Shrinkage Estimation of Covariance Matrix for Portfolio Choice with

arXiv:1611.06753v1 [] 21 Nov 2016

High Frequency Data
Cheng Liu, Ningning Xia and Jun Yu

∗

November 22, 2016

Abstract
This paper examines the usefulness of high frequency data in estimating the covariance
matrix for portfolio choice when the portfolio size is large. A computationally convenient
nonlinear shrinkage estimator for the integrated covariance (ICV) matrix of financial assets is developed in two steps. The eigenvectors of the ICV are first constructed from a
designed time variation adjusted realized covariance matrix of noise-free log-returns of relatively low frequency data. Then the regularized eigenvalues of the ICV are estimated by
quasi-maximum likelihood based on high frequency data. The estimator is always positive
definite and its inverse is the estimator of the inverse of ICV. It minimizes the limit of the
out-of-sample variance of portfolio returns within the class of rotation-equivalent estimators.
It works when the number of underlying assets is larger than the number of time series observations in each asset and when the asset price follows a general stochastic process. Our
theoretical results are derived under the assumption that the number of assets (p) and the
sample size (n) satisfy p/n → y > 0 as n → ∞. The advantages of our proposed estimator
are demonstrated using real data.
Some key words: Portfolio Choice, High Frequency Data; Integrated Covariance Matrix; Shrinkage Function.
JEL classification: C13; C22; C51; G12; G14

∗

Liu is an assistant professor in Economics and Management School of Wuhan University, Hubei, China.
Email: chengliu eco@whu.edu.cn. Xia is an assistant professor in School of Statistics and Management, Shanghai
University of Finance and Economics. Email: xia.ningning@mail.shufe.edu.cn. Yu is a professor in School of
Economics and Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University. Email: yujun@smu.edu.sg.

1

1

Introduction

The portfolio choice problem has been an important topic in modern financial economics ever
since the pioneer contribution by Markowitz (1952). It is well-known in the literature that
constructing an optimal portfolio requires a good estimate for the second moment of the future
return distribution, i.e., the covariance matrix of the future returns. The simplest situation for
estimating the covariance matrix is when the returns are independent and identically normally
distributed (IID) over time. In this case, the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) is the sample
covariance matrix and the efficiency of MLE is justified asymptotically.
However, there are at least two problems for using the sample covariance matrix to select
the optimal portfolio in practice. First, when the portfolio size is large, the sample covariance
matrix is found to lead to poor performances in the selected portfolio; see Jobson and Korkie
(1980) and Michaud (1989). Not surprisingly, the sample covariance matrix is rarely used by
practitioners when the portfolio size is large. The reason for the poor performances is due to
the degree-of-freedom argument. That is, too many parameters have to be estimated in the
covariance matrix when the portfolio size is large. In fact, if the portfolio size is larger than
the number of time series observations in each asset, the sample covariance is always singular.
Second, the returns are not IID over time. This is because typically the covariance is time
varying. In this case, the asymptotic justification for using the sample covariance matrix is lost.
Many alternative estimators of the large dimensional covariance matrix for portfolio choice
have been proposed in the literature. A rather incomplete list includes Ledoit and Wolf (2003,
2004, 2014), Frahm and Memmel (2010), DeMiguel, Garlappi, and Uppal (2009), DeMiguel,
Garlappi, Nogales, and Uppal (2009), Kan and Zhou (2007), Fan, Fan and Lv (2008), Pesaran
and Zaffaroni (2009), Tu and Zhou (2011). Most studies use dimension reduction techniques.
One of the techniques uses factor (either observed factors or latent factors) models. Another
approach uses a statistical technique known as shrinkage, a method first introduced by Stein
(1956). Murihead (1987) reviewed the literature on shrinkage estimators of the covariance matrix. All these estimators are constructed from low frequency data (daily, weekly or monthly
data) over a long period (one year or more). However, if the investment period of a portfolio is
much shorter (say one day or one week or one month) which is empirically more relevant, given
the time varying nature of the covariance, we expect the covariance in the near future to be
similar to the average covariance over an immediate recent time period but not to that over a
long time period. Hence, even if data over a long time period is available, one may only prefer
using data over a short period. If low frequency data over a short time period are used, however,
the degree-of-freedom argument will be applicable.
The recent availability of quality high-frequency data on financial assets has motivated a
growing literature devoted to the model-free measurement of covariances. In a recent study,
Fan, Li and Yu (2012) proposed to use high-frequency data to estimate the ICV over a short
time period for the purpose of portfolio choice. Their setup allows one to impose gross exposure
constraints. The use of gross exposure constraints plays a similar role to the no-short-sale

2

constraint in Jagannathan and Ma (2003). Fan, Li and Yu (2012) demonstrated the substantial
advantages of using high-frequency date in both simulation and empirical studies.
There are several reasons why it is better to use high frequency data to estimate the covariance matrix. First, the use of high frequency data drastically increases the sample size. This is
especially true for liquid assets. Second, one does not need to assume returns are IID any more
for establishing the large sample theory for the estimator. This generalization is important due
to the time-varying nature of spot covariance. Not surprisingly, the literature on estimating the
ICV based on high frequency data is growing rapidly.
In this paper, we also use high frequency data to estimate the ICV for the purpose of portfolio
choice. Unlike Fan, Li and Yu (2012) where portfolio choice is done under pre-specified exposure
constraints, we focus our attention on how to get a good shrinkage estimator of the ICV without
any pre-specified constraint.1 This shift of focus is due to the lack of guidance on how to specify
the gross exposure constraints. Our estimator designs the shrinkage function as in Ledoit and
Wolf (2014). However, we differ from Ledoit and Wolf (2014) in the following important ways.
First, instead of applying the shrinkage function to the eigenvalues of sample covariance matrix
by assuming the returns are IID, we regularize the eigenvalues of a designed time variation
adjusted (TVA) realized covariance matrix under the assumption that the covariance matrix
is time varying. Second, instead of using low frequency data, we use high frequency data
for constructing the designed TVA realized covariance matrix and estimating its regularized
eigenvalues. We show that our proposed estimator, which will be given in Section 3, not only
has some desirable properties in terms of estimating the ICV, but also asymptotically achieves
the minimum out-of-sample portfolio risk.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we set up the portfolio choice problem.
Section 3 introduces our estimator and discusses its properties and implementations. In Section
4, we compare the out-of-sample performance of our proposed method with several methods
proposed in the literature using actual data, including the equal weight, the linear shrinkage
estimator of Ledoit and Wolf (2004), and the high frequency method of Fan, Li and Yu (2012).
Section 5 concludes. The appendix collects the proof of our theoretical results.

2

Portfolio Selection: The Setup

Suppose that a portfolio is constructed based on a pool of p assets whose log-price is denoted
by Xt = (X1t , · · · , Xpt )′ , where M′ denotes the transpose of the vector or matrix M. Instead of
assuming Xt follows a Brownian motion which means that the log-returns are IID, we assume
Xt follows a more general diffusion process as
dXt = µt dt + Θ t dBt ,
1

(1)

DeMiguel, Garlappi, Nogales, and Uppal (2009) showed that adding a constraint for 1-norm of weights is
equivalent to shrinkage the estimator of covariance matrix.

3

where µt = (µ1t , · · · , µpt )′ is a p-dimensional drift process at time t, Θ t is a p × p (spot)
covolatility matrix at time t, and Bt is a p-dimensional standard Brownian motion.
A portfolio is constructed based on Xt with weight wT which satisfies w′T 1 = 1 at time T
and a holding period τ , where 1 is a p-dimensional vector with all elements being 1. Over the
R T +τ
period [T, T + τ ], it has a return w′T T
dXt , and has a risk (variance)
RT,T +τ (wT ) =

e T,T +τ wT ,
w′T Σ

e T,T +τ =
where Σ

Z

T +τ

ET Σt dt,
T

with Σt = Θ tΘ ′t being the (spot) covariance matrix at time t and ET denotes the expectation
conditional on information up to time T (see Fan, Li and Yu, 2012). Typically, the holding
period τ is short (say one day or one week or one month).
e
To focus on finding a good approximation for Σ
, we consider the following global minT,T +τ
imum variance (GMV) problem:
e T,T +τ wT
min w′T Σ
wT

w′T 1 = 1.

with

(2)

By taking the derivative of wT , we have the following theoretical optimal weight,
wT =

e −1 1
Σ
T,T +τ
−1

e T,T +τ 1
1′ Σ

,

(3)

e T,T +τ .
which is a function of the expected ICV conditional on the current time T , i.e., Σ
Denote the ICV over the period [T − h, T ] by
ΣT −h,T :=

Z

T

Σt dt.

T −h

If h is small, following Fan, Li and Yu (2012), we use the following approximation
e T,T +τ ≈ τ ΣT −h,T .
Σ
h

(4)

Consequently, the theoretical optimal weight becomes
wT =

Σ−1
T −h,T 1
1′ Σ−1
T −h,T 1

.

(5)

The reason for choosing a small h from the historical sample (i.e. a small time span for
[T − h, T ]) to approximate the expected ICV is due to the time varying and persistent nature
of the covariance matrix. If a big h (say 10 years) is used and an average covariance matrix is
used to approximate the expected ICV, the approximation errors would be inevitably large. In
fact, as rightly argued in Fan, Li and Yu (2012), even when the true covariance matrices are
available, an average of them will still lead to large approximation errors.

4

∗

b
Let Σ
T −h,T denote a generic (invertible) estimator of the ICV ΣT −h,T . The plug-in estimator
of the optimal portfolio weight for wT in (5) is
−1
 ∗
b
1
Σ
T −h,T
.
ŵ∗T := 

−1
∗
′
b
1
1 ΣT −h,T

b∗
We need to find the optimal Σ
T −h,T for portfolio choice. Given that the optimal portfolio
is typically meant to perform the best out-of-sample, following Ledoit and Wolf (2014), we
define a loss function for portfolio selection to be the out-of-sample variance of portfolio returns
b∗
conditional on Σ
T −h,T ,
−1
−1
 ∗
 ∗
′ Σ
b
b T −h,T
1
Σ
Σ
1
T −h,T
T −h,T
∗
∗ ′
b∗
=
)
Σ
ŵ
L(Σ
,
Σ
)
=
(
ŵ
,


T
−h,T
T
−h,T
T
T
T −h,T
2
−1
 ∗
′
b
1
1 ΣT −h,T

(6)

e T,T +τ by τ ΣT −h,T and ignore the scale τ without any loss. The best
where we approximate Σ
h
h
b∗
estimator of the ICV is therefore the one that minimizes the loss function L(Σ
T −h,T , ΣT −h,T ).
Although this paper mainly focuses on the GMV problem, our estimation technique has a
much wider implications for other problems that also require the estimation of ICV, including
the Markowitz portfolios with and without estimating the conditional mean. In the empirical
studies, we will show the usefulness of our proposed method in the context of the Markowitz
portfolio.

3

The New Estimator of ICV

Denote the trading time points for the ith asset by 0 ≤ ti1 < ti2 < ... < ti,Ni ≤ T with i = 1, ..., p.
It is difficult to estimate the ICV based on tick-by-tick high frequency data when the number
of stocks (p) is large for the following reasons. First, data are always non-synchronous. Second,
data are contaminated by microstructure noises. Denote Yi,tij the log-price of the ith asset at
time tij and Xi,tij the latent log efficient price of the ith asset. Then
Yi,tij = Xi,tij + ǫi,tij ,
where ǫi,tij is the market microstructure noise at time tij . Third, the spot covariance matrix Σt
of returns of latent log-price Xt is time varying. Fourth, the returns of the efficient price are
not independent over time. To find a good estimator for the ICV, we first introduce an initial
estimator, denoted the time variation adjust (TVA) realized covariance matrix, and discuss its
disadvantages for estimating the ICV in subsection 3.1. To improve the initial estimator, we
propose to regularize its eigenvalues. In subsection 3.2, we provide the theoretical background
for regularizing the eigenvalues of TVA realized covariance matrix. We then demonstrate how
to regularize its eigenvalues in subsection 3.3.
5

3.1

The initial estimator of ICV: TVA

To simplify the problem, we propose the following structural assumption for Xt . The same
assumption was also used in Zheng and Li (2011).
Definition 3.1. (Class C). Suppose that Xt is a p-dimensional process satisfying Equation (1).
We say that Xt belongs to class C if, almost surely, there exist γt ∈ D([T − h, T ]; R) and Λ a
ΛΛ ′ ) = p such that
p × p matrix satisfying tr(Λ
Θ t = γt Λ ,
where D([T − h, T ]; R) stands for the space of càdlàg functions from [T − h, T ] to R.
Remark 3.1. Class C allows the covariance matrix to be time varying because γt is time varying.
The assumption of Θ t = γtΛ may be too strong than necessary but facilitates the mathematical
proof of the results in the present paper.
If Xt belongs to class C, we can decompose
Z
Z T
2
′
γt dt · ΛΛ = P
ΣT −h,T =
T −h

T
T −h

γt2 dt



· Γ P′ ,

where Γ is a diagonal matrix, P an orthogonal matrix, and PΓP′ the eigen-decomposition of
ΛΛ ′ such that the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of Σt = Θ tΘ ′t are time varying and invariant
respectively.
To estimate ΣT −h,T , Zheng and Li (2011) proposed to use the so-called TVA realized covariance matrix over the period [T − h, T ], which is defined as
STVA
T −h,T

=

tr (

Pn

′
k=1 ∆Xk ∆Xk )

p

n

· S̆T −h,T , where S̆T −h,T =

p X ∆Xk ∆X′k
,
n
|∆Xk |2

(7)

k=1

∆Xk = Xτk − Xτk−1 , and Xτk denotes the log efficient price Xt at time τk for
T − h := τ0 < τ1 < · · · < τn := T.

P
Zheng and Li (2011) demonstrated that tr ( nk=1 ∆Xk ∆X′k )/p is a good estimator for
RT
2
T −h γt dt and S̆T −h,T is similar to the sample covariance matrix with IID samples. Here similarity means that S̆T −h,T is a consistent estimator of population covariance matrix ΛΛ ′ when
p is fixed, while the limiting spectral distribution of S̆T −h,T , which will be introduced later in
the paper, is equivalent to that of the sample covariance matrix of IID samples generated from
a distribution with zeros mean and population covariance ΛΛ ′ , when p goes to ∞ together with
the sample size n.
Clearly, the construction of TVA requires a synchronous record of p assets at (τ0 , τ1 , · · · , τn ).
Since data is always non-synchronous, we need to synchronize them. In this paper, we use the
previous tick method (see Zhang, 2011) to interpolate the prices. However, the efficient price is
latent due to the presence of microstructure noise. To deal with this problem, we suggest using
6

sparse sampling so that the impact of microstructure noise can be ignored. Based on a Hausman
type test, Aı̈t-Sahalia and Xiu (2016) showed that when data are sampled every 15 minutes, the
observed prices are free of the microstructure noise problem. In this paper, we will follow this
suggestion by sampling the interpolated data every 15 minutes. Denote (τ0 , τ1 , · · · , τn ) the time
stamps at every 15 minutes. So Yτk ≈ Xτk .
Denote the sparsely-sampled log-prices by Yτ0 , Yτ1 , ..., Yτn . The feasible TVA realized covariance matrix is constructed as
P
n
TVA
tr ( nk=1 ∆Yk ∆Y′k ) X ∆Yk ∆Y′k
e
,
(8)
ST −h,T =
n
|∆Yk |2
k=1

e TVA
e TVA has the same properties as STVA , we treat S
with ∆Yk = Yτk − Yτk−1 . Since S
T −h,T
T −h,T
T −h,T
TVA
the same as STVA
and
only
use
S
in
the
rest
of
this
paper.
T −h,T
T −h,T
It is well-known that the eigenvalues of the sample covariance matrix are more spread out
than those of the population covariance matrix. This property is applicable not only to the
TVA
sample covariance matrix but also to STVA
T −h,T . In other words, the smallest eigenvalues of ST −h,T
tend to be biased downwards, while the largest ones upwards. As a result, there is a need to
regularize the eigenvalues of STVA
T −h,T .

3.2

Theoretical background for regularizing the eigenvalues of STVA
T −h,T

Let us first introduce some concepts in the random matrix theory. Let p denote the number
of variables and n = n(p) the sample size. For any p × p symmetric matrix M, suppose that
its eigenvalues are λ1 , · · · , λp , sorted in the non-increasing order. Then the empirical spectral
distribution (ESD) of M is defined as
p

1X
F M (x) :=
I(λi ≤ x),
p
i=1

for x ∈ R,

where I denotes the indicator function of a set. The limit of ESD as p → ∞, if exists, is referred
to the limiting spectral distribution (LSD hereafter). Let Supp(G) denotes the support interval
of distribution function G. For any distribution G, sG (·) denotes its Stieltjes transform defined
as
Z
1
sG (z) =
dG(λ),
for z ∈ C+ := {z ∈ C : ℑ(z) > 0},
λ−z
where ℑ(·) denotes the imaginary part of a complex number.
3.2.1

The limit of loss function

Suppose the eigen-decomposition of STVA
T −h,T is
′
′
STVA
T −h,T = UVU = Udiag(v1 , ..., vp )U ,

(9)

where v1 , ..., vp are eigenvalues of STVA
T −h,T sorted in the non-increasing order, U = (u1 , ..., u p ) are
corresponding eigenvectors. Let diag(M) denote a diagonal matrix with the diagonal elements
being the diagonal elements of M if M is a matrix or being M if M is a vector.
7

To regularize the eigenvalues of STVA
T −h,T , following Ledoit and Wolf (2014), we restrict our
attention to a class of rotation-equivalent estimators which is defined below. This strategy allows
us to use a nonlinear shrinkage method to regularize the eigenvalues. However, different from
Ledoit and Wolf (2014), we do not assume returns are IID. Instead we assume that Xt ∈ C.
Definition 3.2. (Class of Estimators S). We consider a generic positive definite estimator
′
b∗
for ΣT −h,T of the type Σ
T −h,T := Udiag(gn (v1 ), · · · , gn (vp ))U , with v1 ≥ · · · ≥ vp being the
eigenvalues of STVA
T −h,T , U = (u1 , ..., u p ) being corresponding eigenvectors. Here gn is a real
univariate function and can depend on STVA
T −h,T . We assume that there exists a nonrandom
real univariate function g(x), defined on Supp(F) and continuously differentiable, such that
a.s.
gn (x) −→ g(x), for all x ∈ Supp(F), where F denotes the LSD of STVA
T −h,T .
Here, gn (x) is called the shrinkage function because what it does is to shrink the eigenvalues of
by reducing the dispersion around the mean, pushing up the small ones and pulling down
the large ones. The high dimensional asymptotic properties of STVA
T −h,T are fully characterized by
its limiting shrinkage function g(x). As noted in Stein (1975) and Ledoit and Wolf (2014), the
estimators in this class are rotation equivalent, a property that is desired when the user does
not have any prior preference about the orientation of the eigenvectors.
Since we consider the case that p goes to ∞ together with the sample size, finding the optimal
estimator of ΣT −h,T within class S for portfolio selection is equivalent to
the optimal
 finding

∗
b
shrinkage function g(x) that minimizes the limit of the loss function L ΣT −h,T , ΣT −h,T for
 ∗

b ∗T −h,T ∈ S. We have the following theorem to show the limit of L Σ
b T −h,T , ΣT −h,T .
Σ
STVA
T −h,T

Theorem 3.1. Suppose that Xt is a p -dimensional diffusion process in class C for some drift
process µt , covolatility process Θ t = γtΛ and p-dimensional Brownian motion Bt , which satisfies
the following assumptions:
(A.i) µt = 0 for t ∈ [T − h, T ], and γt is independent of Bt .
(A.ii) There exists C0 < ∞ such that for all p, |γt | ∈ (1/C0 , C0 ) for all t ∈ [T − h, T ] almost
surely;
(A.iii) All eigenvalues of Σ̆ = ΛΛ ′ are bounded uniformly from 0 and infinity;
RT
(A.iv) limp→∞ tr (ΣT −h,T ) /p = limp→∞ T −h γt2 dt := θ > 0 almost surely;

(A.v) Almost surely, as p → ∞, the ESD of ΣT −h,T converges to a probability distribution H
on a finite support;
(A.vi) The observation time points τk ’s are independent of the Brownian motion Bt and there
exists a constant C1 > 0 such that max1≤k≤n n(τk − τk−1 ) ≤ C1 .
If p/n → y ∈ (0, ∞), then the ESD of STVA
T −h,T converges almost surely to a nonrandom
probability distribution F . If Equation (9) is satisfied, then
Z

Z
 ∗

x
dF (x) 2
a.s.
b
p × L ΣT −h,T , ΣT −h,T →
dF (x)/
,
|1 − y − yx × s̆F (x)|2 g(x)
g(x)
8

∗

′
TVA
b
where Σ
T −h,T := Udiag(gn (v1 ), · · · , gn (vp ))U is in class S by regularizing ST −h,T , g(x) is the
∗
b T −h,T . In addition, for all x ∈ (0, ∞), s̆F (x) is defined as
limiting shrinkage function of Σ
limz∈C+ →x sF (z), and sF (z) is the Stieltjes transform of the limiting spectral distribution of
STVA
T −h,T .

Remark 3.2. Theorem 3.1 extends the result in Proposition 3.1 of Ledoit and Wolf (2014) from
the IID case to Class C and from the sample covariance to the TVA realized covariance.

b ∗T −h,T and
Remark 3.3. Without loss of generality, if we assume that all the eigenvalues of Σ
−1
 ∗
−1
−1
 ∗
 ∗
b
b
b
1 =
1 = Op (p) and 1′ Σ
ΣT −h,T Σ
ΣT −h,T are bounded, 1′ Σ
T −h,T
T −h,T
T −h,T
 ∗

1
b
Op (p), so that L Σ
T −h,T , ΣT −h,T = Op ( p ). This is why we investigate the limiting behavior
 ∗

b
of p × L Σ
in Theorem 3.1.
T −h,T , ΣT −h,T

Lemma 3.1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.1, a generic positive-definite
estimator
 ∗

∗
b
b
ΣT −h,T within class S minimizes the almost sure limit of the loss function L ΣT −h,T , ΣT −h,T
if and only if its limiting shrinkage function g satisfies
x
g(x) =
,
∀ x ∈ Supp(F).
(10)
|1 − y − yx × m̆F (x)|2

Lemma 3.1 is a direct conclusion from Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 4.1 of Ledoit and Wolf
(2014). Unfortunately, the above minimization problem does not yield a closed-form solution
for g(x) because of m̆F (x) is unknown. In addition, finding m̆F (x) and then g(x) is numerically
difficult in practice. Finding a good algorithm for estimating m̆F (x) is of great interest as it
was done in Ledoit and Wolf (2014) that used a commercial package. However, in this paper we
propose to find an alternative interpretation of g(x), which offers an easier way to approximate
g(x).
3.2.2

Alternative interpretation of g(x)

Motivated from Ledoit and Pèchè (2011), we can show that g(x) in (10) is equivalent to the
asymptotic quantity corresponding to the oracle nonlinear shrinkage estimator derived from the
e ′ and ΣT −h,T , i.e.,
following Frobenius norm of the difference between UVU
min

f diagonal
V

e ′ − ΣT −h,T kF ,
kUVU

p
where the Frobenius norm is defined as kMkF = tr(MM′ ) for any real matrix M.
Elementary matrix algebra shows that the solution is
e = diag(ṽ1 , · · · , ṽp ),
V

where ṽi = u′i ΣT −h,T ui , i = 1, · · · , p.

(11)

To characterize the asymptotic behavior of ṽi , i = 1, · · · , p, following the idea of Ledoit and
Pèchè (2011), we define the following non-decreasing function
p

p

i=1

i=1

1X ′
1X
ṽi I(vi ≤ x) =
ui ΣT −h,T ui · I(vi ≤ x).
Ψp (x) =
p
p
9

(12)

Theorem 3.2. Assume that assumptions (A.i)-(A.vi) in Theorem 3.1 hold true and let Ψp be
defined as in (12). If p/n → y ∈ (0, ∞), then there exists a nonrandom function Ψ defined over
R such that Ψp (x) converges almost surely to Ψ(x) for all x ∈ R\{0}. If in addition y 6= 1, then
Ψ can be expressed as
Z
x

∀ x ∈ R,

δ(v)dF (v),

Ψ(x) =

(13)

−∞

where F is the LSD of STVA
T −h,T , and if v > 0,
δ(v) =

v
.
|1 − y − yv × m̆F (v)|2

Remark 3.4. Theorem 3.2 extends the result in Theorem 4 of Ledoit and Pèchè (2011) from
the IID case to Class C.
Theorem 3.2 implies that the asymptotic quantity that corresponds to ṽi = u′i ΣT −h,T ui is
δ(v) provided that v corresponds to vi . An interesting finding is that the results of Lemma
3.1 and Theorem 3.2 are consistent with each other, even though they are motivated from two
different perspectives. Given that it is much easier to work on the minimization problem in (11),
we recommend to regularize the eigenvalues of STVA
T −h,T by using (11), which is to find a good
′
estimator for each ṽi = ui ΣT −h,T ui with i = 1, ..., p .

3.3

Regularized estimators of eigenvalues of STVA
T −h,T

Note that ṽi = u′i ΣT −h,T ui is actually the integrated volatility of process u′i Xt over [T − h, T ]
Pn
′
2
for i = 1, 2, · · · , p. A natural estimator of each ṽi is the realized volatility
k=1 (ui ∆Xk ) .
Unfortunately, this is not a good idea. To see the problem, note that
!
n
n
X
X
∗∗
′
2
′
2
b T −h,T = Udiag
(up ∆Xk ) U′ .
(u1 ∆Xk ) , ...,
Σ
k=1

k=1

Let us consider the simplest case where γt = 1, Λ = Ip with Ip be a p-dimensional identity
1/2
Zk with Zk ’s are IID
matrix, and τk − τk−1 = nh for k = 1, ..., n. We can write ∆Xk = nh
′
′
∆Xk ∆Xk
k Zk
p-dimensional standard normals such that
= Z
. Since |Zk |2 ∼ p as p → ∞, we
| Zk | 2
|∆Xk |2
have
P
n
tr ( nk=1 ∆Xk ∆X′k ) p X ∆Xk ∆X′k
TVA
ST −h,T =
p
n
|∆Xk |2
k=1
P
n
tr ( nk=1 ∆Xk ∆X′k ) 1 X
∼
Zk Z′k ,
p
n
k=1

n
X
k=1

∆Xk ∆X′k =

n
hX

n

Zk Z′k .

k=1

10

By denoting ∆X = (∆X1 , ..., ∆Xn )′ , we have
b ∗∗
Σ
T −h,T

n
n
X
X
′
2
= Udiag
(u1 ∆Xk ) , ...,
(u′p ∆Xk )2
k=1

= Udiag

k=1

u′1 ∆X∆X′ u1 , ..., u′p ∆X∆X′ up


= Udiag U′ ∆X∆X′ U U′



!

U′

U′

∼ ∆X∆X′ ,

which is actually the sample covariance matrix of IID samples generated from N (0, hIp ). Hence,
its eigenvalues are also more spread out than that of hIp , a well-known result in the literature.
To solve this problem, we use the idea from Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016) by splitting
the sample into two parts. We use the estimated eigenvectors from a fraction of the data to
transform the data into approximately orthogonal series.2 We then use the independence of two
sample covariance matrices to regularize the eigenvalues of one of them. Therefore, instead of
based U on ∆Xk = Xτk − Xτk−1 (k = 1, ..., n) for T − h := τ0 < ... < τn := T , we base U∗ on
∗
∆X∗r = Xτr∗ − Xτr−1
(r = 1, ..., m) for
∗
0 := τ0∗ < τ1∗ < ... < τm
< T − h,

where U∗ = (u∗1 , ..., u∗p ) are the eigenvectors of STVA
0,T −h corresponding to the eigenvalues with the
non-increasing order, and the TVA realized covariance matrix
 Pm
m
∗
∗ ′
tr
p X ∆X∗r (∆X∗r )′
r=1 ∆Xr (∆Xr )
TVA
S0,T −h =
· S̆0,T −h , with S̆0,T −h =
.
p
m
|∆X∗r |2
r=1

In addition, since the eigenvectors of Σt is assumed to be time invariant, we also consider the
following optimization problem
V∗

min
diagonal

kU∗ V∗ (U∗ )′ − ΣT −h,T kF ,

and estimate each diagonal element of the oracle minimizer V∗ = diag(v1∗ , ..., vp∗ ) with vi∗ =
(u∗i )′ ΣT −h,T u∗i based on the data over the time period [T − h, T ]. To get an accurate estimator
for each vi∗ with i ∈ {1, ..., p}, we propose to use all the tick-by-tick high frequency data and
take into account with the microstructure noises.
Let us first consider the case that the data are synchronous and equally recorded at time
points {T − h := t∗0 < t∗1 < · · · < t∗N := T }, where the time interval ∆ = t∗j − t∗j−1 → 0 for all
j = 1, ..., N as N → ∞ and h fixed. Notice that here {t∗j : j = 0, ..., N } may be quite different
from {τk : k = 0, ..., n} and ∆ can be one second or a few seconds, and should be much smaller
than τk − τk−1 which is 15 minutes.
2

Strictly speaking, the asymptotic justification of the method requires the IID assumption as shown in Lam
(2016). While the IID assumption does not hold for Class C, we examine the effectiveness of this method using
real data later.

11

We assume each observation is contaminated by microstructure noise such that Yt = (Y1t , ..., Ypt )′
(observed) contains the true log-price Xt (latent) and the microstructure noise ǫt = (ǫ1t , . . . , ǫpt )′
in an additive form
Yt = Xt + ǫt , for t ∈ [T − h, T ],
(14)
where the p-dimensional noise ǫt is assumed to satisfy
Assumption 1. The p-dimensional noise ǫt = (ǫ1t , . . . , ǫpt )′ at different time points t = t∗0 , t∗1 , · · · , t∗N
are IID random vectors with mean 0 (a p-dimensional vector with all elements being 0), positive
definite covariance matrix A0 and finite fourth moment. In addition, ǫt and Xt are mutually
independent.
This assumption has commonly been used in the literature; see, for example, Aı̈t-Sahalia
et al. (2010), Zhang (2011), Liu and Tang (2014). To estimate (u∗i )′ ΣT −h,T u∗i , we apply the
quasi-maximum likelihood (QML) approach developed in Xiu (2010). Based on (1) and (14),
we have
Ỹit = (u∗i )′ Yt = (u∗i )′ Xt + (u∗i )′ ǫt = X̃it + ǫ̃it
dX̃it = (u∗i )′ dXt = (u∗i )′ µt dt + (u∗i )′Θ t dBt = µ̃it dt + σ̃it dB̃it

(15)

by letting
X̃it = (u∗i )′ Xt ,

ǫ̃it = (u∗i )′ ǫt ,

µ̃it = (u∗i )′ µt ,

2
σ̃it dB̃it = (u∗i )′Θ t dBt , σ̃it
= (u∗i )′Θ t ((u∗i )′Θ t )′ = (u∗i )′Θ tΘ ′t u∗i = (u∗i )′ Σt u∗i ,

RT
2 dt.
such that vi∗ = T −h σ̃it
Ignoring the impact of µ̃it dt by considering µ̃it = 0, we follow the idea in Xiu (2010) to
give two misspecified assumptions for each i ∈ {1, ..., p}. First, the spot volatility is assumed
2 = (u∗ )′ Σ u∗ = σ̃ 2 . Second, the noise ǫ̃ is assumed to be normally
to be time invariant: σ̃it
t i
it
i
i
2
distributed with mean 0 and variance ãi . Then the quasi-log likelihood function for Ỹi,t∗j − Ỹi,t∗j−1
is
Np
1  e ∗ ′ ∗ −1  e ∗ 
1
(16)
Yi
Yi (Ω )
log(2π) −
l(σ̃i2 , ã2i ) = − log det(Ω∗ ) −
2
2
2

where Ω∗ is a tridiagonal matrix with the diagonal elements being σ̃i2 ∆ + 2ã2i and the tridi′

∗
agonal elements being −ã2i , Ỹi = Ỹi,t∗1 − Ỹi,t∗0 , ..., Ỹi,t∗N − Ỹi,t∗N−1 . The QML estimator of
R

T
2 dt, (u∗ )′ A u∗ is the value of (σ̃ 2 , ã2 ) which maximizes l(σ̃ 2 , ã2 ). We denote the estiσ̃
0
i
i
i
i
i
i
T −h it
RT
∗
2
∗
mator of vi = T −h σ̃it dt by v̂i , which is positive. Xiu (2010) proved that v̂i∗ is consistent and
RT
2 dt.
asymptotically efficient for T −h σ̃it

Remark 3.5. As discussed in Xiu (2010), if (t∗j −t∗j−1 )s for j = 1, ..., N are random and IID, we
can add another misspecified assumption that they are equal. We then apply the above approach
to get v̂i∗ which is also a consistent estimator of (u∗i )′ ΣT −h,T u∗i . Since the tick-by-tick data over
the time period [T − h, T ] is typically non-synchronous, we propose to first synchronize data by
12

the refresh time scheme of Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2011) and then apply the QML procedure
to obtain v̂i∗ (i = 1, · · · , p). The first refresh time t∗0 during a trading day is the first time when
all assets have been traded at least once since T − h. The second refresh time t∗1 is the first time
when all assets have been traded at least once since the first refresh point in time t∗0 . Repeating
this sequence yields in total N + 1 refresh times, t∗0 , t∗1 , ..., t∗N , and corresponding N + 1 sets of
synchronized refresh prices Yt∗0 , Yt∗1 , ..., Yt∗N with each Yi,t∗j (i = 1, ..., p; j = 0, 1, ..., N ) being the
log-price of the ith asset nearest to and previous to t∗j . Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2011) showed
that if the trading time of p assets arrive as independent standard Poisson processes with common
intensity λ such that the mean of trading frequency of each asset over [T − h, T ] is λh, then the
synchronized data obtained by the refresh time scheme is λh/ log p. Based on this observation,
if each of 100 (or1,000) assets have around 20,000 observations within a trading day, then the
number of synchronized observations is around 4,342 (or 2,895). While this sampling strategy
loses around 78.3% or 85.5% of observations, it keeps much more data than the sparsely sampling
technique at every 15 minutes, where the size is only 26 within a trading day.
Therefore, our shrinkage QML estimators for ΣT −h,T and Σ−1
T −h,T are, respectively,
b T −h,T = U∗ diag(v̂1∗ , ..., v̂p∗ ) (U∗ )′ ,
Σ

 ∗ −1
∗
∗ −1
−1
(U∗ )′ ,
Σ\
T −h,T = U diag (v̂1 ) , ..., (v̂p )

(17)

\
−1
and our estimated optimal weight ŵT is obtained by replacing Σ−1
T −h,T in (5) with ΣT −h,T ,
ŵT =

−1
Σ\
T −h,T 1
−1
1′ Σ\
T −h,T 1

.

(18)

Notice that like U, U∗ cannot be obtained directly from observations. We therefore approximate
U∗ by the eigenvectors of
 Pm
m
∗
∗ ′ X
tr
TVA
∆Y∗r (∆Y∗r )′
r=1 ∆Yr (∆Yr )
e
S0,T −h =
,
m
|∆Y∗r |2
r=1

∗
where ∆Y∗r = Yτr∗ − Yτr−1
(r = 1, ..., m), and Yτr∗ ’s are the log-prices obtained by synchronizing
all the trading prices of p assets during [0, T − h) via the previous tick method.

4

Empirical Studies

In this section, we demonstrate the performance of our proposed method using real data. Three
portfolio sizes are considered (p = 30, 40 and 50) based on stocks traded in the U.S. markets.
These portfolios are 30 Dow Jones Industrial Average (30 DJIA) constituent stocks, 30 DJIA
stocks and 10 stocks with the largest market caps (ranked on March 30, 2012) from S&P 500
other than 30 DJIA stocks, 30 DJIA stocks and 20 stocks with the largest market caps from
S&P 500 other than 30 DJIA stocks. We download daily data starting from March 19, 2012
and ending on December 31, 2013 (450 trading days) from the Center for Research in Security
13

Prices (CRSP) and 200 days intra-day data staring on March 19, 2013 and ending on December
31, 2013 from the TAQ database. The daily data are used to implement some existing methods
in the literature for the purpose of comparison. For the high frequency data, the same data
cleaning procedure as in Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2011) is applied to pre-process the data by
1) deleting entries that have 0 or negative prices, 2) deleting entries with negative values in
the column of “Correlation Indicator”, 3) deleting entries with a letter code in the column of
“COND”, except for “E” or “F”, 4) deleting entries outside the period 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., and
5) using the median price if there are multiple entries at the same time.

4.1

Summary of the proposed method

Given that, in the empirical applications, the basic unit is daily, we can summarize the proposed
method as follows. Suppose we want to construct a portfolio strategy at the end of the Jth day
(which is denoted T in previous sections) based on a pool of p assets with a holding period of J˘
days. We use the ICV in the most recent J − J1 days (which is denoted [T − h, T ] in previous
J˘
to approximate the expected ICV during the holding period.
sections) multiplied by J−J
1
Step 1: Split data of J days into two parts. The first part contains data of first J1 days,
recorded as the 1st, ..., J1 th days. The rest of data of J − J1 days belong to the second part.
Step 2: Synchronize data in the lth day for each l ∈ {1, ..., J1 } using the previous tick method
at the 15-minute interval. Denote the log-price at the 15-minute frequency by Y0 , Y1 , ..., Ym .
Step 3: Synchronize the data in lth day for each l ∈ {J1 + 1, ..., J} using the refresh time
l∗
l∗
scheme to obtain synchronous data and denote the log-price by Yl∗
·0 , Y·1 , ..., Y·nl for each l ∈
{J1 + 1, ..., J}.
P
′
′
tr ( m
k=1 ∆Yk ∆Yk ) Pm ∆Yk ∆Yk
Step 4: Obtain the eigenvectors of
(the corresponding
k=1
m
|∆Yk |2
eigenvalues are sorted in the non-increasing order), and put them together as a p × p matrix
which is denoted by U∗ . Here ∆Yk = Yk − Yk−1 .
∗ ′ l∗
e l∗
Step 5: Obtain Y
·j = (U ) Y·j for l = J1 + 1, ..., J, j = 1, ..., nl . Estimate the integrated
∗ ′
volatility of the ith element of
the lth day by QML that maximizes (16) with

 (U ) Xt during
∗
l∗
l∗
l∗
l∗
e l∗
e i being replaced by Y
e i· = Ỹ , ..., Ỹ
Y
i1
i,nl and with Ỹij being the ith element of Y·j . Denote
the estimator by v̂il∗ .
Step 6: The SQML estimator of the ICV in the lth day is defined as U∗ diag(v̂1l∗ , ..., v̂pl∗ ) (U∗ )′ .
∗ ′
∗
J˘ PJ
l∗
l∗
We then use J−J
l=J1 +1 U diag(v̂1 , ..., v̂p ) (U ) to approximate the expected ICV during
1
−1
the holding period, and its inverse to approximate Σ\
in (18) to get the estimated optimal
T −h,T

weight.
For the purpose of comparison, we consider two different U∗ s. We denote the two different
SQML estimators by SQrM if U∗ in Step 4 is obtained from 15-minute intra-day data and SQrD
if Y0 , ..., Ym are the daily closing log-prices.

14

4.2

The GMV portfolio

We first consider the GMV portfolio problem (2) whose theoretical optimal weight is chosen by
(3). Following the choice of many practitioners, we apply the plug-in method to estimate the
−1
h \
e −1
optimal weight and replace Σ
with different hs. We refer
T,T +τ by its approximation, Σ
τ

T −h,T

to Brandt (2010) for a review of the impacts of a plug-in method in portfolio choice.
We compare the out-of-sample performance of our proposed method with some other methods
in the literature, including the equal weight (denoted by EW), the weight estimated by plugging
in the optimal linear shrinkage of the sample covariance matrix (denoted by LS), the weight
derived by the procedure suggested in Fan, Li and Yu (2012) (denoted by TS). After the weights
are determined, the portfolios are constructed accordingly.
e −1
LS is obtained by replacing Σ
T,T +τ in (3) with the inverse of the linear shrinkage estimator
b LS = (1 − κ)S + κλ̄Ip ,
S

−1 PJLS
′
′
where S = JLS
i=1 (Yi − Yi−1 )(Yi − Yi−1 ) = Q diag(λ1 , ..., λp )Q is the sample covariance
matrix of previous JLS daily log-returns, λ1 , ..., λp are the eigenvalues of S, Q contains corP
responding eigenvectors, λ̄ = pi=1 λi /p, and κ is determined by the asymptotic optimization
results derived in Ledoit and Wolf (2004).
Fan, Li and Yu (2012) considered the following risk optimization problem under grossexposure constraints

min w′ ΣT −h,T w

s.t. kwk1 ≤ c

and w′ 1 = 1,

(19)

e T,T +τ . The pair-wise two scales covariance
where ΣT −h,T was also used to approximate Σ
(TSCV) estimator of ΣT −h,T was constructed based on the high frequency data synchronized by
the pair-wise refresh time scheme over previous JT S trading days. Since this pair-wise estimator
may not be positive semi-definite, they projected the estimator (denoted by M here) by
−
M1 = (M + λ−
min Ip )/(1 + λmin ),

(20)

where λ−
min is the negative part of the minimum eigenvalue of the estimator M. They then
b for a given c. In this paper, following the
minimize w′ M1 w to obtain the optimal weight w
simulation and the empirical studies in Fan, Li and Yu (2012), we set c = 1.2.
In practice, one choice that we have to make is the number of days over which we do the
estimation. For our new developed approach, we let J1 = 50, 60, ..., 250 when we use daily
log-returns, and let J1 = 5 (one week), 6, ..., 21 (one month) days when we use 15-minute
intra-day log-returns in Step 4. Moreover, we choose J − J1 = 1, 2, ...., 5. The optimal result
among all possible combinations is reported. Similarly, we report the optimal results for LS
when JLS ∈ {50, 60, ..., 250} and TS when JT S ∈ {1, 2, ...., 10}, and denote them by TSo, LSo
respectively.
The following three measures are calculated to compare the out-of-sample performance of all
the methods during 174 investment days (we have 200 days intra-day data in total and we use
15

26 days intra-day data to get SQrM), from April 25, 2013 to December 31, 2013: (1) the average
of log-returns of the portfolio multiplied by 252 (denoted by AV); (2) the standard deviation of
√
log-returns of the portfolio multiplied by 252 (denoted by SD); (3) information ratio calculated
by AV/SD (denoted by IR).
In general, a high AV and a high IR with a low SD are expected for a good portfolio. Since
the GMV portfolio is designed to minimize the variance of a portfolio, the most important
performance measure for GMV is SD. Therefore, we first compare the standard deviations of
different methods and then compare the information ratios and the average returns.
Reported in Table 1 are the AV, SD and IR for all the methods. The number in the
bold face represents the lowest SD. Several conclusions can be made from Table 1. First and
foremost, SQrM outperforms all the other strategies in terms of SD. SQrM also achieves the
highest information ratio when p = 50. Second, as expected, the standard deviation of the GMV
portfolio decreases, as p increases from 30 to 50, for most methods. The only exception is the
EW. Third, SQrM performs better than SQrD, indicating that high frequency data are useful
in portfolio choice.

4.3

Markowitz portfolio with momentum signals (MwM)

We now consider a ‘full’ Markowitz portfolio without any short-sale constraint. The Markowitz
portfolio minimizes the variance of a portfolio under two conditions:
e T,T +τ w
min w′ Σ

subject to w′ 1 = 1 and w′ e = b,

where b is a target expected return chosen by an investor and e is a signal to denote the vector
of expected returns of p assets. The above problem has the following analytical solution
−1

where
c1 =

−1

e T,T +τ 1 + c2 Σ
e T,T +τ e,
w = c1 Σ
C − bB
bA − B
e −1 1, B = 1′ Σ
e −1 e, C = e′ Σ
e −1 e.
, c2 =
, A = 1′ Σ
T,T +τ
T,T +τ
T,T +τ
2
2
AC − B
AC − B

(21)

To choose e and b, we follow Ledoit and Wolf (2014). In particular, the ith element of e is the
momentum factor which is chosen as the arithmetic average of the previous 250 days returns on
the ith stock. b is the arithmetic average of the momentums of the top-quintile stocks according
to e. In Table 2, we report the annualized AV, SD, and IR of the daily log-returns for all methods,
namely, SQrM, SQrD, LS, the equal weight constructed on top-quintile stocks according to their
e −1
momentums (denoted by EW-TQ), and the method with Σ
T,T +τ in (21) being replaced by the
inverse of the sample covariance matrix of previous JSP days daily log-returns (denoted by SP
when JSP = 250). Similar to the GMV portfolio, we choose optimal J and J1 for SQrM and
SQrD. For the Markowitz portfolio, a more relevant criterion for the comparison is IR. In this
paper, we first compare the IRs and then the SDs.
In Table 2, the number in bold face represents the highest IR while the number with a
‘*’ represents the lowest SD. It can be seen that SQrM and SQrD perform better than other
16

methods in terms of IR except the EW when p = 30, 40. However, the SDs of SQrM and SQrD
are much lower than that of EW and also lower than that of the other methods.

4.4

Robustness of sample period

To check the robustness of our strategy, we split the entire 174 investment days into two subperiods, one from April 25, 2013 to August 27, 2013 and the other from August 28, 2013 to
December 31, 2013. The results of the GMV portfolio are reported in Tables 3 and 4. It can be
seen that SQrM and SQrD continue to outperform other methods in terms of SD in all cases.
Empirical results of the Markowitz portfolio with the momentum signal are reported in Tables
5 and 6. Again SQrM and SQrD continue to outperform other methods in almost all cases in
terms of IR and SD.
We also perform a moving-window analysis to check the robustness of our empirical results.
Staring from April 25, 2013, we calculate the standard deviation of daily log-returns of each
method over 42 trading days and repeat this exercise by moving one trading day at each pass.
To compare our method with other methods, we use figures to show the results of TSo, LSo,
SQrD and SQrM for the GMV portfolio and SPo, LSo, SQrD and SQrM for the MwM portfolio,
where the optimal numbers of days chosen for each method is to minimize or maximize the mean
of SDs or IRs of 133 different investment periods (each investment period is 42 days) for the
GMV and MwM portfolio, respectively. Figures 1, 2, 3 plot the results when p = 30, 40 and 50.
We find that SQrM performs better and better as the portfolio size increases. In general, it
has the lowest SD and the highest IR for both the GMV portfolio and the MwM portfolios. This
result indicates that high frequency data are useful in portfolio choice, especially for controlling
the risk.

4.5

Robustness of time span

From a statistical perspective, a longer span of historical data contains more information about
the dynamic of an asset price so that it may be reasonable to believe that methods based on a
longer span of data should perform better than those based on less data. However, the model
specification is more likely to be wrong over a longer span. Hence there is a trade off between
the estimation error and the specification error. In this subsection we examine this trade off
empirically in the context of the LS portfolio and the SQrD portfolio. In particular, the LS
portfolio and the SQrD portfolio are constructed based on different historical data sets for the
GMV portfolio. For LS, we set JLS = 50, 60, ..., 250. For SQrD, we fix J − J1 = 1 and set
J1 = 50, 60, ..., 250.
Figure 4 plots the risk of daily log-returns for the two GMV portfolios as a function of JLS
or J1 when p = 30 and p = 50. Some interesting findings emerge. First, the risk of log-returns of
a portfolio does not necessarily decrease when a longer span of historical data is used. Second,
SQrD performs better than LS in almost all cases and is more stable across different time spans.
This is especially true when p = 50. Once again, there is an advantage for using our estimator

17

for portfolio selection. Third, when p = 30, the risk of the SQrD portfolio decreases when J1
increases initially. This is because more data are used in estimation, reducing the estimation
error. However, the risk increases when J1 > 110. This is because the construction of SQrD
relies on the assumption that Xt ∈ C. As J1 increases, the time span becomes longer, and
hence the assumption that Xt ∈ C is more likely to be invalid. This can also explain why SQrM
performs better than SQrD.

5

Conclusions

This paper has developed a new estimator for the ICV and its inverse from high frequency data
when the portfolio size p and the sample size of data n satisfies p/n → y > 0 as n goes to ∞. The
use of high frequency data drastically increases the sample size and hence reduces the estimation
error. To further prevent the estimation error from accumulating with p, a new regularization
method is applied to the eigenvalues of an initial estimator of the ICV. Our proposed estimator
of the ICV is always positive definite and its inverse is the estimator of the inverse of the ICV. It
minimizes the limit of the out-of-sample variance of portfolio returns within the class of rotationequivalent estimators. It works when the number of underlying assets is larger than the number
of time series observations in each asset and when the asset price follows a general stochastic
process.
The asymptotic optimality for our proposed method is justified under the assumption that
p/n → y > 0 as n goes to ∞. The usefulness of our estimator is examined in real data.
The method is used to construct the optimal weight in the global minimum variance and the
Markowitz portfolio with momentum signal based on the DJIA 30 and another 20 stocks chosen
from S&P500. The performance of our proposed method is compared with that of some existing
methods in the literature. The empirical results show that our method performs favorably
out-of-sample.

6

Appendix

In the appendix we first prove Theorem 3.2 as the proof of Theorem 3.1 relies on Theorem 3.2.
Proof of Theorem 3.2. By assumption (A.i), we can write
∆Xk =

Z

τk

d

γtΛ dWt =

τk−1

Z

τk

τk−1

d

γt2 dt

!1/2

Σ̆

1/2

zk ,

where ‘ = ’ stands for ‘equal in distribution’, Σ̆ = ΛΛ′ and zk = (Z1k , · · · , Zpk )′ consists of
independent standard normals. Then
 RCV 
!
b
n
′
tr Σ
X
T −h,T
z
z
p
1/2
1/2
k
k
STVA
·
Σ̆ ,
Σ̆
T −h,T =
′
p
n
zk Σ̆zk
k=1
18

Pn
′
b RCV
where Σ
T −h,T =
k=1 ∆Xk ∆Xk , ∆Xk = Xτk − Xτk−1 . Denote

!
n
1 X 1/2
1/2
′
Σ̆ zk zk Σ̆
.
n
k=1
k=1
n
o
−1
From Theorem 2 of Ledoit and Pèchè (2011), we know that p−1 tr SIID
−
zI
Σ
T −h,T
T −h,T
converges to
Z
r
dH(r),
sΨ (z) =
r{1 − y − yz × sF (z)} − z
SIID
T −h,T

Z T
n
X
1 1/2
1/2
γt2 dt ·
ΣT −h,T zk z′k ΣT −h,T =
:=
n
T −h

almost surely, where H is the LSD of matrices ΣT −h,T and F is the LSD of matrices SIID
T −h,T or
TVA
ST −h,T , since they share the same LSD by Theorem 2 of Zheng and Li (2011).
On the other hand, we have that sΨ (z) is the Stieltjes transform of the bounded function
Ψ(x) defined in (13) by Theorem 4 of Ledoit and Pèchè (2011) and the Stieltjes transform of
function Ψp (x) is
o
−1
1 n
sΨp (z) = tr STVA
Σ
−
zI
T −h,T .
T −h,T
p
Therefore we only need to show that
o 1 n
o
−1
−1
1 n IID
a.s.
tr ST −h,T − zI
ΣT −h,T − tr STVA
Σ
−
zI
→ 0.
T
−h,T
T −h,T
p
p
To prove this, it suffices to show the following two facts:
max

1≤k≤n

1 ′
a.s.
z Σ̆zk − 1 → 0,
p k

and
1  b RCV 
tr ΣT −h,T −
p

Z

T

(22)

a.s.

T −h

γt2 dt → 0.

(23)
r

To prove (22), by assumption (A.iii), all the eigenvalues of Σ̆ are bounded, so that tr(Σ̆ ) =
O(p) for all 1 ≤ r < ∞. From Lemma 2.7 of Bai and Silverstein (1998), we have



 2 o3
 6 
6
Cn n
4
12
E max p−1 z′k Σ̆zk − 1
≤
E|Z
|
tr
Σ̆
+
E|Z
|
tr
Σ̆
jk
jk
1≤k≤n
p6
= O(n−2 ),

where the last step comes from the fact that the higher order moments of Zjk ’s are finite since
they are normally distributed. Thus, (22) follows by the Borel-Cantelli lemma.
We now prove (23).
Z T
n Z τk
 RCV  Z T
X
2
−1
−1
2
′
b
γt dt = p
p tr ΣT −h,T −
γt2 dt
γt dt · zk Σ̆zk −
T −h

k=1

=

n Z
X
k=1

≤
a.s.

→

max

1≤k≤n

0.
19

τk

τk−1

T −h

τk−1



γt2 dt · p−1 z′k Σ̆zk − 1

p−1 z′k Σ̆zk

−1 ·

Z

T

T −h

γt2 dt

by assumption (A.iv) and the result in Equation (22).
Then,
o 1 n
o
−1
−1
1 n IID
tr ST −h,T − zI
ΣT −h,T − tr STVA
Σ
−
zI
T −h,T
T −h,T
p
p
n
o
−1 TVA
−1
 TVA
1
IID
−
S
tr SIID
−
zI
S
Σ
−
zI
S
=
T −h,T
T −h,T
T −h,T
T −h,T
T −h,T
p
=





1
SIID
tr
T −h,T
p 


 RCV 
b
n
−1 tr Σ
X
T −h,T
− zI
·
p(n)

1

p−1 z′k Σ̆zk

k=1

!

− 1 Σ̆

1/2



Z T
−1 −1  RCV 
1
2
b
+
γ
dt
−
−
zI
p
tr
tr SIID
Σ
t
T −h,T
T −h,T
p(n)
T −h
!
n
X
−1
1/2
1/2
Σ̆ zk z′k Σ̆
ΣT −h,T
STVA
×
T −h,T − zI


zk z′ℓ Σ̆


1/2

STVA
T −h,T




−1
− zI
ΣT −h,T



k=1

:= I1 + I2 .

TVA
−1
From assumptions (A.ii)-(A.v), and the facts that k(SIID
T −h,T − zI) k ≤ 1/ℑ(z), k(ST −h,T −
zI)−1 k ≤ 1/ℑ(z) with k·k denoting the L2 norm of a matrix, (22) and (23), we have that both
|I1 | and |I2 | converge to 0, almost surely. Therefore, the proof of Theorem 3.2 is completed. 

Proof of Theorem 3.1. The convergence of ESD of STVA
T −h,T is shown in Theorem 2 of Zheng and
−1
 ∗
b
≤ C for some fixed number C when p large enough by
Σ
Li (2011). Note that
T −h,T
−1
 ∗
b
assumption (A.v) and the fact that Σ
belongs to class S. Thus, from Lemma 2.7 of
T −h,T
Bai and Silverstein (1998) and Borel-Cantelli lemma, we have

−1 
−1
∗
1 ′ b∗
1
a.s.
b
→ 0.
1 − tr
ΣT −h,T
1 ΣT −h,T
p
p
Moreover, we have


−1 
∗
1
b
Σ
tr
T −h,T
p

p

=
a.s.

→

1X 1
=
p
gn (vi )
Z i=1
1
dF (x).
g(x)

Z

TVA
1
dF ST −h,T (x)
gn (x)

Therefore,
−1
1 ′ b∗
a.s.
1 ΣT −h,T
1→
p

Z

1
dF (x).
g(x)

(24)

Similarly, we can show that


−1
−1 
 ∗
−1
−1
 ∗
∗
1
1 ′ b∗
a.s.
b
b
b
ΣT −h,T ΣT −h,T
ΣT −h,T
→ 0.
1 ΣT −h,T
ΣT −h,T ΣT −h,T
1 − tr
p
p
20

Using Theorem 3.2, we have

−1
−1 
 ∗
∗
1
b
b
ΣT −h,T Σ
Σ
tr
T −h,T
T −h,T
p

=
a.s.

→

p
1 X u′i ΣT −h,T ui
1
tr(U′ ΣT −h,T UV−2 ) =
p
p
gn (vi )2
i=1
Z
x
dF (x).
|1 − y − yx × m̆F (x)|2 g(x)2

Thus,
Z
−1
−1
 ∗
x
1 ′ b∗
a.s.
b
1 ΣT −h,T
ΣT −h,T ΣT −h,T
dF (x).
1→
p
|1 − y − yx × m̆F (x)|2 g(x)2

(25)

Combining (24) and (25), we obtain that

−1
 ∗
−1
 ∗
R
x
dF (x)
b
b
Σ
1′ Σ
1
Σ
0,T
−h
T −h,T
T −h,T
|1 − y − yx × m̆F (x)|2 g(x)2
a.s.
p·
→
.
 


−1 2
R dF (x) 2
∗
′
b
1
1 ΣT −h,T
g(x)



References
[1] Abadir, K. M., Distaso, W., Žikěs, F., 2014. Design-free estimation of variance matrices.
Journal of Econometrics 181(2), 165-180.
[2] Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y., Fan, J., Xiu, D., 2010. High frequency covariance estimates with noisy and
asynchronous financial data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 105, 1504-1517.
[3] Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y., Xiu, D., 2016. A Hausman test for the presence of market microstructure
noise in high frequency data. Working Paper.
[4] Bai, Z., Silverstein, J., 1998. No eigenvalues outside the support of the limiting spectral
distribution of large-dimensional sample covariance matrices. The Annals of Probability
26(1), 316-345.
[5] Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., Hansen, P. R., Lunde, A., Shepard, N., 2011. Multivariate realised
kernels: consistent positive semi-definite estimators of the covariation of equity prices with
noise and non-synchronous trading. Journal of Econometrics 162, 149-169.
[6] Brandt, M. W., 2010. Portfolio choice problems in Y. Aı̈t-Sahalia and L.P. Hansen (eds.),
Handbook of Financial Econometrics, Volume 1: Tools and Techniques, North Holland,
269-336.
[7] DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., Nogales, F. J., Uppal, R., 2009. A generalized approach to portfolio optimization: improving performance by constraining portfolio norms. Management
Science 55(5), 798-812.
21

[8] DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., Uppal, R., 2009. Optimal versus naive diversification: how
inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? Review of Financial Studies 22, 1915-1953.
[9] Fan, J., Fan, Y., Lv, J., 2008. High dimensional covariance matrix estimation using a factor
model. Journal of Econometrics 147, 186-197.
[10] Fan, J., Li, Y., Yu, K., 2012. Vast volatility matrix estimation using high-frequency data
for portfolio selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association 107, 412-428.
[11] Frahm, G., Memmel, C., 2010. Dominating estimators for minimum-variance portfolios.
Journal of Econometrics 159(2), 289-302.
[12] Jagannathan, R., Ma, T., 2003. Risk reduction in large portfolios: why imposing the wrong
constraints helps. Journal of Finance 58(4), 1651-1684.
[13] Jobson, J., Korkie, B., 1980. Estimation for Markowitz efficient portfolios. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 75, 544-554.
[14] Kan, J., Zhou, G., 2007. Optimal portfolio choice with parameter uncertainty. Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis 42, 621-656.
[15] Lam, C., 2016. Nonparametric eigenvalue-regularized precision or covariance matrix estimator. The Annals of Statistics 44(3), 928-953.
[16] Ledoit, O., Pèchè, S., 2011. Eigenvectors of some large sample covariance matrix ensembles.
Probability Theory and Related Fields 151(1-2), 233-264.
[17] Ledoit, O., Wolf, M., 2003. Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns
with an application to portfolio selection. Journal of Empirical Finance 10(5), 603-621.
[18] Ledoit, O., Wolf, M., 2004. A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance
matrices. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 88(2), 365-411.
[19] Ledoit, O., Wolf, M., 2014. Nonlinear shrinkage of the covariance matrix for portfolio selection: Markowitz meets Goldilocks. Working Paper.
[20] Liu, C., Tang, C. Y., 2014. A quasi-maximum likelihood approach for integrated covariance
matrix estimation with high frequency data. Journal of Econometrics 180, 217-232.
[21] Markowitz, H., 1952. Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance 7, 77-91.
[22] Michaud, R., 1989. The Markowitz optimization enigma: is optimization optimal? Financial
Analysts Journal 45(1), 31.
[23] Muirhead, R. J., 1987. Developments in eigenvalue estimation. In Advances in Multivariate
Statistical Analysis (A. K. Gupta, ed.) 277-288. Reidel, Dordrecht.

22

[24] Pesaran, M. H., Zaffaroni, P., 2009. Optimality and diversifiability of mean variance and
arbitrage pricing portfolios. Working Paper.
[25] Stein, C., 1956. Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal
distribution. In Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics
and Probability, pages 197-206. University of California Press.
[26] Stein, C., 1975. Estimation of a covariance matrix. Rietz lecture, 39th Annual Meeting IMS.
Atlanta, Georgia.
[27] Tu, J., Zhou, G., 2011. Markowitz meets Talmud: a combination of sophisticated and naive
diversification strategies. Journal of Financial Economics 99, 204-215.
[28] Xiu, D., 2010. Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation of volatility with high frequency data.
Journal of Econometrics 159, 235-250.
[29] Zhang, L., 2011. Estimating covariation: epps effect, microstructure noise. Journal of Econometrics 160, 33-47.
[30] Zheng, X., Li, Y., 2011. On the estimation of integrated covariance matrices of high dimensional diffusion process. The Annals of Statistics 39, 3121-3151.

23

Table 1: The out-of-sample performance of different daily rebalanced strategies for the GMV
portfolio between April 25, 2013 and December 31, 2013.
Period: 04/25/2013—12/31/2013

p = 30

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

20.13

13.22

13.22

15.31

12.96

10.59

15.62

SD

10.17

9.65

9.65

9.80

9.52

9.34

9.17

IR

1.98

1.37

1.37

1.56

1.36

1.80

1.70

p = 40

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

21.00

16.51

17.80

16.00

11.84

19.06

18.09

SD

10.43

9.66

9.62

9.85

9.29

9.29

9.10

IR

2.01

1.71

1.85

1.62

1.27

2.05

1.99

p = 50

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

21.00

20.15

20.15

13.28

10.25

17.74

20.52

SD

10.36

9.40

9.40

9.47

9.18

9.26

8.68

IR

2.03

2.14

2.14

1.40

1.12

1.91

2.36

Note: AV, SD, IR denote the average, standard deviation, and information ratio of 174 daily log-returns,
respectively. AV and SD are annualized and in percent. The smallest number in the row labeled by SD is
reported in bold face. TSo corresponds to the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the two-scale covariance
matrix obtained based on historical intra-day data (10 days when p = 30, 50; 8 days when p = 40). LSo
corresponds to the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the linear shrinkage of the sample covariance matrix of
daily log-returns (110, 90 and 90 days when p = 30, 40 and 50 respectively). The optimal number of days is
chosen by minimizing SD of 174 log-returns of each portfolio.

24

Table 2: The out-of-sample performance of different daily rebalanced strategies for Markowitz
portfolio with momentum signal between April 25, 2013 and December 31, 2013.
Period: 04/25/2013—12/31/2013

p = 30

EW-TQ

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

31.74

0.02

4.18

13.02

13.02

20.02

15.91

SD

13.27

12.10

12.06

11.59

11 56

11.37

11.11∗

IR

2.39

0.00

0.35

1.12

1.12

1.76

1.43

p = 40

EW

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

36.49

6.86

8.94

18.98

18.98

24.67

20.21

SD

13.55

10.90

10.99

11.29

10.66

11.25

10.07∗

IR

2.69

0.63

0.81

1.68

1.68

2.19

2.01

p = 50

EW-TQ

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

28.64

7.53

11.33

15.81

15.81

22.65

23.35

SD

13.16

10.42

10.80

10.60

10.60

10.51

9.83∗

IR

2.18

0.72

1.05

1.49

2.03

2.15

2.38

Note: AV, SD, IR denote the average, standard deviation, and information ratio of 174 daily log-returns
respectively. AV, SD are annualized and in percent. The smallest number in the row labeled by SD is reported
in bold face. SPo corresponds to the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the sample covariance matrix of daily
log-returns (190, 230 and 130 days when p = 30, 40 and 50, respectively). LSo corresponds to the case where
ΣT −h,T is estimated by the linear shrinkage of the sample covariance matrix of daily log-returns (250 days when
p = 30, 40 and 50). The optimal number of days is chosen by maximizing IR of 174 log-returns of each portfolio.

25

Table 3: The out-of-sample performance of different daily rebalanced strategies for the GMV
portfolio between April 25, 2013 and August 27, 2013.
Period: 04/25/2013—08/27/2013

p = 30

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

5.23

2.23

2.23

2.63

9.90

2.93

1.87

SD

10.93

10.05

10.05

10.64

9.85

9.97

9.81

IR

0.48

0.22

0.22

0.25

1.00

0.29

0.19

p = 40

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

5.04

3.64

4.35

0.48

4.49

0.43

0.42

SD

11.09

10.26

10.00

10.51

9.45

9.78

9.73

IR

0.45

0.36

0.43

0.05

0.48

0.04

0.04

p = 50

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

6.53

9.35

9.35

-1.78

8.29

1.70

5.70

SD

11.06

10.12

10.12

10.18

9.18

9.89

9.30

IR

0.59

0.92

0.92

-0.17

0.89

0.17

0.61

Note: AV, SD, IR denote the average, standard deviation, and information ratio of 87 daily log-returns,
respectively. AV, SD are annualized and in percent. The smallest number in the row labeled by SD is reported
in bold face. TSo corresponds to the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the two-scale covariance matrix
obtained based on historical intra-day data (10 days when p = 30, 50; 8 days when p = 40). LSo corresponds to
the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the linear shrinkage of the sample covariance matrix of daily log-returns
(110, 90 and 90 days when p = 30, 40 and 50 respectively).

26

Table 4: The out-of-sample performance of different daily rebalanced strategies for the GMV
portfolio between August 28, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Period: 08/28/2013—12/31/2013

p = 30

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

35.04

24.22

24.22

27.99

16.02

30.70

29.36

SD

9.31

9.24

9.24

8.87

9.17

8.64

8.45

IR

3.76

2.62

2.62

3.15

1.75

3.55

3.48

p = 40

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

36.97

29.37

31.25

31.52

19.19

20.15

25.94

SD

9.69

9.01

9.19

9.09

9.16

8.54

8.32

IR

3.82

3.26

3.40

3.47

2.09

4.411

4.30

p = 50

EW

TS

TSo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

35.47

30.95

30.95

28.33

12.20

33.78

35.34

SD

9.60

8.64

8.64

8.67

9.05

8.52

7.95

IR

3.70

3.58

3.58

3.27

1.35

3.96

4.44

Note: AV, SD, IR denote the average, standard deviation, and information ratio of 87 daily log-returns,
respectively. AV, SD are annualized and in percent. The smallest number in the row labeled by SD is reported
in bold face. TSo corresponds to the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the two-scale covariance matrix
obtained based on historical intra-day data (10 days when p = 30, 50 and 8 days when p = 40). LSo corresponds
to the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the linear shrinkage of the sample covariance matrix of daily
log-returns (110, 90 and 90 days when p = 30, 40 and 50 respectively).

27

Table 5: The out-of-sample performance of different daily rebalanced strategies for the
Markowitz portfolio with momentum signal between April 25, 2013 to August 27, 2013.
Period: 04/25/2013—08/27/2013

p = 30

EW-TQ

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

8.70

-10.05

-1.43

-2.99

-2.99

1.73

0.13
12.06

SD

14.51

13.02

13.03

12.54

12.54

11.94∗

IR

0.60

-0.81

-0.11

-0.24

-0.24

0.01

0.04

p = 40

EW-TQ

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

9.21

-11.39

-9.39

-4.04

-4.04

4.14

-2.69

SD

14.19

10.91

10.94

11.45

10.99

11.49

10.42∗

IR

0.65

-1.04

-0.86

-0.35

-0.35

0.36

-0.26

p = 50

EW-TQ

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

3.50

-8.15

1.71

-6.25

-6.25

6.98

4.16

SD

14.28

11.01

10.48

10.92

10.92

10.84

10.47∗

IR

0.25

-0.74

0.16

-0.57

-0.57

0.64

0.40

Note: AV, SD, IR denote the average, standard deviation, and information ratio of 87 daily log-returns
respectively. AV, SD are annualized and in percent. The smallest number in the row labeled by SD is reported
in bold face. SPo corresponds to the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the sample covariance matrix of daily
log-returns (190, 230 and 130 days when p = 30, 40 and 50 respectively). LSo corresponds to the case where
ΣT −h,T is estimated by the linear shrinkage of the sample covariance matrix of daily log-returns (250 days when
p = 30, 40 and 50).

28

Table 6: The out-of-sample performance of different daily rebalanced strategies for the
Markowitz portfolio with momentum signal between August 28, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Period: 08/28/2013—12/31/2013

p = 30

EW-TQ

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

54.79

10.59

9.79

29.02

29.02

39.95

31.35

SD

11.82

11.14

11.06

10.53

10.53

10.69

10.02∗

IR

4.64

0.95

0.89

2.76

2.76

3.74

3.11

p = 40

EW-TQ

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

63.78

25.11

27.28

41.99

41.99

45.21

43.11

SD

12.73

10.84

10.97

11.00

11.00

10.92

9.55∗

IR

5.01

2.32

2.49

3.82

3.82

4.14

4.51

p = 50

EW-TQ

SP

SPo

LS

LSo

SQrD

SQrM

AV

53.77

23.20

20.94

37.87

37.87

38.31

42.54

SD

11.80

9.76

11.13

10.16

10.16

10.14

9.05∗

IR

4.56

2.38

1.88

3.73

3.73

3.78

4.70

Note: AV, SD, IR denote the average, standard deviation, and information ratio of 87 daily log-returns
respectively. AV, SD are annualized and in percent. The smallest numbers in the row labeled by SD is reported
in bold face. SPo corresponds to the case where ΣT −h,T is estimated by the sample covariance matrix of daily
log-returns (190, 230 and 130 days when p = 30, 40 and 50, respectively). LSo corresponds to the case where
ΣT −h,T is estimated by the linear shrinkage of the sample covariance matrix of daily log-returns (250 days when
p = 30, 40 and 50).

29

Figure 1: Information ratios and standard deviations of log-returns of four strategies based on
rolling windows of historical data for the GMV and MwM portfolios when p = 30.
p=30

p=30

8

6

0.13
SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

0.12

0.11

Risk−GMV

IR−GMV

4

2

0.1

0.09

0
0.08
−2

−4
60

0.07

80

100

120

140

160

180

0.06
60

200

80

100

120

Days

3

160

180

200

p=30

p=30
0.16

5
4

140

Days

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
SPo

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
SPo

0.15
0.14

Risk−MwM

IR−MwM

2
1
0

0.13
0.12
0.11

−1
0.1

−2

0.09

−3
−4
60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0.08
60

200

Days

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Days

Note: Rolling windows of annualized standard deviations and information ratios of log-returns for the GMV and
MwM portfolios. Each point is the standard deviation or information ratio of 42 log-returns of each portfolio
strategy. Move one trading day forward at one time such that there are 133 different investment periods and
each period contains 42 days (two months). The upper plots correspond to: SQrM uses 1 day of all intra-day
data and 9 days of 15-minute data; SQrD uses 5 days of all intra-day data and 110 days of daily data; LSo uses
250 daily data; TSo uses 10 days of intra-day data. The bottom plots correspond to: SQrM use 5 days of all
intra-day data and 14 days of 15-minute data; SQrD uses 2 days of all intra-day data and 90 days of daily data;
LSo and SPo use 110 days of daily data.

30

Figure 2: Information ratios and standard deviations of log-returns of four strategies based on
rolling windows of historical data for the GMV and MwM portfolios when p = 40.
p=40

p=40

7
6
5

0.13
SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

0.11

Risk−GMV

4

IR−GMV

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

0.12

3
2
1
0

0.1

0.09

0.08

−1
0.07
−2
−3
60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0.06
60

200

80

100

120

Days
p=40

160

180

200

p=40

8

6

140

Days
0.14

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

0.13

0.12

Risk−MwM

IR−MwM

4

2

0.11

0.1

0
0.09
−2

−4
60

0.08

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

60

Days

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Days

Note: Rolling windows of annualized standard deviations and information ratios of log-returns for the GMV and
MwM portfolios. Each point is the standard deviation or information ratio of 42 log-returns of each portfolio
strategy. Move one trading day forward at one time such that there are 133 different investment periods and
each period contains 42 days (two months). The upper plots correspond to: SQrM uses 1 day of all intra-day
data and 17 days of 15-minute data; SQrD uses 1 days of all intra-day data and 110 days of daily data; LSo uses
250 daily data; TSo uses 10 days of intra-day data. The bottom plots correspond to: SQrM use 4 days of all
intra-day data and 15 days of 15-minute data; SQrD uses 5 days of all intra-day data and 200 days of daily data;
LSo and SPo use 250 and 190 days of daily data, respectively.

31

Figure 3: Information ratios and standard deviations of log-returns of four strategies based on
rolling window of historical data for the GMV and MwM portfolios when p = 50.
p=50

p=50

7
6
5

0.13
SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

0.11

Risk−GMV

4

IR−GMV

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

0.12

3
2
1
0

0.1

0.09

0.08

−1
0.07
−2
−3
60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0.06
60

200

80

100

120

Days
p=50

160

180

200

p=50

8

6

140

Days
0.14

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

SQrM
SQrD
LSo
TSo

0.13

0.12

Risk−MwM

IR−MwM

4

2

0.11

0.1

0
0.09
−2

−4
60

0.08

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

60

Days

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Days

Note: Rolling windows of annualized standard deviations and information ratios of log-returns for the GMV and
MwM portfolios. Each point is the standard deviation or the information ratio of 42 log-returns of each portfolio
strategy. Move one trading day forward at one time such that there are 133 different investment periods and
each period contains 42 days (two months). The upper plots correspond to: SQrM uses 1 day of all intra-day
data and 15 days of 15-minute data; SQrD uses 1 days of all intra-day data and 130 days of daily data; LSo uses
250 daily data; TSo uses 9 days of intra-day data. The bottom plots correspond to: SQrM use 4 days of all
intra-day data and 13 days of 15-minute data; SQrD uses 5 days of all intra-day data and 90 days of daily data;
LSo and SPo use 250 and 130 days of daily data, respectively.

32

Figure 4: Standard deviation of log-returns of SQrD and LS in 174 investment days for the
GMV when p = 30 and p = 50.
p=30

p=50

0.102

0.101
SQrD
LS

0.101

0.099

0.1

0.098

Risk−GMV

Risk−GMV

0.099
0.098
0.097
0.096

0.097
0.096
0.095
0.094

0.095

0.093

0.094
0.093
50

SQrD
LS

0.1

0.092
100

150

200

0.091
50

250

Days of Daily Data Used

100

150

Days of Daily Data Used

Note: Each point is the standard deviation of 174 log-returns of each portfolio strategy.

33

200

250

