Optimization and Engineering

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 349–368 | Cite as

A multistage stochastic programming asset-liability management model: an application to the Brazilian pension fund industry

  • Alan Delgado de Oliveira
  • Tiago Pascoal Filomena
  • Marcelo  Scherer Perlin
  • Miguel Lejeune
  • Guilherme Ribeiro de Macedo


This paper proposes a multistage stochastic programming approach for the asset-liability management of Brazilian pension funds. We generate asset price scenarios with stochastic differential equations—Geometric Brownian Motion model for stocks and Cox–Ingersoll–Ross model for fixed income securities. Intertemporal solvency regulatory rules for Brazilian pension funds are considered endogenously in the model and enforced with a combinatorial constraint. A VaR probabilistic constraint is incorporated to obtain a positive funding ratio at each time period with high probability. Our approach uses multiple trees to provide a representative characterization of the uncertainty and is not computationally prohibitive. We evaluate the insolvency probability under different initial funding ratios through extensive simulations. The study reveals that the likely decrease of interest rate premiums in the next years will force pension fund managers to significantly change their portfolio strategies. They will have to take more risk in order to deliver the cash flows required to cover the liabilities and satisfy the regulatory constraints.


ALM Brazilian pension funds Stochastic optimization Scenario trees 



The authors thank the three anonymous referees and the two associate editors for their valuable comments and suggestions that greatly improved the quality of the paper. This work was funded by the following Brazilian Research Agencies: CAPES and FAPERGS.


  1. Adam A (2007) Handbook of asset and liability management: from models to optimal return strategies, 1st edn. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Asanga S, Asimit A, Badescu A, Haberman S (2014) Portfolio optimization under solvency constraints: a dynamical approach. North Am Actuar J 18(3):394–416MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asimit A, Badescu A, Siu TK, Zinchenko Y (2014) Capital requirements and optimal investment with solvency probability constraints. IMA J Manag Math, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  4. Becker F, Gurtler M, Hibbeln M (2015) Markowitz versus Michaud: portfolio optimization strategies reconsidered. Eur J Financ 21(4):269–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkelaar A, Kouwenberg R (2003) Retirement saving with contribution payments and labor income as a benchmark for investments. J Econ Dyn Control 27:1069–1097CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Boender GCE (1997) A hybrid simulation/optimisation scenario model for asset/liability management. Eur J Oper Res 99(1):126–135CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogentoft E, Romeijn HE, Uryasev S (2001) Asset/liability management for pension funds using cvar constraints. J Risk Financ 3:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley SP, Crane DB (1972) A dynamic model for bond portfolio management. Manag Sci 19:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brazilian Association of Closed Supplementary Pension Funds (2014) Consolidade estatístico. Accessed 05 Jan 2015
  10. Brazilian Central Bank (2012) Resolution number 3792. Accessed 05 Jan 2015
  11. Cariño DR, Kent T, Meyers DH, Stacy C, Sylvanus M, Turner AL, Watanabe K, Ziemba WT (1994) The Russel-Yasuda Kasai model: an asset/liability model for japanese insurance company using multistage stochastic programming. Interfaces 24(1):29–49CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Consigli G, Dempster MAH (1998) Dynamic stochastic programming for asset—liability management. Ann Oper Res 81:131–161MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Consiglio A, Staino A (2012) A stochastic programming model for the optimal issuance of government bonds. Ann Oper Res 193(1):159–172MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Consiglio A, Saunders D, Zenios SA (2006) Asset and liability management for insurance products with minimum guarantees: the UK case. J Bank Financ 30(2):645–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Consiglio A, Cocco F, Zenios SA (2007) Scenario optimization asset and liability modelling for individual investors. Ann Oper Res 152(1):167–191MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Consiglio A, Tummiello M, Zenios S (2015) Designing guarantee options in defined contribution pension plans. Insur Math Econ 26:267–279MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Consiglio A, Carollo A, Zenios SA (2016) A parsimonious model for generating arbitrage-free scenario trees. Quant Financ 16(2):201–212MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox JC, Ingersoll JE, Ross SA (1985) A theory of the term structure of interest rates. Econometrica 53(2):385–408MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Date P, Canepa A, Abdel-Jawad M (2011) A mixed integer linear programming model for optimal sovereign debt issuance. Eur J Oper Res 214(3):749–758MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dempster MAH, Germano M, Medova EA (2003) Global asset liability management. Br Actuar J 9:137–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duffie D (2001) Dynamic asset pricing theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Dupačová J, Polívka J (2009) Asset-liability management for Czech pension funds using stochastic programming. Ann Oper Res 165:5–28MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferstl R, Weissensteiner A (2011) Asset-liability management under time-varying investment opportunities. J Bank Financ 35(1):47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Figueiredo D (2011) Investiment decision making for defined benefit Pension Funds: an multistage stochastic linear programing approach (in Portuguese). Master’s thesis, School of Engineering - São Paulo State University, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  25. Fletcher J, Hillier J (2001) An examination of resampled portfolio efficiency. Financ Anal J 57(5):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frahm G (2015) A theoretical foundation of portfolio resampling. Theory Decis 79(1):107–132MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Frangos C, Zenios S, Yavin Y (2004) Computation of feasible portfolio control strategies for an insurance company using a discrete time asset/liability model. Math Comput Model 40(3G4):423–446MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Gülpinar N, Pachamanova D (2013) A robust optimization approach to asset-liability management under time-varying investment opportunities. J Bank Financ 37(6):2031–2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haneveld WKK, Streutker MH, Van der Vlerk MH (2010) An ALM model for pension funds using integrated chance constraints. Ann Oper Res 177(1):47–62MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Høyland K, Wallace SW (2001) Generating scenario trees for multistage decision problems. Manag Sci 47(2):295–307CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Josa-Fombellida R, Rincón-Zapatero JP (2012) Stochastic pension funding when the benefit and the risky asset follow jump diffusion processes. Eur J Oper Res 220(2):404–413MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Kilianová S, Pflug GC (2009) Optimal pension fund management under multi-period risk minimization. Ann Oper Res 166(1):261–270MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim S, Pasupathy R, Henderson S (2014) A guide to sample average approximation. In: Fu M (ed) Handbook of simulation optimization, International series in operations research and management science. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim TS, Omberg E (1996) Dynamic nonmyopic portfolio behavior. Rev Financ Stud 9:141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klaassen P (2002) Comment on generating scenario trees for multistage decision problems. Manag Sci 48(11):1512–1516CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Kouwenberg R (2001) Scenario generation and stochastic programming models for asset liability management. Eur J Oper Res 134(1):279–292MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Linderoth J, Shapiro A, Wright S (2006) The empirical behavior of sampling methods for stochastic programming. Ann Oper Res 142(1):215–241MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J Financ 7:77–91Google Scholar
  39. Markowitz H, Usmen N (2003) Resampled frontiers versus diffuse bayes: an experiment. J Invest Manag 1(4):9–25Google Scholar
  40. Merton RC (1973) Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. J Econ Theory 3:373–413MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Merton RC (2001) Continuous-time finance. Blackwell Publishers Ltda, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Michaud R (1998) Efficient asset management: a practical guide to stock portfolio optimization and asset allocation, 1st edn. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  43. Michaud R, Michaud R (2008) Efficient asset management: a practical guide to stock portfolio optimization and asset allocation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Milevsky MA (1998) Optimal asset allocation towards the end of the life cycle: to annuitize or not to annuitize? J Risk Insur 65(3):401–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ministry of Social Welfare (2008) Cgpc resolution number 26. Accessed 05 Jan 2015
  46. Mitra G, Schwaiger K (eds) (2011) Asset and liability management handbook, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  47. Mukuddem-Petersen J, Petersen MA (2008) Optimizing asset and capital adequacy management in banking. J Optim Theory Appl 137(1):205–230MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Neftci SN (1996) An introduction to the mathematics of financial derivatives, 1st edn. Academic Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Nielsen SS, Poulsen R (2004) A two-factor, stochastic programming model of danish mortgage backed securities. J Econ Dyn Control 28:1267–1289MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Pedersen AMB, Weissensteiner A, Poulsen R (2013) Financial planning for young households. Ann Oper Res 205(1):55–76CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Rasmussen KM, Clausen J (2007) Mortgage loan portfolio optimization using multi-stage stochastic programming. J Econ Dyn Control 31:742–766MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S (2000) Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J Risk 2:21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scherer B (2002) Portfolio resampling: review and critique. Financ Anal J 58(6):98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siegmann A, Lucas A (2005) Discrete-time financial planning models under loss-averse preferences. Oper Res 53(3):403–414MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Ulf H, Raimond M (2006) Portfolio choice and estimation risk. A comparison of bayesian to heuristic approaches. Astin Bull 36(1):135–160MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Uryasev S, Theiler UA, Serraino G (2010) Risk-return optimization with different risk-aggregation strategies. J Risk Financ 11(2):129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Valladão DM, Veiga A (2014) A multistage linear stochastic programming model for optimal corporate debt management. Eur J Oper Res 237(1):303–311MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Vasicek O (1977) An equilibrium characterization of the term structure. J Financ Econ 5:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wachter J (2002) Portfolio and consumption decisions under mean-reverting returns: an exact solution. J Financ Quant Anal 37:63–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zenios SA, Ziemba WT (2006) Handbook of asset and liability management—vol 1: Theory and Methodology, 1st edn. Elsevier, UKGoogle Scholar
  61. Zenios SA, Ziemba WT (2007) Handbook of asset and liability management—vol 2: applications and case studies, 1st edn. Elsevier, UKGoogle Scholar
  62. Ziemba WT (2003) The stochastic programming approach to asset. Liability and wealth management. AIMR Publisher, Vancouver, Canada and Londres, EnglandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Delgado de Oliveira
    • 1
  • Tiago Pascoal Filomena
    • 1
  • Marcelo  Scherer Perlin
    • 1
  • Miguel Lejeune
    • 2
  • Guilherme Ribeiro de Macedo
    • 1
  1. 1.Business SchoolFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.GWSB, The George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations