You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Geometric or Arithmetic Mean: A Reconsideration
Eric Jacquier, Alex Kane and Alan J. Marcus
Financial Analysts Journal
Vol. 59, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2003), pp. 46-53
Published by: CFA Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4480527
Page Count: 8
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
An unbiased forecast of the terminal value of a portfolio requires compounding of its initial value at its arithmetic mean return for the length of the investment period. Compounding at the arithmetic average historical return, however, results in an upwardly biased forecast. This bias does not necessarily disappear even if the sample average return is itself an unbiased estimator of the true mean, the average is computed from a long data series, and returns are generated according to a stable distribution. In contrast, forecasts obtained by compounding at the geometric average will generally be biased downward. The biases are empirically significant. For investment horizons of 40 years, the difference in forecasts of cumulative performance can easily exceed a factor of 2. And the percentage difference in forecasts grows with the investment horizon, as well as with the imprecision in the estimate of the mean return. For typical investment horizons, the proper compounding rate is in between the arithmetic and geometric values.
Financial Analysts Journal © 2003 CFA Institute