Optimization and Engineering

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 467–497 | Cite as

Adjusted robust mean-value-at-risk model: less conservative robust portfolios

Article

Abstract

We examine the robust mean-VaR portfolio optimization problem when a parametric approach is used for estimating VaR. A robust optimization formulation is used to accommodate estimation risk, and we obtain an analytic solution when there is a risk-free asset and short-selling is allowed. This renders the model computationally tractable. Further, to avoid the conservatism of robust optimal portfolios, we suggest an adjusted robust optimization approach. Empirically, we evaluate the out-of-sample performance of the new approach, the robustness of obtained solutions and level of conservatism of the resulting portfolios. The empirical results highlight some benefits of our approach.

Keywords

Mean-value-at-risk Estimation error Solution robustness Structure robustness Robust optimization Conservatism 

Mathematics Subject Classification

91G10 62H12 90C22 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank anonymous referees for their constructive comments which led to significant improvement on the early draft of this paper.

References

  1. Abad P, Benito S, López C (2014) A comprehensive review of value at risk methodologies. Span Rev Financ Econ 12(1):15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander GJ, Baptista AM (2002) Economic implications of using a mean-VaR model for portfolio selection: a comparison with mean-variance analysis. J Econ Dyn Control 26(7–8):1159–1193MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Alizadeh F, Goldfarb D (2003) Second-order cone programming. Math Program 95(1):3–51MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Basak S, Shapiro A (2001) Value-at-risk-based risk management: optimal policies and asset prices. Rev Financ Stud 14(2):371–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck A, Ben-Tal A (2009) Duality in robust optimization: primal worst equals dual best. Oper Res Lett 37(1):1–6MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A (2001) Lectures on modern convex optimization: analysis, algorithms, and engineering applications. MPS-SIAM series on optimization. PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. Benati S, Rizzi R (2007) A mixed integer linear programming formulation of the optimal mean/value-at-risk portfolio problem. Eur J Oper Res 176(1):423–434MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Best MJ, Grauer RR (1991) Sensitivity analysis for mean-variance portfolio problems. Manag Sci 37(8):980–989CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Brinkmann U (2007) Robuste asset allocation. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Bremen, BremenGoogle Scholar
  10. Ceria S, Stubbs RA (2006) Incorporating estimation errors into portfolio selection: Robust portfolio construction. Journal of Asset Management 7(2):109–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chopra VK, Ziemba WT (1993) The effect of errors in means, variances, and covariances on optimal portfolio choice. J Portf Manag 19(2):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Consiglio A, Lotfi S, Zenios S (2016) Portfolio diversification in the sovereign CDS market. Working Paper No. 16-06, The Wharton Financial Institutions Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. DeMiguel V, Nogales FJ (2009) Portfolio selection with robust estimation. Oper Res 57(3):560–577MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaivoronski AA, Pflug G (2005) Value-at-risk in portfolio optimization: properties and computational approach. J Risk 7(2):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldfarb D, Iyengar G (2003) Robust portfolio selection problems. Math Oper Res 28(1):1–38MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant M, Boyd S (2013) CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0 beta. http://cvxr.com/cvx
  17. Jobson JD, Korkie BM (1981) Performance hypothesis testing with the Sharpe and Treynor measures. J Financ 36(4):889–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamdem JS (2005) Value-at-risk and expected shortfall for linear portfolios with elliptically distributed risk factors. Int J Theor Appl Financ 08(05):537–551MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Lotfi S, Zenios S (2016) Equivalence of robust VaR and CVaR optimization under ambiguity. Working Paper No. 16-03, The Wharton Financial Institutions Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Memmel C (2003) Performance hypothesis testing with the Sharpe ratio. Financ Lett 1(1):21–23Google Scholar
  21. Mulvey JM, Vanderbei RJ, Zenios SA (1995) Robust optimization of large-scale systems. Oper Res 43(2):264–281MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Paç AB, Pınar MÇ (2014) Robust portfolio choice with CVaR and VaR under distribution and mean return ambiguity. Top 22(3):875–891MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Pınar MÇ (2013) Static and dynamic var constrained portfolios with application to delegated portfolio management. Optimization 62(11):1419–1432MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Pınar MÇ (2016) On robust mean-variance portfolios. Optimization 65(5):1039–1048MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Santos A (2010) The out-of-sample performance of robust portfolio optimization. Braz Rev Financ 8(May):1–29Google Scholar
  26. Schottle K, Werner R (2009) Robustness properties of mean-variance portfolios. Optimization 58(6):641–663MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of GuilanRashtIran

Personalised recommendations