Shrinkage estimation of covariance matrix for portfolio selection on vietnam

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING THE STATE BANK OF VIETNAM BANKING UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION NGUYEN MINH NHAT SHRINKAGE ESTIMATION OF COVARIANCE MATRIX FOR PORTFOLIO SELECTION ON VIETNAM STOCK MARKET Ho Chi Minh City - 2020 i MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING THE STATE BANK OF VIETNAM BANKING UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION NGUYEN MINH NHAT SHRINKAGE ESTIMATION OF COVARIANCE MATRIX FOR PORTFOLIO SELECTION ON VIETNAM STOCK MARKET Ho Chi Minh City - 2020 ii Table of Contents List of Abbreviations List of Figures List of Tables CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1Vietnam stock market overview 1.2Problem statements 1.3Objectives and research questions 1.4Research Methodology 1.5Expected contributions 1.6Disposition of the dissertation CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1Modern Portfolio Theory Framework 2.1.1Concept of risk and return 2.1.2Assumptions of the modern portfolio 2.1.3MPT investment process 2.1.4Critism of the theory 2.2Parameter estimation 2.2.1Expected returns parameter 2.2.2The covariance matrix parameter 2.3Portfolio Selection 2.3.1Mean-Variance Model 2.3.2Global Minimum Variance Model (G CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1Basic preliminaries 3.1.1Return 3.1.2Variance i 3.2Portfolio Optimization 3.3The estimators of covariance matrix 3.3.1The sample covariance matrix (SCM 3.3.2The single index model (SIM) 3.3.3Constant correlation model (CCM) 3.3.4Shrinkage towards single-index mode 3.3.5Shrinkage towards Constant correlat 3.3.6Shrinkage to identity matrix (STIM) CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY 4.1Input Data 4.2Portfolio performance evaluation methodology 4.3Transaction costs 4.4Performance metrics 4.4.1Sharpe ratio (SR) 4.4.2 Maximum drawdown (MDD) 4.4.3Portfolio turnover (PT) 4.4.4Winning rate (WR) 4.4.5Jensen’s Alpha 4.4.6The statistical significance of the diff performance measures 4.5VN - Index and 1/N portfolios benchmarks CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL RESULTS 5.1VN – Index and 1/N portfolio performance 5.1.1VN – Index performance 5.1.21/N portfolio performance 5.2Portfolio out – of –sample performance 5.2.1Sample covariance matrix (SCM) 5.2.2Single index model (SIM) 5.2.3Constant correlation model (CCM) ii 5.2.4 Shrinkage towards single index model (SSIM) 5.2.5 Shrinkage towards constant correlation model (SCCM) 5.2.6 Shrinkage towards identity matrix (STIM) 5.3Summary performances of covariance matrix estimators on out – CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS 6.1Conclusions 6.2Future works REFERENCES iii List of Abbreviations APT: Arbitrage Pricing Theory CAPM: Capital Asset Pricing Model CCM: Constant Correlation Model DIG: Development Investment Construction Joint Stock Company GDP: Gross Domestic Product GICS: Global Industry Classification Standard GMV: Global Minimum Variance Model HOSE: Ho Chi Minh City Stock Exchange HNX: Ha Noi Stock Exchange ICF: ICF Cable Joint Stock Company IPO: Initial Public Offering MDD: Maximum Drawdown MLE: Maximum Likelihood Estimator MV: Mean - Variance MVO: Mean-Variance Optimization MPT: Modern Portfolio Theory OLS: Ordinary Least Squares PT: Portfolio Turnover REE: Refrigeration Electrical Engineering Corporation SAM: Sam Holdings Corporation SCM: Sample Covariance Matrix SIM: Single Index Market Model SSIM: Shrinkage towards Single-index Model SCCM: Shrinkage towards Constant Correlation Model STIM: Shrinkage to Identity Matrix SR: Sharpe Ratio UPCoM: Unlisted Public Company Market USD: United States Dollar iv VIC: Vingroup Joint Stock Company VND: Viet Nam Dong VN - Index: Vietnam stock index WR: Winning rate YEG: Yeah1 Group Corporation v List of Figures Figures Figure 1.1: The performance of investment funds in the period of 2009 – 2019 Figure 1.2: The performance of investment funds in the period of 2017 – 2019 Figure 1.3: Determinants of portfolio performance Figure 2.1 The MPT investment process Figure 4.1: The universe of stocks on HOSE from 2013 – 2019 Figure 4.2: The number of listed companies into industry groups on HOSE, 2019 Figure 4.3: The market capitalization of industry groups on HOSE, 2019 Figure 4.4: Back – testing procedure Figure 5.1: VN-Index’s performance in the period of 2013 – 2019 Figure 5.2: Back-testing results of 1/N portfolio benchmark on out – of – sample from 1/1/2013 – 31/12/2019 Figure 5.3: Back-testing results of SCM on out – of – sample from 1/1/2013 – 31/12/2019 Figure 5.4: Compare the cumulative return between SCM and VN-Index Figure 5.5: Back-testing results of SIM on out – of – sample from 1/1/2013 – 31/12/2019 Figure 5.6: Compare the cumulative return between SIM and VN-Index Figure 5.7: Back-testing results of CCM on out – of – sample from 1/1/2013 – 31/12/2019 Figure 5.8: Compare the cumulative return between CCM and VN-Index Figure 5.9: Back-testing results of SSIM on out – of – sample from 1/1/2013 – vi 31/12/2019 Figure 5.10: Compare the cumulative return between SSIM and VN-Index Figure 5.11: Back-testing results of SSIM’s shrinkage coefficient ( – of – sample from 1/1/2013 - 31/12/2019 Figure 5.12: Back-testing results of SCCM on out – of – sample from 1/1/2013 – 31/12/2019 Figure 5.13: Compare the cumulative return between SCCM and VN-Index Figure 5.14: Back-testing results of SCCM’s shrinkage coefficient ( – of – sample from 1/1/2013 - 31/12/2019 Figure 5.15: Back-testing results of STIM on out – of – sample from 1/1/2013 – 31/12/2019 Figure 5.16: Compare the cumulative return between STIM and VN-Index Figure 5.17: Back-testing results of STIM’s shrinkage coefficient ( – of – sample from 1/1/2013 - 31/12/2019 vii return of SCCM is up to 18.81% when the number of stocks in portfolio is 350 The extremely low volatility is considered one of the best advantages of shrinkage portfolios and among three shrinkage methods, the STIM’s portfolio volatility is the best on out – of – sample back-testing results However, when considering portfolio return over a risk unit, the SCCM still delivers the best results The average sharpe ratio of SCCM on four tested portfolios is 1.16 times which is the higher than that of SSIM and STIM with values of 0.96 times and 0.97 times respectively The highest sharpe ratio of SCCM is 1.72 times when N = 350 Moreover, the alpha coefficient of SCCM also achieved the biggest positive value of three shrinkage methods Meanwhile, the performance criteria of portfolio turnover, maximum drawdown and winning rate are not much different among these shrinkage methods In the case of high – dimensional portfolio (N = 350), the SCCM still shows the best results overall, however the difference among these shrinkage methods tends to decrease, especially between the SCCM and STIM Table 5.10: The movement value of shrinkage coefficient ( Number of stocks N=50 N=100 N=200 N=350 Source: Results calculated by back-testing system Lastly, the superiority of SCCM over SSIM and STIM methods can be explained by the value of shrinkage coefficient The table 5.10 shows that the movement areas of SCCM’s shrinkage coefficient are always higher than that of SSIM and STIM on all tested portfolios The higher shrinkage coefficient helps the SCCM method to be able to adjusting the estimated covariance matrix more and generating the profit more compared to the SSIM and STIM 104 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS 6.1 Conclusions Optimizing the securities portfolio is always an interesting problem for investors in the market These investors attempt to build a portfolio that meets their expected return and has limited risk They only accept a higher level of risk when compensated by a reasonable expected return If two portfolios have the same expected return, the portfolio with lower risk would be selected Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) that was firstly introduced by Harry Markowitz in 1952 is usually applied to address above issue Although this theory has been applied widely, this theory still has some limitations, leading to unexpected results in real life These limitations mainly come from the instability of expected return and estimated covariance matrix, which are the significant parameters in MPT for portfolio selection This leads the portfolio from MPT model to fluctuate continuously over time and to suffer high transaction costs when applying in practice Moreover, with the rapid development of the current financial market, the application of this theory has become more and more difficult because the number of stocks in the market quickly increased and even exceeded the number of observed samples The superiority between the number of stocks compared to the amount of observed samples makes it difficult for traditional methods to choose the optimal portfolio, since there is not enough information required to make a decision From there, we can see that the research and development of portfolio selection models is an urgent issue for investors, portfolio managers and researchers The difficulty in choosing an optimal portfolio is even more complicated when placed in the context of the Vietnamese stock market This difficulty stems from specific characteristics of emerging markets such as the Vietnamese market For example, investors' lack of understanding in the application of models, data problem, regulations of the state financial agency such as daily trading limit, delay settlement date…all make it 105 difficult not only to build and develop optimal portfolio selection models but also to test these strategies in practice In that context, the dissertation has shown that the alternations of covariance matrix for minimum – variance portfolio optimization can be an effective solution for the optimal portfolio selection in the financial market in general and the Vietnamese stock market in particular In this research, the author selected five estimators of covariance matrix to investigate the effectiveness of minimum – variance optimized portfolios through alternation of covariance matrix estimations The five estimators which are single index model (SIM), constant correlation model (CCM), shrinkage towards single index model (SSIM), shrinkage towards constant correlation model (SCCM) and shrinkage towards identity matrix (STIM) are divided by two types of approaches The first approach is model – based as SIM and CCM and the second one is shrinkage approach as SSIM, SCCM, and STIM In order to prove that investors can improve their investment efficiency through adjusting the covariance matrix for portfolio optimization, the dissertation needs to take the following important steps: First, the input data that are the weekly price series of stocks are collected and checked carefully The whole dataset was taken directly from Ho Chi Minh City Stock Exchange (HOSE) and tested with the other data sources in fully There are a total of 382 companies listed on HOSE as of the end of 2019, but there is only 350 companies satisfy the liquidity and listed time requirements The collection period is from 2011 to 2019 corresponding to 468 weekly points, in which the period of 2011 – 2013 is considered as in the sample and the remaining period of 2013 – 2019 is selected as out – of – sample Next, the portfolio performance evaluation methodology needs to be clearly identified after the data has been fully collected and processed To evaluate the efficiency of covariance matrix estimation methods, a back-testing process is built and applied in this research from using a back-testing platform in Tran et al.(2020) Back-testing process supports the author in appraising the possibility and potential application of near future 106 estimation, with the series of price value in portfolio Based on the back-testing system, the author compares the different policies or covariance matrix estimations using a “rolling-horizon” procedure Besides, transaction costs are also considered in the back – testing process Moreover, the performance metrics are also used to compare the performances among the estimators of covariance matrix These performance metrics are portfolio return, volatility, sharpe ratio, portfolio turnover, maximum drawdown, winning rate and Jensen’s Alpha Besides, in order to determine that the difference of performance metrics between two estimators is significant, the p – values are computed following the bootstrapping methodology applied by DeMiguel (2009) Furthermore, based on the back – testing results of performance metrics on the out – of – sample, the author will compare the effectiveness of each covariance matrix estimator The content of discussion and analysis will turn around three questions that are raised above including how the robust estimators of covariance matrix perform on out – of – sample compared to the estimator of traditional covariance matrix; how the estimators of covariance matrix work on the minimum – variance optimized portfolios when the number of stocks in portfolio changes; and which the estimator of covariance matrix in this research will show the best results on performance metrics of minimum – variance portfolios such as portfolio return, level of risk, portfolio turnover, maximum drawdown, winning rate and Jensen’s Alpha on Vietnam stock market, especially in the case of high – dimensional portfolios The answers for these questions are summarized as follows: First, the robust estimators of covariance matrix perform on out – of – sample better than the estimator of traditional covariance matrix in selecting the minimum – variance optimized portfolios In particular, the estimators of SIM and CCM, which are model – based approaches, and the estimators of SSIM, SCCM and STIM, which are shrinkage approaches, give better results than the traditional estimator of SCM across all tested 107 portfolios and most performance metrics This is considered as one of the most important conclusions for investors as well as portfolio managers, because it again affirms the rationale in choosing the optimal portfolio based on the adjustment of the covariance matrix parameter This rationality not only brings efficiency in developed markets as previous studies by Ledoit and Wolf, but it also shows efficiency in emerging markets as the Vietnamese financial market From there, it opens a clear research direction for investors in building the methods for selecting the optimal portfolios on the stock market Second, the superiority of model – based methods over the traditional SCM takes place when N = 100 and the degree of dominance is increasing when N approaches to 350 stocks The shrinkage methods also show superiority in portfolio optimization over the traditional SCM method and benchmarks when N tends to increase The shrinkage method begins to clearly outperform the performance of SCM when N is larger than 100 stocks This conclusion helps investors and portfolio managers to see that if the market size exceeds the number of shares N = 100, they must consider applying new estimators of covariance matrix because at this point the traditional sample covariance matrix is no longer effective in choosing the optimal portfolio Third, the SIM and CCM which are model – based approaches have shown their very good ability in the selection of optimal portfolios and somewhat outperform the shrinkage method when the number of stocks is N = 50,100, 200 However, the shrinkage method demonstrates its superiority in the case of high - dimensional portfolios When N soared to reach 350 stocks, the model-based approaches was completely defeated by the shrinkage methods such SSIM, SCCM, and STIM This conclusion enables portfolio managers to discover that the application of model-based covariance matrix estimation is only effective when the market size is less than 200 stocks; if the size of the market increases the number of shares to 350, the portfolio managers should consider using the shrinkage of covariance matrix method because at this time the shrinkage method will bring more efficiency in choosing the optimal portfolio 108 Fourth, in the model-based approaches, the estimator of constant correlation model (CCM) is much more effective than the one of single index model (SIM) for portfolio optimization This result is consistent with research results of Elton et al (2009), it shows that the assumption of all stocks have the same correlation, which is equal to the sample mean correlation, will be more reasonable than that of stocks’ price is mainly influenced by the market return on the Vietnamese stock market This characteristic is one of the important points that investors should pay attention to when investing in the Vietnamese stock market, besides the market authorities can also refer to better implementation of their management and policy recommendations Fifth, the SCCM shows the best performance on out – of – sample among the shrinkage methods when clearly outperforming the other two methods across all tested portfolios (N = 50, 100, 200, 350) and on most portfolio performance metrics; meanwhile, the SSIM and STIM methods not have much difference in the selection of optimal portfolios This result is slightly different from the studies of Ledoit & Wolf (2003, 2004) and Ledoit & Wolf (2017, 2018); these studies conclude that the SCCM and SSIM estimation methods gives much better optimal results than the STIM estimation method, in which the SCCM method will be the best choice if the number of shares in the portfolio N ≤ 100, otherwise the SSIM method will be the most reasonable choice when N ≥ 225 Sixth, in the case of high – dimensional portfolio, the SCCM shows that it is the best estimator of covariance matrix for portfolio optimization on Vietnam stock market The performance of SCCM completely outperforms the traditional estimator of sample covariance matrix, benchmarks such as VN – Index and 1/N portfolio strategy, model – based approaches and other shrinkage estimators on most back – testing performance metrics However, the difference between SCCM and two other shrinkage estimators such as SSIM and STIM tends to decrease when the number of stocks in portfolio soars; especially it will be the strong competition between SCCM and STIM The SCCM method has many advantages in creating highly profitable portfolios, but the STIM method is capable of creating safer portfolios 109 Seventh, in the two selected benchmarks, the 1/N portfolio strategy showed much superiority to the VN - Index on most of the criteria for measuring the effectiveness of a portfolio This shows that the VN-Index's representativeness for the changing trend in the market is not really effective The main reason comes from the fact that this index is strongly influenced by industry groups and companies with large capitalization in the market, leading to deviations in the forecast of market volatility Therefore, investors should pay attention when choosing the VN - Index as an index that predicts the changing trend of the market, while also posing a problem for market managers in building a more reasonable index that represents the change of the whole market In this dissertation, the effectiveness of conventional sample covariance matrix in estimating parameters for portfolio optimization is challenged by other newer approaches Particularly, the problem that whether the performance of minimum-variance optimized portfolios can be enhanced by the use of another covariance matrix estimator is examined by evaluating the performance of SCM and potential alternative estimators (which are SIM, CCM, SSIM, SCCM, and STIM) in a practical back-testing procedure, in which other factors in the minimum-variance optimization were remained equal Generally, most of the empirical results support that the alternation of covariance matrix estimations for portfolio optimization brings a lot of benefits for portfolio managers and investor in practical way They can achieve more monetary benefits by employing the estimators of covariance matrix on the Vietnamese stock market Thus, apart from contributing to the available knowledge about optimizing investment portfolio, this research also provides evidence of the covariance matrix estimation on Vietnam stock market For an emerging market that is significantly attracting capital inflow like Vietnam, this evidence can partially give investors who are investing and going to invest in this market more confidence when using the estimators to optimize their portfolio 110 6.2 Future works Under the scope of this dissertation, the author has only investigated about the performance of model – based and shrinkage estimators against the traditional one In the future, the researchers can select the new approaches in estimating covariance matrix for portfolio optimization In particular, in the shrinkage approach, the researchers can consider to select the new shrinkage target matrices to combine with the sample covariance matrix in generating the estimated covariance matrix, besides of using these target matrices mentioned in this dissertation such as single – index model (SIM) or constant correlation model (CCM) In addition, researchers can also change the combination way between the shrinkage target matrix and sample covariance matrix for estimating the covariance matrix There are two development trends for this research direction First, we can combine the sample covariance matrix and some shrinkage target matrices at the same time for estimating the covariance matrix, instead of using single shrinkage target matrix as this research This approach was initiated by Liu (2014) and is called generalized multivariate shrinkage However, this approach faces many difficulties in determining the optimal shrinkage coefficient for each estimator Second, a non – linear shrinkage estimator is one of the approaches that researchers are interested and developing in the recent time This approach try to answer the question that whether it is possible to generalize and improve linear shrinkage in the absence of financial knowledge The non – linear shrinkage estimator not predict the true covariance matrix for portfolio optimization, this shrinkage method considers the eigenvalues distribution of covariance matrix instead However, the problem of this approach is how to balance the processing speed, the level of transparency and the accuracy of method Besides, it is still a new method and has not been applied much in practice because of controversy around the method Moreover, the author only consider the dimension of covariance matrix with the maximum number of shares N = 350 in this research, so in the future when Vietnam's financial market develops, researchers may increase the considered number of stocks in 111 portfolio to have better assessing the difference between the estimators of covariance matrix such as model – based and shrinkage approaches and the traditional sample covariance matrix 112 REFERENCES Bai, J., and Shi, S (2011) Estimating high dimensional covariance matrices and its applications Annals of Economics and Finance, 12: 199–215 Broadie, M (1993) Computing efficient frontiers using estimated parameters Annals of operations research, 45:21-58 Best, J., and Grauer, R (1991) Sensitivity analysis for mean-variance portfolio problems Management Science, 37(8):980–989 Bengtsson, C., and Holst, J (2002) On portfolio selection: Improved covariance matrix estimation for Swedish asset returns Journal of Portfolio Management, 33(4): 55-63 Chan, L., Jason, K., and Josef, L.(1999) On portfolio optimization: Forecasting covariances and choosing the risk model The Review of Financial Studies, 12(5):937–974 Chandra, S.(2003) Regional Economy Size and the Growth-Instability Frontier: Evidence from Europe J Reg Sci., 43(1): 95-122 doi:10.1111/1467-9787.00291 Chekhlov, A., and Uryasev, S (2005) Drawdown measure in portfolio optimization International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 8(1):13-58 Chen, Y., Ami W., Yonina E., and Alfred, H (2010) Shrinkage algorithms for MMSE covariance estimation IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 58: 5016–29 Chopra, V., and Ziemba, W.(1993) The effect of errors in means, variances, and covariances on optimal portfolio choice Journal of Portfolio Management, 19(2):611 Clarke, Roger G., Harindra De Silva, and Steven Thorley (2006) Minimum-variance portfolios in the U.S equity market Journal of Portfolio Management, 33: 10–24 Cohen, J., and Pogue, J (1967) An empirical evaluation of alternative portfolio selection models The Journal of Business, 40(2):166–193 De Nard, G., Ledoit, O., and Wolf, M (2019) Factor models for portfolio selection in large dimensions: The good, the better and the ugly Journal of Financial Econometrics Forthcoming DeMiguel, V., and Francisco N., (2009) Portfolio selection with robust estimation Operations Research, 57(3):560–577 Efron, B., R Tibshirani (1993) An Introduction to the Bootstrap Chapman and Hall, New York Edwin, J., Martin, G., and Manfred, P (1997) Simple rules for optimal portfolio selection: the multi group case Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 12(3):329–345 Elton, Edwin J., and Martin J Gruber (1973) Estimating the dependence structure of share prices: implications for portfolio selection The Journal of Finance, 28(5):1203– 1232 Elton, Edwin J., Martin J Gruber., Stephen B., and William N Goetzmann.(2009) Modern portfolio theory and investment analysis John Wiley & Sons Ernest, Chan P (2009) Quantitative trading: How to Build Your Own Algorithmic Trading Business John Wiley & Sons Ernest, Chan P (2013) Algorithmic Trading: Winning Strategies and Their Rationale John Wiley & Sons Fabozzi, F., Gupta, F., and Markowitz, H.(2002) The legacy of modern portfolio theory The Journal of Investing, 11(3): 7–22 Fama, E., and French, K (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds The Journal of Financial Economics, 33: 3–56 Fama, E., and French, K (2015) A five-factor asset pricing model Journal of Financial Economics, 16: 1–22 Fama, E., and French, K (2016) Dissecting Anomalies with a Five-Factor Model Review of Financial Studies, 29: 69–103 Fernández, A., and Gómez, S (2007) Portfolio selection using neural networks Computers and Operations Research, 34: 1177–91 Frankfurter, G., Phillips, H., and Seagle, J (1971) Portfolio Selection: The Effects of Uncertain Means, Variances, and Covariances Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 6(5):1251 – 1262 George Derpanopoulos (2018) Optimal financial portfolio selection Working paper Haugen, Robert A., and Nardin L Baker (1991) The efficient market inefficiency of capitalization-weighted stock portfolios Journal of Portfolio Management, 17: 35– 40 Huber, P J (2004) Robust Statistics John Wiley & Sons, New York Ikeda, Y., and Kubokawa, T (2016) Linear shrinkage estimation of large covariance matrices using factor models Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 152: 61–81 Iyiola, O., Munirat, Y., and Christopher, N.(2012) The modern portfolio theory as an investment decision tool Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 4(2):19-28 Jagannathan, R., and Ma, T., (2003) Risk reduction in large portfolios: Why imposing the wrong constraints helps The Journal of Finance, 58(4):1651–1683 James, W and Stein, C (1961) Estimation with quadratic loss In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability 1, pages 361– 380 Jensen, M.(1968) The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945 – 1964 Journal of Finance, 23(2):389-416 Jobson, J., Korkie, B (1980) Estimation for Markowitz efficient portfolios Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(371): 544 – 554 Jorion, P (1985) International Portfolio Diversification with Estimation Risk Journal of Business, 58: 259–78 Jorion, P (1986) Bayes-Stein estimation for portfolio analysis Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 21(3):279–292 Kwan, Clarence C.Y (2011) An introduction to shrinkage estimation of the covariance matrix: A Pedagogic Illustration Spreadsheets in Education (eJSiE), 4(3): article Kempf, A., and Memmel, C (2006) Estimating the global minimum variance portfolio Schmalenbach Business Review, 58:332-48 Konno, Y (2009) Shrinkage estimators for large covariance matrices in multivariate real and complex normal distributions under an invariant quadratic loss Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 100: 2237–53 Lam, C (2016) Nonparametric eigenvalue-regularized precision or covariance matrix estimator Annals of Statistics, 44(3):928–953 Liagkouras, K., and Kostas M (2018) Multi-period mean-variance fuzzy portfolio optimization model with transaction costs Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 67: 260–69 Ledoit, O and Peche, S (2011) Eigenvectors of some large sample covariance matrix ensembles Probability Theory and Related Fields, 150(1–2):233–264 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2003a) Honey, I shrunk the sample covariance matrix Journal of Portfolio Management, 30(4):110–119 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2003b) Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection Journal of Empirical Finance, 10(5):603–621 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2004) A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 88(2):365–411 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2008) Robust performance hypothesis testing with the Sharpe ratio Journal of Empirical Finance, 15(5):850–859 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2012) Nonlinear shrinkage estimation of large-dimensional covariance matrices Annals of Statistics, 40(2):1024–1060 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2015) Spectrum estimation: A unified framework for covariance matrix estimation and PCA in large dimensions Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 139(2):360–384 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2017a) Nonlinear shrinkage of the covariance matrix for portfolio selection: Markowitz meets Goldilocks Review of Financial Studies, 30(12):4349–4388 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2017b) Numerical implementation of the QuEST function Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 115:199–223 Ledoit, O and Wolf, M (2018b) Optimal estimation of a large-dimensional covariance matrix under Stein’s loss Bernoulli, 24(4B) 3791–3832 Markowitz, H (1952) Portfolio selection Journal of Finance, 7:77–91 Markowitz, H (1959) Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments John Wiley & Sons Martin, D., Clark, A., and Christopher G (2010) Robust portfolio construction Handbook of Portfolio Construction Springer, 337–380 Merton, R (1969) Life time portfolio selection under uncertainty: The continuous-time case The review of Economics and Statistics, 51: 247–57 Merton, R (1971) Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model Journal of Economic Theory, 3: 373–413 Merton, R (1972) An analytic derivation of the efficient portfolio frontier Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 7: 1851–72 Merton, C (1980) On estimating the expected return on the market: An exploratory investigation Journal of financial economics, 8(4):323–361 Michaud, Richard O (1989) The Markowitz optimization enigma: Is ”optimized” optimal Financial Analysts Journal, 45(1):31–42 Michaud, Richard O., Esch, D., and Michaud, R (2012) Deconstructing BlackLitterman: How to get the Portfolio you already knew you wanted Available at SSRN 2641893 Nick Radge (2006) Adaptive analysis for Australian stocks Wrightbooks Nguyen, Tho (2010) Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Evidence from an Emerging Stock Market, Working Papers 03, Development and Policies Research Center (DEPOCEN), Vietnam Okhrin, Yarema, and Wolfgang Schmid (2007) Comparison of different estimation techniques for portfolio selection Asta Advances in Statistical Analysis, 91: 109–27 Pogue, A (1970) An extension of the Markowitz portfolio selection model to include variable transactions’ costs, short sales, leverage policies and taxes The Journal of Finance, 25: 1005–27 Ross, S A (1976) The arbitrage theory of capital asset pricing Journal of Economic Theory, 13(3):341–360 Samuelson, A (1969) Life time portfolio selection by dynamic stochastic programming The Review of Economics and Statistics, 51: 23946 Schăafer, J and 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) Article 32 Soleimani, H., Golmakani, H., and Mohammad S (2009) Markowitz-based portfolio selection with minimum transaction lots, cardinality constraints and regarding sector capitalization using genetic algorithm Expert Systems with Applications, 36: 5058– 63 Sharpe, William F (1963) A simplified model for portfolio analysis Management science, 9(2):277–293 Sharpe, William F (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk The journal of finance, 19(3):425–442 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 Stein, C (1986) Lectures on the theory of estimation of many parameters Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 34(1):1373–1403 Taleb, N (2007) The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Random House, 80-120 Truong, L., and Duong, T (2014) Fama and French three-factor model: Empirical evidences from the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange Journal of Science Can Tho University, 32:61 – 68 Vo, Q., and Nguyen, H (2011) Measuring risk tolerance and establishing an optimal portfolio for individual investors in HOSE Economic Development Review, 33-38 Xue, Hong-Gang, Cheng-Xian Xu, and Zong-Xian Feng (2006) Mean-variance portfolio optimal problem under concave transaction cost Applied Mathematics and Computation, 174: 1–12 Yang, L., Romain, C., and Matthew, M (2014) Minimum variance portfolio optimization with robust shrinkage covariance estimation Paper presented at 2014 48th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, November 2–5; pp 1326–30 ... Question 3: Could the alternation of covariance matrix estimation for portfolio optimization beat the traditional estimator of covariance matrix and benchmarks of stock market on out - of - sample?...MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING THE STATE BANK OF VIETNAM BANKING UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION NGUYEN MINH NHAT SHRINKAGE ESTIMATION OF COVARIANCE MATRIX FOR PORTFOLIO SELECTION. .. to consider the performance of the estimators of covariance matrix under the influence of dimension of covariance matrix and the effect of transaction costs in computing the portfolio performance