Revisiting EWMA in High‐Frequency‐Based Portfolio Optimization: A Comparative Assessment
高频信息组合优化中重审 EWMA:比较评估AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确比较高频多元波动率模型与 EWMA,并以股票组合评估,对应波动率和高频计量。
高频信息组合优化中重审 EWMA:比较评估AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
ABSTRACT This paper compares the statistical and economic performance of state‐of‐the‐art high‐frequency (HF) based multivariate volatility models with a simpler, widely used alternative, the Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) filter. Using over two decades of 100 U.S. stock returns (2002–2023), we assess model performance through a Global Minimum Variance portfolio optimization exercise, with and without short‐selling restrictions across multiple forecast horizons. We find that the EWMA model cannot consistently be outperformed by more complex HF‐based volatility models at the daily and weekly forecast horizons, even delivering significant utility gains when including transaction costs due to a favorable balance between turnover and ex‐post portfolio volatility. At the monthly horizon, the EWMA remains competitive against most of its competitors. Our findings hold across alternative specifications, including different estimation window lengths, portfolio sizes and smoothing parameter values, emphasizing the continued relevance of parsimonious volatility specifications, such as the EWMA model, in realistic investment settings.