Directional Variance Adjustment: improving covariance
estimates for high-dimensional portfolio optimization

arXiv:1109.3069v3 [q-fin.PM] 8 Mar 2012

Daniel Bartza,1,, Kerr Hatrickb , Christian W. Hesseb , Klaus-Robert Müllera ,
Steven Lemma
a

Machine Learning Group, Computer Science Dept., TU Berlin, Berlin
b
Global Markets Equity, Deutsche Bank AG, London

Abstract
Robust and reliable covariance estimates play a decisive role in financial
and many other applications. An important class of estimators is based
on Factor models. Here, we show by extensive Monte Carlo simulations
that covariance matrices derived from the statistical Factor Analysis model
exhibit a systematic error, which is similar to the well-known systematic error
of the spectrum of the sample covariance matrix. Moreover, we introduce
the Directional Variance Adjustment (DVA) algorithm, which diminishes the
systematic error. In a thorough empirical study for the US, European, and
Hong Kong market we show that our proposed method leads to improved
portfolio allocation.
Keywords: covariance estimation, factor models, portfolio optimization
1. Introduction and Motivation
The advent of modern finance began with Markowitz and his seminal
paper on portfolio optimization (Markowitz (1952)). His theory provides a
mathematical approach to diversification by directly minimizing the portfolio variance. Moreover, by adding constraints to the optimization problem,
we can e. g. prohibit or allow short-selling. Other applications comprises the
creation of portfolios which constitute optimal hedges or track indices. However, a fundamental issue in portfolio allocation is the accurate and precise
estimation of the covariance matrix of asset returns from historical data.
Email address: daniel.bartz@tu-berlin.de (Daniel Bartz)

Preprint submitted to Journal of Comp. Statistics & Data Analysis

March 9, 2012

Covariance estimation and coping with its uncertainties have occupied
both researchers and practitioners since then. One of the major difficulties
with robust covariance matrix estimation arises from nonstationarity of financial time series (see, e.g. Loretan and Phillips (1994), Pagan and Schwert
(1990)). Here, changes in the data generating processes force the estimation
to rely on short time windows of recent observations. On the other hand the
number of parameters increases quadratically with the number of assets, i.e.,
for a set of N assets, the covariance matrix has 12 N (N + 1) free parameters.
For example, in order to estimate the covariance matrix from daily return
series of a moderately sized universe of one hundred assets, already 5050 free
parameters have to be estimated. Following a general rule of thumb, that
10 observations per parameter are required for a reliable estimate, the observation window would need to cover approximately two years of data. Such
a temporal horizon, however, clearly contradicts with reported nonstationarity of financial time series. In practice, the situation is even exacerbated
by non-Gaussianity of financial time series1 (see, e.g., Loretan and Phillips
(1994), Longin (2005), Campbell et al. (2008)), which increases the difficulty
of covariance estimation even further, especially in case of small sample sizes.
A possible remedy for problems caused by non-Gaussianity are robust estimation techniques (Huber (1981)).
As the terms high dimensional and small sample size are rather vague
and interdependent, the difficulty of the task of covariance estimation is
commonly characterized by the ratio of sample size to dimensionality, T /N ,
which governs the properties of the spectrum of the sample covariance matrix
(Marčenko and Pastur (1967); Edelman and Rao (2005)). For situations
where this ratio is close to one or even below, many estimators which give
better results than the sample covariance matrix have been proposed. Here,
an important class is formed by regularized estimators, in which the effective
degrees of freedom are reduced by shrinkage (see, e. g., Stein (1956); Friedman
(1989); Ledoit and Wolf (2003); Schäfer and Strimmer (2005)). Another way
to reduce the degrees of freedom is to impose a latent structure on the data.
Here, commonly factor models (FMs) are in use. FMs assume the data to
be generated as a mixture of a small number of factors with additive noise
(Fan et al. (2008), Goldfarb and Iyengar (2003)).
In this paper, we will analyse a purely statistical factor model called
1

Return time series often exhibit leptokurtic distributions.

2

(Maximum Likelihood) Factor Analysis (see, e. g., Basilevsky (1994)). As
there is no analytic solution for the parameters of the Factor Analysis model,
we cannot provide a stringent theoretic analysis of its properties. Instead, by
means of thorough simulations, we will provide evidence that the spectrum
of the covariance matrix derived from a Factor Analysis model is biased2 . To
reduce the bias, we will propose the Directional Variance Adjustment (DVA)
algorithm, which estimates the magnitude of the imposed bias in specific
directions by means of a Monte Carlo sampling approach and hence enables
for its correction.
In the portfolio optimization literature Monte Carlo sampling is known
from Resampling Efficiency (Michaud (1998)). There, the authors follow a
fundamentally different approach. While we use resampling to reduce the
bias of our factor model, in Resampling Efficiency the sample mean and covariance are used to generate additional data sets, on which optimal portfolio
weights are calculated which are then averaged. This is supposed to lead to
more stable and diversified portfolios, but there is an ongoing debate on the
merits of this procedure (see, e.g. Scherer (2004)). Though not based on
Monte Carlo resampling, techniques for the correction of variance inflation
in principal components analysis are more related to our algorithm (Kjems
et al. (2001); Abrahamsen and Hansen (2011)).
At this point we would like to emphasize that in this paper we will solely
focus on the structure of risk in the stock market. A discussion about the
structure of expected returns (see, e. g. β-pricing models, Shanken (1992)) is
not within the scope of the paper.
We will evaluate our novel covariance estimation procedure in the context
of portfolio optimization, where we will compare the proposed DVA Factor
Analysis model to the sample covariance, Resampling Efficiency, Shrinkage,
standard Factor Analysis and the Fama-French Three-Factor model (Fama
and French (1992)). By means of analyzing daily return data from 2001–2009
of three different markets, namely the US, EU and Hong Kong stock markets,
we will show that our proposed covariance matrix estimation scheme leads
to an improved portfolio allocation and hence provide evidence that it better
reflects the market’s risk structure.
2

Here, we follow the terminology in Friedman (1989), who deals with the bias in the
spectrum of the sample covariance matrix. We do not distinguish between bias and systematic error.

3

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews covariance estimation
methods. In section 3, we will review Factor Analysis and investigate the bias
in Factor Analysis by means of simulated data. Then, we will introduce our
novel DVA approach for dealing with the systematic error in the model and
show the effectiveness in additional simulations. In Section 4 we will present
the results of a thorough comparative study of various covariance estimation
methods in the context of portfolio optimization. Section 5 concludes the
paper.
2. Covariance Estimation
2.1. Sample Covariance Matrix and Systematic Error in its Spectrum
The sample covariance matrix,
1 X
(rti − r¯i ) · (rtj − r¯j ),
=
T − 1 t=1
T

Cijsc

(1)

where R is the (T × N )-matrix containing T observations of N variables, is
a consistent estimator of the covariance matrix. This means that for T → ∞
the sample covariance matrix converges to the true covariance matrix. When
the ratio T/N is not large, however, the sample covariance matrix tends to be
ill-conditioned, implying that its inverse incurs large errors. In the extreme
case, when the number of observations falls below the number of variables,
the covariance matrix gets singular.
Though the sample covariance is an unbiased estimator of the true covariance matrix, this estimator exhibits a systematic misestimation of the spectrum of the covariance matrix which depends on the ratio of observations to
dimensionality T /N . In particular, large and small Eigenvalues are systematically over- and underestimated, respectively (see, e. g. Friedman (1989)).
In order to illustrate this systematic error, we generated empirical spectra
from the Marčenko-Pastur density of eigenvalues for i.i.d. standard normally
distributed variables (Marčenko and Pastur (1967)). The Marčenko-Pastur
density is the eigenvalue density in the limit T, N → ∞, but already for
sample sizes as small as 20 or 30 the empirical distribution is very similar
(Tulino and Verdú (2004)). Figure 1 shows the analytical solution for the
empirical spectra for various ratios of sample sizes to dimensionality. The
magnitude of the systematic error scales with the inverse of this ratio, for

4

5
true spectrum
T/N: 0.7
T/N: 1
T/N: 5
T/N: 100

4.5
4

eigenvalue size

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
−0.5

#eigenvalue

Figure 1: Systematic error in the estimated eigenvalues of the sample covariance matrix
for different ratios of sample size to dimensionality.

the degenerate case (T /N < 1) there are N − T zero eigenvalues. Even for
T /N = 100, the spectrum still differs visibly from the true one.
Several methods have been proposed in the literature for correcting the
spectrum. In Shrinkage (Ledoit and Wolf (2003, 2004); Schäfer and Strimmer
(2005)), the goal is to find a suitable convex combination of the sample
covariance matrix Csc and a shrinkage target Ctarget ,
Csh = λCsc + (1 − λ)Ctarget ,

(2)

where the shrinkage target is either fixed (e. g. Ctarget = I) or a biased estimator with lower variance (e. g. all correlations set to their average value). For
selecting the optimal shrinkage strength λ, Ledoit and Wolf (2004) proposed
an analytic solution, which is computationally faster than the commonly used
model selection via crossvalidation. Shrinkage can be combined with factor
modelling by taking a factor model as the shrinkage target (Ledoit and Wolf
(2003)).
Random Matrix Theory (RMT, for an overview see Edelman and Rao
(2005)) allows for several alternative approaches to correct the spectrum.
Rosenow et al. (2002) propose to retain only those eigenvalues of the correla5

tion matrix which are larger than the largest eigenvalues of a random matrix,
given by the Marčenko-Pastur law, and therefore likely to reflect some real
structure. The model itself is equivalent to a PCA factor model based on
the correlation matrix, where RMT is used for selection of the appropriate
number of factors. A similar model is proposed by Laloux et al. (2000). Instead of setting the eigenvalues in the bulk of the spectrum to zero, they are
set to their average value. A detailed analysis of these methods is beyond
the scope of this article. Note that these methods are closely related to the
PCA and the FA factor model which we will discuss. Thus, these models
exhibit a similiar performance and suffer from the same bias we discuss in
the following.
An interesting approach is described in el Karoui (2008). There, the
Marčenko-Pastur law which describes the distribution of the sample eigenvalues is inverted numerically in order to obtain the true spectrum from the
sample. For this, one has to be aware of two facts: first, the inversion is not
unique and therefore a prior or parametric ansatz has to be applied. Second,
the largest eigenvalue of the covariance matrix of asset returns is normally
isolated from the bulk. This is problematic, because the inversion leads to
a continous spectrum. These aspects make the application of this approach
less straightforward and, to our knowledge, no publication with portfolio
simulations exists in which a competetive performance was achieved.
The following section introduces Factor Models as a type of restricted
covariance estimator.
2.2. Factor Models as Restricted Covariance Estimators
In finance, factor models form an important class of restricted covariance
estimators. In a factor model, the returns rti of the ith asset at time t are
described as a weighted sum of M random factor returns ftm multiplied with
exposures Xmi to these factors and additional random noise eti :
rti =

M
X

ftm · Xmi

|m=1 {z

}

+

(3)

specif ic risk

systematic risk

ei ⊥⊥fj ,
ei ⊥⊥ej ,

e
| {zti }

∀ i, j
∀ i 6= j.

Here, the systematic risk entirely describes the dependencies between the
assets, while the asset specific risks are assumed to be independent.
6

ellipsoid of constant likelihood: noise
ellipsoid of constant likelihood: factor model
directional variance

direction of
orth. complement

factor direction

Figure 2: A two dimensional example of a 1-factor model. The arrows show the direction
of the single factor and the orthogonal complement. The covariance matrices of the factor
model Cf m (dashed) and the uncorrelated noise Σe (dotted) are shown as ellipsoids of constant likelihood. The peanut-shaped solid line shows the directional variances (v> Cf m v)
of the factor model along all directions v : kvk2 = 1.

In the statistics and signal processing literature, this is often referred to as
a mixture model, where X is the mixture matrix and f are the source signals
(see, e. g.,Hyvärinen and Oja (2000). Calculating the covariance matrix, one
obtains
Cf m = R> R =(FX)> (FX) + E> E
=X> Σf X + Σe ,

(4)

where Σf is the covariance of the factors and the diagonal matrix Σe is
formed by the asset specific noise variances (cf. Figure 2).
The advantage of factor models lies in the reduced number of parameters for covariance estimation. Essentially, this means that a higher bias is
accepted in exchange for a reduced variance. In quantitative finance, three
different types of factors are employed to build up factor models: fundamen7

tal, macroeconomic and statistical factors (Connor (1995); Gregory et al.
(2010)).
In a fundamental factor model, assets are analysed and certain key metrics
are used for setting up the factor model. Fundamental factor models are
especially well suited when only a short history of data is available, e. g. for
weekly or monthly data, as fewer parameters have to be estimated from the
history than in a statistical factor model. The best-known model of this kind
is the Fama-French three-factor model (Fama and French (1992)), in which
the factor time series f are based on portfolios governed by market beta, bookto-market ratio and market capitalization. The exposures to these factors
are obtained from the coefficients of a linear regression model.
In contrast, macroeconomic factor models predetermine the factors as
macroeconomic time series which are supposed to affect the asset returns.
As in the Fama-French model, the exposures are obtained by linear regression. Examples for macroeconomic time series used in factor models are
unemployment rate, GNP, FX or interest rates. However, for daily or higher
frequency stock market returns, macroeconomic factor models are of limited
use and therefore neglected in the following (for an overview, see Gregory
et al. (2010)).
The third approach, statistical factor modelling, is purely data driven
and extracts the factors as well as the exposures from historical asset time
series. Representatives of statistical factor models are Principal Component
Analysis (PCA, Jolliffe (1986)), Probabilistic Principal Component Analysis (PPCA, Tipping and Bishop (1999)), Independent Component Analysis
(ICA, Comon (1994); Hyvärinen and Oja (2000)) as well as Factor Analysis
(FA, see section 3.1).
Hybridization allows for models which combine statistical, fundamental
and/or macroeconomic factors (Connor (1995); Miller (2006); Gregory et al.
(2010)). As long as the hybrid models contain statistical factors, our approach could be adapted to improve covariance estimation.
3. Directional Variance Adjustment of Factor Analysis
3.1. (Maximum Likelihood) Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis is a latent variable model which has its roots in psychology and answers the question for the ”best” explanation of the observed data
for a given number of factors (latent variables). Here, ”best” model refers
to the model that maximizes the data likelihood. The application of Factor
8

Analysis to financial data was first introduced in order to test the Arbitrage
Pricing Theory (Roll and Ross (1980)).
Factor Analysis models the asset returns as a mixture of unobserved
source signals with additive noise. The signals and the noise are assumed to
be i.i.d., zero-mean normally distributed. Independence of the noise (→ diagonal noise covariance matrix) and independence of noise and factors (→ covariance is a sum of factor and noise contributions) are assumed (cf. eq. (3)).
In addition, it is assumed that scaling and correlation of the systematic risk
are contained in the mixing matrix (→ standard normally distributed independent factors). Hence, the model reads as

with

rt =ft · X + t ,
ft ∼ N (0, I),
t ∼ N (0, D),

(5)

where D is a diagonal matrix. The corresponding log-likelihood is obtained
as
T
X

L(X, D) = ln p(R, F|X, D) =

t=1

{ln p(rt |ft , X, D) + ln p(ft )} . (6)

Especially in the finance context, normality is a strong assumption. In order
to make the model more appropriate for financial data, it is possible to extend
FA to t-distributions (t-FA, see McLachlan et al. (2007)). t-FA has the same
bias as standard FA and our method can be adapted in a straightforward
way by replacing FA by t-FA, but a comparison of these methods is beyond
the scope of this paper.
We obtain estimates of the model parameters by Expectation-Maximization3
(EM, see Dempster et al. (1977), for applications on Factor Analysis see
Rubin and Thayer (1982) and Roweis and Ghahramani (1999)). In this algorithm, the likelihood is maximized iteratively by alternating between the
Expectation and the Maximization step:
3

Different methods for solving the optimization problem are proposed in the literature.
A popular alternative is based on the quasi-newton method (see Jöreskog (1967)). As
the algorithm described by Jöreskog uses an eigendecomposition, which is costly to obtain
in high dimensions (O(N 3 )), we have opted for the EM approach (O(M N 2 )). Other
methods claiming superior performance suffer from the same drawback (see, e.g., Zhao
et al. (2008)). Moreover, for the main claim of this paper, the optimization procedure
chosen to obtain the maximimum likelihood solution is of no importance.

9

• in the Expectation step, the exposure X and noise variance D are
assumed to be fixed and the expected factor F (latent variables) can
be derived directly.
• in the Maximization step, the expected factors F are assumed to be
fixed and the likelihood is maximized with respect to exposures X and
noise variances D.
These two steps are iterated until convergence. The resulting covariance
matrix estimate of the Factor Analysis model is then given as
Ĉf a = X̂> X̂ + D̂.

(7)

Note that the above equation follows trivially from eq. (4) for independent
and standard normal factors. For Factor Analysis the number of parameters
is reduced from 21 N (N + 1) to
df =

M
· N}
| {z

entries in X

−

(M − 1)
| {z }

rotational invariance of X

= (M + 1) · (N − 1) + 2.

+

N
|{z}

diagonal elements of D

(8)

3.2. Systematic Error in Factor Analysis
Since there are no analytical results for the spectrum of Factor Analysis as
there are for the sample covariance matrix (section 2.1), we run a simulation
to study systematic errors in Factor Analysis. To this end, we generate
N = 30 dimensional return data according to an underlying three factor
model as in eq. (5). The noise covariance matrix D was defined with equally
spaced values from the intervall [0.5, 1.5] on the diagonal. The three rows
of the mixing matrix X were generated as randomly oriented vectors with a
length of 10, 3 and 1, respectively. In order to study the small sample size
properties of Factor Analysis for this setting, we set the ratio T /N to 0.7, 1
and 5, corresponding to 21, 30, and 150 thirty-dimensional observations. As
X and D are known for the simulation, the true covariance matrix Ctrue can
be calculated by the population counterpart of eq. (7).
In section 2.1 we studied the systematic error of the eigenspectrum of the
sample covariance matrix, where the variance in the i-th eigendirection vi
corresponds to the size of the i-th eigenvalue λi :
vi> Cvi = vi> λi vi = λi .
10

In the following we will study systematic errors in terms of misspecification
of directional variances. More precisely, we will investigate systematic errors
in the factor subspace and its complementary orthogonal space separately.
To this end we first calculate an orthonormal basis P0f s (N × M ) of the
M -dimensional subspace in which the estimated factors X̂ lie (the Factor
Subspace) and another orthonormal basis P0oc (N ×(N −M )) of the (N −M )dimensional orthogonal complement. Correspondingly, we can confine the
covariance matrix to the two subspaces, yielding a factor space related part
and its orthogonal counterpart as
>

Cff as := P0f s P0f s Cf a P0f s P0f s
>

>

and

>

Cfoca := P0oc P0oc Cf a P0oc P0oc .
For each subspace, we obtain a new basis (Pf s and Poc ) as the corresponding
eigenbasis of Cff as and Cfoca , respectively. Combining these subspace bases4 to
P = [Pf s ,Poc ] yields an orthonormal basis of the entire space (RN ).
Along these directions pi we measure the directional variances σi2 for the
true and the estimated Factor Analysis model and calculate the systematic
error as
"
#
σi2 f a
fa
fa
true
(9)
σi2 true = p>
pi ,
σi2 f a = p>
Si = E 2 true ,
i C pi .
i C
σi
Here, values Si > 1 and Si < 1 correspond to an over- and underestimation
of the directional variances, respectively. Moreover, the basis P explicitly
takes the factor structure into account. Hence, this particularly chosen basis
enables us to study the specific systematic estimation errors in the factor
subspace and noise subspace separately5 . Note that the directions pi are
solely derived from the estimated parameters of the factor model and do not
rely on information about the true covariance matrix.
Figure 3 depicts the estimated systematic error S (eq. (9)) of Factor
Analysis by means of the simulated data. Clearly, Factor Analysis tends to
overestimate the variance in the 3-dimensional Factor Subspace, while the
4

Here, we consider only the non-zero Eigenvalues and assume the Eigenvectors to be
sorted in decreasing order with respect to their Eigenvalues.
5
The use of the conventional eigenbasis of Cf a does not allow to disentangle the subspace specific errors.

11

3
T/N: 0.7
T/N: 1
T/N: 5
2.5

Ŝ fa
i

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

[#eigendirection Factor Subspace | orth. complement]

Figure 3: average ratio between Factor Analysis and true variances in the factor subspace
and the orthogonal complement. Ratios of sample size to dimensionality T /N = 0.7, 1
and 5. N = 30. Average over 150 datasets.

variance in the orthogonal complement is on average underestimated. This
is not surprising, as the Factor Analysis model attributes strong covariances
in the sample to the factors. Consequently, factors with low Signal-to-Noiseratio (SNR) are hard to identify and directions of spurious covariance are
likely to be misrepresented as factors, yielding an overestimating of the variance along these directions: In the simulations, the strongest (first) factor,
which has a high Signal-to-Noise-Ratio can be estimated with very high accuracy even for small sample sizes and the variance estimate does not have a
significant systematic error. The weaker factors with a lower SNR in contrast
tend to yield overestimated variances along the estimated factor directions.
This effect is highly pronounced for small sample sizes and persists for relatively large sample sizes.
On the other hand, the noise subspace spectrum shows a similar – albeit weaker – behaviour as the spectrum of the sample covariance matrix,
i.e., variances corresponding to large eigenvalues are overestimated, while
variances corresponding to small eigenvalues are underestimated (compare
Figure 1 and Figure 3). As for the sample covariance matrix, this effect is
12

especially pronounced for small sample sizes.
3.3. Directional Variance Adjustment: Correcting the Systematic Error
The systematic error of the spectrum of a sample covariance matrix with
respect to the true spectrum can be estimated analytically: from the distribution of the entries in the covariance matrix, the distribution of the eigenvalues
can be derived (see e.g., Edelman and Rao (2005)). The minimization of the
Factor Analysis cost function on the other hand does not have a closed form
solution, an iterative method has to be used. Hence it does not facilitate
an analytical approach to obtain the distribution of the eigenvalues. Consequently, we will deploy a method that is based on Monte-Carlo-sampling.
To this end, suppose we have estimated the parameters F of a Factor
Analysis model and want to correct the corresponding covariance matrix
CF for the systematic error. Then we estimate the systematic error in the
following manner: Using F for a generative model, we generate K synthetic
data sets of the same size as the original sample. For each data set we
estimate a corresponding Factor Analysis parameter set F1 , . . . , FK . Note
that for these parameter sets the true set of parameters (i.e., F) is known and
with it the true covariance matrix. This enables us to quantify the amount
k
by which the directional variances along the eigendirections of CF
f s (factor
k
subspace) and CF
oc (orthogonal complement) are over- and underestimated,
respectively. The estimated systematic errors, can then directly be turned
into multiplicative correction factors for the adjustment of the directional
variances of F. Applying these corrections to the eigendirections of the
factor space and its orthogonal complement yields to what we refer as the
directional variance adjusted covariance matrix CDV A of F (see algorithm 1).
Note that the algorithm does not correct the parameters of the factor
model itself. Instead, only the resulting covariance matrix is adjusted. In
particular, the factor directions, i.e., the exposures, are kept unchanged. An
illustration of an adjusted covariance matrix can be found in Figure 4. The
figure shows in blue/solid and red/dashed the covariances of the true and
the estimated factor model, respectively. The arrows indicate the factor
directions of the true and estimated factor model and the direction of the
orthogonal complement, respectively. Clearly, the factor direction has been
misestimated and its strength is overestimated. In the orthogonal direction
the variance is underestimated. Our proposed DVA method corrects the
systematic error of the directional variance along those directions, without
13

Algorithm 1 DVA
Input: the estimated parameters of the Factor Analysis model F ; the sample size T ; the number of Monte Carlo runs K
Output: the directional variance adjusted covariance CDV A
1:
2:

generate K synthetic data sets of size T based on F.
from the K data sets, estimate K factor model parameter sets F1 , . . . , FK

3:
4:

For each Fk , estimate the basis Pk = [Pk,f s ,Pk,oc ] (see sec. 3.2)
estimate the directional variance correction factors
Fk p
P
p>
k,i
k,i C
SiC = K1 K
>
k=1 p CF p
k,i

5:
6:

k,i

For F, estimate the basis P = [Pf s ,Poc ]
calculate the directional variance adjusted covariance matrix
P
F
>
>
C
CDV A = CF + N
i=1 (1 − 1/Si ) · (pi pi )C (pi pi )

adjusting the directions themselves. This leads to the directional variance
adjusted covariance matrix (depicted in green/dash-dotted): In the aforementioned directions, the systematic error is reduced.
One has to keep in mind that the resampling – and with it the estimate of
the systematic error of the covariance matrix – is based on the estimated parameters F. Therefore, large errors in F adversely affect the DVA covariance
estimate.
In order to reduce the impact of the error in F, it could be advantageous
to iterate the DVA procedure. From the DVA covariance matrix, which more
closely reflects the true covariance matrix, we could estimate the parameters
of a new factor model and restart the DVA procedure, obtaining more precise estimates of correction factors in each iteration. Though a compelling
idea, there is no guarantee that iterating the DVA method will give a better
solution, converge to a sensible one or even converge at all. In this paper, we
therefore concentrate on the non-iterated DVA procedure.
3.4. Simulation Results
Before we present results from daily return data, we will first illustrate
the effectiveness of the proposed DVA method in a simulation study. For
this, we generate toy data according to the scheme presented in section 3.2,
first apply standard Factor Analysis and then use our proposed DVA method
to reduce the bias.
14

true FM covariance
estimated FM covariance
DVA covariance

true factor
direction

direction of
orth. complement

estimated
factor direction

Figure 4: The panel shows the directional variances for an estimated Factor model covariance matrix (red/dashed) and the true Factor model covariance matrix (blue/solid).
The blue dots indicate the true variance along the estimated factor direction and the
direction of the orthogonal complement. The DVA method (green/dash-dotted) aims at
stretching and compressing the estimated covariance peanut such that the variances in
these directions correspond to the true ones.

The performances of the two estimation methods with respect to the
systematic error S (eq. (9)) are contrasted in Figure 5. To the left, it is
shown that the DVA method clearly reduces the systematic error of the Factor
Analysis model, even for relatively large ratios T /N . In the direction of the
third factor, which has the lowest SNR, the reduction is most prominent. In
the orthogonal complement of the factor subspace, the adjusted spectrum
resembles the true variances very well. Nevertheless, there remains a small
systematic error, which is due to to using the estimated parameter set in
order to infer the directional variance correction factors. The right panel of
Figure 5 illustrates that the DVA method does not incur a significant increase
in variance of the estimate.
By reducing the systematic error without an increase in variance, the
DVA method reduces the average estimation error. To account for different

15

3

FA, T/N: 0.7
FA, T/N: 1
FA, T/N: 5
DVA FA, T/N: 0.7
DVA FA, T/N: 1
DVA FA, T/N: 5

0.5

/ Ŝ i

0.4

¶
2 fa /DVA

1.5

0.3

std

µ

σi
σ i2 tr ue

fa/DVA

2

Ŝ i

FA, T/N: 0.7
FA, T/N: 1
FA, T/N: 5
DVA FA, T/N: 0.7
DVA FA, T/N: 1
DVA FA, T/N: 5

0.6

fa/DVA

2.5

1

0.5

0

0.2

0.1

5

10

15

20

25

30

[#eigendirection Factor Subspace | orth. complement]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

[#eigendirection Factor Subspace | orth. complement]

Figure 5: left: comparison of the systematic error for standard Factor Analysis and the
DVA Factor Analysis. Right: normalized standard deviation of the error. Simulations for
different ratios of sample size to dimensionality (T /N = 0.7, 1 and 5). N = 30. Correction
factors estimated on K = 100 generated data sets. Mean over 150 simulations.

magnitudes of true directional variances, Figure 6 displays the error of the
estimator in terms of the mean absolute relative error
"
#
2 f a/DV A
2 true
|σ
−
σ
|
f a/DV A
i
i
=E
.
(10)
Ai
σi2 true
Note that this error is more than halved for the direction of the low SNRfactor and considerably decreased in the orthogonal complement. Here, DVA
has the strongest effects on the directions corresponding to the largest and
smallest non-zero eigenvalues of Cfoca . For the direction of the smallest eigenvalue, the error is again approximately halved.
While the ratio T /N determines most properties of the sample covariance,
this is not true for regularized estimators and factor models. For larger values
of T , at a constant ratio T /N , the idiosyncratic variances of Factor Analysis
are estimated more precisely, while the estimation of the factors remains
difficult. This is shown in Fig. 7, where the dimensionality has been set to
500 and the generative model has seven factors of strength 10, 5, 4, 3, 2.5,
2, 1.5, and 1. One can see that while there is little room for improvement
in the orthogonal complement, in the Factor Subspace the performance gain
by DVA FA remains on the same level.

16

2
FA, T/N: 0.7
FA, T/N: 1
FA, T/N: 5
DVA FA, T/N: 0.7
DVA FA, T/N: 1
DVA FA, T/N: 5

1.8
1.6
1.4

1

Â i

fa/DVA

1.2

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

[#eigendirection Factor Subspace | orth. complement]

Figure 6: comparison of the mean absolute relative error for standard Factor Analysis and
the DVA Factor Analysis for different ratios of sample size to dimensionality (T /N = 0.7,
1 and 5). N = 30. Correction factors estimated on K = 100 generated data sets. Mean
over 150 simulations.

4. Empirical Results
4.1. Portfolio Simulation
In order to evaluate the proposed methods, we applied the DVA Factor
Analysis to financial daily return time series. In the experiments, we estimate covariance matrices of stock returns and use the covariance estimates for
portfolio optimization. The realized risks of the portfolios are compared for
the different covariance estimates. In particular, we will compare the DVA
Factor Analysis to the sample covariance matrix, Resampling Efficiency6 ,
the Fama-French Three-Factor model (see, e. g., Fan et al. (2008), Fama and
French (1992)), Shrinkage to a one-factor model (Ledoit and Wolf (2003))
and standard Factor Analysis (see section 3.1). For DVA and standard Factor Analysis we use seven factors. Though on the higher dimensional US
and EU data sets we could extract more factors and fewer factors would be
6

Although Resampling Efficiency does not yield a covariance estimate, we include it in
the comparison.

17

1.6

1.2

0.4
FA, T/N: 0.7
FA, T/N: 1
0.35
FA, T/N: 5
DVA FA, T/N: 0.7
DVA FA, T/N: 1
DVA FA, T/N: 5 0.3

1

0.25

0.8

0.2

0.6

0.15

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.05

Â i

fa/DVA

1.4

0
1234567

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0
500

[#eigendirection Factor Subspace | orth. complement]

Figure 7: comparison of the mean absolute relative error for standard Factor Analysis and
the DVA Factor Analysis for different ratios of sample size to dimensionality (T /N = 0.7, 1
and 5). Note that the y-axis has different scaling for the factor subspace and the orthogonal
complement. N = 500. Correction factors estimated on K = 100 generated data sets.
Mean over 150 simulations.

favorable on the smaller HK data set, we opted for the same intermediate
model complexity on all data sets to keep the setting simpler.
4.2. The Data Sets
The data set consists of daily returns of about 1300 US stocks (3.1.2001–
2.11.2009), about 600 European stocks (3.1.2001–20.4.2009) and a set of 200
stocks from the Hong Kong stock exchange (3.1.2001–26.9.2008). Removing
stocks which do not have data for the whole time horizon covered by the
data set, the Hong Kong data set reduces to 100 assets.
4.3. Design of Portfolio Simulations
There are different applications of covariance matrices in portfolio optimization. Covariance matrices are needed for index tracking, hedging and
the search for minimum variance portfolios. In the following, we will focus
on minimum variance portfolios. The minimum variance portfolio is given
by
w∗ = argmin w> Ĉ w,
w

18

(11)

where w is the vector of portfolio weights and Ĉ is the covariance matrix
estimate.
Depending on the particular application, additional constraints are incorporated into the optimization. Commonly applied constraints include:
P
•
i wi = 1: the sum of all portfolio weights is restricted to one.
• w> r̂ = r∗ : the estimated portfolio return is restricted to r∗ , r̂ is the
vector of expected/predicted asset returns.
• wi ≥ 0: only positive portfolio weights, no short-selling.
Note that the application of constraints tremendously prunes the set of
feasible portfolios and hence diminishes the influence of the covariance estimate (for details, see Jagannathan and Ma (2003)). Consequently, the
observed differences between the performances of portfolios obtained from
different covariance estimation methods get smaller. Thus, in order to unveil
the leverage of the various covariance estimation methods, we opted for not
constraining the magnitude of the weights or enforcing their positivity. We
only applied the constraint that scales the sum of the portfolio weights to
one7 . In the case of small sample sizes, this approach will tend to overfit the
directions of smallest variance and is hence expected to favour the restricted
covariance estimators. Therefore, in section 4.5 we also investigate the performances of portfolios obtained from a regularized optimization problem of
eq. (11), where the additional regularization enforces diversified portfolios.
In order to evaluate the performance of the different covariance estimator
we use the realized (out-of-sample) variance of the estimated portfolios:
2
σreal

T
2
1 X >
wt−1 (rt − r̂t−1 ) ,
=
T t=1

(12)

and, of more financial interest, the realized mean absolute deviation
MADreal

T
1X >
=
w (rt − r̂t−1 ) .
T t=1 t−1

7

(13)

This optimization is independent of the return estimates and is equivalent to optimizing portfolio returns under the assumption of equal expected returns for all assets.

19

Note, that (12) and (13) are rolling out-of-sample estimates, as wt−1 and r̂t−1
are the portfolio weights and expected returns estimated on the information
available until time t − 1. More precisely, for the estimation of the covariance
matrix Ĉt−1 and the averaged return r̂t−1 we used a strictly causal window
of 150 trading days.
In order to reduce the variance of the performance evaluation and to thoroughly explore the estimated covariance structure, J = 1000 subsets, each
confined to 40 (HK) or 100 (US and EU) assets, are chosen and the optimal (confined) portfolio wtj is constructed from the given covariance matrix
estimate Ĉtj . The realized variance and realized absolute deviation are then
determined based on the average performance across the different confined
portfolios, i.e.,
( J
)
T
X
X j

1
1
2
2
(wt−1 )> (rt − r̂t−1 )
,
σreal
=
T t=1 J j=1
( J
)
T
1X 1X
j
(wt−1
)> (rt − r̂t−1 ) .
MADreal =
T t=1 J j=1
4.4. Results and Discussion of Portfolio Simulations
In this section we will provide portfolio simulation results for different
covariance estimation approaches, namely the sample covariance matrix, Resampling Efficiency, the Fama-French three-factor model, Shrinkage to a onefactor Model, a Factor Analysis model with seven factors, and a directional
variance adjusted Factor Analysis (DVA FA, section 3.2). The results for the
different markets are summarized in Table 1.
As expected, the sample covariance matrix is not the most suitable tool
for portfolio optimization. Across all data sets, the portfolios derived from
the different factor based models and Shrinkage clearly outperform the sample covariance matrix based portfolios in terms of realized risk. A direct
comparison of these models reveals that the DVA method always significantly outperforms Fama-French, standard Factor Analysis and Shrinkage
with respect to realized variance and realized absolute deviation. On our
data sets, Resampling Efficiency does not give an advantage over the sample
covariance matrix.

20

4.5. Results and Discussion of Portfolio Simulations – Additional Regularization
Without knowledge of the covariance structure of the assets, the best
portfolio allocation would have weights inverse to the variance of the assets
and hence be highly diversified. Minimization of eq. (11), on the other hand,
gives the optimal portfolio only for the true covariance matrix. Therefore, for
a given covariance matrix estimate, it should in principle be possible to additionally reduce the realized risk of a portfolio by increasing its diversification,
e.g., by regularization of eq. (11).
Consequently, the aim of the following analysis is twofold. First of all and
from a theoretical perspective, we want to investigate if the superior performance of the DVA method can be simply explained away by a higher degree
of diversification or if the true covariance structure is indeed better captured.
Secondly, with respect to practical considerations, we are interested in the
best achievable performance.
In order to analyze these aspects, for each of the covariance matrix estimates Ĉ we enforce additional portfolio diversification by including a ridge
penalty in the objective function eq. (11), i.e.,
w∗ (λ) = argmin w> Ĉ w + λw> Λ w.
w

(14)

In particular, we set the metric Λ to a diagonal matrix which has the single
asset variances on its diagonal. This metric implies that each asset gets
penalized by its variance and in the limit λ → ∞ we obtain the portfolio of
assets weighted by the inverse of their variances.

Sample Cov.
Resampling Eff.
Fama-French
LW Shrinkage
Factor Analysis
DVA FA

US
8.56† (156.1† )
8.83† (165.7† )
5.65† (73.5† )
5.56† (69.6† )
5.47† (67.8† )
5.40 (66.7)

EU
5.93† (78.9† )
6.11† (83.5† )
3.97† (38.6† )
4.00† (39.1† )
3.88† (36.5† )
3.84 (36.0)

HK
6.57† (81.2† )
6.64† (82.7† )
6.20† (73.4† )
6.17† (72.9† )
6.17† (73.0† )
6.12 (71.7)

Table 1: Mean absolute deviations·103 (mean squared deviations·106 ) of the resulting
portfolios for the different covariance estimators and the different markets. † := DVA
mean significantly better/worse than this model at the 5% level, tested by a randomization
test.

21

Figure 8 – 10 depict the realized (out-of-sample) variance and MAD (see
eq. (12) and eq (13)) of the resulting portfolios as a function of the regularization parameter λ for the three different market samples.
In unison, the different models benefit from additional regularization, as
can be seen from a reduction of the realized risk of the resulting portfolios
(cmp. Tables 1 and 2). Although, this effect is most pronounced for the
sample covariance matrix, it merely reaches the performance of the (unregularized) Factor Analysis models. Note that the regularized optimization
based on the sample covariance matrix is equivalent to unregularized optimization using a shrinkage covariance estimator, that employs Ctarget = Λ
as the shrinkage target (cf. eq. (2)). Again, Resampling Efficiency does not
prove to be superior to the sample covariance matrix.
Shrinkage to the one-factor model profits as well from additional Shrinkage to Λ. This indicates that the optimization of the expected mean squared
error of automatic Shrinkage gives a too small Shrinkage parameter for the
optimization of portfolios.
Surprisingly, the Fama-French Three-Factor model does not benefit as
much as Shrinkage from the regularization, although the unregularized performance is similar. This implies that the performance gain of the unregularized Fama-French model over the sample covariance matrix is mainly due
to a strong imposed prior towards highly diversified portfolios. Compared
to the statistical FMs FA, and DVA FA, the performance difference remains
on the same level as without additional regularization. This means that the
covariance structure is better captured by the statistical FMs than by the

Sample Cov.
Resampling Eff.
Fama-French
LW Shrinkage
Factor Analysis
DVA FA

US
5.45 (67.3† )
5.48† (67.7)
5.55† (70.0† )
5.39† (65.8)
5.38† (66.0)
5.35 (65.6)
†

EU
3.91 (37.0† )
3.93† (37.2)
3.93† (37.7)
3.86† (36.3)
3.82† (35.6)
3.81 (35.5)
†

HK
6.14† (72.8)
6.16† (73.4)
6.10 (71.6)
6.10 (71.8)
6.09 (71.7)
6.09 (71.3)

Table 2: Mean absolute deviations·103 (mean squared deviations·106 ) of the resulting
portfolios for the different regularized covariance estimators for optimal regularization
strength and the different markets. † := DVA mean significantly better/worse than this
model at the 5% level, tested by a randomization test.

22

Fama-French model. These effects are strongest for the US and EU markets.
The risk of the portfolios obtained from the Factor Analysis model as well
as from its DVA version also improve considerably. At the optimal degree
of regularization, the DVA FA model significantly outperforms the optimally
regularized sample covariance matrix based model for all markets. Regarding
eq. (14) as being a shrinkage towards Λ, this statement is equivalent to:
shrinkage of the DVA Factor Analysis covariance matrix towards Λ yields
better portfolios with respect to the achieved portfolio risks than shrinkage
of the sample covariance matrix towards Λ. The comparison of FA DVA
with Fama-French shows a significantly better performance for all markets
as well. The performance gain over Shrinkage is, however, only significant
for US and EU markets.
At the optimal degree of regularization the difference in performance between the standard Factor Analysis and the DVA Factor Analysis is reduced.
In general, this was to be expected as regularization can equivalently be
achieved either by adding a penalty term to the objective function or by
additionally constraining the feasible set. In this respect, it was shown in Jagannathan and Ma (2003) that the actual influence of the covariance matrix
estimate on the minimum variance portfolio diminishes when additionally
constraining the set of feasible portfolios. Thus, as a matter of fact, regularization partly compensates for the influence of the systematic error of the
Factor Analysis covariance matrix estimate.
Nevertheless, in the US and EU market, the difference in mean MAD
remains significant at the 5% level. In Hong Kong the peformance gain
of DVA over standard Factor Analysis is, for optimal regularization, not
significant.
Comparing the different markets, it turns out that the Hong Kong market shows a slightly different behavior than the American and European. At
the Hong Kong market, all methods likewise benefit from additional diversification. One possible explanation is that the HK data set contains quite
a few outliers and missing data as opposed to the US and EU data. Thus
covariance estimates as well as least square estimates of factor exposures are
hampered in general. Hence and in contrast to the other markets, the FamaFrench model also clearly profits from the additional regularization, although
its overall performance remains inferior to DVA Factor Analysis.

23

−5

−3

x 10

x 10

5.6

Sample Cov.
Resampling Efficiency
Fama−French
LW Shrinkage
Factor Analysis
DVA

7.3

mean portfolio variance

5.65

mean portfolio absolute deviation

7.4

Sample Cov.
Resampling Efficiency
Fama−French
LW Shrinkage
Factor Analysis
DVA

5.55

5.5

5.45

7.2
7.1
7
6.9
6.8
6.7

5.4

6.6
5.35
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0

1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

regularization strength λ

regularization strength λ

Figure 8: Realized portfolio risk. Left: mean absolute deviation. Right: variance. US
market.

−3

−5

x 10

x 10

Sample Cov.
Resampling Efficiency
Fama−French
LW Shrinkage
Factor Analysis
DVA

Sample Cov.
Resampling Efficiency
Fama−French
LW Shrinkage
Factor Analysis
DVA

3.9

mean portfolio variance

mean portfolio absolute deviation

4

3.9

3.85
3.8
3.75
3.7
3.65
3.6

3.8
0

3.55

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

regularization strength λ

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

regularization strength λ

Figure 9: Realized portfolio risk. Left: mean absolute deviation. Right: variance. EU
market.

24

−3

−5

x 10

x 10

Sample Cov.
Resampling Efficiency
Fama−French
LW Shrinkage
Factor Analysis
DVA

6.18

Sample Cov.
Resampling Efficiency
Fama−French
LW Shrinkage
Factor Analysis
DVA

7.34
7.32

mean portfolio variance

mean portfolio absolute deviation

6.2

6.16

6.14

6.12

7.3
7.28
7.26
7.24
7.22
7.2
7.18
7.16

6.1

7.14

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

regularization strength λ

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

regularization strength λ

Figure 10: Realized portfolio risk. Left: mean absolute deviation. Right: variance. HK
market.

5. Summary
The fundamental issue in portfolio allocation is the accurate and precise
estimation of the covariance matrix of asset returns from historical data.
Among many challenges, the data is typically high dimensional, noisy, contaminated with outliers and nonstationarity interferes with the use of long
estimation windows. Thus, reliable statistical parameter estimation is often
impeded. Our work has contributed to alleviate this problem in theoretical and practical aspects: (1) we demonstrated that the data driven statistical Factor Analysis model has a systematic estimation error, which can
be alleviated by the proposed algorithmic Directional Variance Adjustment
(DVA) framework, (2) a DVA correction of Factor Analysis yields substantial improvements for minimum variance portfolios, and finally (3) extensive
simulations of portfolios of EU, US and Hong Kong markets underpinned
the usefulness of the DVA approach in terms of significant gains in realized
variance and realized mean absolute deviation.
For each covariance estimator, we additionally studied the effect of regularizing the minimum variance portfolios towards a higher degree of diversification. As expected, diversification improved portfolio performance across
the different estimators. Our empirical study showed that while regularization slightly decreases the overall advantage gained by DVA, the remaining
difference in the minimum stayed significant for the US and EU data sets,
here the DVA Factor Analysis method is superior to standard Factor Analysis.
25

A second interesting finding of the regularization experiments was that
the advantage of the Fama-French model over the sample covariance matrix
estimator appears rather due to an imposed strong diversification prior than
to an improved estimation of the underlying covariance structure. Here,
clearly the combination of regularization and statistical FMs like standard
FA and in particular DVA FA led to better model performance.
Note, however, that down-weighting/regularizing away the estimated correlations may not always be a valid option. In an application where the covariance structure is of higher importance – e.g. because an index needs to
be tracked with a reduced number of assets – increased diversification would
clearly be no option.
Therefore, both scenarios, the one with and the one without regularization, yield interesting insight and a clear gain when using DVA FA.
Whilst we have studied and modeled daily returns, the DVA method is of
course equally capable of being employed to derive covariances for intraday
returns. Intraday covariance matrices are particularly relevant when dealing
with portfolios with significant (intraday) churn. Examples of such portfolios
include internalization portfolios at most major brokerages, and those used
for market making. Using DVA FA, a covariance matrix may be tuned for the
typical period a position remains in a portfolio, allowing, potentially, better
risk management and asset allocation.
We do not consider serial correlation, as it is common for covariance
estimation methods like Shrinkage (see Ledoit and Wolf (2003, 2004)) and
statistical Factor Models (see, e.g., Gregory et al. (2010)). Nevertheless,
it would be interesting to do further research on an autoregressive Factor
Analysis model.
6. Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Gilles Blanchard for his valuable comments. We thank
two anonymous reviewers who supplied helpful suggestions which led to substantial improvements of the manuscript.
References
Abrahamsen, T. J., Hansen, L. K., Jul. 2011. A cure for variance inflation
in high dimensional kernel principal component analysis. J. Mach. Learn.
Res. 12, 2027–2044.
26

Basilevsky, A., 1994. Statistical Factor Analysis and Related Methods. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Campbell, R. A., Forbes, C. S., Koedjik, K. G., Kofman, P., 2008. Increasing
correlations or just fat tails? Journal of Empirical Finance 15, 287–309.
Comon, P., 1994. Independent component analysis, a new concept? Signal
Process. 36 (3), 287–314.
Connor, G., May/June 1995. The three types of factor models: A comparison
of their explanatory power. Financial Analysts Journal 51 (3), 42–46.
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., Rubin, D. B., 1977. Maximum likelihood
from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Royal statistical Society B
39, 1–38.
Edelman, A., Rao, N. R., 2005. Random matrix theory. Acta Numerica 14,
233–297.
el Karoui, N., 2008. Spectrum estimation for large dimensional covariance
matrices using random matrix theory. Annals of Statistics 36 (6), 2757–
2790.
Fama, E. F., French, K. R., June 1992. The cross-section of expected stock
returns. Journal of Finance XLVII (2), 427–465.
Fan, J., Fan, Y., Lv, J., 2008. High dimensional covariance matrix estimation
using a factor model. Journal of Econometrics 147, 186–197.
Friedman, J. H., 1989. Regularized discriminant analysis. J Amer Statist
Assoc 84 (405), 165–175.
Goldfarb, D., Iyengar, G., 2003. Robust portfolio selection problems. Mathematics of Operations Research 28 (1), 1–38.
Gregory, C., Goldberg, L., Korajcyzk, R., 2010. Portfolio Risk Analysis.
Princeton University Press.
Huber, P. J., 1981. Robust statistics. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics, New York: Wiley, 1981.

27

Hyvärinen, A., Oja, E., 2000. Independent component analysis: algorithms
and applications. Neural Netw. 13 (4-5), 411–430.
Jagannathan, R., Ma, T., August 2003. Risk reduction in large portfolios:
Why imposing the wrong constraints helps. Journal of Finance LVIII (4),
1651–1683.
Jolliffe, I. T., 1986. Principal component analysis. Springer Series in Statistics, Berlin: Springer, 1986.
Jöreskog, K. G., 1967. Some contributions to maximum likelihood factor
analysis. Psychometrika 32, 443–482.
Kjems, U., Hansen, L. K., Strother, S. C., 2001. Generalizable singular value
decomposition for ill-posed datasets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 13, 549–555.
Laloux, L., Cizeau, P., Potters, M., Bouchaud, J.-P., 2000. Random matrix
theory and financial correlations. International Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Finance 3 (3), 391–397.
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, 603–621.
Ledoit, O., Wolf, M., 2004. A well-conditioned estimator for largedimensional covariance matrices. J Multivar Anal 88 (2), 365–411.
Longin, F., 2005. The choice of the distribution of asset returns: How extreme
value theory can help? Journal of Banking and Finance 29, 1017–1035.
Loretan, M., Phillips, P. C., 1994. Testing the covariance stationarity of
heavy-tailed time series. Journal of Empirical Finance 1, 211–248.
Markowitz, H., March 1952. Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance VII (1),
77–91.
Marčenko, V. A., Pastur, L. A., 1967. Distribution of eigenvalues for some
sets of random matrices. Mathematics of the USSR-Sbornik 1 (4), 457.

28

McLachlan, G., Bean, R., Jones, L. B.-T., 2007. Extension of the mixture
of factor analyzers model to incorporate the multivariate t-distribution.
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 51 (11), 5327 – 5338.
Michaud, R. O., Jun. 1998. Efficient Asset Management: A Practical Guide
to Stock Portfolio Optimization and Asset Allocation. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Miller, G., 2006. Needles, haystacks and hidden factors. Journal of Portfolio
Management 32 (2), 25–32.
Pagan, A. R., Schwert, G. W., 1990. Testing for covariance stationarity in
stock market data. Economics Letters 33, 165–170.
Roll, R., Ross, S. A., December 1980. An empirical investigation of the arbitrage pricing theory. Journal of Finance XXXV (5), 1073–1103.
Rosenow, B., Plerou, V., Gopikrishnan, P., Stanley, H. E., 2002. Portfolio
optimization and the random magnet problem. Europhys. Letters, 500–
506.
Roweis, S., Ghahramani, Z., 1999. A unifying review of linear gaussian models. Neural Computation 11 (2).
Rubin, D., Thayer, D., Mar. 1982. EM algorithms for ML factor analysis.
Psychometrika 47 (1), 69–76.
Schäfer, J., Strimmer, K., 2005. A shrinkage approach to large-scale covariance matrix estimation and implications for functional genomics. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 (1).
Scherer, B., 2004. Resampled efficiency and portfolio choice. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management 18 (4), 382–398.
Shanken, J., 1992. On the estimation of beta pricing models. Review of Financial Studies 5, 1–34.
Stein, C., 1956. Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a
multivariate normal distribution. In: Proc. 3rd Berkeley Sympos. Math.
Statist. Probability. Vol. 1. pp. 197–206.

29

Tipping, M. E., Bishop, C. M., 1999. Probabilistic Principal Component
Analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 61, 611–622.
Tulino, A. M., Verdú, S., June 2004. Random matrix theory and wireless
communications. Commun. Inf. Theory 1, 1–182.
Zhao, J.-H., Yu, P. L. H., Jiang, Q., 2008. ML estimation for factor analysis:
EM or non-EM? Statistics and Computing, 109–123.

30

