The Impact of Liquidity and Volatility Weighting on Risk-Adjusted Portfolio Performance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/ra1xqk40Keywords:
Portfolio Construction, Liquidity, Risk-Adjusted Return, S&P Indice.Abstract
The following research develops methodologies of portfolio construction focused on liquidity and risk-adjusted return maximization. It considered a dataset comprising 40 stocks from the S&P 500, S&P 400, and S&P 600 indices for five years, 2019-2024, and compared three different weighting schemes: filtered risk-adjusted weighting, equal weighting, and non-filtered risk-adjusted weighting. Each strategy is compared by looking at annualized return, volatility, Sharpe ratio, and transaction cost. The methodologies used include filtering based on liquidity, calculating weight inversely proportional to the volatility, and implementing an equal-weighted allocation. As opposed to the nonfiltered strategy, which uses all stocks to maximize diversification, filtered and equal-weighted methodologies will be targeting subsets of very specific stocks. The results indicate that the non-filtered strategy has the highest annualized return, 6.30%, and Sharpe ratio, 4.817, among the three methods, although it has higher transaction costs than the other two. On the other hand, the filtered strategy, though cost-efficient, underperforms due to limited diversification. Equal weighting is simple but not optimized for risk-adjusted returns. This research emphasizes how paramount liquidity considerations are in portfolio strategies. Perhaps future research might develop dynamic allocation models based on real-time data and machine learning techniques. Such a development would increase portfolio performance, while keeping a balance of cost efficiency with diversification.
Downloads
References
[1] Markowitz, & H. (1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7 (1), 77 - 91.
[2] Amihud, & Y. and Mendelson, & H. (1986). Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread. Journal of Financial Economics, 17 (2), 223 - 249.
[3] Bali, & T.G., & Peng, & L. and Shen, & Y. (2021). Liquidity risk and stock returns. The Review of Financial Studies, 34 (7), 3453 - 3489.
[4] Chordia, & T., & Roll, & R. and Subrahmanyam, & A. (2020). Liquidity and market efficiency. Journal of Financial Economics, 138 (2), 368 - 391.
[5] Frazzini, & A. and Pedersen, & L.H. (2014). Betting against beta. Journal of Financial Economics, 111 (1), 1 - 25.
[6] Pastor, & L. and Stambaugh, & R.F. (2003). Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. Journal of Political Economy, 111 (3), 642 - 685.
[7] Goyenko, & R.Y., & Holden, & C.W. and Trzcinka, & C.A. (2009). Do liquidity measures measure liquidity? Journal of Financial Economics, 92 (2), 153 - 181.
[8] DeMiguel, & V., & Garlappi, & L. and Uppal, & R. (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? The Review of Financial Studies, 22 (5), 1915 - 1953.
[9] Maillard, & S., & Roncalli, & T. and Teiletche, & J. (2010). The properties of equally weighted risk contributions portfolios. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 36 (4), 60 - 70.
[10] Clarke, & R., & De Silva, & H. and Thorley, & S. (2011). Minimum-variance portfolio composition. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 37 (2), 31 - 45.
[11] Ang, & A., & Hodrick, & R.J., & Xing, & Y. and Zhang, & X. (2006). The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. The Journal of Finance, 61 (1), 259 - 299.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Highlights in Business, Economics and Management

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.