Optimal Estimation of the Risk Premium for the Long Run and Asset Allocation: A Case of Compounded Estimation Risk
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that an unbiased forecast of the terminal value of a portfolio requires compounding at the arithmetic mean return over the investment horizon. However, the maximum-likelihood practice, common with academics, of compounding at the estimator of mean return results in upward biased and highly inefficient estimates of long-term expected returns. We derive analytically both an unbiased and a small-sample efficient estimator of long-term expected returns for a given sample size and horizon. Both estimators entail penalties that reduce the annual compounding rate as the investment horizon increases. The unbiased estimator, which is far lower than the compounded arithmetic average, is still very inefficient, often more so than a simple geometric estimator known to practitioners. Our small-sample efficient estimator is even lower. These results compound the sobering evidence in recent work that the equity risk premium is lower than suggested by post-1926 data. Our methodology and results are robust to extensions such as predictable returns. We also confirm analytically that parameter uncertainty, properly incorporated, produces optimal asset allocations, in stark contrast to conventional wisdom. Longer investment horizons require lower, not higher, allocations to risky assets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it