## 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.

### 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## 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

### Corresponding author

## 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## About this article

### 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

Published:

Issue Date:

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