Naive diversification is best described as a rough and, more or less, instinctive common sense division of a portfolio, without bothering with sophisticated mathematical models. At worst, say some pundits, this approach can make portfolios very risky. Then again, some recent research indicates that this kind of informed, but informally logical division, is just as effective as those fancy, optimizing models.
TUTORIAL: Investing 101

Naive Vs. Sophisticated
Not surprisingly, individual investors rarely use complex asset allocation methodologies. These have intimidating names, such as mean variance optimization, Monte Carlo simulation or the Treynor-Black model, all of which are engineered to produce an optimal portfolio; one which yields the maximum return at the minimum risk, which is indeed the investor's dream. (For a reading into the basics of portfolio construction, check out Major Blunders in Portfolio Construction.)

Is the average private investor's way of simply having a bit of this and bit of that, really any less viable? This is an extremely important issue and at the very core of investing. One Rabbi, Issac bar Aha, seems to have been the grandfather of it all, having proposed around the fourth century, that one should "put a third in land, a third in merchandise and a third in cash." It's pretty good advice that is still sound enough, 1600 years later!

A couple of investigations into optimization theory, such as "Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Efficient is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy," conducted by Dr. DeMiguel et al., have argued against the effectiveness of sophisticated models. The difference between them and the naive approach is not statistically significant; they point out that really basic models perform quite well.

To some cynics and scientists, it seems too simple to be true, that one can achieve anything close to an optimum merely by putting a third of your money in equities or real estate, one third in bonds and the rest in cash. Alternatively, the classic pie charts that are divided into high, medium and low-risk portfolios are very straightforward, and there may be nothing wrong with them.

Even Harry Markowitz, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his optimization models, evidently just divided his money equally between bonds and equities, for "psychological reasons." It was simple and transparent; in practice, he was happy to leave behind his own award-winning theories, when it came to his own funds.

Shades of Naivety and the Term Itself
There is more to the issue, however. German professor of banking and finance, Martin Weber, explains that there are different types of naive models, some of which are a lot better than others. Professor Shlomo Benartzi of UCLA also confirms that naive investors are heavily influenced by what they are offered. For this reason, if they go to a stockbroker, they may end up with too many equities, or a bond specialist may push too much of those. Furthermore, there are many different types of equities, such as small and large cap, foreign and local etc., so that any bias could lead a disastrous, or at least, suboptimally naive portfolio.

In the same vein, the concept of naivety can itself be simplistic and a bit unfair. Naive in the sense of gullible and ill-informed is, indeed, very likely to lead to disaster. Yet, if naive is taken to mean a sensible and logical approach, but without sophisticated modeling, there is no real reason for it to fail. In other words, it is arguably the negative connotations of the word "naivety" that are the real issue here; the use of a derogatory label.

Complexity Does Not Always Help
Coming from the other side, methodological complexity and sophisticated models do not necessarily lead to investment optimality, in practice. The literature is quite clear on this and given the complexity of the financial markets, this is hardly surprising. The mixture of economic, political and human factors is daunting, such that models are always vulnerable to some form of unpredictable shock, or combination of factors that cannot be integrated effectively into a model.

Dr. Victor DeMiguel and his co-researchers concede that complex approaches are seriously constrained by estimation problems. For the statistically-minded, the "true moments of asset returns" are unknown, leading to potentially large estimation errors.

Consequently, a sensibly constructed portfolio, which is regularly monitored and rebalanced in terms of which is happening at the time, not only has intuitive appeal, it can perform just as well as some far more sophisticated approaches that are constrained by their own complexity and opacity. That is, the model may not integrate all the necessary factors, or may not respond sufficiently to environmental changes as they occur.

Likewise, apart from asset-class diversification, we all know that an equity portfolio should also be diversified in itself. In this context too, the proponents of naive allocation have demonstrated that having more than around 15 stocks, adds no further diversification benefit. Thus, a really complicated equity mix is probably counterproductive. (For additional reading, see Achieving Optimal Asset Allocation.)

The Bottom Line
Although computerized models can look impressive, there is a danger of being blinded by science. Some such models may work well, but others are no better than simply being sensible. The one thing on which everyone agrees, is that diversification is absolutely essential, but the benefits of advanced mathematical modeling are unclear; for most investors, how they operate is even less clear. The old adage "stick with what you know and understand," may apply as much to straightforward, transparent asset allocations, as to various forms of structured investment products.

Related Articles
  1. Mutual Funds & ETFs

    The 4 Best T. Rowe Price Funds for Growth Investors in 2016 (TROW)

    Discover the four best mutual funds administered and managed by T. Rowe Price that specialize in investing in stocks of growth companies.
  2. Mutual Funds & ETFs

    The 3 Best T. Rowe Price Funds for Value Investors in 2016

    Read analyses of the top three T. Rowe Price value funds open to new investors, and learn about their investment objectives and historical performances.
  3. Active Trading Fundamentals

    4 Stocks With Bullish Head and Shoulders Patterns for 2016 (PG, ETR)

    Discover analyses of the top four stocks with bullish head and shoulders patterns forming in 2016, and learn the prices at which they should be considered.
  4. Investing

    3 Healthy Financial Habits for 2016

    ”Winning” investors don't just set it and forget it. They consistently take steps to adapt their investment plan in the face of changing markets.
  5. Investing

    How to Ballast a Portfolio with Bonds

    If January and early February performance is any guide, there’s a new normal in financial markets today: Heightened volatility.
  6. Fundamental Analysis

    3 Reasons To Not Sell After a Market Downturn

    Find out the reasons that it is not a good idea to sell after a market downturn. There are lessons to be learned from the last major market downturn.
  7. Fundamental Analysis

    HF Performance Report: Did Hedge Funds Earn Their Fee in 2015?

    Find out whether hedge funds, which have come under tremendous pressure to improve their performance, managed to earn their fee in 2015.
  8. Sectors

    2016's Most Promising Asset Classes

    Find out which asset classes are considered to be the most promising for generating portfolio returns and reducing volatility in 2016.
  9. Mutual Funds & ETFs

    Top 5 Wellington Funds for Retirement Diversification in 2016

    Discover the top five Wellington Management funds for retirement diversification in 2016, with a summary and performance details of each fund.
  10. Mutual Funds & ETFs

    3 Morgan Stanley Funds Rated 5 Stars by Morningstar

    Discover the three best mutual funds administered and managed by Morgan Stanley that received five-star overall ratings from Morningstar.
RELATED FAQS
  1. What is a derivative?

    A derivative is a contract between two or more parties whose value is based on an agreed-upon underlying financial asset, ... Read Full Answer >>
  2. What's the difference between a stop and a limit order?

    Different types of orders allow you to be more specific about how you'd like your broker to fulfill your trades. When you ... Read Full Answer >>
  3. Are secured personal loans better than unsecured loans?

    Secured loans are better for the borrower than unsecured loans because the loan terms are more agreeable. Often, the interest ... Read Full Answer >>
  4. How liquid are Vanguard mutual funds?

    The Vanguard mutual fund family is one of the largest and most well-recognized fund family in the financial industry. Its ... Read Full Answer >>
  5. Which mutual funds made money in 2008?

    Out of the 2,800 mutual funds that Morningstar, Inc., the leading provider of independent investment research in North America, ... Read Full Answer >>
  6. How do mutual funds work in India?

    Mutual funds in India work in much the same way as mutual funds in the United States. Like their American counterparts, Indian ... Read Full Answer >>
Hot Definitions
  1. Liquidation Margin

    Liquidation margin refers to the value of all of the equity positions in a margin account. If an investor or trader holds ...
  2. Black Swan

    An event or occurrence that deviates beyond what is normally expected of a situation and that would be extremely difficult ...
  3. Inverted Yield Curve

    An interest rate environment in which long-term debt instruments have a lower yield than short-term debt instruments of the ...
  4. Socially Responsible Investment - SRI

    An investment that is considered socially responsible because of the nature of the business the company conducts. Common ...
  5. Presidential Election Cycle (Theory)

    A theory developed by Yale Hirsch that states that U.S. stock markets are weakest in the year following the election of a ...
Trading Center