Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 266, Issue 1–2, pp 373–394 | Cite as

Portfolio management with benchmark related incentives under mean reverting processes

  • Marco NicolosiEmail author
  • Flavio Angelini
  • Stefano Herzel
Analytical Models for Financial Modeling and Risk Management


We study the problem of a fund manager whose compensation depends on the relative performance with respect to a benchmark index. In particular, the fund manager’s risk-taking incentives are induced by an increasing and convex relationship of fund flows to relative performance. We consider a dynamically complete market with N risky assets and the money market account, where the dynamics of the risky assets exhibit mean reversions, either in the drift or in the volatility. The manager optimizes the expected utility of the final wealth, with an objective function that is non-concave. The optimal solution is found by using the martingale approach and a concavification method. The optimal wealth and the optimal strategy are determined by solving a system of Riccati equations. We provide a semi-closed solution based on the Fourier transform.


Investment analysis Portfolio management Optimal control Mean reverting processes Fourier transform 


  1. Angelini, F., & Herzel, S. (2015). Evaluating discrete dynamic strategies in affine models. Quantitative Finance, 15(2), 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelini, F., & Nicolosi, M. (2010). On the effect of skewness and kurtosis misspecification on the hedging error. Economic Notes, 39(3), 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barucci, E., & Marazzina, D. (2015). Risk seeking, nonconvex remuneration and regime switching. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 18(02), 150009. doi: 10.1142/S0219024915500090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barucci, E., & Marazzina, D. (2016). Asset management, High Water Mark and flow of funds. Operations Research Letters, 44(5), 607–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basak, S., Pavlova, A., & Shapiro, A. (2007). Optimal asset allocation and risk shifting in money management. The Review of Financial Studies, 20(5), 1583–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beltratti, A., & Colla, P. (2007). A portfolio-based evaluation of affine term structure models. Annals of Operations Research, 151(1), 193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Björk, T. (2009). Arbitrage theory in continuous time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, K. C., Van Harlow, W., & Starks, L. T. (1996). Of tournaments and temptations: An analysis of managerial incentives in the mutual fund industry. The Journal of Finance, 51(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busse, J. A. (2001). Another look at mutual fund tournaments. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, J. N. (2000). Does option compensation increase managerial risk appetite? Journal of Finance, 55, 2311–2331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr, P., & Madan, D. (1999). Option valuation using the fast Fourier transform. Journal of Computational Finance, 2(4), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chevalier, J., & Ellison, G. (1997). Risk taking by mutual funds as a response to incentives. The Journal of Political Economy, 105, 1167–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, J. C., & Huang, C. F. (1989). Optimal consumptions and portfolio policies when asset prices follow a diffusion process. Journal of Economic Theory, 49, 33–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuoco, D., & Kaniel, R. (2011). Equilibrium prices in the presence of delegated portfolio management. Journal of Financial Economics, 101, 264–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffie, D., Filipović, D., & Schachermayer, W. (2003). Affine processes and applications in finance. Annals of Applied Probability, 13, 984–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duffie, D., & Kan, R. (1996). A yield-factor model of interest rates. Mathematical Finance, 6, 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eberlein, E., Glau, K., & Papapantoleon, A. (2010). Analysis of Fourier transform valuation formulas and applications. Applied Mathematical Finance, 17(3), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filipović, D. (2009). Term structure models. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fusai, G., & Meucci, A. (2007). Pricing discretely monitored Asian options under Lévy processes. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(10), 2076–2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hainaut, D. (2009). Dynamic asset allocation under VaR constraint with stochastic interest rates. Annals of Operations Research, 172(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hubalek, F., Kallsen, J., & Krawczyk, L. (2006). Variance-optimal hedging for processes with stationary independent increments. The Annals of Applied Probability, 16(2), 853–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karatzas, I., & Shreve, S. E. (1991). Brownian motion and stochastic calculus. Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Vol. 113). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Merton, R. (1971). Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. Journal of Economic Theory, 3, 373–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poterba, J. M., & Summers, L. H. (1988). Mean reversion in stock prices: Evidence and implications. Journal of Financial Economics, 22, 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sirri, E. R., & Tufano, P. (1998). Costly search and mutual fund flows. The Journal of Finance, 53, 1589–1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stein, E. M., & Stein, J. C. (1991). Stock price distributions with stochastic volatility: An analytic approach. Review of Financial Studies, 4, 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wachter, J. A. (2002). Portfolio and consumption decisions under mean-reverting returns: An exact solution for complete markets. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 37, 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of PerugiaPerugiaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics and FinanceUniversity of Rome, Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations