A Goal Programming Model with Satisfaction Function for Risk Management and Optimal Portfolio Diversification

We extend the classical risk minimization model with scalar risk measures to the general case of set-valued risk measures. The problem we obtain is a set-valued optimization model and we propose a goal programming-based approach with satisfaction function to obtain a solution which represents the best compromise between goals and the achievement levels. Numerical examples are provided to illustrate how the method works in practical situations

A review of portfolio planning: Models and systems

In this chapter, we first provide an overview of a number of portfolio planning models which have been proposed and investigated over the last forty years. We revisit the mean-variance (M-V) model of Markowitz and the construction of the risk-return efficient frontier. A piecewise linear approximation of the problem through a reformulation involving diagonalisation of the quadratic form into a variable separable function is also considered. A few other models, such as, the Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD), the Weighted Goal Programming (WGP) and the Minimax (MM) model which use alternative metrics for risk are also introduced, compared and contrasted. Recently asymmetric measures of risk have gained in importance; we consider a generic representation and a number of alternative symmetric and asymmetric measures of risk which find use in the evaluation of portfolios. There are a number of modelling and computational considerations which have been introduced into practical portfolio planning problems. These include: (a) buy-in thresholds for assets, (b) restriction on the number of assets (cardinality constraints), (c) transaction roundlot restrictions. Practical portfolio models may also include (d) dedication of cashflow streams, and, (e) immunization which involves duration matching and convexity constraints. The modelling issues in respect of these features are discussed. Many of these features lead to discrete restrictions involving zero-one and general integer variables which make the resulting model a quadratic mixed-integer programming model (QMIP). The QMIP is a NP-hard problem; the algorithms and solution methods for this class of problems are also discussed. The issues of preparing the analytic data (financial datamarts) for this family of portfolio planning problems are examined. We finally present computational results which provide some indication of the state-of-the-art in the solution of portfolio optimisation problems

Export diversification and resource-based industrialization: the case of natural gas

For resource-rich economies, primary commodity specialization has often been considered to be detrimental to growth. Accordingly, export diversification policies centered on resource-based industries have long been advocated as effective ways to moderate the large variability of export revenues. This paper discusses the applicability of a mean-variance portfolio approach to design these strategies and proposes some modifications aimed at capturing the key features of resource processing industries (presence of scale economies and investment lumpiness). These modifications help make the approach more plausible for use in resource-rich countries. An application to the case of natural gas is then discussed using data obtained from Monte Carlo simulations of a calibrated empirical model. Lastly, the proposed framework is put to work to evaluate the performances of the diversification strategies implemented in a set of nine gas-rich economies. These results are then used to formulate some policy recommendations

On-Farm Costos of Reducing environmental degradation under risk

Farmers respond to environmental regulations by adjusting production practices so as to comply while minimizing their loss in expected income. Ultimately the cost of agro environmental regulation is determined by farm level adjust¬ments. Our farm level simulation framework assesses economic and environmental impacts of hypothetical pesticide restrictions in the context of continuing soil conservation efforts.

Encompassing statistically unquantifiable randomness in goal programming: an application to portfolio selection

[EN] Random events make multiobjective programming solutions vulnerable to changes in input data. In many cases statistically quantifiable information on variability of relevant parameters may not be available for decision making. This situation gives rise to the problem of obtaining solutions based on subjective beliefs and a priori risk aversion to random changes. To solve this problem, we propose to replace the traditional weighted goal programming achievement function with a new function that considers the decision maker's perception of the randomness associated with implementing the solution through the use of a penalty term. This new function also implements the level of a priori risk aversion based around the decision maker's beliefs and perceptions. The proposed new formulation is illustrated by means of a variant of the mean absolute deviation portfolio selection model. As a result, difficulties imposed by the absence of statistical information about random events can be encompassed by a modification of the achievement function to pragmatically consider subjective beliefs.Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. s This work is devoted to the memory of Professor Enrique Ballestero for his selfess dedication to it.Bravo Selles, M.; Jones, D.; Pla Santamaría, D.; Salas-Molina, F. (2022). Encompassing statistically unquantifiable randomness in goal programming: an application to portfolio selection. Operational Research (Online). 22(5):5685-5706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-022-00713-156855706225Abdelaziz FB, Aouni B, El Fayedh R (2007) Multi-objective stochastic programming for portfolio selection. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1811–1823Abdelaziz FB, El Fayedh R, Rao A (2009) A discrete stochastic goal program for portfolio selection: the case of united arab emirates equity market. INFOR Inf Syst Op Res 47(1):5–13Aouni B, La Torre D (2010) A generalized stochastic goal programming model. Appl Math Comput 215(12):4347–4357Aouni B, Ben Abdelaziz F, La Torre D (2012) The stochastic goal programming model: theory and applications. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 19(5–6):185–200Arrow KJ (1965) Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Academic Bookstore, HelsinkiBallestero E (1997) Utility functions: a compromise programming approach to specification and optimization. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6(1):11–16Ballestero E (2001) Stochastic goal programming: a mean-variance approach. Eur J Op Res 131(3):476–481Ballestero E, Pla-Santamaria D (2004) Selecting portfolios for mutual funds. Omega 32(5):385–394Ballestero E, Romero C (1998) Multiple criteria decision making and its applications to economic problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtBallestero E, Bravo M, Pérez-Gladish B, Arenas-Parra M, Pla-Santamaria D (2012) Socially responsible investment: a multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives. Eur J Op Res 216(2):487–494Bhamra HS, Uppal R (2006) The role of risk aversion and intertemporal substitution in dynamic consumption-portfolio choice with recursive utility. J Econ Dyn Control 30(6):967–991Bilbao-Terol A, Jiménez M, Arenas-Parra M (2016) A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning. Ann Op Res 245(1–2):137–162Branke J, Deb K, Miettinen K, Slowiński R (2008) Multiobjective optimization: interactive and evolutionary approaches. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinBravo M, Gonzalez I (2009) Applying stochastic goal programming: a case study on water use planning. Eur J Op Res 196(3):1123–1129Charnes A, Collomb B (1972) Optimal economic stabilization policy: linear goal-programming models. Soc-Econ Plan Sci 6:431–435Charnes A, Cooper WW (1957) Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. Manag Sci 4(1):38–91Charnes A, Cooper WW, Ferguson RO (1955) Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming. Manag Sci 1(2):138–151Cheridito P, Summer C (2006) Utility maximization under increasing risk aversion in one-period models. Finance Stoch 10(1):147–158Choobineh M, Mohagheghi S (2016) A multi-objective optimization framework for energy and asset management in an industrial microgrid. J Clean Prod 139:1326–1338Debreu G (1960) Topological methods in cardinal utility theory. In: Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Standford University Press, StandfordDíaz-Madroñero M, Mula J, Jiménez M (2014) Fuzzy goal programming for material requirements planning under uncertainty and integrity conditions. Int J Prod Res 52(23):6971–6988Elbasha EH (2005) Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: the expected-utility, moment-generating function approach. Health Econ 14(5):457–470Ewald CO, Yang Z (2008) Utility based pricing and exercising of real options under geometric mean reversion and risk aversion toward idiosyncratic risk. Math Methods Op Res 68(1):97–123Gass SI (1986) A process for determining priorities and weights for large-scale linear goal programmes. J Op Res Soc 37(8):779–785Ghahtarani A, Najafi AA (2013) Robust goal programming for multi-objective portfolio selection problem. Econ Model 33:588–592Gollier C (2001) The economics of risk and time. MIT press, CambridgeGonzález-Pachón J, Romero C (2016) Bentham, Marx and Rawls ethical principles: in search for a compromise. Omega 62:47–51González-Pachón J, Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2019) A multi-criteria approach for assigning weights in voting systems. Soft Comput 23(17):8181–8186Grigoroudis E, Orfanoudaki E, Zopounidis C (2012) Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organisation: a multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. Omega 40(1):104–119Hanks RW, Weir JD, Lunday BJ (2017) Robust goal programming using different robustness echelons via norm-based and ellipsoidal uncertainty sets. Eur J Op Res 262(2):636–646Ignizio JP (1999) Illusions of optimality. Eng Optim 31(6):749–761Jiménez M, Bilbao-Terol A, Arenas-Parra M (2018) A model for solving incompatible fuzzy goal programming: an application to portfolio selection. Int Trans Op Res 25(3):887–912Johansson-Stenman O (2010) Risk aversion and expected utility of consumption over time. Games Econ Behav 68(1):208–219Jones D (2011) A practical weight sensitivity algorithm for goal and multiple objective programming. Eur J Op Res 213(1):238–245Jones D, Tamiz M (2010) Practical goal programming. Springer, New YorkKallberg JG, Ziemba WT (1983) Comparison of alternative utility functions in portfolio selection problems. Manag Sci 29(11):1257–1276Kihlstrom R (2009) Risk aversion and the elasticity of substitution in general dynamic portfolio theory: consistent planning by forward looking, expected utility maximizing investors. J Math Econ 45(9–10):634–663Kluyver T, Ragan-Kelley B, Pérez F, Granger BE, Bussonnier M, Frederic J, Kelley K, Hamrick JB, Grout J, Corlay S, et al (2016) Jupyter notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In: ELPUB, pp. 87–90Konno H, Yamazaki H (1991) Mean-absolute deviation portfolio optimization model and its applications to tokyo stock market. Manag Sci 37(5):519–531Kraft D (1988) A software package for sequential quadratic programming. Forschungsbericht- Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fur Luft- und Raumfahrt 28Krantz D, Luce D, Suppes P, Tversky A (1971) Foundations of measurement: geometrical, threshold, and probabilistic representations. Academic Press, New YorkKuchta D (2004) Robust goal programming. Control Cybern 33(3):501–510Langlais E (2005) Willingness to pay for risk reduction and risk aversion without the expected utility assumption. Theory Decis 59(1):43–50Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J Financ 7(1):77–91Masri H (2017) A multiple stochastic goal programming approach for the agent portfolio selection problem. Ann Op Res 251(1–2):179–192Matthews LR, Guzman YA, Floudas CA (2018) Generalized robust counterparts for constraints with bounded and unbounded uncertain parameters. Comput Chem Eng 116:451–467McCarl BA, Bessler DA (1989) Estimating an upper bound on the pratt risk a version coefficient when the utility function is unknown. Aust J Agric Econ 33:56Messaoudi L, Aouni B, Rebai A (2017) Fuzzy chance-constrained goal programming model for multi-attribute financial portfolio selection. Ann Op Res 251(1–2):193–204Miettinen K, Ruiz F, Wierzbicki AP (2008) Introduction to multiobjective optimization: interactive approaches. In: Multiobjective Optimization. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–57Muñoz MM, Ruiz F (2009) ISTMO: an interval reference point-based method for stochastic multiobjective programming problems. Eur J Op Res 197(1):25–35Muñoz MM, Luque M, Ruiz F (2010) Interest: a reference-point-based interactive procedure for stochastic multiobjective programming problems. OR Spectr 32(1):195–210Oliveira R, Zanella A, Camanho AS (2019) The assessment of corporate social responsibility: the construction of an industry ranking and identification of potential for improvement. Eur J Op Res 278(2):498–513Pratt JW (1964) Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32(1–2):122–136Romero C (1991) Handbook of critical issues in goal programming. Pergamon Press, OxfordSalas-Molina F, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA, Pla-Santamaria D (2018) Boundless multiobjective models for cash management. Eng Econ 63(4):363–381Schechter L (2007) Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: a calibration exercise. J Risk Uncertain 35(1):67–76Tamiz M, Jones D (1996) Goal programming and pareto efficiency. J Inf Optim Sci 17(2):291–307Tsionas MG (2019) Multi-objective optimization using statistical models. Eur J Op Res 276(1):364–378Woerheide W, Persson D (1993) An index of portfolio diversification. Financ Serv Rev 2(2):73–85Xu Y, Yeh CH (2012) An integrated approach to evaluation and planning of best practices. Omega 40(1):65–78Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–35

A similarity measure for the cardinality constrained frontier in the mean-variance optimization model

[EN] This paper proposes a new measure to find the cardinality constrained frontier in the meanvariance portfolio optimization problem. In previous research, assets belonging to the cardinality constrained portfolio change according to the desired level of expected return, so that the cardinality constraint can actually be violated if the fund manager wants to satisfy clients with different return requirements. We introduce a perceptual approach in the meanvariance cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problem by considering a novel similarity measure, which compares the cardinality constrained frontier with the unconstrained mean-variance frontier. We assume that the closer the cardinality constrained frontier to the mean-variance frontier, the more appealing it is for the decision maker. This makes the assets included in the portfolio invariant to any specific level of return, through focusing not on the optimal portfolio but on the optimal frontier.Guijarro, F. (2018). A similarity measure for the cardinality constrained frontier in the mean-variance optimization model. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 69(6):928-945. doi:10.1057/s41274-017-0276-6S92894569

A Framework for Managing a Portfolio of Socially Responsible Investments

In this paper we present and illustrate using real-life data a framework for managing an investment portfolio in which the investment opportunities are described in terms of a set of attributes and part of this set is intended to capture the effects on society. Here we link with the emerging literature on SRI: Socially Responsible Investment. Given the multifarious descriptions of the individual investment opportunities we show how these can be combined into portfolios with the same attributes at the portfolio level. Also we show how a manager can systematically be supported in the choice between different portfolio profiles. As part of the framework we use multi-criteria decision tools

On the use of biased-randomized algorithms for solving non-smooth optimization problems

Soft constraints are quite common in real-life applications. For example, in freight transportation, the fleet size can be enlarged by outsourcing part of the distribution service and some deliveries to customers can be postponed as well; in inventory management, it is possible to consider stock-outs generated by unexpected demands; and in manufacturing processes and project management, it is frequent that some deadlines cannot be met due to delays in critical steps of the supply chain. However, capacity-, size-, and time-related limitations are included in many optimization problems as hard constraints, while it would be usually more realistic to consider them as soft ones, i.e., they can be violated to some extent by incurring a penalty cost. Most of the times, this penalty cost will be nonlinear and even noncontinuous, which might transform the objective function into a non-smooth one. Despite its many practical applications, non-smooth optimization problems are quite challenging, especially when the underlying optimization problem is NP-hard in nature. In this paper, we propose the use of biased-randomized algorithms as an effective methodology to cope with NP-hard and non-smooth optimization problems in many practical applications. Biased-randomized algorithms extend constructive heuristics by introducing a nonuniform randomization pattern into them. Hence, they can be used to explore promising areas of the solution space without the limitations of gradient-based approaches, which assume the existence of smooth objective functions. Moreover, biased-randomized algorithms can be easily parallelized, thus employing short computing times while exploring a large number of promising regions. This paper discusses these concepts in detail, reviews existing work in different application areas, and highlights current trends and open research lines

Predicting Optimal Targeting Strategies in Multispecies Fisheries: A Portfolio Approach

When regulations are species specific but the species are part of a multispecies fishery, studies show that harvest rates are correlated such that net revenues attributed to each species are also correlated. This correlation suggests that portfolio theory is well suited for multispecies fisheries that exhibit joint productive characteristics. This paper uses a portfolio approach to model the behavior of fishermen faced with multiple targeting options in a random harvest fishery. The approach draws from the expected utility hypothesis and financial portfolio theory to predict optimal targeting strategies. The methodology is applied to the pelagic longline fleet operating in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. The model provides evidence that area closures aimed at reducing juvenile swordfish mortality will be more effective in certain regions. Efficient risk-return frontiers are also generated for use in predicting targeting behavior in lieu of a closure.fisheries economics, fisheries management, highly migratory species, multispecies fisheries, portfolio theory, swordfish, targeting strategies, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy, Q22, G11, D81, C61,