Skip to main content
Log in

Convexity, two-fund separation and asset ranking in a mean-LPM portfolio selection framework

  • Original Article
  • Published:
OR Spectrum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses two most important problems of mean-lower partial moment (MLPM) portfolio selection theory, the convexity of efficient frontier and the availability of target returns that permit two-fund separation (TFS). The convexity of the efficient frontier is a very crucial property as it guarantees the existence of various important results. However, in the MLPM framework, the convexity has not been analytically proved yet. In this paper, we provide an analytical proof for this convexity. On the other hand, in the MLPM framework, the separation is guaranteed for two specific targets—risk-free rate and mean return. The question of which other targets admit the separation has not been solved for the last three decades. As a result, non-separation occurs with the use of arbitrary targets and thereby several pitfalls arise in the MLPM portfolio optimization and asset ranking (Brogan and Stidham, Eur J Oper Res 184(2):701–710, 2008; Hoechner et al., Int Rev Finance 17(4):597–610, 2017). We solve this problem by showing the existence and uniqueness of a generalized family of target returns that guarantees the MLPM separation. The discovery of generalized target provides a sound theoretical foundation to use a modified version of Kappa ratio which, unlike the usual Kappa ratio, always satisfies the maximum principle and the invariance property (Pedersen and Satchell, Quant Finance 2(3):217–223, 2002; Zakamouline, Quant Finance 14(4):699–710, 2014). Finally, we conduct empirical experiments that illustrate our theoretical results and unfold some interesting facts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is important to note that this paper emphasizes only on linear type separation.

References

  • Bawa VS (1976) Safety-first, stochastic dominance, and optimal portfolio choice. J Financ Quant Anal 13(2):255–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawa VS, Lindenberg EB (1977) Capital market equilibrium in a mean-lower partial moment framework. J Financ Econ 5(2):189–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brogan AJ, Stidham S (2008) Non-separation in the mean-lower-partial-moment portfolio optimization problem. Eur J Oper Res 184(2):701–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen L, He S, Zhang S (2011) Tight bounds for some risk measures, with applications to robust portfolio selection. Oper Res 59(4):847–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn PC (1977) Mean-risk analysis with risk associated with below-target returns. Am Econ Rev 67(2):116–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Grootveld H, Hallerbach W (1999) Variance vs downside risk: Is there really that much difference? Eur J Oper Res 114(2):304–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow WV (1991) Asset allocation in a downside-risk framework. Financ Anal J 47(5):28–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow WV, Rao RK (1989) Asset pricing in a generalized mean-lower partial moment framework: theory and evidence. J Financ Quant Anal 24(3):285–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoechner B, Reichling P, Schulze G (2017) Pitfalls of downside performance measures with arbitrary targets. Int Rev Financ 17(4):597–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan PD, Knowles JA (2004) Kappa: a generalized downside risk-adjusted performance measure. J Perform Meas 8:42–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Klebaner F, Landsman Z, Makov U, Yao J (2017) Optimal portfolios with downside risk. Quant Financ 17(3):315–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee WY, Rao RK (1988) Mean lower partial moment valuation and lognormally distributed returns. Manage Sci 34(4):446–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling A, Sun J, Wang M (2020) Robust multi-period portfolio selection based on downside risk with asymmetrically distributed uncertainty set. Eur J Oper Res 285(1):81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling A, Sun J, Yang X (2014) Robust tracking error portfolio selection with worst-case downside risk measures. J Econ Dyn Control 39:178–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J Financ 7(1):77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz HM (1970) Portfolio selection: efficient diversification of investments, Cowles foundation monograph series. Yale University Press

  • Mondal D, Selvaraju N (2019) A note on a mean-lower partial moment CAPM without risk-free asset. Oper Res Lett 47(4):264–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nawrocki DN (1999) A brief history of downside risk measures. J Invest 8(3):9–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogryczak W, Ruszczyński A (1999) From stochastic dominance to mean-risk models: semideviations as risk measures. Eur J Oper Res 116(1):33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen CS, Satchell SE (2002) On the foundation of performance measures under asymmetric returns. Quant Financ 2(3):217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman D, Mitra G (2009) Portfolio selection models: a review and new directions. Wilmott J: Int J Innov Quant Financ Res 1(2):69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe WF (1964) Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J Financ 19(3):425–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe WF (1966) Mutual fund performance. J Bus 39(1):119–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sortino FA, Price LN (1994) Performance measurement in a downside risk framework. J Invest 3(3):59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin J (1958) Liquidity preference as behavior towards risk. Rev Econ Stud 25(2):65–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakamouline V (2014) Portfolio performance evaluation with loss aversion. Quant Financ 14(4):699–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dipankar Mondal gratefully acknowledges the financial support from INSPIRE Fellowship, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. We thank the area editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dipankar Mondal.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mondal, D., Selvaraju, N. Convexity, two-fund separation and asset ranking in a mean-LPM portfolio selection framework. OR Spectrum 44, 225–248 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-021-00657-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-021-00657-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation