This article proposes a novel approach to portfolio revision. The current literature on portfolio optimization uses a somewhat naïve approach, where portfolio weights are always completely revised after a predefined fixed period. However, one shortcoming of this procedure is that it ignores parameter uncertainty in the estimated portfolio weights, as well as the biasedness of the in-sample portfolio mean and variance as estimates of the expected portfolio return and out-of-sample variance. To rectify this problem, we propose a jackknife procedure to determine the optimal revision intensity, i.e. the percent of wealth that should be shifted to the new, in-sample optimal portfolio. We find that our approach leads to highly stable portfolio allocations over time, and can significantly reduce the turnover of several well established portfolio strategies. Moreover, the observed turnover reductions lead to statistically and economically significant performance gains in the presence of transaction costs.

We reassess the recent finding that no established portfolio strategy outperforms the naively diversified portfolio, 1/N, by developing a constrained minimum-variance portfolio strategy on a shrinkage theory based framework. Our results show that our constrained minimum-variance portfolio yields significantly lower out-of-sample variances than many established minimum-variance portfolio strategies. Further, we observe that our portfolio strategy achieves higher Sharpe ratios than 1/N, amounting to an average Sharpe ratio increase of 32.5% across our six empirical datasets. We find that our constrained minimum-variance strategy is the only strategy that achieves the goal of improving the Sharpe ratio of 1/N consistently and significantly. At the same time, our developed portfolio strategy achieves a comparatively low turnover and exhibits no excessive short interest.