Mean–variance portfolio selection with ‘at-risk’ constraints and discrete distributions

We examine the impact of adding either a VaR or a CVaR constraint to the mean–variance model when security returns are assumed to have a discrete distribution with finitely many jump points. Three main results are obtained. First, portfolios on the VaR-constrained boundary exhibit (K + 2)-fund separation, where K is the number of states for which the portfolios suffer losses equal to the VaR bound. Second, portfolios on the CVaR-constrained boundary exhibit (K + 3)-fund separation, where K is the number of states for which the portfolios suffer losses equal to their VaRs. Third, an example illustrates that while the VaR of the CVaR-constrained optimal portfolio is close to that of the VaR-constrained optimal portfolio, the CVaR of the former is notably smaller than that of the latter. This result suggests that a CVaR constraint is more effective than a VaR constraint to curtail large losses in the mean–variance model.     

Bank Capital Regulation of Trading Portfolios: An Assessment of the Basel Framework

In setting minimum capital requirements for trading portfolios, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (1996, 2011a, 2013) initially used Value‐at‐Risk (VaR), then both VaR and stressed VaR (SVaR), and most recently, stressed Conditional VaR (SCVaR). Accordingly, we examine the use of SCVaR to measure risk and set these requirements. Assuming elliptically distributed asset returns, we show that portfolios on the mean‐SCVaR frontier generally lie away from the mean‐variance (M‐V) frontier. In a plausible numerical example, we find that such portfolios tend to have considerably higher ratios of risk (measured by, e.g., standard deviation) to minimum capital requirement than those of portfolios on the M‐V frontier. Also, we find that requirements based on SCVaR are smaller than those based on both VaR and SVaR but exceed those based on just VaR. Finally, we find that requirements based on SCVaR are less procyclical than those based on either VaR or both VaR and SVaR. Overall, our paper suggests that the use of SCVaR to measure risk and set requirements is not a panacea.     

Portfolio optimization under a generalized hyperbolic skewed t distribution and exponential utility

In this paper, we show that if asset returns follow a generalized hyperbolic skewed t distribution, the investor has an exponential utility function and a riskless asset is available, the optimal portfolio weights can be found either in closed form or using a successive approximation scheme. We also derive lower bounds for the certainty equivalent return generated by the optimal portfolios. Finally, we present a study of the performance of mean–variance analysis and Taylor’s series expected utility expansion (up to the fourth moment) to compute optimal portfolios in this framework.     

Are Smart Beta strategies suitable for hedge fund portfolios?

In the equity context different Smart Beta strategies (such as the equally weighted, global minimum variance, equal risk contribution and maximum diversified ratio) have been proposed as alternatives to the cap-weighted index. These new approaches have attracted the attention of equity managers as different empirical analyses demonstrate the superiority of these strategies with respect to cap-weighted and to strategies that consider only mean and variance. In this paper we focus our attention to hedge fund index portfolios and analyze if the results reported in the equity framework are still valid. We consider hedge fund index and equity portfolios, the approaches used for portfolio selection are the four ‘Smart Beta’ strategies, mean–variance and mean–variance–skewness. In the two latter approaches the Taylor approximation of a CARA expected utility function and the Polynomial Goal Programing (PGP) have been used. The obtained portfolios are analyzed in the in-sample as well as in the out-of-sample perspectives.     

On the stability of portfolio selection models

One of the main issues in portfolio selection models consists in assessing the effect of the estimation errors of the parameters required by the models on the quality of the selected portfolios. Several studies have been devoted to this topic for the minimum variance and for several other minimum risk models. However, no sensitivity analysis seems to have been reported for the recent popular Risk Parity diversification approach, nor for other portfolio selection models requiring maximum gain–risk ratios.Based on artificial and real-world data, we provide here empirical evidence showing that the Risk Parity model is always the most stable one in all the cases analyzed with respect to the portfolio composition. Furthermore, the minimum risk models are typically more stable than the maximum gain–risk models, with the minimum variance model often being the preferable one. The Risk Parity model seems to be the most stable one also with respect to profitability when measured by the Sharpe ratio. However, the maximum gain–risk models, although quite sensitive to the input data, generally appear to attain better profitability results.     

Agency and Institutional Investment

In this paper we summarise and extend the agency‐based model of asset pricing of Brennan (1993) to show that the implied agency effects on asset pricing are too small to be empirically detectable: empirical tests confirm this and we show that the positive findings of Gomez and Zapatero (2003) are due to their choice of sample. We also derive new empirical implications for the composition of institutional investment portfolios and empirically confirm the major result, that institutional portfolios will be short the minimum variance portfolio.     

The effect of downside risk reduction on UK equity portfolios included with Managed Futures Funds

The concept of asymmetric risk estimation has become more widely applied in risk management in recent years with the increased use of Value-at-risk (VaR) methodologies. This paper uses the n-degree lower partial moment (LPM) models, of which VaR is a special case, to empirically analyse the effect of downside risk reduction on UK portfolio diversification and returns. Data on Managed Futures Funds are used to replicate the increasingly popular preference of investors for including hedge funds and fund-of-funds type investments in the UK equity portfolios. The result indicates, however that the potential benefits of fund diversification may deteriorate following reductions in downside risk tolerance levels. These results appear to reinforce the importance of risk (tolerance) perception, particularly downside risk, when making decisions to include Managed Futures Funds in UK equity portfolios as the empirical analysis suggests that this could negatively affect portfolio returns.     

Forecasting market risk of portfolios: copula-Markov switching multifractal approach

This paper proposes a new methodology for modeling and forecasting market risks of portfolios. It is based on a combination of copula functions and Markov switching multifractal (MSM) processes. We assess the performance of the copula-MSM model by computing the value at risk of a portfolio composed of the NASDAQ composite index and the S&P 500. Using the likelihood ratio (LR) test by Christoffersen [1998. “Evaluating Interval Forecasts.” International Economic Review 39: 841–862], the GMM duration-based test by Candelon et al. [2011. “Backtesting Value at Risk: A GMM Duration-based Test.” Journal of Financial Econometrics 9: 314–343] and the superior predictive ability (SPA) test by Hansen [2005. “A Test for Superior Predictive Ability.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 23, 365–380] we evaluate the predictive ability of the copula-MSM model and compare it to other common approaches such as historical simulation, variance–covariance, RiskMetrics, copula-GARCH and constant conditional correlation GARCH (CCC-GARCH) models. We find that the copula-MSM model is more robust, provides the best fit and outperforms the other models in terms of forecasting accuracy and VaR prediction.     

Safety-first portfolio optimization for US investors in emerging global,Asian and Latin American markets

Risk averse US investors with safety-first objectives in portfolio optimization hold small weights (maximum 10%) in emerging markets when constructing portfolios of the Standard and Poor's 500 (SP), and the Emerging Markets Composite Global (CG), Asia (AS) and Latin American (LA) indexes, respectively. The Composite Global and Asia weights are even smaller than their minimum variance weights. Yet, these optimal safety-first portfolios are dominant in terms of risk and return over the global minimum or higher variance portfolios. In contrast, safety-first optimization for Latin America is hardly different from the minimum variance and not clearly dominant over other mean–variance portfolios. Overall, safety-first limits portfolio losses associated with infrequent catastrophic events and otherwise optimize performance.     

Optimal portfolios with minimum capital requirements

We propose a novel approach to active risk management based on the recent Basel II regulations to obtain optimal portfolios with minimum capital requirements. In order to avoid regulatory penalties due to an excessive number of Value-at-Risk (VaR) violations, capital requirements are minimized subject to a given number of violations over the previous trading year. Capital requirements are based on the recent Basel II amendments to account for the ‘stressed’ VaR, that is, the downside risk of the portfolio under extreme adverse market conditions. An empirical application for two portfolios involving different types of assets and alternative stress scenarios demonstrates that the proposed approach delivers an improved balance between capital requirement levels and the number of VaR exceedances. Furthermore, the risk-adjusted performance of the proposed approach is superior to that of minimum-VaR and minimum-stressed VaR portfolios.     

Portfolio selection with a drawdown constraint

When identifying optimal portfolios, practitioners often impose a drawdown constraint. This constraint is even explicit in some money management contracts such as the one recently involving Merrill Lynch’ management of Unilever’s pension fund. In this setting, we provide a characterization of optimal portfolios using mean–variance analysis. In the absence of a benchmark, we find that while the constraint typically decreases the optimal portfolio’s standard deviation, the constrained optimal portfolio can be notably mean–variance inefficient. In the presence of a benchmark such as in the Merrill Lynch–Unilever contract, we find that the constraint increases the optimal portfolio’s standard deviation and tracking error volatility. Thus, the constraint negatively affects a portfolio manager’s ability to track a benchmark.     

Portfolio selection based on the mean–VaR efficient frontier

Value-at-Risk (VaR) has become one of the standard measures for assessing risk not only in the financial industry but also for asset allocations of individual investors. The traditional mean–variance framework for portfolio selection should, however, be revised when the investor's concern is the VaR instead of the standard deviation. This is especially true when asset returns are not normal. In this paper, we incorporate VaR in portfolio selection, and we propose a mean–VaR efficient frontier. Due to the two-objective optimization problem that is associated with the mean–VaR framework, an evolutionary multi-objective approach is required to construct the mean–VaR efficient frontier. Specifically, we consider the elitist non-dominated sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II). From our empirical analysis, we conclude that the risk-averse investor might inefficiently allocate his/her wealth if his/her decision is based on the mean–variance framework.     

Deciphering robust portfolios

Robust portfolio optimization has been developed to resolve the high sensitivity to inputs of the Markowitz mean–variance model. Although much effort has been put into forming robust portfolios, there have not been many attempts to analyze the characteristics of portfolios formed from robust optimization. We investigate the behavior of robust portfolios by analytically describing how robustness leads to higher dependency on factor movements. Focusing on the robust formulation with an ellipsoidal uncertainty set for expected returns, we show that as the robustness of a portfolio increases, its optimal weights approach the portfolio with variance that is maximally explained by factors.     

Designing an immunized portfolio: Is M-squared the key?

The theoretical and empirical properties of M-squared, a measure of cash flow dispersion used in designing duration-hedged portfolios, are examined. Contrary to prior research, minimizing M-squared is not independent of the stochastic process and the minimum M-squared portfolio is a ‘bullet’ only under a specific, convexity condition derived in the paper.Using a data base of default-free, Government of Canada bonds to set up minimum M-squared, duration-matching portfolios, we find that the convexity property does not hold in general and that minimum M-squared portfolios fail to hedge as effectively as portfolios including a bond maturing on the horizon date.     

Accrual mispricing,value-at-risk,and expected stock returns

We investigate the extent to which a parsimonious measure of maximum likely loss that captures the tail risk of returns—known as value-at-risk (VaR)—explains the relationship between accruals and the cross-sectional dispersion of expected stock returns. We construct portfolios based on Sloan’s (Account Rev 71(3):289–315, 1996) total accruals (TA) measure and individual asset-level VaR, which reflects the dynamic behavior of the asset distribution. We document that VaR is in congruence with portfolio-level accruals and that there is a significant positive relationship between VaR and the cross-section of portfolio returns. Allowing a double-sort involving VaR and TA further suggests that the spread between low- and high-TA portfolios is significantly attenuated after controlling for VaR. We also conduct a firm-level cross-sectional regression analysis and demonstrate that the TA- and VaR-based characteristics—but not the factor-mimicking portfolios—are compensated with higher expected returns, and that VaR neither subsumes nor is subsumed by TA. Finally, our cross-sectional decomposition analysis suggests that the firm-level VaR captures at least 7% of the accrual premium even in the presence of size and book-to-market. These findings lend support for the mispricing explanation of the accrual anomaly.

     

A note on the returns from minimum variance investing

Disappointed with the performance of market weighted benchmark portfolios yet skeptical about the merits of active portfolio management, investors in recent years turned to alternative index definitions. Minimum variance investing is one of these popular concepts. I show in this paper that the portfolio construction process behind minimum variance investing implicitly picks up risk-based pricing anomalies. In other words the minimum variance tends to hold low beta and low residual risk stocks. Long/short portfolios based on these characteristics have been associated in the empirical literature with risk adjusted outperformance. This paper shows that 83% of the variation of the minimum variance portfolio excess returns (relative to a capitalization weighted alternative) can be attributed to the FAMA/FRENCH factors as well as to the returns on two characteristic anomaly portfolios. All regression coefficients (factor exposures) are highly significant, stable over the estimation period and correspond remarkably well with our economic intuition. The paper also shows that a direct combination of market weighted benchmark portfolio and risk based characteristic portfolios will provide a statistically significant improvement over the indirect pickup via the minimum variance portfolio.     

Composition of robust equity portfolios

Robust portfolios resolve the sensitivity issue identified as a concern in implementing mean–variance analysis. Because robust approaches are not widely used in practice due to a limited understanding regarding the portfolios constructed from these methods, we present an analysis of the composition of robust equity portfolios. We find that compared to the Markowitz mean–variance formulation, robust optimization formulations form portfolios that contain a fewer number of stocks, avoid large exposure to individual stocks, have higher portfolio beta, and show low correlation between weight and beta of the stocks composing the portfolio. These properties are also found for global minimum-variance portfolios.     

Multiobjective portfolio optimization with non-convex policy constraints: Evidence from the Eurostoxx 50

Our purpose in this paper is to depart from the intrinsic pathology of the typical mean–variance formalism, due to both the restriction of its assumptions and difficulty of implementation. We manage to co-assess a set of sophisticated real-world non-convex investment policy limitations, such as cardinality constraints, buy-in thresholds, transaction costs, particular normative rules, etc., within the frame of complex scenarios, which demand for simultaneous optimization of multiple investment objectives. In such a case, the portfolio selection process reflects a mixed-integer multiobjective portfolio optimization problem. On this basis, we meticulously develop all the corresponding modeling procedures and then solve the underlying problem by use of a new, fast and very effective algorithm. The value of the suggested framework is integrated with the introduction of two novel concepts in the field of multiobjective portfolio optimization, i.e. the security impact plane and the barycentric portfolio. The first represents a measure of each security's impact in the efficient surface of Pareto optimal portfolios. The second serves as the vehicle for implementing a balanced strategy of iterative portfolio tuning. Moreover, a couple of some very informative graphs provide thorough visualization of all empirical testing results. The validity of the attempt is verified through an illustrative application on the Eurostoxx 50. The results obtained are characterized as very encouraging, since a sufficient number of efficient or Pareto optimal portfolios produced by the model, appear to possess superior out-of-sample returns with respect to the underlying benchmark.     

Value-at-risk in a market subject to regime switching

Many empirical researches report that value-at-risk (VaR) measures understate the actual 1% quantile, while for Inui, K., Kijima, M. and Kitano, A., VaR is subject to a significant positive bias. Stat. Probab. Lett., 2005, 72, 299–311. proved that VaR measures overstate significantly when historical simulation VaR is applied to fat-tail distributions. This paper resolves the puzzle by developing a regime switching model to estimate portfolio VaR. It is shown that our model is able to correct the underestimation problem of risk.     

Active portfolio management with benchmarking: A frontier based on alpha

Active portfolio management often involves the objective of selecting a portfolio with minimum tracking error variance (TEV) for some expected gain in return over a benchmark. However, Roll (1992) shows that such portfolios are generally suboptimal because they do not belong to the mean-variance frontier and are thus overly risky. Our paper proposes an appealing method to lessen this suboptimality that involves the objective of selecting a portfolio from the set of portfolios that have minimum TEV for various levels of ex-ante alpha, which we refer to as the alpha-TEV frontier. Since practitioners commonly use ex-post alpha to assess the performance of managers, the use of this frontier aligns the objectives of managers with how their performance is evaluated. Furthermore, sensible choices of ex-ante alpha lead to the selection of portfolios that are less risky (in variance terms) than the portfolios that active managers would otherwise select.