Skip to content
All library documents

A General Proof of Nonnegative Diversification Return

Article Quant Q&A · Author: AlRacoon

Summary

The document proves that a constantly rebalanced long-only portfolio’s geometric average return is at least the weighted average of the constituent assets’ geometric average returns. It formalizes the claim for any number of assets and multiple holding periods, assuming weights are nonnegative and sum to one, and each period’s asset return is at least negative one.

The proof expresses each period’s portfolio gross return as a weighted sum of asset gross returns, then applies a generalized inequality derived from the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality. This bounds the product of portfolio gross returns below by the corresponding weighted combination of asset geometric gross returns, yielding the stated result. The result is exact rather than a variance approximation. It depends on constant rebalancing and the stated long-only and return assumptions; it does not establish the claim for portfolios with short positions or arbitrary changing weights.

Key ideas

  • With nonnegative weights summing to one, the rebalanced portfolio’s geometric return is at least the weighted average of asset geometric returns.
  • The result applies to any finite number of assets and holding periods.
  • The proof uses a generalized product inequality established through the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality.
  • The result assumes asset returns do not fall below negative one and does not cover short positions.

Tags

Full text
# Proving diversification return is always nonnegative


# Proving diversification return is always nonnegative












The "diversification return" of a portfolio is the difference between the geometric average (compound) return of a rebalanced portfolio and the weighted sum of the geometric average returns of the assets. My understanding is this diversification return is always nonnegative in a portfolio with positive asset weights (only long positions)

I have not found a rigorous proof that diversification return is never negative for the most general case involving $N$ assets. I have found references that show diversification return is approximately the difference between the weighted average of asset variances and the portfolio variance which must be nonnegative. But I would like to see a proof that does not rely on any approximation for an arbitrary number of assets.

To formalize the problem, suppose we have a portfolio with N assets that is always rebalanced to maintain constant asset weights $w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_N$. Let $r_{ij}$ denote the return of asset $i$ in holding period $j$ where $i=1,2,\ldots,N$ and $j = 1,2,\ldots, T$. The return of the portfolio in period $j$ is $r_{Pj} = w_1r_{1j} + \ldots w_N r_{Nj}$ and so the geometric average return of the portfolio over the $T$ periods is

$$g_P = [(1+r_{P1})(1+r_{P2})\cdots (1+r_{PT})]^{1/T} -1$$

The geometric average return of asset $i$ is $$g_i = [(1+r_{i1})(1+r_{i2})\cdots (1+r_{iT})]^{1/T} -1$$

Can it be proved rigorously that $g_P \geq w_1g_1 + w_2 g_2 + \ldots + w_N g_N$?

## Answer by RRL (score 9, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/72185

Assuming portfolio weights that sum to $1$, the geometric average portfolio return is given by

$$(1+g_P)^T= \prod_{j=1}^T\left[1+ \sum_{i=1}^N w_i r_{ij} \right] =\prod_{j=1}^T \sum_{i=1}^N w_i(1+ r_{ij}) $$

To proceed, we can apply a form of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. The most familiar form is

$$\left(\sum_{i=1}^N X_iY_i\right)^2 \leqslant \left(\sum_{i=1}^NX_i^2 \right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^NY_i^2 \right)$$

and this can be generalized for $T$-fold products to

$$\tag{1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^N\prod_{j=1}^TX_{ij}\right)^T \leqslant \prod_{j=1}^T\sum_{i=1}^NX_{ij}^T$$

Since the weights are nonnegative and assuming $r_{ij} \geqslant -1$, we can define $X_{ij} = [w_i(1+ r_{ij})]^{1/T}$ and substitute into (1) to obtain

$$\tag{2}\prod_{j=1}^T\sum_{i=1}^Nw_i(1+r_{ij}) \geqslant \left(\sum_{i=1}^N\prod_{j=1}^T[w_i(1+r_{ij})]^{1/T}\right)^T = \left(\sum_{i=1}^Nw_i\left[\prod_{j=1}^T(1+r_{ij})\right]^{1/T}\right)^T $$

The geometric average return of asset $i$ satisfies $1+g_i = \left[\prod_{j=1}^T(1+r_{ij})\right]^{1/T}$, and substituting into the RHS of (2) we get

$$\prod_{j=1}^T\sum_{i=1}^Nw_i(1+r_{ij}) \geqslant \left(\sum_{i=1}^N w_i(1+g_i)\right)^T = \left(1+\sum_{i=1}^N w_ig_i\right)^T $$

Since the LHS is equal to $(1+g_P)^T$, it follows that

$$g_P \geqslant \sum_{i=1}^N w_ig_i,$$ as was to be shown.

Proof of generalized inequality (1).

We can derive the generalized Cauchy-Schwarz inequality from the inequality of arithmetic and geometric means (AM-GM inequality) which for nonnegative $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n$ is written as $$\left(\prod_{j=1}^n x_j\right)^{1/n} =\sqrt[n]{x_1x_2\cdots x_n}\leqslant \frac{x_1+x_2+ \ldots + x_n}{n} =\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n x_j$$

Taking $S_j = \sum_{i=1}^N X_{ij}^T$, we have by the AM-GM inequality,

$$\left(\prod_{j=1}^T\frac{X_{ij}^T}{S_j}\right)^{1/T}\leqslant \frac{1}{T}\sum_{j=1}^T \frac{X_{ij}^T}{S_j},$$

and it follows that

$$\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \prod_{j=1}^T X_{ij}}{\left(\prod_{j=1}^T S_j \right)^{1/T}}= \sum_{i=1}^N\left(\prod_{j=1}^T\frac{X_{ij}^T}{S_j}\right)^{1/T}\leqslant \sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{T}\sum_{j=1}^T \frac{X_{ij}^T}{S_j}\\= \frac{1}{T}\sum_{j=1}^T\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{X_{ij}^T}{S_j } = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{j=1}^T\frac{\sum_{i=1}^NX_{ij}^T}{\sum_{i=1}^NX_{ij}^T} =1$$

Multiplying both sides by the denominator on the LHS we get

$$\sum_{i=1}^N \prod_{j=1}^T X_{ij}\leqslant\left(\prod_{j=1}^T S_j \right)^{1/T} = \left(\prod_{j=1}^T \sum_{i=1}^N X_{ij}^T \right)^{1/T}, $$

and, thus,

$$\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \prod_{j=1}^T X_{ij}\right)^{T}\leqslant\prod_{j=1}^T \sum_{i=1}^N X_{ij}^T $$

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.