2003
DOI: 10.1088/1469-7688/3/1/303
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal allocation to hedge funds: an empirical analysis

Abstract: What percentage of their portfolio should investors allocate to hedge funds? The only available answers to the above question are set in a static mean-variance framework, with no explicit accounting for uncertainty on the active manager's ability to generate abnormal return, and usually generate unreasonably high allocations to hedge funds. In this paper, we apply the model introduced in Cvitanić, Lazrak, Martellini and Zapatero (2002b) for optimal investment strategies in the presence of uncertain abnormal re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
24
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the optimal portfolio allocation across individual hedge funds is complicated by the fact that owing to the strategies that hedge fund managers typically adopt, hedge fund returns are far from normally distributed, usually exhibiting very significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis (see, for example, Amin and Kat, 2001;Lo, 2001;Brooks and Kat, 2002;Hsieh, 1997a, 2001;Agarwal and Naik, 2001). Portfolio optimisation in the presence of such nonnormality in hedge fund returns generally leads to very different portfolio allocations than those implied by mean-variance analysis (see, for example, McFall and Lamm, 2003;Fung and Hsieh, 1997b;Cvitanic et al, 2003;Terhaar et al, 2003;Popova et al,. 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the optimal portfolio allocation across individual hedge funds is complicated by the fact that owing to the strategies that hedge fund managers typically adopt, hedge fund returns are far from normally distributed, usually exhibiting very significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis (see, for example, Amin and Kat, 2001;Lo, 2001;Brooks and Kat, 2002;Hsieh, 1997a, 2001;Agarwal and Naik, 2001). Portfolio optimisation in the presence of such nonnormality in hedge fund returns generally leads to very different portfolio allocations than those implied by mean-variance analysis (see, for example, McFall and Lamm, 2003;Fung and Hsieh, 1997b;Cvitanic et al, 2003;Terhaar et al, 2003;Popova et al,. 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The conventional mean-variance approach above is also criticised by numerous other investigations, including Cvitani'c et al, 1 Agarwal and Naik, 2 Amenc and Martellini 3 and Amin and Kat. 4 These studies observe that mean-variance portfolio optimisation makes the key assumption of normal asset return distributions.…”
Section: Prior Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well documented (see Cvitani'c et al, 1 Agarwal and Naik, 2 Amenc and Martellini 3 and Amin and Kat 4 ) that hedge funds are marked by their heterogeneity and unusual statistical properties. This makes the use of conventional methods of portfolio construction subject to question and necessitates the investigation of a more sophisticated approach to inform the construction of appropriate and efficient portfolios.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the optimal portfolio allocation across individual hedge funds is complicated by the fact that owing to the strategies that hedge fund managers typically adopt, hedge fund returns are far from normally distributed, often exhibiting very significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis (see, for example, Amin & Kat, 2001;Lo, 2001;Brooks & Kat, 2002;Fung & Hsieh, 1997a, 2001Agarwal & Naik, 2004, Hudson et al, 2006Wegener et al, 2010). Portfolio optimization in the presence of such non-normality generally leads to very different portfolio allocations than those implied by mean-variance analysis (see, for example, McFall Lamm, 2003;Fung & Hsieh, 1997b;Cvitanic et al, 2003;Terhaar et al, 2003;Popova et al,. 2003;Glaffig, 2006;Wong et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%