Latest news with #HarryMarkowitz
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Yale University's Strategic Exit from Allurion Technologies Inc: A 13F Filing Insight
Yale University (Trades, Portfolio) recently submitted its 13F filing for the first quarter of 2025, offering a glimpse into its strategic investment decisions during this period. The Yale Investment Office is dedicated to achieving high inflation-adjusted returns to support the university's current and future needs. Their approach involves establishing a risk-adjusted asset allocation and forming long-term partnerships with managers who provide deep analytical insights and enhance the operations of both public and private businesses. Yale's portfolio is crafted using a blend of academic theory and market judgment, with a theoretical framework based on mean-variance analysis, a method developed by Nobel laureates James Tobin and Harry Markowitz at Yales Cowles Foundation. The Investments Office, under the guidance of Yale's Investment Committee, manages the university's Endowment, which comprises thousands of funds with various purposes and restrictions. Approximately three-quarters of the Endowment is true endowment, while the remaining quarter is quasi-endowment, invested and treated as endowment by the Yale Corporation. Yale University (Trades, Portfolio) completely exited one holding in the first quarter of 2025, as detailed below: Allurion Technologies Inc (NYSE:ALUR): Yale University (Trades, Portfolio) sold all 490 shares, resulting in a -0.65% impact on the portfolio. As of the first quarter of 2025, Yale University (Trades, Portfolio)'s portfolio included two stocks. The top holdings were 98.1% in iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF (ITOT) and 1.9% in Ring Energy Inc (REI). The holdings are primarily concentrated in one of the 11 industries: Energy. This article, generated by GuruFocus, is designed to provide general insights and is not tailored financial advice. Our commentary is rooted in historical data and analyst projections, utilizing an impartial methodology, and is not intended to serve as specific investment guidance. It does not formulate a recommendation to purchase or divest any stock and does not consider individual investment objectives or financial circumstances. Our objective is to deliver long-term, fundamental data-driven analysis. Be aware that our analysis might not incorporate the most recent, price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative information. GuruFocus holds no position in the stocks mentioned herein. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
10-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
What Is Portfolio Diversification And Why Is It Important?
Portfolio diversification represents one of the fundamental principles of investment management. By strategically allocating capital across various asset classes, investors can optimize the risk-return relationship of their overall holdings. This article examines the mechanics of diversification, its quantifiable benefits and practical implementation strategies that can help investors construct resilient portfolios designed to weather market volatility while pursuing long-term financial objectives. Portfolio diversification refers to strategically allocating investments across different asset classes, sectors, geographic regions and securities to reduce exposure to any single investment risk. The underlying principle stems from the observation that different assets often respond differently to the same economic event. When one investment underperforms, another may outperform, thus potentially offsetting losses and stabilizing returns. This concept is mathematically expressed through Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), developed by Harry Markowitz in 1952. MPT demonstrates that combining assets with low correlation coefficients can reduce portfolio volatility without sacrificing returns. The correlation coefficient (ρ) ranges from -1 to +1, with lower values indicating greater diversification benefits. For example, if two assets correlate at -0.2, when one asset decreases in value, the other is likely to move in the opposite direction, dampening overall portfolio volatility. The portfolio variance formula reinforces the mathematical foundation of diversification: σ²p = w₁² σ₁² + w₂² σ₂² + 2w₁w₂ρ₁₂σ₁σ₂ Where σ²p represents portfolio variance, w₁ and w₂ are the weights of assets, σ₁ and σ₂ are the standard deviations, and ρ₁₂ is the correlation coefficient between assets. This equation illustrates that a lower correlation between assets results in lower portfolio risk. An effectively diversified portfolio serves multiple objectives that collectively contribute to investment success. These goals extend beyond simple risk reduction to encompass sustainable growth, preservation of capital and the creation of a more manageable investment experience that aligns with your long-term financial plan. Diversification's primary objective is reducing unsystematic risk—the risk specific to individual securities or sectors. By holding investments that respond differently to market conditions, investors can potentially minimize the impact of severe downturns in any single investment. This mathematical relationship is demonstrated by examining the standard deviation of returns, a common measure of volatility. Consider two assets: Asset A with an expected return of 10% and a standard deviation of 20%, and Asset B with an expected return of 8% and a standard deviation of 15%. If these assets have a correlation coefficient of 0.3, a portfolio with 60% in Asset A and 40% in Asset B would have a standard deviation of approximately 16%, lower than the weighted average of their standard deviations (18%). This reduction in volatility represents the tangible "diversification benefit" that cannot be achieved through concentration in single assets. While diversification is primarily associated with risk management, it can also optimize returns through more efficient capital allocation. Risk-adjusted returns, measured by metrics such as the Sharpe Ratio (excess return divided by standard deviation), illustrate how properly diversified portfolios can generate more return per unit of risk assumed. For example, a portfolio consisting solely of large-cap U.S. stocks delivered an average annual return of approximately 10% with a standard deviation of 15% over specific historical periods. By introducing a 20% allocation to international stocks and 20% to intermediate bonds, the resulting portfolio might have achieved a slightly lower return of 9% but substantially reduced volatility of 10%. This improved the Sharpe Ratio from 0.67 to 0.90, representing more efficient returns for the level of risk taken. Psychological factors significantly influence investment success. Market volatility often triggers emotional responses that lead investors to make ill-timed decisions, such as selling at market bottoms or chasing performance. Diversification creates a more stable return profile that helps mitigate these behavioral risks. Research from behavioral finance demonstrates that investors feel the pain of losses approximately 2-2.5 times more intensely than the pleasure of equivalent gains. A diversified portfolio that reduces maximum drawdowns can help investors maintain their strategy during market turbulence. For instance, during the 2008 financial crisis, a portfolio consisting solely of U.S. stocks (S&P 500) experienced a maximum drawdown of approximately 55%, while a balanced portfolio (60% stocks/40% bonds) limited the decline to roughly 35%—a significant difference that affected investors' willingness to remain invested. A well-constructed, diverse portfolio incorporates various asset classes that complement each other through different market environments. The optimal allocation among these components varies based on investment objectives, time horizon and risk tolerance, but understanding each element's role provides the foundation for adequate diversification. Domestic equities typically form the growth engine of most portfolios, providing exposure to the economic activity within an investor's home country. Further diversification across market capitalizations (large, mid and small-cap stocks) and investment styles (growth vs. value) is essential in this category. Historical data demonstrate that these sub-categories often perform differently across economic cycles. For example, during 2000-2009, large-cap value stocks delivered an annualized return of approximately 2.5%, while large-cap growth stocks experienced a negative 3.9% annualized return—a 6.4% annual difference. Similarly, small-cap stocks have historically outperformed large-caps during economic recoveries, with average outperformance of 5.8% in the first year of economic expansions. These divergent return patterns illustrate why diversification within domestic equities remains critical, not just across major asset classes. International equities provide exposure to economic growth outside an investor's home country, potentially reducing country-specific risk and capturing growth opportunities in emerging markets. The mathematical case for international diversification is compelling when examining correlation coefficients between U.S. and global markets. Despite increasing global economic integration, the correlation between the S&P 500 and the MSCI EAFE Index (representing developed international markets) has typically ranged between 0.5 and 0.8 over various periods, significantly below perfect correlation. This imperfect relationship creates diversification benefits. For instance, during the 2002-2007, international developed markets outperformed U.S. markets by approximately 3% annually, offsetting the U.S. outperformance during other periods. Emerging markets add another dimension, with correlations to developed markets ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 historically. Their higher growth potential comes with increased volatility, but in a diversified portfolio, this can enhance returns while being partially offset by less volatile assets. Short-term investments, including money market funds, certificates of deposit, and Treasury bills serve multiple functions in a diversified portfolio: capital preservation, liquidity provision and income generation. These assets typically have minimal correlation with equities, providing crucial ballast during market downturns. The mathematical relationship between short-term investments and equities is particularly evident during crises. During the 2008 financial crisis, while the S&P 500 declined by approximately 37%, Treasury bills maintained positive returns of roughly 2%. This negative correlation during extreme market stress illustrates why even growth-oriented investors typically maintain some allocation to these assets. Short-term investments also provide optionality value—the ability to deploy capital when attractive opportunities arise. This optionality has mathematical value, often underappreciated in standard portfolio analysis, but becomes significant during market dislocations. Fixed-income securities are a key diversification tool. They offer income, lower volatility and often a negative correlation with equities during market stress. Their distinct risk-return profile makes them an effective hedge. Historically, U.S. Treasury bonds have delivered positive returns in 9 of the 10 largest equity market drawdowns since 1987, averaging 7.7%. High-quality bonds often exhibit correlations with equities between -0.3 and -0.5 during such periods. Effective bond diversification goes beyond simply holding bonds—it includes varying duration (short to long), credit quality (Treasuries, investment-grade, high-yield) and type (nominal vs. inflation-protected). For instance, Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) hedge against inflation shocks, while nominal bonds perform better during deflationary slowdowns. Building a well-diversified portfolio requires both data-driven analysis and sound judgment. It starts with understanding your risk tolerance, time horizon and goals—factors that inform your strategic asset allocation, the primary driver of long-term returns and risk. Modern portfolio construction often uses mean-variance optimization, estimating expected returns, volatility and correlations across asset classes. Portfolios are typically implemented using low-cost ETFs or mutual funds, as lower expenses are among the best predictors of long-term performance. A 0.5% cost savings can compound into 10% more wealth over 20 years. Rebalancing is critical. Resetting allocations annually or when weights drift by over 5% can add 0.2%–0.4% in annual return while helping control risk and discipline. To illustrate the principles of diversification, consider two contrasting portfolios: a concentrated portfolio invested 100% in U.S. large-cap stocks, represented by the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), versus a broadly diversified portfolio. The diversified portfolio allocates 40% to SPY, 15% to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) for U.S. small-cap exposure, 15% to iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) for international developed markets, 10% to iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM), 15% to iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG), and 5% to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) for short-term cash equivalents. Historical analysis from 2000 to 2020 shows the concentrated portfolio in SPY would have delivered an annualized return of approximately 6.4%, with a standard deviation of 15.7% and a maximum drawdown of -51% during the 2008 financial crisis. In contrast, the diversified portfolio using the above ETFs would have produced a slightly higher return of 6.9%, experiencing significantly lower volatility (11.2% standard deviation) and a smaller drawdown of -39%. This example demonstrates a key benefit of diversification: the ability to enhance returns while reducing overall risk. Mathematically, this benefit partly arises from the rebalancing premium earned by periodically trimming outperformers (e.g., SPY) and adding to underperformers (e.g., EEM), capitalizing on mean-reverting tendencies across asset classes. While diversification offers significant advantages, understanding both benefits and limitations ensures realistic expectations and appropriate implementation. Effective diversification isn't just owning many investments—it's owning different types of risk. Holding ten tech stocks isn't diversification if they move together. Research shows adding similar assets offers minimal benefit after 8–10 holdings. Another mistake is ignoring how correlations rise during market stress. Assets that seem diversified in normal times often move in sync during crises. This 'correlation convergence' underscores the importance of including uncorrelated assets, like high-quality government bonds. Finally, overdiversification can dilute performance and add unnecessary complexity. Additional holdings contribute little to risk reduction beyond 25–30 stocks or 5–7 asset classes. Bottom Line Portfolio diversification represents a mathematically sound approach to managing investment risk without necessarily compromising long-term returns. By combining assets with varying risk-return profiles and correlation structures, investors can construct more resilient portfolios aligned with their financial objectives and risk tolerance. While diversification cannot eliminate all investment risk or guarantee against loss, it provides a systematic framework for navigating market uncertainty. The evidence consistently demonstrates that properly diversified portfolios deliver superior risk-adjusted returns compared to concentrated approaches over complete market cycles. For most investors, this translates to a more sustainable investment experience with a greater probability of achieving long-term financial goals. Un-diversified portfolios expose investors to unnecessarily high specific risk, potentially resulting in elevated volatility, larger maximum drawdowns during market corrections and suboptimal risk-adjusted returns over complete market cycles. Most research suggests that annual rebalancing provides an optimal balance between risk control and transaction costs. However, threshold-based approaches (rebalancing when allocations deviate by 5% or more from targets) can enhance efficiency. Diversification can significantly mitigate losses during sector or asset-specific downturns. Properly diversified portfolios have historically experienced 20-40% smaller maximum drawdowns than concentrated portfolios during major market corrections. Excessive diversification can dilute returns, increase complexity and generate higher transaction costs without providing meaningful additional risk reduction; research indicates diminishing marginal benefits beyond 25-30 individual stocks or 5-7 distinct asset classes. Beginners can achieve adequate diversification through broad-based index funds or balanced funds that provide exposure to multiple asset classes with low expenses, eliminating the need to select and monitor individual securities.
Forbes
22-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
This Outdated ‘Investing Rule' Is Costing Investors Millions
Business report graph with pen and calculator and notebook It's as predictable as night following day: Stock markets crash, and we almost immediately hear more about the so-called '60/40' investing rule as a way for investors to protect themselves. Don't fall for this overdone 'rule of thumb' (which, as the name says, recommends putting 60% of your portfolio into stocks and 40% into bonds). Today we're going to look at a much better way—one that pays you 9.7% dividends and delivers far better performance, too. Today's setup reminds me of what I heard near the end of 2022, when stocks were crashing. Back then, many advisors were dredging up this old idea to help ease worried investors' fears. Except, in doing so, they were costing those investors money, which I pointed out in an October 2022 Contrarian Outlook article: 'With the 60/40 portfolio, you're actively withdrawing money from your portfolio during a bear market, so the longer the market stays down, the more you need to gain to make your initial investment whole again.' Here's how a garden variety S&P 500 index fund has done compared to a 60/40 ETF, the iShares Core 60/40 Balanced Allocation ETF (AOR), since then: AOR Total Returns 2022 Forward In other words, even with the tariff panic (which you can see at right above), investors who opted for 60/40 rule then are $1,912 poorer, as of this writing, for every $10,000 they invested than those who simply bought an S&P 500 index fund. Now that investors are panicking again, I'm even more convinced 60/40 is a poor strategy. Let's zoom out and look at the lousy performance this rule has baked in over the long run: AOR Long Term Returns Lag Here we see that investors relying on 60/40 would've missed a staggering $47,120 in profits for every $10,000 invested over 16 years. Stretch that over a lifetime, and you can see that 60/40 can literally cost you millions. To be sure, moving cash into bonds might feel good today, with fear running high, but if you do, you will lose money compared to the average stock investor. The 60/40 rule stems from economist Harry Markowitz's modern portfolio theory (MPT) from back in the 1950s. This work suggested investors could optimize returns, relative to risk, by diversifying across asset classes. By the late 20th century, 60/40 was a go-to for many investors, although, as you can see from the chart above, it began badly lagging stocks in the early 21st century (it had actually begun doing this in the 1990s, but things really fell apart after the dot-com bubble burst). Markowitz never meant this rule to be an actual guide for advisors, but it is convenient, so it's not too surprising that it's endured—even with its poor performance. But that may be starting to change, as more pros speak out against 60/40. That may, funnily enough, speed up a stock rebound. Just before the Trump tariff selloff began, Blackrock's Larry Fink wrote about how the rule doesn't work anymore, saying it 'may no longer fully represent true diversification.' More recently, Apollo Chief Economist Torsten Sløk wrote that the 60/40 portfolio continues to underperform, 'with only a 2% annual return for the past three and a half years.' The question, then, becomes: What do we choose instead? In that October 2022 article I mentioned earlier, I suggested an alternative to 60/40: three closed-end funds (CEFs) that combine stocks, corporate bonds and real estate. This three-fund 'mini-portfolio' included the 9.5%-yielding, stock-focused Liberty All-Star Equity Fund (USA); the 11.2%-yielding, bond-focused PIMCO Corporate & Income Opportunity Fund (PTY); and the real-estate-heavy, 8.5%-yielding Cohen & Steers Quality Income Realty Fund (RQI). Why these funds? The reason is why members of my CEF Insider service choose CEFs in the first place: income. With an average 9.7% yield as I write this, they provide a huge income stream that index funds and 60/40 simply can't match. We have also seen, in the more than two decades since all three of these funds have been around, very consistent payouts, on average. Because profits from stocks fluctuate (every year will give different returns), USA's dividend will tend to move around more than the more stable payouts PTY provides. Meantime, changes in income from rents, as well as fluctuating interest rates, tend to cause RQI's payouts to take a small step up or down for a few years' time. Over the long haul, though, these payouts tend to remain roughly stable as managers move to keep them consistent. Beyond this, though, is the performance. CEFs Outperform Over the last decade, these funds have delivered a 9.3% average annualized return, while 60/40 (shown in orange above) has delivered about half that. The bottom line: These three funds have a proven history of delivering strong dividends, and they spread your money across asset classes. In other words, they do what 60/40 is supposed to—without the (potentially millions) in missed profits. Michael Foster is the Lead Research Analyst for Contrarian Outlook. For more great income ideas, click here for our latest report 'Indestructible Income: 5 Bargain Funds with Steady 8.6% Dividends.' Disclosure: none
Forbes
04-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Market Correction, Tariff Chaos Revive Power Of Diversification
The first three months of 2025 marked the worst quarter for the S&P 500 Index since 2022, bringing the benefits of diversification back to the fore. Then came the Trump administration's 'Liberation Day' tariff announcements on April 2, which led to a new round of selling as the announced tariff rates exceeded even the most pessimistic expectations. Much remains unknown including the possibility of trade deals being reached. However, with the economy and markets entering uncharted waters, the balance of economic and market risk has shifted unfavorably, in our view. Deteriorating sentiment has been one of the key risks emerging given the elevated uncertainty over the past few months, but the degree to which weaker 'soft' survey data translates into poor 'hard' results will be critical. Looking ahead, we would expect indicators like credit spreads and commodities to be the first areas to roll over. We believe the probability of a recession over the next 12 months is in the neighborhood of 35%, a figure we are subjectively increasing to 50% due to the worse-than-expected tariff announcement and our perception of risks skewing negative for the economy and markets. Our assessment of the economy incorporates many indicators as well as our own judgement and experience, along with that of our colleagues at ClearBridge. In speaking with our colleagues over the past few days, three words best encapsulate the recurring themes across those conversations: skepticism, unknowns and diversification. Skepticism and unknowns are specific to the current environment; skepticism regarding the near- and intermediate-term consequences of recent policy decisions, which the market is signaling may be worse than the administration believes. Unknowns on the positive side include the potential for more market-friendly policy developments such as trade deals and the possibility that tariff revenue is used to fund larger than expected tax cuts. Conversely, there are risks that the long-term benefits the administration is seeking may fail to offset the associated costs. This line of thinking drives our perception of an unfavorable risk skew, which leads to the third recurring theme: diversification. Over the past several years, diversification has felt less like the free lunch described by Nobel Laureate and modern portfolio theory pioneer Harry Markowitz, and more like a drag on returns. This has been a headwind to active managers as a narrow group of stocks powered most of the benchmark's upside. However, owning diversified portfolios is now paying off. According to Strategas Research Partners, 59.8% of active managers outperformed in the first quarter. If that were to hold up for the balance of the year, it would mark the second-best year for active managers since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The importance and benefits of diversification apply at many levels, a fact many investors were reminded of in the first quarter with the previously red-hot Magnificent Seven stocks falling -16.4% while left-for-dead international equities (MSCI All Country World Index ex-US) rose 4.6%. While the relative outperformance of non-U.S. stocks has garnered the lion's share of headlines lately, value stocks in the S&P 500 have outperformed their growth counterparts by 11.7% so far in 2025. Part of the reason that geographic leadership has been in focus, however, is that it stands in stark contrast to consensus expectations coming into the year that U.S. equities would handily outpace their international peers once again. Historically, international equities have provided the greatest diversification benefits when U.S. stocks have been challenged. While this can occur on a short-term basis like what we've seen recently, the effect is magnified over longer time horizons. Since 1971 when the S&P 500 has delivered less than 6% annualized over a 10-year period, the MSCI EAFE (developed) and the MSCI Emerging Markets indexes have outperformed by an average of 2.0% and 12.1%, annualized, respectively. Importantly, the hit rate for outperformance is greater than 90% for each benchmark. Although the U.S. has outperformed over the long haul, international equities tend to pick up the slack when U.S. markets falter. One dynamic helping support investor focus in non-U.S. stocks is relative valuations, with the cohort still trading near 25-year lows to U.S. peers even after this year's robust outperformance. U.S. investors are quite underweight international equities while non-U.S. investors have poured over $9 trillion into U.S. stocks over the past five years, according to research from Apollo. Should these flows reverse, it could lead to continued upside for the group, bolstering the diversification benefits. An underappreciated aspect of recent equity market weakness may be the typical maturation of the bull market, with new bull markets experiencing a period of digestion during their third year before seeing a resumption of the rally in year four. The current bull market had its third birthday approximately six months ago, meaning we are square in the middle of the historical digestion period. The primary driver of recent market weakness — and one that is certainly not underappreciated — has been elevated policy uncertainty, however. Coming into the year, our view was that policy sequencing presented a risk of first-half choppinessas the administration prioritized less-market-friendly policies (tariffs, immigration, DOGE) before turning to more market-friendly goals (tax cuts, deregulation). Should visibility emerge in the coming months and uncertainty fade, one overhang on U.S. equities would ebb. Historically, when the U.S. Policy Uncertainty Index, a measure compiled by financial economists at three leading universities, has been high (above 155), as is the case today, the S&P 500 has delivered average returns of 9.3% over the subsequent six months and 18.1% over the subsequent 12 months. Jeffrey Schulze, CFA, is Director, Head of Economic and Market Strategy at ClearBridge Investments, a subsidiary of Franklin Templeton. His predictions are not intended to be relied upon as a forecast of actual future events or performance or investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Neither ClearBridge Investments nor its information providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information.
Associated Press
24-03-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
The Journal of Investment Management and New Frontier Institute Announce 2024 Harry M. Markowitz Award Winners
The Journal of Investment Management (JOIM) and New Frontier proudly announce the recipients of the 2024 Harry M. Markowitz Award. Named in honor of Dr. Harry Markowitz, a pioneering figure in modern portfolio theory, this esteemed award recognizes exceptional research that advances the field of investment management. Sponsored jointly by JOIM and New Frontier Advisors, LLC, the award celebrates Dr. Markowitz's enduring legacy by championing innovative research with real-world applications. This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: The top honor, the Markowitz Award, includes a $10,000 honorarium and is presented to the most outstanding paper published in JOIM within the past year. Additionally, two Special Distinction Awards, each accompanied by a $5,000 honorarium, recognize papers of significant merit that contribute to the advancement of financial theory and practice. These awards will be presented at the JOIM conference on April 22, 2025. 2024 Markowitz Award Winner 'Night Moves: Is the Overnight Drift the Grandmother of all Market Anomalies?' By Victor Haghani, Vladimir Ragulin, and Richard Dewey This groundbreaking paper explores the persistent overnight drift in financial markets, shedding light on a market anomaly with profound implications for asset pricing and investment strategies. The authors analyze decades of market data to examine the systematic impact of overnight returns and their potential influence on trading strategies. Special Distinction Awards 'Arbitrage Pricing Theory 50 Years After Black Merton Scholes' By Robert A. Jarrow Commemorating five decades since the foundational work of Black, Merton, and Scholes, this paper reexamines the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) in modern financial contexts. Jarrow offers a fresh perspective on the evolution of APT, assessing its relevance in today's complex investment landscape. 'Stock Market Insurance Prices, BL Skew, Conditional Marginal Utilities and the Equity Risk Premium' By Douglas T. Breeden Breeden's work delves into the intersection of stock market insurance pricing, risk premia, and conditional marginal utility, providing critical insights into market behavior and investor decision-making under uncertainty. Robert Michaud, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of New Frontier, applauded the winners, stating, 'The recipients of the 2024 Markowitz Award embody the intellectual rigor and forward-thinking spirit that define Dr. Markowitz's legacy. Their contributions push the boundaries of investment research and have significant implications for both academics and practitioners.' About New Frontier Advisors New Frontier is a leading investment technology firm that has been delivering advanced portfolio optimization solutions since 1999. Our Michaud Optimization™ process—validated through rigorous academic research and recognized with four patents—powers market-adaptive, risk-managed portfolios designed to align with investor objectives. Our robust technology and deep quantitative expertise equip financial advisors and institutions to navigate market uncertainty and achieve more consistent, reliable investment outcomes. As a pioneer in ETF strategy, we have a 20-year track record of constructing ETF portfolios that help advisors deliver long-term, consistent value to their clients. About New Frontier Institute The New Frontier Institute serves as a scholarly repository and resource for academics, investment professionals, and investors interested in the evolution of quantitative asset management. Rooted in the pioneering research of Dr. Richard Michaud, the Institute bridges the gap between theory and practice by fostering authoritative research in modern portfolio management. Learn more at New Frontier Institute. About the Journal of Investment Management (JOIM) Founded in 2003, JOIM is a peer-reviewed journal that bridges the gap between investment theory and practice. Featuring rigorous research from leading academics and practitioners, JOIM provides insights that are both analytically sound and practically relevant to investors worldwide. SOURCE: New Frontier Advisors, LLC Copyright Business Wire 2025. PUB: 03/24/2025 10:04 AM/DISC: 03/24/2025 10:05 AM
