Good deals and benchmarks in robust portfolio selection.

*(English)*Zbl 1346.91198Summary: This paper deals with portfolio selection problems under risk and ambiguity. The investor may be ambiguous with respect to the set of states of nature and their probabilities. Both static and discrete or continuous time dynamic pricing models are included in the analysis. Risk and ambiguity are measured in general settings. The considered risk measures contain, as particular cases, the usual deviations and the coherent and expectation bounded measures of risk. Four contributions seem to be reached. Firstly, necessary and sufficient optimality conditions are given. Secondly, the portfolio selection problem may be frequently solved by linear programming linked methods, despite the fact that risk and ambiguity cannot be given by linear expressions. Thirdly, if there is a market price of risk then there exists a benchmark that creates a robust capital market line when combined with the riskless asset. The global risk of every portfolio may be divided into systemic and specific. Moreover, if there is no ambiguity with respect to the states of nature (only their probabilities are uncertain), then classical CAPM-formulae may be found. Fourthly, some recent pathological findings for ambiguity-free analyses also apply in ambiguous frameworks. In particular, there may exist arbitrage free markets such that the ambiguous agent can guarantee every expected return with a maximum risk bounded from above by zero, i.e., the capital market line (risk, return) becomes vertical. For instance, in the (non-ambiguous) Black and Scholes model this property holds for important risk measures such as the absolute deviation or the CVaR. Nevertheless, in ambiguous settings, adequate increments of the ambiguity level will allow us to recover capital market lines consistent with the empirical evidence. The introduction of ambiguity may overcome several caveats of many important pricing models.

##### MSC:

91G10 | Portfolio theory |

##### Keywords:

ambiguity; robust portfolio selection; coherent risk under ambiguity; benchmark and CAPM; good deal
PDF
BibTeX
XML
Cite

\textit{A. Balbás} et al., Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250, No. 2, 666--678 (2016; Zbl 1346.91198)

Full Text:
DOI

##### References:

[1] | Anderson, E. J.; Nash, P., Linear programming in infinite-dimensional spaces, (1987), John Wiley & Sons |

[2] | Artzner, P.; Delbaen, F.; Eber, J. M.; Heath, D., Coherent measures of risk, Mathematical Finance, 9, 203-228, (1999) · Zbl 0980.91042 |

[3] | Balbás, A.; Balbás, B.; Balbás, R., CAPM and APT-like models with risk measures, Journal of Banking & Finance, 34, 1166-1174, (2010) |

[4] | Balbás, A.; Balbás, B.; Balbás, R., Good deals in markets with friction, Quantitative Finance, 13, 827-836, (2013) · Zbl 1281.91138 |

[5] | Balbás, A.; Balbás, B.; Balbás, R.; Heras, A., Optimal reinsurance under risk and uncertainty, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 60, 61-74, (2015) · Zbl 1308.91075 |

[6] | Balbás, A.; Galperin, E.; Guerra, P. J., Sensitivity of Pareto solutions in multiobjective optimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 126, 247-264, (2005) · Zbl 1129.90355 |

[7] | Bali, T. G.; Cakici, N.; Chabi-Yo, F., A generalized measure of riskiness, Management Science, 57, 8, 1406-1423, (2011) · Zbl 1279.91129 |

[8] | Bossaerts, P.; Ghirardato, P.; Guarnaschelli, S.; Zame, W. R., Ambiguity in asset markets: theory and experiment, Review of Financial Studies, 23, 1325-1359, (2010) |

[9] | Brown, D.; Sim, M., Satisfying measures for analysis of risky positions, Management Science, 55, 71-84, (2009) · Zbl 1232.91611 |

[10] | Cao, H. H.; Wang, T.; Zhang, H. H., Model uncertainty, limited market participation and asset prices, Review of Financial Studies, 18, 1219-1251, (2005) |

[11] | Chen, L.; He, S.; Zhang, S., Tight bounds for some risk measures, with applications to robust portfolio selection, Operations Research, 59, 847-865, (2013) · Zbl 1233.91236 |

[12] | Cochrane, J. H.; Saa-Requejo, J., Beyond arbitrage: good deal asset price bounds in incomplete markets, Journal of Political Economy, 108, 79-119, (2000) |

[13] | Duffie, D., Security markets: stochastic models, (1988), Academic Press · Zbl 0661.90001 |

[14] | Garlappi, L.; Uppal, R.; Wang, T., Portfolio selection with parameter and model uncertainty: a multi-prior approach, Review of Financial Studies, 20, 41-81, (2007) |

[15] | Gilboa, I.; Schmeidler, D., Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior, Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141-153, (1989) · Zbl 0675.90012 |

[16] | Goberna, M. A.; Jeyakumar, V.; Li, G.; Rez, J. V.-P., Robust solutions to multi-objective linear programs with uncertain data, European Journal of Operational Research, 242, 730-743, (2015) · Zbl 1341.90124 |

[17] | Hansen, L. P.; Sargent, T. J., Three types of ambiguity, Journal of Monetary Economics, 59, 422-445, (2012) |

[18] | Harrison, J.; Kreps, D., Martingales and arbitrage in multiperiod securities markets, Journal of Economic Theory, 20, 381-408, (1979) · Zbl 0431.90019 |

[19] | Kullback, S.; Leibler, R. A., On information and sufficiency, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 79-86, (1951) · Zbl 0042.38403 |

[20] | Kupper, M.; Schachermayer, W., Representation results for law invariant time consistent functions, Mathematics and Financial Economics, 2, 189-210, (2009) · Zbl 1255.91181 |

[21] | Lagos, G.; Espinoza, D.; Moreno, E.; Vielma, J. C., Restricted risk measures and robust optimization, European Journal of Operational Research, 241, 771-782, (2015) · Zbl 1339.90253 |

[22] | Luenberger, D. G., Optimization by vector spaces methods, (1969), John Wiley & Sons · Zbl 0176.12701 |

[23] | Luenberger, D. G., Projection pricing, Journal of Optimization, Theory and Applications, 109, 1-25, (2001) · Zbl 0972.91058 |

[24] | Maillet, B.; Tokpavi, S.; Vaucher, B., Global minimum variance portfolio optimisation under some model risk: a robust regression-based approach, European Journal of Operational Research, 244, 289-299, (2015) · Zbl 1346.91215 |

[25] | Maurin, K., Methods of Hilbert spaces, (1967), PWN-Polish Scientific Publishers · Zbl 0166.10203 |

[26] | Ogryczak, W.; Ruszczynski, A., From stochastic dominance to mean risk models: semideviations and risk measures, European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 33-50, (1999) · Zbl 1007.91513 |

[27] | Ogryczak, W.; Ruszczynski, A., Dual stochastic dominance and related mean risk models, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 13, 60-78, (2002) · Zbl 1022.91017 |

[28] | Riedel, F., Optimal stopping with multiple priors, Econometrica, 77, 857-908, (2009) · Zbl 1181.60064 |

[29] | Rockafellar, R. T.; Uryasev, S.; Zabarankin, M., Generalized deviations in risk analysis, Finance & Stochastics, 10, 51-74, (2006) · Zbl 1150.90006 |

[30] | Schied, A., Optimal investments for risk- and ambiguity-averse preferences: a duality approach, Finance & Stochastics, 11, 107-129, (2007) · Zbl 1143.91021 |

[31] | Scutellà, M. G.; Recchia, R., Robust portfolio asset allocation and risk measures, Annals of Operations Research, 204, 145-169, (2013) · Zbl 1269.91081 |

[32] | Trolle, B.; Schwartz, E. S., A general stochastic volatility model for the pricing of interest rate derivatives, Review of Financial Studies, 22, 2007-2057, (2009) |

[33] | Zabarankin, M.; Pavlikov, K.; Uryasev, S., Capital asset pricing model (CAPM) with drawdown measure, European Journal of Operational Research, 234, 508-517, (2014) · Zbl 1304.91212 |

[34] | Zhiping, C.; Wang, Y., Two-sided coherent risk measures and their application in realistic portfolio optimization, Journal of Banking & Finance, 32, 2667-2673, (2008) |

[35] | Zhu, S.; Fukushima, M., Worst case conditional value at risk with applications to robust portfolio management, Operations Research, 57, 5, 1155-1168, (2009) · Zbl 1233.91254 |

This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.