Evaluate the performance of Large Capitalized Multi-Factor Portfolio: Evidence from the United States of America

The study sought to evaluate the performance of the Large Capitalized Multi-Factor Portfolio, using the United States of America as the case study. The study specifically concentrated on constructing a portfolio from the S&P 500 using a multi-factor model that integrates value and momentum, and calculates the portfolio's historical risk-return profile, including its annualized return, volatility, and Sharpe ratio over 5 years. The study employed the use of a multi-factor asset pricing approach and contemporary portfolio theory to quantitatively analyse the portfolio performance. It employed the use of the Sharpe ratio to calculate excess return per unit of risk, and compare the performance against an equal-weighted benchmark, as well as the risk-return relationship. Data for the study were obtained from the Stocks.csv file, which covered the period from July 6, 2020, to July 7, 2025, and was used for the Python analysis. For each of the twelve chosen securities, there were 3,144 observations in the dataset that included weekly prices and returns. To guarantee consistency across time and tickers, the data was prepared and cleaned. A continuous time series was created for each stock by recalculating missing return values using the percentage change in weekly closing prices. The Sharpe ratio was calculated using a 4 percent annual risk-free rate, and annualised return and volatility were computed by scaling weekly statistics using a 52-week factor. As a neutral gauge of market-level performance, the benchmark consisted of an equal-weighted portfolio of the same twelve securities. The study revealed that the investment structure is well-balanced and diversified. It was found that the portfolio consistently has weekly performance patterns. This shows that the portfolio's returns are both positive and have minimal volatility, both of which are necessary for preserving a reasonable degree of risk exposure. Based on the findings, it is concluded that the portfolio had a Sharpe ratio of 1.12 and an annualised return of roughly 31.66% with a volatility of 24.72%. By outperforming an equal-weighted benchmark in both absolute and risk-adjusted performance, these metrics demonstrate the portfolio's capacity to produce significant returns while skillfully managing risk. The importance of diversification, which was essential in reducing unsystematic risk and improving overall portfolio stability, is further supported by the covariance matrix analysis. The conclusion is further drawn that the value-momentum combination's cumulative growth trajectory, which shows consistent superior performance over time, validates the theoretical framework supporting it as a feasible investment strategy. This steady upward trend indicates the strategy's potential for long-term profitability in addition to highlighting its efficacy.

Performance of Large Capitalized Multi-Factor Portfolio

1. Asness, C. S., Frazzini, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2019). Quality Minus Junk. Review of Accounting Studies, 24(1), 34-112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Asness, C., Frazzini, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2013). "Quality Minus Junk." AQR Capital Management. - Carhart, M. M. (1997). "On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance." Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57-82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2012). Investor sentiment and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Finance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2020). A survey of behavioral finance. Handbook of the Economics of Finance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Blitz, D. C., & van Vliet, P. (2007). The volatility effect: Lower risk without lower return. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 33(4), 102-113. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Carhart, M. M. (1997). On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Degen, M., et al. (2021). Portfolio optimization with conditional value-at-risk constraints. Journal of Risk. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). "Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds." Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3-56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2015). A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(1), 1-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Feng, L., Giglio, S., & Xiu, D. (2020). Taming the Factor Zoo: A Test of the Factor Structure in Stock Returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 137(3), 525-546. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Garlappi, L., et al. (2021). Behavioral portfolio theory: A new approach for asset allocation. Financial Analysts Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Harvey, C. R., Liu, Y., & Zhu, H. (2016). …and the cross-section of expected returns. Review of Financial Studies, 29(1), 5-68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. The Journal of Finance, 48(1), 65-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Jorion, P. (2010). Financial Risk Manager Handbook. Wiley Finance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kahn, R. N., & Rudd, A. (1997). Portfolio Construction and Risk Management. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 23(4), 5-20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kahn, R. N., & Rudd, A. (2021). The Evolution of Factor Investing: Lessons from the Past and Implications for the Future. Financial Analysts Journal, 77(2), 56-68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lintner, J. (1965). The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets. Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1), 13–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Malkiel, B. G. (2019). A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-Tested Strategy for Successful Investing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Markowitz, H. M. (1952). Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mossin, J. (1966). Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market. Econometrica, 34(4), 768–783. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ross, S. A. (1976). The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing. Journal of Economic Theory, 13(3), 341–360. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sagoe, A. A., Ashun, A. K. Gyamerah, K. K., & Ashun, F. K. N (2025). The Influence of Portfolio Diversification on Financial Performance: Evidence from Listed Banks on the Ghana Stock Exchange. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science 9(10) 2454-6186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk. Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425–442. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual Fund Performance. Journal of Business, 39(1), 119–138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Sharpe, W. F. (1994). The Sharpe Ratio. Journal of Portfolio Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tobin, J. (1958). Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk. Review of Economic Studies, 25(2), 65–86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Financial Technology (Fintech): Current Research at The Cutting Edge
• Reforming Corporate Governance in Malaysia to Address Fraudulent Financial Reporting Cases
• Stock Market Efficiency and Economic Diversification in Nigeria and South Africa
• Financial Stability and Financial Performance of Small and Medium Tiered Deposit Taking Savings and Credit Cooperatives in Kenya.
• Regulator Sandboxes for DeFi: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Effectiveness in the EU, US, and Asia Pacific