The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Empirical Bayes Approach to Efficient Portfolio Selection
Abstract
When portfolio optimization is implemented using the historical characteristics of security returns, estimation error can degrade the desirable properties of the investment portfolio that is selected. Given the problem of estimation risk, it is natural to formulate rules of portfolio selection within a Bayesian framework. In this framework, portfolio selection is based on maximization of expected utility conditioned on the predictive distribution of security returns. Most researchers have addressed the problem of estimation risk by asserting a noninformative diffuse prior that reduces the detrimental effect of estimation risk, but does not directly reduce estimation error. Portfolio performance can be improved by specifying an informative prior that reduces estimation error. An informative prior that all securities have identical expected returns, variances, and pairwise correlation coefficients is asserted. This informative prior reduces estimation error by drawing the posterior estimates of each security's expected return, variance, and pairwise correlation coefficients toward the average return, average variance, and average correlation coefficient, respectively, of all the securities in the population. The amount that each of these parameters is drawn toward its grand mean depends upon the degree to which the sample is consistent with the informative prior. This empirical Bayes method is shown to select portfolios whose performance is superior to that achieved, given the assumption of a noninformative prior or by using classical sample estimates.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · Cited by 50,444
Cited by
Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/ N Portfolio Strategy?
DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2009) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhm075 · Cited by 3,199
A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices
Ledoit, O., & Wolf, M. (2004) · Journal of Multivariate Analysis · doi:10.1016/s0047-259x(03)00096-4 · Cited by 3,046
Optimal Portfolio Choice with Parameter Uncertainty
Kan, R., & Zhou, G. (2007) · Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis · doi:10.1017/s0022109000004129 · Cited by 699
60 Years of portfolio optimization: Practical challenges and current trends
Kolm, P. N., Tütüncü, R., & Fabozzi, F. J. (2014) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.060 · Cited by 632
Portfolio Selection with Parameter and Model Uncertainty: A Multi-Prior Approach
Garlappi, L., Wang, T., & Uppal, R. (2004) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.671981 · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Frost, P. A., & Savarino, J. E.
- Venue
- The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1986-09
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 293
- ISSN
- 0022-1090 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2092013333
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.58
- 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: An Empirical Bayes Approach to Efficient Portfolio Selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2331043
- The paper
- Frost, P. A., & Savarino, J. E. (1986). An Empirical Bayes Approach to Efficient Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. https://doi.org/10.2307/2331043
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.