apply a bivariate approach to the asset allocation problem for investors seeking to minimize the probability of large losses. It involves modelling the tails of joint distributions using techniques motivated by extreme value theory. We compare results with a corresponding univariate approach using simulated and financial data. Through an examination of a simulated and real financial data set we show that the estimated risks using the bivariate and univariate approaches are in close agreement for a wide range of losses and allocations. This is important since the bivariate approach is significantly more computationally expensive. We therefore suggest that the univariate approach be used for the typical level of loss that an investor may want to guard against. This univariate approach is effective even if there are more than two assets. The software written in support of this work is available on demand and we describe its use in the appendix.     

Optimal Hedging and Valuation of Nontraded Assets

This paper examines a number of valuation problems faced byan expected-utility maximizing investor who, over a given timehorizon, is constrained to hold an asset which cannot be replicatedby dynamic trading and which therefore does not have a uniqueno-arbitrage price. We first derive the private valuation whichthe investor assigns to the nontraded asset in order to determinehis optimal investment in the traded assets. We thereby showthat, as part of this portfolio, the investor hedges the privatevaluation process of the nontraded asset, rather than its marketprice process. We also study the price at which the investorwould be willing to sell the nontraded asset if he were subsequentlyprohibited from trading in it, as well as the amount the investorwould be willing to pay to remove the trading restriction. Allthree values are shown to depend in an intuitive manner on theinvestor’s risk aversion, the residual risk of the nontradedasset unhedged by the traded assets, the difference betweenthe constrained holding and optimal unconstrained holding ofthe asset and the length of the time horizon over which theasset cannot be traded. JEL Classification: G11