Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/205533 
Year of Publication: 
2003
Series/Report no.: 
New Zealand Treasury Working Paper No. 03/28
Publisher: 
New Zealand Government, The Treasury, Wellington
Abstract: 
Expected geometric return is routinely reported as a summary measure of the prospective performance of asset classes and investment portfolios. It has intuitive appeal because its historical counterpart, the geometric average, provides a useful annualised measure of the proportional change in wealth that actually occurred over a past time series, as if there had been no volatility in return. However, as a prospective measure, expected geometric return has limited value and often the expected annual arithmetic return is a more relevant statistic for modelling and analysis. Despite this, the distinction between expected annual arithmetic return and expected geometric return is not well understood, both in respect of individual asset classes and in respect of portfolios. This confusion persists even though it is explained routinely in finance textbooks and other reference sources. Even the supposedly straightforward calculation of weighted average portfolio return becomes somewhat complicated, and can produce counterintuitive results, if the focus of futureorientated reporting is expected geometric return. This paper explains these issues and applies them in the context of the calculations underlying the projections for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.
Subjects: 
Arithmetic
geometric
returns
portfolio
lognormal distribution.
JEL: 
C53
D84
G10
H55
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.