In light of investor quot;home-biasquot; and recent changes in the characteristics of equity markets around the world, this paper appraises the potential benefits of domestic equity diversification, as an alternative to international diversification. We construct forward-looking quot;home-madequot; diversification portfolios to imitate each of thirty-seven foreign equity indices and a world portfolio over a ten-year period. The results show that it is possible to mimic foreign indices with domestic equity assets more than previously reported. The differences in pay-offs from international and domestic portfolios are statistically and economically insignificant. Therefore, investors are not compensated for extra risks attached to international diversification.
One possible explanation for home bias is that investors may obtain indirect international diversification benefits by investing in multinational firms rather than by investing directly in foreign markets. This paper employs mean-variance spanning tests to examine the diversification potential of multinational firms and foreign market indices for investors domiciled in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. We find that in most countries and most time periods, the portfolio of domestic stocks spans the risk and return opportunities of a portfolio that includes domestic and multinational stocks. However, there is weak evidence that U.S. multinationals provided global diversification benefits in the full 1984-92 sample and in the post-1987 subsample. We also find that the addition of foreign market indices to a domestic portfolio - inclusive of multinationals - provides diversification benefits. The economic importance of the shift of the portfolio frontier - measured as the utility gain from diversification - varies considerably from market to market and often reflects the benefits of large short positions in certain markets.
One possible explanation for home bias is that investors may obtain indirect international diversification benefits by investing in multinational firms rather than by investing directly in foreign markets. This paper employs mean-variance spanning tests to examine the diversification potential of multinational firms and foreign market indices for investors domiciled in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. We find that in most countries and most time periods, the portfolio of domestic stocks spans the risk and return opportunities of a portfolio that includes domestic and multinational stocks. However, there is weak evidence that U.S. multinationals provided global diversification benefits in the full 1984-92 sample and in the post-1987 subsample. We also find that the addition of foreign market indices to a domestic portfolio - inclusive of multinationals - provides diversification benefits. The economic importance of the shift of the portfolio frontier - measured as the utility gain from diversification - varies considerably from market to market and often reflects the benefits of large short positions in certain markets.
Export structure is less diversified in low-income countries (LICs) and especially small states that face resource constraints and small economic size. This paper explores the potential linkages between export structure and economic growth and its volatility in LICs and small states, using a range of indices of export concentration differing in the coverage of industries. The empirical analysis finds that export diversification may promote economic growth and reduce economic volatility in these countries. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that the economic benefits of export diversification differ by country size and income level—there are bigger benefits for relatively larger and poorer countries within the group of LICs and small states.
It is widely accepted that diversifying internationally is a sound strategy because correlations among securities in different countries are lower as compared to local securities. We argue however, that in some instances, diversifying internationally might not be as effective; therefore, investors need to be careful in choosing where to diversify internationally. For investors with longer time horizons, if countries share common long term movements, the benefits of international diversification will be diminished. We argue that international diversification will benefit investors only in the cases that the home country does not cointegrate with the foreign market. To verify this argument, this paper uses cointegration techniques to investigate long term movements between The U.S. and 15 foreign markets, and then uses country ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) to build portfolios constructed by combining the findings of the cointegration techniques with Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) and compares the results against portfolios built solely on MPT. The results clearly support our hypothesis as in more than 90% of the cases tested, the portfolios constructed by combining the findings of our cointegration analysis with the optimization techniques of MPT outperform - in a risk adjusted basis - portfolios constructed only by using the optimization techniques used by MPT.
The paper considers concepts of economic diversification with respect to exports (including service sectors) for small states. We assessed the economic performance of different groups of 34 small states over the period of 1990-2015 and found those more diversified experienced lower output volatility and higher average growth than most other small states. Our findings are consistent with conventional economic theories but we found that export diversification has a more significant impact on reducing output volatility than improving long run growth in small states. Diversification requires fundamental changes and should be contemplated in the context of a cohesive development strategy.
Portfolio Diversification provides an update on the practice of combining several risky investments in a portfolio with the goal of reducing the portfolio's overall risk. In this book, readers will find a comprehensive introduction and analysis of various dimensions of portfolio diversification (assets, maturities, industries, countries, etc.), along with time diversification strategies (long term vs. short term diversification) and diversification using other risk measures than variance. Several tools to quantify and implement optimal diversification are discussed and illustrated. Focuses on portfolio diversification across all its dimensions Includes recent empirical material that was created and developed specifically for this book Provides several tools to quantify and implement optimal diversification
It is an established fact that investors favor the familiar%u2014be it domestic securities or, within a country, the securities of nearby firms%u2014and avoid investments that would provide the greatest diversification benefits. While we do not rule out familiarity as an important driver of portfolio allocations, we provide new evidence of investors%u2019 international diversification motive. In particular, our analysis of the security-level U.S. equity holdings of foreign and domestic institutional investors indicates that institutional investors reveal a preference for domestic multinationals (MNCs), even after controlling for familiarity factors. We attribute this revealed preference to the desire to obtain %u201Csafe%u201D international diversification. We then show that holdings of domestic MNCs are substantial and, after accounting for this home-grown foreign exposure, that the share of %u201Cforeign%u201D equities in investors%u2019 portfolios roughly doubles, reducing (but not eliminating) the observed home bias.
Globalization increases the access to financial markets and provides expanding opportunities for investors to diversify internationally. As suggested by the Modern Portfolio Theory (Markowiz, 1952), rational investors should use one of the following two strategies to achieve portfolio diversification: (1) Investing in asset classes thought to have low correlations or (2) increasing the sizes of their portfolios in multiple markets. In the early 1970s, diversification was referred to as the “free lunch” in investment. However, French and Poterba (1991) show that investors still tend to hold a disproportionate part of domestic equities in their portfolios. This phenomenon is called “the equity home bias,” which is still puzzling in the international finance literature. These essays investigate what drives individuals to hold inefficient portfolios and forgo the benefits of international diversification. The first chapter of this study explains the equity home bias among international portfolios by analyzing the relationship between the sizes of portfolio required and the investor’s perception about risk. A flexible three-parameter distribution developed by Hueng and Yau (2006) to model the measures of risk for stock returns is extended here. Conclusions reveal that there is a trade-off between the desirable reduction of variance and the undesirable increase of negative skewness of diversifying international portfolios. This trade-off relationship may give an explanation to the equity home bias phenomenon in reality. The second chapter further examines the same question from the correlation perspective. Through numerical analysis, this chapter presents the evolution of U.S. equity home bias in the context of dynamic correlations between developed and emerging markets. The results imply that the persistent high correlations between the developed European and North American markets induced a high U.S. home bias; while on the other hand, the developed Pacific Asian and emerging markets have been relatively less correlated with that of the North American market and has led to a lower U.S. home bias. As future correlations are steadily increasing, investors may seek newly open markets for diversification benefits in the present. Yet over the long run, the benefits of international diversification can be very few. The home bias in the future will be rationalized by the equilibrium correlations between international markets. The third chapter uses micro data to analyze the portfolio choices in risky assets over the working-age of the single individual and the retired segments that are exposed to health and medical expense risk. Single retirees respond to changes in medical expenses by altering their portfolio toward risky assets, while no evidence is found in the changes of single working people’s portfolios. This result is in contrast to theoretical prediction, which assumes that the elders tend to hold riskless assets.
