Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,038

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Generalized Approach to Portfolio Optimization: Improving Performance by Constraining Portfolio Norms

DeMiguel, Victor, Garlappi, Lorenzo, Nogales, Francisco J., Uppal, Raman·2009·Management Science

Abstract

We provide a general framework for finding portfolios that perform well out-of-sample in the presence of estimation error. This framework relies on solving the traditional minimum-variance problem but subject to the additional constraint that the norm of the portfolio-weight vector be smaller than a given threshold. We show that our framework nests as special cases the shrinkage approaches of Jagannathan and Ma (Jagannathan, R., T. Ma. 2003. Risk reduction in large portfolios: Why imposing the wrong constraints helps. J. Finance 58 1651–1684) and Ledoit and Wolf (Ledoit, O., M. Wolf. 2003. Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection. J. Empirical Finance 10 603–621, and Ledoit, O., M. Wolf. 2004. A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J. Multivariate Anal. 88 365–411) and the 1/N portfolio studied in DeMiguel et al. (DeMiguel, V., L. Garlappi, R. Uppal. 2009. Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? Rev. Financial Stud. 22 1915–1953). We also use our framework to propose several new portfolio strategies. For the proposed portfolios, we provide a moment-shrinkage interpretation and a Bayesian interpretation where the investor has a prior belief on portfolio weights rather than on moments of asset returns. Finally, we compare empirically the out-of-sample performance of the new portfolios we propose to 10 strategies in the literature across five data sets. We find that the norm-constrained portfolios often have a higher Sharpe ratio than the portfolio strategies in Jagannathan and Ma (2003), Ledoit and Wolf (2003, 2004), the 1/N portfolio, and other strategies in the literature, such as factor portfolios.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0986

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Cited by

See all 1,038

Metadata

Authors
DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., Nogales, F. J., & Uppal, R.
Venue
Management Science
Published
2009-05
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
798-812
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
OpenAlex
W2127000676
Cited by
1,038
References
56
FWCI
53.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Generalized Approach to Portfolio Optimization: Improving Performance by Constraining Portfolio Norms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0986
The paper
DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., Nogales, F. J., & Uppal, R. (2009). A Generalized Approach to Portfolio Optimization: Improving Performance by Constraining Portfolio Norms. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0986

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.