Conditional value at risk and related linear programming models for portfolio optimization
- 1.1k Downloads
Many risk measures have been recently introduced which (for discrete random variables) result in Linear Programs (LP). While some LP computable risk measures may be viewed as approximations to the variance (e.g., the mean absolute deviation or the Gini’s mean absolute difference), shortfall or quantile risk measures are recently gaining more popularity in various financial applications. In this paper we study LP solvable portfolio optimization models based on extensions of the Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) measure. The models use multiple CVaR measures thus allowing for more detailed risk aversion modeling. We study both the theoretical properties of the models and their performance on real-life data.
KeywordsPortfolio optimization Mean-risk models Linear programming Stochastic dominance Conditional Value at Risk Gini’s mean difference
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Acerbi, C. and P. Simonetti. (2002). “Portfolio Optimization with Spectral Measures of Risk.” Working Paper (http://gloriamundi.org).
- Mansini, R. and M.G. Speranza. (2005). “An Exact Approach for the Portfolio Selection Problem with Transaction Costs and Rounds.” IIE Transactions, 37, 919–929.Google Scholar
- Embrechts, P., C. Klüppelberg, and T. Mikosch. (1997). Modelling Extremal Events for Insurance and Finance. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Haimes, Y.Y. (1993). “Risk of Extreme Events and the Fallacy of the Expected Value.” Control and Cybernetics, 22, 7–31.Google Scholar
- Jorion, P. (2001). Value-at-Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk. NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Konno, H., and H. Yamazaki. (1991). “Mean-Absolute Deviation Portfolio Optimization Model and Its Application to Tokyo Stock Market.” Management Science, 37, 519–531.Google Scholar
- Mansini, R., W. Ogryczak, and M.G. Speranza. (2003a). “On LP Solvable Models for Portfolio Selection.” Informatica, 14, 37–62.Google Scholar
- Mansini, R., W. Ogryczak, and M.G. Speranza. (2003c). “Conditional Value at Risk and Related Linear Programming Models for Portfolio Optimization.” Tech. Report 03–02, Warsaw Univ. of Technology.Google Scholar
- Ogryczak, W. (1999). “Stochastic Dominance Relation and Linear Risk Measures.” In A.M.J. Skulimowski (ed.), Financial Modelling—Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the EURO Working Group on Financial Modelling. Cracow: Progress & Business Publ., 191–212.Google Scholar
- Ogryczak, W. (2002). “Multiple Criteria Optimization and Decisions under Risk.” Control and Cybernetics, 31, 975–1003.Google Scholar
- Pflug, G.Ch. (2000). “Some Remarks on the Value-at-Risk and the Conditional Value-at-Risk.” In S.Uryasev (ed.), Probabilistic Constrained Optimization: Methodology and Applications, Dordrecht: Kluwer A.P.Google Scholar
- Rockafellar, R.T. and S. Uryasev. (2000). “Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk.” Journal of Risk, 2, 21–41.Google Scholar
- Rockafellar, R.T., S. Uryasev, and M. Zabarankin. (2002). “Deviation Measures in Generalized Linear Regression.” Research Report 2002-9, Univ. of Florida, ISE.Google Scholar
- Shalit, H. and S. Yitzhaki. (1994). “Marginal Conditional Stochastic Dominance.” Management Science, 40, 670–684.Google Scholar
- Sharpe, W.F. (1971b). “Mean-Absolute Deviation Characteristic Lines for Securities and Portfolios.” Management Science, 8, B1–B13.Google Scholar
- Simaan, Y. (1997). “Estimation Risk in Portfolio Selection: The Mean Variance Model and the Mean-Absolute Deviation Model.” Management Science, 43, 1437–1446.Google Scholar
- Speranza, M.G. (1993). “Linear Programming Models for Portfolio Optimization.” Finance, 14, 107–123.Google Scholar
- Whitmore, G.A., and M.C. Findlay (eds.). (1978). Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision–Making Under Risk. Lexington MA: D.C.Heath.Google Scholar
- Yitzhaki, S. (1982). “Stochastic Dominance, Mean Variance, and Gini’s Mean Difference.” American Economic Revue, 72, 178–185.Google Scholar