Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T18:01:44.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Empirical Analysis of Some Aspects of Common Stock Diversification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Edward H. Jennings
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some recent empirical studies have concluded that the common stock investor can virtually eliminate diversifiable risk with a portfolio that contains a “small” number of separate common stock issues [5, 6, 10, 11, 13]. The conclusion has several important implications. One of the inherent limitations of a portfolio manager is his inability to evaluate an infinite number of securities. The seriousness of this problem is directly related to the risks associated with a “small” portfolio. The economic function of a mutual fund industry is to provide diversification and professional management. If it is assured that a “small” portfolio can virtually eliminate diversifiable risk, the necessity of these functions may be questioned. In addition, the strategy of concentration may be less “risky” than is commonly supposed. Finally, the modern portfolio models generally assume that portfolio additions are costless.

Information

Type
Investments I
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , March 1971 , pp. 797 - 813
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1]Bowers, Newton L. Jr, “An Approximation to the Distribution of Annuity Costs,” Society of Actuaries: Transactions, XIX (March 1968), 295–309.Google Scholar
[2]Breen, William, and Savage, James, “Portfolio Distributions and Tests of Security Selection Models,” The Journal of Finance, XXIII (December 1968), 805–819.Google Scholar
[3]Cornish, E. A., and Fisher, R. A., “Moments and Cumulants in the Specification of Distributions,” Contributions to Mathematical Statistics, Shewhart, Walter A. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1950).Google Scholar
[4]Deming, William Edward, Some Theory of Sampling, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1950).Google Scholar
[5]Eiteman, Wilford J., and Eiteman, Dean S., Common Stock Values and Yields 1950–61: A Study of Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments with Particular Emphasis on Investment Yields, Michigan Business Reports, No. 40 (Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1962).Google Scholar
[6]Evans, John L., and Archer, Stephen H., “Diversification and the Reduction of Dispersion: An Empirical Analysis,” The Journal of Finance, XXIII (December 1968), 761–767.Google Scholar
[7]Fisher, Lawrence, “Outcomes for ‘Random’ Investments in Common Stocks Listed on the New York Stock Exchange,” The Journal of Business, XXXVIII (April 1965), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Fisher, Lawrence, “Some New Stock-Market Indexes,” The Journal of Business, XXXIX (January 1966), 191–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Fisher, Lawrence and Lorie, J. H., “Rates of Return on Investments in Common Stocks,” The Journal of Business, XXXVII (January 1964), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Fisher, Lawrence, “Some Studies of Variability of Returns on Investments in Common Stocks,” The Journal of Business, XLIII (April 1970), 99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Gaumnitz, Jack E., Maximal Gains from Diversification An Examination of the Number of Securities in a Common Stock Portfolio, Working Paper No. 10 (Lawrence, Kansas: The University of Kansas, 1968).Google Scholar
[12]Kendall, Maurice G., and Stuart, Alan, The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. I: distribution Theory, 2nd ed. (New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1963).Google Scholar
[13]Latané, Henry A., and Young, William E., “Test of Portfolio Building Rules,” The Journal of Finance, XXIV (September 1969), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar