Skip to content
All library documents

Annualizing Downside Deviation and Estimator Limits

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Fra_Ve

Summary

The document asks whether downside deviation from daily returns should be annualized and compares two threshold-based definitions. One answer treats the measure as a truncated second moment of the return distribution and argues that, under a stationary distribution, its population value does not depend on the observation horizon. This differs from standard volatility scaling, which relies on assumptions about how returns aggregate over time.

A second answer considers iid normally distributed returns and derives a population expression involving the normal density and cumulative distribution function. It then emphasizes that the sample estimator includes a square root and may be biased or variable. Multiplying such an estimate to annualize it could magnify estimation error. The discussion does not settle a universal scaling rule: the result depends on the precise definition, threshold, return distribution, and estimator properties, which are not fully resolved for practical data.

Key ideas

  • Downside deviation has multiple definitions, including different placements of the threshold.
  • Under stationarity, a truncated return moment is described as horizon independent at the population level.
  • A normal-return assumption permits an analytical expression for the population measure.
  • The square-root sample estimator may be biased and variable.
  • Annualization can magnify estimation error, so a scaling rule needs explicit assumptions.

Tags

Full text
# Annualisation of Downside Deviation


# Annualisation of Downside Deviation












Is it possible to annualise the downside deviation? If so, on the basis of what theory?

The downside deviation (DD) of a series of daily returns is computed according to the formula:

$\text{DD} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{{T}}\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\text{min}(\text{ret}_t,\text{thr}))^2}$

where T is the number of daily observations and thr is a threshold, for instance 0 or the average of the returns.

Other definitions are also used, according to what we want to be represented by the formula. E.g.:

$\text{DD} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{{T}}\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\text{min}((\text{ret}_t - \text{thr}),0))^2}$

## Answer by ZRH (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/44574

DD is basically just the average of square returns conditional on returns being smaller than $thr$. If $\rho(\xi)$ is the distribution of returns, then the continous equivalent of your formula is:

$E[\mathit{DD}]=\sqrt{\int_{-\infty}^{thr}\xi^2\rho(\xi)d\xi}$

So basically as long as you assume $\rho(\xi)$ is stationary, $E[\mathit{DD}]$ will not be a function of observation time.

## Answer by Attack68 (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/44586

If you make the assumption that your returns are iid normally distributed $R_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0, 1)$, then with the second definition, and using @ZRH provided formula...

$$E[DD] = \sqrt{\int_{-\infty}^{c}x^2\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}exp(-\frac{x^2}{2}) dx }$$

So expanding this out (integration by parts) you get;

$$E[DD] = \sqrt{ \left [ - x \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} exp(-\frac{x^2}{2}) \right ]_{-\infty}^c + \int_{-\infty}^{c} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}exp(-\frac{x^2}{2})} $$

which is (where $\Phi(c)$ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function),

$$ E[DD] = \sqrt{ -\frac{c}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} exp(-\frac{c^2}{2}) + \Phi(c) } \;.$$

Now you are proposing an estimator, $\theta(T)$, for this value based on the second definition. You should be concerned about the bias;

$$Bias(\theta) = E[\theta - E[DD]] $$ $$Bias(\theta) = E \left [\sqrt{\frac{1}{T}\sum_i^T \min(0, x_i-c)^2} \right ] - E[DD] $$

The reason I mention this is because presumably an annualisation will involve some multiplication of the result, and if the bias is not zero you will be amplifying this sample error, and if there is a large variance in this estimator then by annualising, again, you will be amplifying a potentially poor estimator.

I could not expand out the above due to lack to either lack of time or ability (it was not clear to me which it was) but even in this simple case of standard normal it is not clear to me what to do. This might not necessarily have been that bad: the bias might have been zero and the variance small.

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.