{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02181208053691275, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0041946308724832215, 'mean_word_length': 5.85632183908046, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gains from Markowitz Optimization: Evidence from Re-Optimization of Mutual Fund Holdings

Prior studies challenge the practical usefulness of Markowitz portfolio optimization in improving the return-risk tradeoff in portfolio management. We approach this question from a unique angle by examining whether one can improve the performance of a large sample of actual mutual fund portfolios by re-optimizing the holdings using simple mean-variance optimization methods. Our analyses produce compelling evidence of the benefits from Markowitz optimization. Simple portfolio optimization improves mutual fund portfolios’ risk-adjusted performance despite noisy expected return estimates inferred from mutual fund portfolio weights. Several alternative optimization strategies, including the risk-parity portfolio, minimum variance portfolio, mean-variance portfolio and Sharpe ratio maximization portfolio all outperform actual mutual fund portfolios in terms of the Sharpe ratio and other risk-adjusted performance measures. Moreover, the results are robust to subsamples partitioned on various dimensions. In contrast to DeMiguel et al. (2009), we find that the 1/N portfolio performs the worst.