Risk-Averse Portfolio Optimization via Stochastic Dominance Constraints

Chapter

Abstract

We consider the problem of constructing a portfolio of finitely many assets whose return rates are described by a discrete joint distribution. We present a new approach to portfolio selection based on stochastic dominance. The portfolio return rate in the new model is required to stochastically dominate a random benchmark. We formulate optimality conditions and duality relations for these models and construct equivalent optimization models with utility functions. Two different formulations of the stochastic dominance constraint: primal and inverse, lead to two dual problems that involve von Neuman–Morgenstern utility functions for the primal formulation and rank dependent (or dual) utility functions for the inverse formulation. The utility functions play the roles of Lagrange multipliers associated with the dominance constraints. In this way our model provides a link between the expected utility theory and the rank dependent utility theory. We also compare our approach to models using value at risk and conditional value at risk constraints. A numerical example illustrates the new approach.

Keywords

Portfolio optimization Stochastic dominance Stochastic order Risk Expected utility Duality Rank dependent utility Yaari’s dual utility Value at risk Conditional value at risk 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Dentcheva, D. 2005. Optimization models with probabilistic constraints. in Probabilistic and randomized methods for design under uncertainty, G. Calafiore and F. Dabbene (Eds.). Springer, London, pp. 49–97.Google Scholar
  2. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2003a. “Optimization under linear stochastic dominance.” Comptes Rendus de l’Academie Bulgare des Sciences 56(6), 6–11.Google Scholar
  3. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2003b. “Optimization under nonlinear stochastic dominance.” Comptes Rendus de l’Academie Bulgare des Sciences 56(7), 19–25.Google Scholar
  4. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2003c. “Optimization with stochastic dominance constraints.” SIAM Journal on Optimization 14, 548–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2004a. “Optimality and duality theory for stochastic optimization problems with nonlinear dominance constraints.” Mathematical Programming 99, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2004b. “Convexification of stochastic ordering constraints.” Comptes Rendus de l’Academie Bulgare des Sciences 57(3), 5–10.Google Scholar
  7. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2004c. “Semi-infinite probabilistic optimization: first order stochastic dominance constraints.” Optimization 53, 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2006a. “Portfolio optimization with stochastic dominance constraints.” Journal of Banking and Finance 30/2, 433–451.Google Scholar
  9. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2006b. “Inverse stochastic dominance constraints and rank dependent expected utility theory.” Mathematical Programming 108, 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2008. “Duality between coherent risk measures and stochastic dominance constraints in risk-averse optimization.” Pacific Journal of Optimization 4, 433–446.Google Scholar
  11. Dentcheva, D. and A. Ruszczyński. 2010. Inverse cutting plane methods for optimization problems with second order stochastic dominance constraints, Optimization in press.Google Scholar
  12. Elton, E. J., M. J. Gruber, S. J. Brown, and W. N. Goetzmann. 2006. Modern portfolio theory and investment analysis, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Fishburn, P. C.1964. Decision and value theory, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Fishburn, P.C. 1970. Utility theory for decision making, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Gastwirth, J. L. 1971. “A general definition of the Lorenz curve.” Econometrica 39, 1037–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hadar, J. and W. Russell. 1969. “Rules for ordering uncertain prospects.” The American Economic Review 59, 25–34.Google Scholar
  17. Hanoch, G. and H. Levy, 1969. “The efficiency analysis of choices involving risk.” Review of Economic Studies 36, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardy, G. H., J. E. Littlewood and G. Polya. 1934. Inequalities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Konno, H. and H. Yamazaki. 1991. “Mean-absolute deviation portfolio optimization model and its application to Tokyo stock market.” Management Science 37, 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehmann, E. 1955. “Ordered families of distributions.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 26, 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy, H. 2006. Stochastic dominance: investment decision making under uncertainty, 2nd ed., Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Lorenz, M. O. 1905. “Methods of measuring concentration of wealth.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 9, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markowitz, H. M. 1952. “Portfolio selection.” Journal of Finance 7, 77–91.Google Scholar
  24. Markowitz, H. M. 1959. Portfolio selection, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Markowitz, H. M. 1987. Mean-variance analysis in portfolio choice and capital markets, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Mosler, K. and M. Scarsini (Eds.). 1991. Stochastic orders and decision under risk, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, California.Google Scholar
  27. Muliere, P. and M. Scarsini, 1989. “A note on stochastic dominance and inequality measures.” Journal of Economic Theory 49, 314–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller, A. and D. Stoyan. 2002. Comparison methods for stochastic models and risks, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  29. Ogryczak, W. and A. Ruszczyński. 1999. “From stochastic dominance to mean-risk models: semideviations as risk measures.” European Journal of Operational Research 116, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ogryczak, W. and A. Ruszczyński. 2001. “On consistency of stochastic dominance and mean-semideviation models.” Mathematical Programming 89, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ogryczak, W. and A. Ruszczyński. 2002. “Dual stochastic dominance and related mean-risk models.” SIAM Journal on Optimization 13, 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prékopa, A. 2003. Probabilistic programming. in Stochastic Programming, Ruszczyński, A. and A. Shapiro. (Eds.). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 257–352.Google Scholar
  33. Quiggin, J. 1982. “A theory of anticipated utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quiggin, J. 1993. Generalized expected utility theory – the rank-dependent expected utility model, Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Quirk, J.P and R. Saposnik. 1962. “Admissibility and measurable utility functions.” Review of Economic Studies 29, 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rockafellar, R. T. and S. Uryasev. 2000. “Optimization of conditional value-at-risk.” Journal of Risk 2, 21–41.Google Scholar
  37. Rothschild, M. and J. E. Stiglitz. 1969. “Increasing risk: I. A definition.” Journal of Economic Theory 2, 225–243.Google Scholar
  38. Ruszczyński, A. and R.J. Vanderbei. 2003. “Frontiers of stochastically nondominated portfolios.” Econometrica 71, 1287–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of games and economic behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  40. Wang, S. S., V. R. Yong, and H.H. Panjer. 1997. “Axiomatic characterization of insurance prices.” Insurance Mathematics and Economics 21, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang, S. S. and V. R. Yong. 1998. “Ordering risks: expected utility versus Yaari’s dual theory of risk.” Insurance Mathematics and Economics 22, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitmore, G. A. and M. C. Findlay. (Eds.). 1978. Stochastic dominance: an approach to decision-making under risk, D.C.Heath, Lexington, MA.Google Scholar
  43. Yaari, M. E. 1987. “The dual theory of choice under risk.” Econometrica 55, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stevens Institute of TechnologyHobokenUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations