Resumen
Robust optimization has been receiving increased attention in the recent few years due to the possibility of considering the problem of estimation error in the portfolio optimization problem. A question addressed so far by very few works is whether this approach is able to outperform traditional portfolio optimization techniques in terms of out-of-sample performance. Moreover, it is important to know whether this approach is able to deliver stable portfolio compositions over time, thus reducing management costs and facilitating practical implementation. We provide empirical evidence by assessing the out-of-sample performance and the stability of optimal portfolio compositions obtained with robust optimization and with traditional optimization techniques. The results indicated that, for simulated data, robust optimization performed better (both in terms of Sharpe ratios and portfolio turnover) than Markowitz's mean-variance portfolios and similarly to minimum-variance portfolios. The results for real market data indicated that the differences in risk-adjusted performance were not statistically different, but the portfolio compositions associated to robust optimization were more stable over time than traditional portfolio selection techniques.