Regularizing Mean-Variance Weights Toward Equal Allocation
Summary
The document proposes blending portfolio variance with a penalty on concentrated weights to represent a preference for naive diversification. The objective combines the covariance-based risk term with the squared length of the weight vector, subject to weights summing to one. Its parameter is intended to move the solution from the minimum-variance portfolio toward equal allocation as the penalty increases.
The derivation identifies the inverse of a blended covariance matrix as the key quantity, but the displayed weight expression has mismatched parentheses and appears to have its vector orientation reversed. The blend also requires the identity matrix alongside the covariance matrix, since a scalar cannot be added directly to a matrix. With that correction, the normalized solution reaches equal weights when the variance term is removed, assuming the relevant matrix is invertible. The document is a question and partial derivation rather than a worked answer, so it does not provide empirical tests or discuss parameter selection, constraints, or the effects of scaling the covariance matrix.
Key ideas
- A squared-weight penalty can express a preference for less concentrated portfolio allocations.
- The proposed objective interpolates between variance minimization and equal weighting.
- The scalar penalty must multiply an identity matrix before it can be combined with a covariance matrix.
- The displayed solution contains notation errors that obscure the normalized inverse-matrix formula.
- The document does not test the approach or explain how to choose the preference parameter.
Tags
Full text
# Naive Diversification under mean variance
# Naive Diversification under mean variance
I'm looking for a way to introduce naive diversification bias in a mean variance framework and had the idea to model it as some sort of "aversion to extreme portfolio weights" of the following form:
$$ (1-\delta)\omega^{'} \Sigma\omega+\delta\omega^{'}\omega \rightarrow Min!\\ s.t.1^{'}\omega=1 $$
Here, $\omega$ is the weightsd vector, $\Sigma$ the covariance matrix and $\delta$ some preference parameter. By setting up the Lagrangean and solving for my lagrange multiplyer and then with this multiplier for the optimal weights vector i get something that looks like:
$$ \omega^*=\frac{1^{'}((1-\delta)\Sigma+\delta)^{-1}}{1^{'}(1-\delta)\Sigma+\delta)^{-1}1} $$
however, this doesn't look quite right as i expected for $\delta=0$ to obtain the min.variance portfolio and for $\delta=1$ i hoped to get a weights vector containing $\frac{1}{n}$ where $n$ is the number of assets/ length of my vector $1$. I'm sure i made a mistake somewhere along the way, would someone mind checking where i made a mistake and point me to the right way?
Thanks a lot for your help Thomas
EDIT: As mentioned in the comments here are some details how i got to this result: The Lagrangean of the above problem is
$ L(\omega,\lambda)=(1-\delta)\omega^{'} \Sigma\omega+\delta\omega^{'}\omega-\lambda(1^{'}\omega-1)$
The FOC for $\omega$ is:
$2(1-\delta)\Sigma\omega+2\delta\omega-1^{'}\omega-1)=0$ (the FOC for $\lambda$ is the usual constraint.)
from which i get $\omega=\frac{\lambda}{2}((1-\delta)\Sigma+\delta)^{-1}1$. Using this to obtain $\lambda^{*}$ i get $\lambda^{*}=\frac{1}{1^{'}((1-\delta)\Sigma+\delta)^{-1}1*2}$.
Inserting this for $\lambda$ in the first FOC i get the expression for the weights-vector as stated above. Setting $\delta=0$ i get the usual expression for the variance minimum portfolio, setting $\delta=1$ (i.e. naive diversification is my only target), then i get: $\omega^{*}=\frac{1}{1^{'}1}$. I think the expression ${1^{'}1}$ gives me the length of the asset vector of $n$ as I'm summing over all 1's.
Can someone confirm that this is correct? Furthermore, I'm not sure how to interpret the expression $((1-\delta)\Sigma+\delta)^{-1}$ as it contains a scalar $\delta$ and a matrix $\Sigma$ times a scalar? Is there something missing?
Running this in my little portfolio-toy and removing some specific constraints i get, which makes me a bit more confident..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.