Skip to main content

Downside Risk Approach for Multi-Objective Portfolio Optimization

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Operations Research Proceedings 2011

Part of the book series: Operations Research Proceedings ((ORP))

Abstract

This paper presents a multi-objective portfolio model with the expected return as a performance measure and the expected worst-case return as a risk measure. The problems are formulated as a triple-objectivemixed integer program. One of the problem objectives is to allocate the wealth on different securities to optimize the portfolio return. The portfolio approach has allowed the two popular in financial engineering percentile measures of risk, value-at-risk (VaR) and conditional valueat- risk (CVaR) to be applied. The decision maker can assess the value of portfolio return and the risk level, and can decide how to invest in a real life situation comparing with ideal (optimal) portfolio solutions. The concave efficient frontiers illustrate the trade-off between the conditional value-at-risk and the expected return of the portfolio. Numerical examples based on historical daily input data from the Warsaw Stock Exchange are presented and selected computational results are provided. The computational experiments show that the proposed solution approach provides the decision maker with a simple tool for evaluating the relationship between the expected and the worst-case portfolio return.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

References

  1. Alexander GJ, Baptista AM. A Comparison of VaR and CVaR Constraints on Portfolio Selection with the Mean-Variance Model. Management Science. 2004;50(9):1261–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benati S, Rizzi R. A mixed integer linear programming formulation of the optimal mean/Value-at-Risk portfolio problem. European Journal of Operational Research. 2007;176:423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mansini R, Ogryczak W, Speranza MG. Conditional value at risk and related linear programming models for portfolio optimization. Annals of Operations Research. 2007;152:227–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Markowitz HM. Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance. 1952;7:77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ogryczak W. Multiple criteria linear programming model for portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research. 2000;97:143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S. Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. The Journal of Risk. 2000;2(3):21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S. Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. The Journal of Banking and Finance. 2002;26:1443–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sarykalin S., Serraino G., Uryasev S.: Value-at-Risk vs. Conditional Value-at-Risk in Risk Management and Optimization. In: Z-L. Chen, S. Raghavan, P. Gray (Eds.) Tutorials in Operations Research, INFORMS Annual Meeting,Washington D.C., USA, October 12–15 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sawik B. Conditional value-at-risk and value-at-risk for portfolio optimization model with weighting approach. Automatyka. 2011;15(2):429–434.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sawik B. A Bi-Objective Portfolio Optimization with Conditional Value-at-Risk. Decision Making in Manufacturing and Services. 2010;4(1–2):47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sawik B. Selected Multi-Objective Methods for Multi-Period Portfolio Optimization by Mixed Integer Programming. In: Lawrence KD, Kleinman G, editors. Applications of Management Science, Volume 14. Data Envelopment Analysis and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK, USA: Applications inMulti-Criteria DecisionMaking; 2010. p. 3–34.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sawik B. A Reference Point Approach to Bi-Objective Dynamic Portfolio Optimization. Decision Making in Manufacturing and Services. 2009;3(1–2):73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sawik B. Lexicographic and Weighting Approach to Multi-Criteria Portfolio Optimization by Mixed Integer Programming. In: Lawrence KD, Kleinman G, editors. Applications of Management Science, vol. 13. Financial Modeling Applications and Data Envelopment Applications, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK: USA; 2009. p. 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sawik B. A weighted-sum mixed integer program for bi-objective dynamic portfolio optimization. Automatyka. 2009;13(2):563–571.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sawik B. A Three Stage Lexicographic Approach for Multi-Criteria Portfolio Optimization by Mixed Integer Programming. Przeglad Elektrotechniczny. 2008;84(9):108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Speranza MG. Linear programming models for portfolio optimization. Finance. 1993;14:107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Uryasev S.: Conditional value-at-risk: optimization algorithms and applications. Financial Engineering News, Issue 14, February (2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bartosz Sawik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sawik, B. (2012). Downside Risk Approach for Multi-Objective Portfolio Optimization. In: Klatte, D., Lüthi, HJ., Schmedders, K. (eds) Operations Research Proceedings 2011. Operations Research Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29210-1_31

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics