BSc Thesis · Aarhus University · 2025

Constructing an Optimal Investment Portfolio: A Mean-Variance Optimization Approach

Jakub Mandák
Economics & Business Administration
Aarhus BSS · Supervisor: Charlotte Christiansen

What the data show

Constrained mean-variance optimization produced a Sharpe ratio of 1.22 on 33 large-cap US stocks over 2005–2025 — outperforming the S&P 500 Total Return Index (0.76) and the naïve equal-weight portfolio (1.18) on a risk-adjusted basis, while limiting the maximum drawdown to –21%.

Constrained MVO
Sharpe Ratio
1.215
Ann. Return
12.7%
Ann. Volatility
10.4%
Max Drawdown
–21.2%
Best Month
+9.3%
Worst Month
–9.1%
Unconstrained MVO
Sharpe Ratio
1.347
Ann. Return
13.0%
Ann. Volatility
9.7%
Max Drawdown
–14.2%
Best Month
+8.3%
Worst Month
–7.7%
1/N Equal Weight
Sharpe Ratio
1.177
Ann. Return
16.8%
Ann. Volatility
14.3%
Max Drawdown
–41.3%
Best Month
+12.3%
Worst Month
–15.5%
S&P 500 TR Index
Sharpe Ratio
0.764
Ann. Return
11.3%
Ann. Volatility
14.8%
Max Drawdown
–51.0%
Best Month
+12.8%
Worst Month
–16.8%

Cumulative growth of $1 invested, Jan 2005 – Dec 2025

Shaded regions: GFC (Jan 2008 – Dec 2009) and COVID-19 shock (Jan–Mar 2020). Hover for monthly values.

Risk-return space: the frontier and where each portfolio sits

Show
Constrained frontier (long-only)
Unconstrained frontier
Constrained MVO
Unconstrained MVO
1/N Equal Weight
S&P 500
Individual stocks (n=33)

Both frontiers are estimated in-sample on the same 252 monthly observations. The unconstrained frontier extends above the constrained one because it allows short positions. Hover any point for details.

Sharpe ratio across four economic regimes

Pre-Crisis
Jan 2005 – Dec 2007
Con. MVO
1.957
Unc. MVO
excl.
1/N
2.104
S&P 500
1.102
Con. MVO
–2.8%
Unc. MVO
excl.
1/N
–4.2%
S&P 500
–4.8%
T ≈ N: Unconstrained excluded — near-singular covariance matrix.
Global Financial Crisis
Jan 2008 – Dec 2009
Con. MVO
0.114
Unc. MVO
excl.
1/N
0.049
S&P 500
–0.365
Con. MVO
–17.9%
Unc. MVO
excl.
1/N
–39.2%
S&P 500
–46.4%
T < N: Unconstrained excluded — rank-deficient covariance matrix.
Post-Crisis Expansion
Jan 2010 – Dec 2019
Con. MVO
1.944
Unc. MVO
2.207
1/N
1.522
S&P 500
1.089
Con. MVO
–5.1%
Unc. MVO
–4.1%
1/N
–12.2%
S&P 500
–16.3%
Constrained MVO leads among the main comparison portfolios.
Recent Period
Jan 2020 – Dec 2025
Con. MVO
1.096
Unc. MVO
1.269
1/N
1.178
S&P 500
0.909
Con. MVO
–14.3%
Unc. MVO
–8.1%
1/N
–19.3%
S&P 500
–23.9%
1/N outperforms constrained MVO on Sharpe; COVID drawdown visible across all.
Finding — Downside Protection
4 for 4 on drawdown
Constrained MVO had a smaller maximum drawdown than both 1/N and the S&P 500 in every single sub-period. The gap was largest during the GFC, when constrained MVO lost –17.9% against –39.2% for 1/N and –46.4% for the index.
Con. MVO
–21.2%
1/N
–41.3%
S&P 500
–51.0%
Finding — When 1/N Wins
2 of 4 sub-periods
The naïve equal-weight portfolio beat constrained MVO on Sharpe ratio in the Pre-Crisis and Recent periods — both relatively stable market regimes. This is consistent with DeMiguel et al. (2009): estimation error can erode the theoretical edge of optimization when conditions are benign.
Pre-Crisis
1/N 2.10
Con 1.96
Recent
1/N 1.18
Con 1.10

Constrained MVO: sector allocation (full period)

Consumer Staples
28.2%
Utilities
25.6%
Communication Services
12.6%
Health Care
9.1%
Consumer Discretionary
8.7%
Energy
6.5%
Financials
5.2%
Materials
2.6%
Information Technology
1.0%
Real Estate
0.4%
Industrials
0.0%

The optimizer concentrated heavily in low-beta, defensive sectors — consistent with the portfolio's low volatility (10.4% annualised).

Research design

The thesis tests whether a constrained mean-variance portfolio beats a naïve equal-weight benchmark and the S&P 500 on risk-adjusted return. The research question is in-sample: does the optimizer produce superior Sharpe ratios by exploiting the full covariance structure of returns?

Four portfolios are compared across a full period (2005–2025) and four sub-periods defined by NBER business cycle dates. The constrained formulation imposes non-negativity and a 30% single-stock cap, following Jagannathan & Ma (2003). The unconstrained variant allows unrestricted short positions.

Excel Solver (GRG Nonlinear method) is used for optimization. Covariance matrices are estimated on the full sample for each period. Unconstrained MVO is excluded from Pre-Crisis and Crisis sub-periods due to near-singular and rank-deficient matrices respectively.

Universe
33 large-cap US stocks, all 11 GICS sectors
Sample
Jan 2005 – Dec 2025 (252 monthly obs.)
Benchmark 1
1/N equal-weight portfolio
Benchmark 2
S&P 500 Total Return Index
Constraints
Non-negativity; 30% single-stock cap
Risk-free rate
3-month US T-bill (period average)
Key references
Markowitz (1952), DeMiguel et al. (2009), Jagannathan & Ma (2003)
Institution
Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University