Empirical Economics

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 1315–1336 | Cite as

A copula–GARCH model for macro asset allocation of a portfolio with commodities

An out-of-sample analysis
  • Luca Riccetti


Many authors have suggested that the mean-variance criterion, conceived by Markowitz (The Journal of Finance 7(1):77–91, 1952), is not optimal for asset allocation, because the investor expected utility function is better proxied by a function that uses higher moments and because returns are distributed in a non-Normal way, being asymmetric and/or leptokurtic, so the mean-variance criterion cannot correctly proxy the expected utility with non-Normal returns. In Riccetti (The use of copulas in asset allocation: when and how a copula model can be useful? LAP Lambert, Saarbrücken 2010), a copula–GARCH model is applied and it is found that copulas are not useful for choosing among stock indices, but can be useful in a macro asset allocation model, that is, for choosing stock and bond composition of portfolios. In this paper I apply that copula–GARCH model for the macro asset allocation of portfolios containing a commodity component. I find that the copula model appears to be useful and better than the mean-variance one for the macro asset allocation also in presence of a commodity index, even if it is not better than GARCH models on independent univariate series, probably because of the low correlation of the commodity index returns to the stock, the bond and the exchange rate returns.


Commodities Portfolio choice Asset allocation Copula GARCH 

JEL Classification

C52 C53 C58 G11 G17 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aas K, Czado C, Frigessi A, Bakken H (2007) Pair-copula constructions of multiple dependence. Insur Math Econ 4(2): 182–188Google Scholar
  2. Abanomey W, Mathur I (1999) The hedging benefits of commodity futures in international portfolio diversification. J Altern Invest 2(3): 51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amenc N, Martellini L, Ziemann V (2009) Inflation-hedging properties of real assets and implications for asset–liability management decisions. J Portfolio Manag 35(4): 94–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson T (2008) Real assets inflation protection solutions with exchange-traded products. ETFs Index 1: 14–24Google Scholar
  5. Ang A, Bekaert G (2002) International asset allocation with regime shifts. Rev Financ Stud 15(4): 1137–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arditti F (1967) Risk and the required return on equity. J Finance 22: 19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bedford T, Cooke R (2001) Probability density decomposition for conditionally dependent random variables modeled by vines. Ann Math Artif Intell 32: 245–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bedford T, Cooke R (2002) Vines: a new graphical model for dependent random variables. Ann Stat 30: 1031–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg D (2008) Copula goodness-of-fit testing: an overview and power comparison, working paper, University of Oslo and The Norwegian Computing CenterGoogle Scholar
  10. Berg D, Aas K (2007) Model for construction of multivariate dependence, technical report, working paper, Norwegian Computing CenterGoogle Scholar
  11. Bodie Z (1983) Commodity futures as a hedge against inflation. J Portfolio Manag 9: 12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bucciol A, Miniaci R (2008) Household portfolios and implicit risk aversion, working paperGoogle Scholar
  13. Büyüksahin B, Haigh M, Robe M (2010) Commodities and equities: ever a ‘market of one’?. J Altern Invest 12(3): 76–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chong J, Miffre J (2010) Conditional correlation and volatility in commodity futures and traditional asset markets. J Altern Invest 12(3): 61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conover C, Jensen G, Johnson R, Mercer J (2010) Is now the time to add commodities to your portfolio?. Financ Anal J 61(1): 57–69Google Scholar
  16. Dempster N, Artigas J (2010) Gold: inflation hedge and long-term strategic asset. J Wealth Manag 13(2): 69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dittmar R (2002) Nonlinear pricing kernels, kurtosis preferences, and evidence from the cross section of equity returns. J Finance 57: 369–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Embrechts P, Lindskog F, McNeil A (2003) Modelling dependence with copulas and applications to risk management. In: Rachev ST (ed) Handbook of heavy tailed distributions in finance. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Embrechts P, Frey R, McNeil A (2005) Quantitative risk management: concepts, techniques and tools. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Froot K (1995) Hedging portfolios with real assets. J Portfolio Manag 18: 60–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Genest C, Rémillard B (2004) Tests of independence and randomness based on the empirical copula process. Test 13: 335–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Genest C, Rémillard B (2008) Validity of the parametric bootstrap for goodness-of-fit testing in semiparametric models. Ann Inst H Poincaré Probab Stat 44(6):1096–1127Google Scholar
  23. Genest C, Rémillard B, Beaudoin D (2009) Goodness-of-fit tests for copulas: a review and a power study. Insur Math Econ 44: 199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorton G, Rouwenhorst K (2006) Facts and fantasies about commodity futures. Financ Anal J 62: 47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haff I, Aas K, Frigessi A (2009) On the simplified pair-copula construction: simply useful or too simplistic?, working paperGoogle Scholar
  26. Halpern P, Warsager R (1998) The performance of energy and non-energy based commodity investment vehicles in periods of inflation. J Altern Invest 1(1): 75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harvey C, Siddique A (2000) Conditional skewness in asset pricing tests. J Finance 55(3): 1263–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heinen A, Valdesogo A (2008) Asymmetric capm dependence for large dimensions: the canonical vine autoregressive model, working paperGoogle Scholar
  29. Ignatieva K, Platen E (2010) Modelling co-movements and tail dependency in the international stock market via copulae. Asia Pacific Financ Mark 17: 261–302. doi: 10.1007/s10690-010-9116-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Irwin S, Landa D (1987) Real estate, futures, and gold as portfolio assets. J Portfolio Manag 14: 29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jensen G, Johnson R, Mercer J (2000) Efficient use of commodity futures in diversified portfolios. J Futur Mark 20: 489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen G, Johnson R, Mercer J (2002) Tactical asset allocation and commodity futures. J Portfolio Manag 28(4): 100–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Joe H (1997) Multivariate models and dependence concepts. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jondeau E, Rockinger M (2003) Conditional volatility, skewness, and kurtosis: existence, persistence and comovements. J Econ Dyn Control (Elsevier) 27: 1699–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jondeau E, Rockinger M (2006a) The Copula–GARCH model of conditional dependencies: an international stock market application. J Int Money Finance (Elsevier) 25: 827–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jondeau E, Rockinger M (2006b) Optimal portfolio allocation under higher moments. Eur Financ Manag 12(1): 29–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kraus A, Litzenberger R (1976) Skewness preference and the valuation of risk assets. J Finance 31(4): 1085–1100Google Scholar
  38. Kurowicka D, Cooke R (2006) Uncertainty analysis with high dimensional dependence modelling. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mandelbrot B (1963) The variation of certain speculative prices. J Bus 36: 394–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J Finance 7(1): 77–91Google Scholar
  41. Mazzilli P, Maister D (2006) Exchange-traded funds six ETFs provide exposure to commodity markets. ETFs Index 1: 26–34Google Scholar
  42. McNeil A (2007) Sampling nested archimedean copulas. J Stat Comput Simul 4: 339–352Google Scholar
  43. Morana C (2009) Realized betas and the cross-section of expected returns. Appl Financ Econ 19: 1371–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Patton (2004) On the out-of-sample importance of skewness and asymmetric dependence for asset allocation. J Financ Econom 2(1): 130–168Google Scholar
  45. Rachev S, Kim Y, Bianchi M, Fabozzi F (2011) Financial models with Lévy processes and volatility clustering. Wiley, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riccetti L (2010) The use of copulas in asset allocation: when and how a copula model can be useful? LAP Lambert, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  47. Scott R, Horvath P (1980) On the direction of preference for moments of higher order than the variance. J Finance XXXV(4): 915–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simkowitz M, Beedles W (1978) Diversification in a three moment world. J Financ Quant Anal 13:927–941Google Scholar
  49. Sklar A (1959) Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges. Inst Statist Univ Paris 8: 229–231Google Scholar
  50. Sun W, Rachev S, Stoyanov S, Fabozzi F (2008) Multivariate skewed student’s t copula in the analysis of nonlinear and asymmetric dependence in the German equity market. Stud Nonlinear Dyn Econom 12(2):article 3Google Scholar
  51. Sun W, Rachev S, Fabozzi F, Kalev P (2009) A new approach to modeling co-movement of international equity markets: evidence of unconditional copula-based simulation of tail dependence. Empir Econ 36(1): 201–229. doi: 10.1007/s00181-008-0192-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whelan N (2004) Sampling from archimedean copulas. Quant Finance 4: 339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Economics SciencesUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations