Aggregating Portfolio Returns Across Assets and Time
Summary
The document examines how to represent portfolio returns when combining several assets over multiple periods. It contrasts ordinary returns with log returns, using portfolio weights and interval returns to show why each is convenient along one dimension but awkward along the other. Ordinary returns combine linearly across assets when weights are known, while cumulative returns over time compound multiplicatively. Log returns add across time, but portfolio log return is a nonlinear function of the weighted asset growth factors.
The author asks whether another return definition could aggregate simply across both assets and time, but the document provides no answer or proposed alternative. Its examples establish the structural tradeoff rather than empirical performance, and the discussion does not address changing portfolio weights, rebalancing, cash flows, or the assumptions required for weighted portfolio-return calculations. It is useful as a conceptual introduction to return aggregation and a prompt to distinguish time compounding from cross-sectional portfolio combination.
Key ideas
- Ordinary returns combine linearly across assets when portfolio weights are fixed for the period.
- Cumulative ordinary returns compound across time rather than adding.
- Log returns add across time, but portfolio log returns do not generally equal a weighted sum of asset log returns.
- The document raises the search for a return measure that aggregates cleanly across both dimensions without resolving it.
Tags
Full text
# How to reasonably aggregate returns across both different assets and different time-horizons?
# How to reasonably aggregate returns across both different assets and different time-horizons?
This might be a somewhat open question, so any suggestion of improvement is welcome.
Suppose at time $t=0$, we have $N$ different assets whose weights are $w_1,\cdots,w_n$ ($\sum w_i = 1$), and they are all invested over the horizon $[0,T]$. Let $\{r_{i}^t\}_{i=1,\cdots,N}^{t=1,\cdots,T}$ be "returns" of asset $i$ over the interval $[t-1,t]$.
Question: I'm looking for a reasonable definition of "returns" that enables one to nicely represent/aggregate the total portfolio return from $\{r_{i}^t\}_{i=1,\cdots,N}^{t=1,\cdots,T}$.
At this point, I'm at the dilemma between choosing the ordinary return (something like $(S_{t+\Delta t}/S_t - 1)$) and the log return (something like $\log(S_{t+\Delta t}/S_t)$.) The two choices are kind of complementary in terms of the following:
- The ordinary return enables easy linear aggregation across different assets. For example, if we know all assets' weights $w_i$ and ordinary returns $r_i^t$ over year $t$, then the portfolio (ordinary) return over year $t$ is just a simple linear sum $$r_p^t=\sum_i w_ir_i^t$$ However, a very serious problem is that ordinary returns do NOT linearly add up over the time dimension (note that my $T$ might be large so the naive linear approximation $\log(1+x)\approx x$ cannot apply). For example, for a certain asset $i$, if we know its ordinary return over each year $t$, then what is its total ordinary return over $[0,T]$? The answer is $r_i^{[0,T]}=\Pi_t (1+r_i^t) - 1$ which is quite ugly in terms of tractability (say, it's clearly impossible to compute the volatility of $r_i^{[0,T]}$ if only given those of $r_i^t$.).
- The log return is more or less the contrary. It enables simple linear summation across the time dimension: suppose the log returns of asset $i$ over year $t$ are $r_i^t$, then the total log return is simply $r_i^{[0,T]}:=\sum_t r_i^t$. However, it completely loses the compatibility with the asset dimension: given the log return $r_i$ of each asset $i$, the total log return of the portfolio would be a hideous expression $r_p = \log(\sum_i w_i \exp(r_i))$.
Is there any other version of "returns" that would hopefully allow simple aggregation (linear best) over both the time and the asset dimension?
Thanks!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.