Skip to main content
Log in

Uncertain portfolio adjusting model using semiabsolute deviation

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the financial markets are complex, sometimes the future security returns are represented mainly based on experts’ judgments. This paper discusses a portfolio adjusting problem with risky assets in which security returns are given subject to experts’ estimations. Here, we propose uncertain mean-semiabsolute deviation adjusting models for portfolio optimization problem in the trade-off between risk and return on investment. Various uncertainty distributions of the security returns based on experts’ evaluations are used to convert the proposed models into equivalent deterministic forms. Finally, numerical examples with synthetic uncertain returns are illustrated to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed models and the influence of transaction cost in portfolio selection.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnott RD, Wagner WH (1990) The measurement and control of trading costs. Financ Anal J 46(6):73–80

  • Baule R (2010) Optimal portfolio selection for the small investor considering risk and transaction costs. OR Spectr 32:61–76

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bertsimas D, Pachamanova D (2008) Robust multiperiod portfolio management in the presence of transaction costs. Comput Oper Res 35:3–17

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Liu Y, Ralescu DA (2013) Uncertain stock model with periodic dividends. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 12(1):111–123

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Choi UJ, Jang B, Koo H (2007) An algorithm for optimal portfolio selection problem with transaction costs and random lifetimes. Appl Math Comput 191(1):239–252

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fang Y, Lai K, Wang S (2006) Portfolio rebalancing model with transaction costs based on fuzzy decision theory. Eur J Oper Res 175(2):879–893

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gao Y (2011) Shortest path problem with uncertain arc lengths. Comput Math Appl 62(6):2591–2600

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Glen JJ (2011) Mean-variance portfolio rebalancing with transaction costs and funding changes. J Oper Res Soc 62:667–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang X (2011) Mean-risk model for uncertain portfolio selection. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 10:71–89

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huang X, Qiao L (2012) A risk index models for multi-period uncertain portfolio selection. Inf Sci 217:108–116

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huang X, Ying H (2013) Risk index based models for portfolio adjusting problem with returns subject to experts evaluations. Econ Model 30:61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konno H, Yamazaki H (1991) Mean absolute portfolio optimisation model and its application to Tokyo stock market. Manag Sci 37(5):519–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee W, Yu J (2011) Portfolio rebalancing model using multiple criteria. Eur J Oper Res 209(2):166–175

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Qin Z (2014) Interval portfolio selection models within the framework of uncertainity theory. Econ Model 41(1):338–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li S, Peng J, Zhang B (2013) The uncertain premium principle based on the distortion function. Insur Math Econ 53:317–324

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liu B (2007) Uncertainity theory, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

  • Liu B (2010) Uncertainty theory: a branch of mathematics for modeling human uncertainty, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Qin Z (2012) Mean semi-absolute deviation model for uncertain portfolio optimization problem. J Uncertain Syst 6(4):299–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobo MS, Fazel M, Boyd S (2007) Portfolio optimization with linear and fixed transaction costs. Ann Oper Res 152:341–365

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz H (1993) Computation of mean-semivariance efficient sets by the critical line algorithm. Ann Oper Res 45:307–317

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton AJ, Pliska SR (1995) Optimal portfolio management with transaction costs. Math Financ 5(4):337–356

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ning Y, Liu J, Yan L (2013) Uncertain aggregate production planning. Soft Comput 17(4):617–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel N, Subrahmanyam M (1982) A simple algorithm for optimal portfolio selection with fixed transaction costs. Manag Sci 28(3):303–314

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Qin Z, Kar S (2013) Single-period inventory problem under uncertain environment. Appl Math Comput 219(18):9630–9638

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Qin Z, Kar S, Li X (2009) Developments of mean-variance model for portfolio selection in uncertain environment. http://orsc.edu.cn/online/090511

  • Simaan Y (1997) Estimation risk in portfolio selection: the mean variance model and the mean-absolute deviation model. Manag Sci 43:1437–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speranza MG (1993) Linear programming model for portfolio optimization. Finance 14:107–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen M, Qin Z, Kang R (2014) The \(\alpha \)-cost minimization model for capacitated facility location-allocation problem with uncertain demands. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 13:345–356

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wen M, Qin Z, Yang Y (2014) Sensitivity and stability analysis of the additive model in uncertain data envelopment analysis. Soft Comput. doi:10.1007/s00500-014-1385-7 (In press)

  • Yao K, Ji X (2014) Uncertain decision making and its application to portfolio selection problem. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 22(1):113–123

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshimoto A (1996) The mean-variance approach to portfolio optimization subject to transaction costs. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 39(1):99–117

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Zhang X, Chen Y (2011) Portfolio adjusting optimization with added assets and transaction costs based on credibility measures. Insur Math Econ 49:353–360

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Y (2010) Uncertain optimal control with application to a portfolio selection model. Cybern Syst 41(7):535–547

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71371019 and 71371021), and in part by the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (No. NCET-12-0026).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhongfeng Qin.

Additional information

Communicated by V. Loia.

Appendix

Appendix

Proof of Theorem 1

Note that \(\sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\) is also an uncertain variable. It immediately follows from Lemmas 1 and 3 of Sect. 2 that the theorem holds.

Proof of Theorem 2

Assume that there exists \(k\in \{1,2,\ldots ,n\}\) such that \(\hat{x}_k^+>0\) and \(\hat{x}_k^->0\). Without loss of generality, it is assumed that \(\hat{x}_k^+ > \hat{x}_k^-\). The optimal holding quantity of security \(i\) after adjusting is \(\hat{x}_k=x_k^0+\hat{x}_k^+-\hat{x}_k^-\). We set \(\tilde{x}_k^+=\hat{x}_k^+-\hat{x}_k^-\) and \(\tilde{x}_k^-=0\). It is evident that \(\tilde{x}_k^+\cdot \tilde{x}_k^-=0\), \(\tilde{x}_k^+,\tilde{x}_k^-\ge 0\) and \(\tilde{x}_k=x_k^0+\tilde{x}_k^+-\tilde{x}_k^-=\hat{x}_k\) which implies that \((\hat{x}_1^+,\ldots ,\hat{x}_{k-1}^+,\tilde{x}_k^+,\hat{x}_{k+1}^+,\ldots ,\hat{x}_n^+, \hat{x}_1^-,\ldots ,\hat{x}_{k-1}^-,\tilde{x}_k^-,\hat{x}_{k+1}^-,\ldots ,\hat{x}_n^-)\) is a feasible solution of Model (8). Note that

$$\begin{aligned}&r(\hat{x}_1,\ldots ,\hat{x}_{k-1},\tilde{x}_k,\hat{x}_{k+1},\ldots ,\hat{x}_n)\\&\qquad -r(\hat{x}_1,\ldots ,\hat{x}_{k-1},\hat{x}_k,\hat{x}_{k+1},\ldots ,\hat{x}_n)\\&\quad =(b_k+s_k)\hat{x}_k^->0 \end{aligned}$$

which means that \(E[r(\hat{x}_1,\ldots ,\hat{x}_{k-1},\tilde{x}_k,\hat{x}_{k+1},\ldots ,\hat{x}_n)] >E[r(\hat{x}_1,\ldots ,\hat{x}_{k-1},\hat{x}_k,\hat{x}_{k+1},\ldots ,\hat{x}_n)]\). In addition, since \(\tilde{x}_k=\hat{x}_k\), the return on the portfolio \((\hat{x}_1,\ldots ,\hat{x}_{k-1},\tilde{x}_k,\hat{x}_{k+1},\ldots ,\hat{x}_n)\) has the same semiabsolute deviation as that on the portfolio \((\hat{x}_1,\ldots ,\hat{x}_{k-1},\hat{x}_k,\hat{x}_{k+1},\ldots ,\hat{x}_n)\). Therefore, it is in contradiction to that \((\hat{x}_1^+,\ldots ,\hat{x}_n^+,\hat{x}_1^-,\ldots ,\hat{x}_n^-)\) is Pareto optimal. The theorem is completed.

Proof of Theorem 3

It follows from the operational law of uncertain variables that the portfolio return \(\sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i =(\sum _{i=1}^nx_ic_i,\sum _{i=1}^nx_id_i)\) is also a linear uncertain variable with expected value \(\sum _{i=1}^nx_i(d_i+c_i)/2\). Further, we have

$$\begin{aligned}&E\left[ \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\right] -\sum _{i=1}^n(b_ix_i^++s_ix_i^-)\\&\qquad =\frac{1}{2}\left( \sum _{i=1}^nx_i(d_i+c_i)-2\sum _{i=1}^n(b_ix_i^++s_ix_i^-)\right) . \end{aligned}$$

Therefore, the second objective is equivalent to maximize the term in parentheses on the right-hand side of the above equation. In addition, it follows from Liu and Qin (2012) that

$$\begin{aligned} Sa\left[ \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\right] =\frac{1}{8}\sum _{i=1}^nx_i(d_i-c_i). \end{aligned}$$

Note that since \(x_i\ge 0\) and \(d_i>c_i\) for \(i=1,2,\ldots ,n\), we have \(\sum _{i=1}^nx_i(d_i-c_i)\ge 0\) which implies that the first objective is equivalent to minimize it. The theorem is proved.

Proof of Theorem 4

It follows that the portfolio return

$$\begin{aligned} \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i =\left( \sum _{i=1}^nx_i(a_i-\alpha _i),\sum _{i=1}^nx_ia_i,\sum _{i=1}^nx_i(a_i+\beta _i)\right) \end{aligned}$$

is also a zigzag uncertain variable. According to the definition of expected value, we have \(E[\sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i]=\sum _{i=1}^nx_i(4a_i+\beta _i-\alpha _i)/4\) which implies that the second objective is equivalent to maximize \(\sum _{i=1}^nx_i(4a_i+\beta _i-\alpha _i)-4\sum _{i=1}^n(b_ix_i^++s_ix_i^-)\). Further, by the definition of semiabsolute deviation of uncertain variable, it is obtained that

$$\begin{aligned} Sa\left[ \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\right] \!=\!\frac{\left[ \sum _{i=1}^n2x_i(\alpha _i\!+\!\beta _i)\!+\!\left| \sum _{i=1}^nx_i(\alpha _i\!-\!\beta _i)\right| \right] ^2}{\sum _{i=1}^nx_i(\alpha _i\!+\!\beta _i)\!+\!\left| \sum _{i=1}^nx_i(\alpha _i\!-\!\beta _i)\right| }. \end{aligned}$$

Substituting the semiabsolute deviation of the portfolio return into the first objective, the theorem is proved.

Proof of Theorem 5

It follows from the operational law of normal uncertain variables that the portfolio return \(\sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\sim \mathcal {N}(\sum _{i=1}^nx_ie_i,\) \(\sum _{i=1}^nx_i\sigma _i)\) is also a normal uncertain variable. Further, it follows from the definitions of expected value and semiabsolute deviation of uncertain variables that

$$\begin{aligned}&E\left[ \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\right] =\sum \limits _{i=1}^ne_ix_i\ge 0,\\&Sa\left[ \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\right] =\frac{\sqrt{3}\ln 2}{\pi }\sum \limits _{i=1}^n\sigma _ix_i\ge 0 \end{aligned}$$

in which non-negativity holds due to non-negativity of \(x_i,e_i\) and \(\sigma _i\) for \(i=1,2,\ldots ,n\). Substituting them into the two objective functions in Model (9), the theorem is proved.

Proof of Theorem 6

The second objective holds since \(E[\xi _i]=\int _0^1\Phi _i^{-1}(\alpha )\mathrm{d}\alpha \) for \(i=1,2,\ldots ,n\) by Lemma 1. According to the definition of semiabsolute deviation of uncertain variable, we have

$$\begin{aligned} Sa\left[ \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\right]&= \int _0^{+\infty }\mathcal {M}\left\{ \min \left\{ \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i\right. \right. \\&\left. \left. -\sum _{i=1}^nx_i\int _0^1\Phi _i^{-1}(\alpha )\mathrm{d}\alpha ,0\right\} \ge r\right\} \mathrm{d}r\\&= \int _{-\infty }^{\sum _{i=1}^nx_i\int _0^1\Phi _i^{-1}(\alpha )\mathrm{d}\alpha }\mathcal {M}\left\{ \sum _{i=1}^n\xi _ix_i{\le } r\right\} \mathrm{d}r. \end{aligned}$$

Note that since \(x_i\ge 0\) for \(i=1,2,\ldots ,n\), it follows from the operational law (Liu 2010) that \(\xi _1x_1+\xi _2x_2\cdots +\xi _nx_n\) has an inverse uncertainty distribution \(\Psi _1^{-1}(\alpha ) = x_1\Phi _1^{-1}(\alpha )+x_2\Phi _2^{-1}(\alpha )\cdots +x_n\Phi _n^{-1}(\alpha )\). For any given r, the value of \(\Psi (r)=M\{\xi _1x_1+\cdots +\xi _nx_n\le r\}\) is just the root of the equation \(\Psi _1^{-1}(\alpha ) = r\), i.e., \(x_1\Phi _1^{-1}(\alpha )+\cdots +x_n\Phi _n^{-1}(\alpha )=r\). Substituting it into the expression of \(Sa[\xi _1x_1+\xi _2x_2\cdots +\xi _nx_n]\), the first objective function is obtained. The theorem is proved.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qin, Z., Kar, S. & Zheng, H. Uncertain portfolio adjusting model using semiabsolute deviation. Soft Comput 20, 717–725 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1535-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1535-y

Keywords

Navigation