March Madness Portfolio Challenge: Round 2 Leaderboard
Oh, alright. I guess I’ll update everyone on the leaderboard since all the second round games have passed. But before I get to that, let’s quickly revisit our hypothesis on concentrated versus diversified portfolios. In our Round 1 recap, we wrote:
“The HHI index is a measure of portfolio concentration. We’ve included it because one of our hypotheses entering the Portfolio Challenge was that concentrated portfolios would find their way to the top and the bottom of our rankings. Lo and behold, after just the first round, we see this pattern (though weakly) starting to emerge.”
We also showed the accompanying chart:
But in the second round, something interesting happened. Namely, while we continue to see our barbells manifest, the diversified approaches seem to have uniformly moved up the rankings. As you can see above, with some exceptions, there were a mass of diversified entries ranking between 15-32.
But as we see below, as of the end of the second round, the diversified “peloton” has closed the gap, and now largely holds ranks between 7-23.
Our current leader is Laura B, with 6.166 points and a remaining exposure of 100%. So, if your favorite team is out of it, and you’re looking for something to root for, her downfall would require the following teams to lose: Virginia (20%), Oklahoma (20%), Oregon (20%), Villanova (20%) and Texas A&M (20%). Though, considering Texas A&M is still in it, her entry kinda feels like a “portfolio of destiny.”
Anyways, here’s the rest of the leaderboard. See everyone after the Sweet 16!
|9||Jagdeep M (Concentrated)||4.3624||50.00%|
|11||Benchmark – Rank Seed Weight||4.1695||70.00%|
|16||Benchmark – Concentrated (Top 2 Seeds per Region)||4.0311||75.00%|
|19||Benchmark – GMP||3.9318||57.57%|
|28||Benchmark – Rank Weight||3.3157||37.87%|
|33||Benchmark – 12-Seeds||2.934||0.00%|
|36||Benchmark – Equal Weight||2.8244||25.00%|
|40||Benchmark – Hot Hand (Power Conference Champs)||2.4553||50.00%|