Abstract
Given mean-reverting equity and interest rate uncertainty, this article shows a relatively low economic cost of using a simple allocation strategy, buy-and-hold or constant-mix, instead of optimal reallocation. Moreover, given the decision to use one of the simple allocation strategies, the article identifies (1) which investors will be better off with buy-and-hold than with constant-mix, and vice versa, and (2) which investors will be better off with a horizon-maturity fixed-income position than with a sequence of short-maturity ones, and vice versa. The article uses illustrations in a three-period binomial model to bridge the academic/practitioner gap and provide useful insights to those interested in applied investment management.
TOPICS: Portfolio management/multi-asset allocation, portfolio theory, portfolio construction
Key Findings
• Given mean-reverting equity and uncertain interest rates, investors sacrifice little in expected utility by replacing the optimal reallocation strategy with a simpler allocation strategy of either buy-and-hold or constant-mix.
• Traditional investors, with positive allocations to both equity and fixed income, are better off with constant-mix than with buy-and-hold and with allocating to a horizon-maturity fixed-income instrument rather than a sequence of single-period fixed-income instruments.
• More risk-tolerant investors with levered equity positions are better off with buy-and-hold than with constant-mix and with levering by a sequence of single-period fixed-income instruments instead of a horizon-maturity fixed-income instrument.
- © 2020 Pageant Media Ltd
Don’t have access? Register today to begin unrestricted access to our database of research.