Skip to main content

On Relation Betweeen Expected Regret and Conditional Value-at-Risk

  • Chapter
Handbook of Computational and Numerical Methods in Finance

Abstract

The paper compares portfolio optimization approaches with expected regret and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) performance functions. The expected regret is defined as an average portfolio underperformance comparing to a fixed target or some benchmark portfolio. For continuous distributions, CVaR is defined as the expected loss exceeding α-Value-at Risk (VaR), i.e., the mean of the worst (1-α) 100% losses in a specified time period. However, generally, CVaR is the weighted average of VaR and losses exceeding VaR. Optimization of CVaR can be performed using linear programming. We formally prove that a portfolio with a continuous loss distribution, which minimizes CVaR, can be obtained by doing a line search with respect to the threshold in the expected regret. An optimal portfolio in CVaR sense is also optimal in the expected regret sense for some threshold in the regret function. The inverse statement is also valid, i.e., if a portfolio minimizes the expected regret, this portfolio can be found by doing a line search with respect to the CVaR confidence level. A portfolio, optimal in expected regret sense, is also optimal in CVaR sense for some confidence level. The relation of the expected regret and CVaR minimization approaches is explained with a numerical example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acerbi, C, C. Nordio and C. Sirtori (2001): Expected shortfall as a tool for financial risk management. Working paper, http://www.gloriamundi.org.

  2. Acerbi, C, and D. Tasche (2001): On the coherence of expected shortfall. Working paper, http://www.gloriamundi.org.

  3. Andersson, F., H. Mausser, D. Rosen, and S. Uryasev (2001): Credit Risk Optimization with Conditional Value-at-Risk Criterion. Mathematical Programming, Series B 89, 2001, 273–291.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Artzner, P., F. Delbaen, J.M. Eber, and D. Heat (1997): Thinking Coherently, Risk, Vol. 10, 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bogentoft E., H.E. Romeijn, and S. Uryasev (2001): Asset/Liability Management for Pension Funds Using CVaR Constraints. The Journal of Risk Finance. Vol. 3, No. 1, 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brooke, A., D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, and R. Rosenthal (1992): GAMS, A User’s Guide. Redwood City, CA: Scientific Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cariño, D.R. and W.T. Ziemba (1998): Formulation of the Russell-Yasuda Kasai Financial Planning Model, Operations Research. Vol. 46, No. 4, 443–449.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dembo, R.S. and A.J. King (1992): Tracking Models and the Optimal Regret Distribution in Asset Location, Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis, Vol. 8, 151–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dembo, R.S. and D. Rosen (1999): The Practice of Portfolio Replication: A Practical Overview of Forward and Inverse Problems. Annals of Operations Research. Vol. 85, 267–284.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Embrechts, P. (1999): Extreme Value Theory as a Risk Management Tool, North American Actuarial Journal, vol. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  11. ILOG (1997): CPLEX, 6.0 ed. Mountain View, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jobst, N.J. and S.A. Zenios (2001): The Tail That Wags The Dog: Integrating Credit Risk In Asset Portfolios. The Journal of Risk Finance, Vol. 3, No. 1, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harlow, W.V. (1991): Asser Allocation in a Downside-Risk Framework. Fin. Anal. J., Vol. 47, No. 5, 28–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hurliman, W. (2001): Conditional Value-at-Risk bounds for Compound Poisson Risks and Normal Approximation. MPS: Applied mathematics/0201009. Working Paper, www.mathpreprints.com/math/Preprint/werner.huerlimann/20020111/1/.

  15. Konno, H. and H. Yamazaki (1991): Mean Absolute Deviation Portfolio Optimization Model and Its Application to Tokyo Stock Market. Management Science, 37, 519–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Krokhmal, P., J. Palmquist, and S. Uryasev (2002): Portfolio Optimization with Conditional Value-at-Risk Objective and Constraints. The Journal of Risk, Vol. 4, No. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Markowitz, H.M. (1952): Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance. Vol. 7, No. 1, 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Krokhmal. P., J. Palmquist, and S. Uryasev (2002): Portfolio Optimization with Conditional Value-At-Risk Objective and Constraints. The Journal of Risk, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pflug, G. Ch. (2000): Some Remarks on the Value-at-Risk and the Conditional Value-at-Risk. In. Uryasev S. (Ed.) Probabilistic Constrained Optimization: Methodology and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Prekopa, A. (1995): Stochastic Programming, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rockafellar, R.T. and S. Uryasev (2000): Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk. The Journal of Risk, Vol. 2, No. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rockafellar R.T. and S. Uryasev (2002): Conditional Value-at-Risk for General Loss Distributions. The Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 26, No. 7, 1443–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Uryasev, S. (1995). Derivatives of Probability Functions and Some Applications. Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 56, 287–311.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Young, M.R. (1998): A Minimax Portfolio Selection Rule with Linear Programming Solution. Management Science. Vol. 44, No. 5, 673–683.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Ziemba, W.T. and J.M. Mulvey (Eds.) (1998): Worldwide Asset and Liability Modeling, Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zenios, S.A. (Eds.) (1996): Financial Optimization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Testuri, C.E., Uryasev, S. (2004). On Relation Betweeen Expected Regret and Conditional Value-at-Risk. In: Rachev, S.T. (eds) Handbook of Computational and Numerical Methods in Finance. Birkhäuser, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-8180-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-8180-7_10

  • Publisher Name: Birkhäuser, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-6476-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-8176-8180-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics