Multiobjective Approach to Portfolio Optimization in the Light of the Credibility Theory

[EN] The present research proposes a novel methodology to solve the problems faced by investors who take into consideration different investment criteria in a fuzzy context. The approach extends the stochastic mean-variance model to a fuzzy multiobjective model where liquidity is considered to quantify portfolio's performance, apart from the usual metrics like return and risk. The uncertainty of the future returns and the future liquidity of the potential assets are modelled employing trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. The decision process of the proposed approach considers that portfolio selection is a multidimensional issue and also some realistic constraints applied by investors. Particularly, this approach optimizes the expected return, the risk and the expected liquidity of the portfolio, considering bound constraints and cardinality restrictions. As a result, an optimization problem for the constraint portfolio appears, which is solved by means of the NSGA-II algorithm. This study defines the credibilistic Sortino ratio and the credibilistic STARR ratio for selecting the optimal portfolio. An empirical study on the S&P100 index is included to show the performance of the model in practical applications. The results obtained demonstrate that the novel approach can beat the index in terms of return and risk in the analyzed period, from 2008 until 2018.García García, F.; González-Bueno, J.; Guijarro, F.; Oliver-Muncharaz, J.; Tamosiuniene, R. (2020). Multiobjective Approach to Portfolio Optimization in the Light of the Credibility Theory. Technological and Economic Development of Economy (Online). 26(6):1165-1186. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.13189S11651186266Acerbi, C., & Tasche, D. (2002). On the coherence of expected shortfall. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1487-1503. doi:10.1016/s0378-4266(02)00283-2Ahmed, A., Ali, R., Ejaz, A., & Ahmad, I. (2018). Sectoral integration and investment diversification opportunities: evidence from Colombo Stock Exchange. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(3), 514-527. doi:10.9770/jesi.2018.5.3(8)Arenas Parra, M., Bilbao Terol, A., & Rodrı́guez Urı́a, M. V. (2001). A fuzzy goal programming approach to portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 133(2), 287-297. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(00)00298-8Arribas, I., Espinós-Vañó, M. D., García, F., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2019). Negative screening and sustainable portfolio diversification. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1566-1586. doi:10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(2)Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent Measures of Risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203-228. doi:10.1111/1467-9965.00068Bawa, V. S. (1975). Optimal rules for ordering uncertain prospects. Journal of Financial Economics, 2(1), 95-121. doi:10.1016/0304-405x(75)90025-2Bermúdez, J. D., Segura, J. V., & Vercher, E. (2012). A multi-objective genetic algorithm for cardinality constrained fuzzy portfolio selection. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 188(1), 16-26. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2011.05.013Bezoui, M., Moulaï, M., Bounceur, A., & Euler, R. (2018). An iterative method for solving a bi-objective constrained portfolio optimization problem. Computational Optimization and Applications, 72(2), 479-498. doi:10.1007/s10589-018-0052-9Bi, T., Zhang, B., & Wu, H. (2013). Measuring Downside Risk Using High-Frequency Data: Realized Downside Risk Measure. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 42(4), 741-754. doi:10.1080/03610918.2012.655826Carlsson, C., Fullér, R., & Majlender, P. (2002). A possibilistic approach to selecting portfolios with highest utility score. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 131(1), 13-21. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(01)00251-2Chen, W., & Xu, W. (2018). A Hybrid Multiobjective Bat Algorithm for Fuzzy Portfolio Optimization with Real-World Constraints. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 21(1), 291-307. doi:10.1007/s40815-018-0533-0Choobineh, F., & Branting, D. (1986). A simple approximation for semivariance. European Journal of Operational Research, 27(3), 364-370. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90332-2Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2), 182-197. doi:10.1109/4235.996017Fang, Y., Lai, K. K., & Wang, S.-Y. (2006). Portfolio rebalancing model with transaction costs based on fuzzy decision theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(2), 879-893. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.05.020Favre, L., & Galeano, J.-A. (2002). Mean-Modified Value-at-Risk Optimization with Hedge Funds. The Journal of Alternative Investments, 5(2), 21-25. doi:10.3905/jai.2002.319052García, F., González-Bueno, J., Guijarro, F., & Oliver, J. (2020). Forecasting the Environmental, Social, and Governance Rating of Firms by Using Corporate Financial Performance Variables: A Rough Set Approach. Sustainability, 12(8), 3324. doi:10.3390/su12083324García, González-Bueno, Oliver, & Riley. (2019). Selecting Socially Responsible Portfolios: A Fuzzy Multicriteria Approach. Sustainability, 11(9), 2496. doi:10.3390/su11092496García, F., González-Bueno, J., Oliver, J., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2019). A CREDIBILISTIC MEAN-SEMIVARIANCE-PER PORTFOLIO SELECTION MODEL FOR LATIN AMERICA. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(2), 225-243. doi:10.3846/jbem.2019.8317García, F., Guijarro, F., & Moya, I. (2013). A MULTIOBJECTIVE MODEL FOR PASSIVE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT: AN APPLICATION ON THE S&P 100 INDEX. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(4), 758-775. doi:10.3846/16111699.2012.668859García, F., Guijarro, F., & Oliver, J. (2017). Index tracking optimization with cardinality constraint: a performance comparison of genetic algorithms and tabu search heuristics. Neural Computing and Applications, 30(8), 2625-2641. doi:10.1007/s00521-017-2882-2García, F., Guijarro, F., Oliver, J., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2018). HYBRID FUZZY NEURAL NETWORK TO PREDICT PRICE DIRECTION IN THE GERMAN DAX-30 INDEX. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(6), 2161-2178. doi:10.3846/tede.2018.6394Goel, A., Sharma, A., & Mehra, A. (2018). Index tracking and enhanced indexing using mixed conditional value-at-risk. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 335, 361-380. doi:10.1016/j.cam.2017.12.015González-Bueno, J. (2019). Optimización multiobjetivo para la selección de carteras a la luz de la teoría de la credibilidad. Una aplicación en el mercado integrado latinoamericano. Editorial Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana.Gupta, P., Inuiguchi, M., & Mehlawat, M. K. (2011). A hybrid approach for constructing suitable and optimal portfolios. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5620-5632. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.073Gupta, P., Inuiguchi, M., Mehlawat, M. K., & Mittal, G. (2013). Multiobjective credibilistic portfolio selection model with fuzzy chance-constraints. Information Sciences, 229, 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.12.011Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., Inuiguchi, M., & Chandra, S. (2014). Portfolio Optimization Using Credibility Theory. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 127-160. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54652-5_5Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., Inuiguchi, M., & Chandra, S. (2014). Portfolio Optimization with Interval Coefficients. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 33-59. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54652-5_2Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., Kumar, A., Yadav, S., & Aggarwal, A. (2020). A Credibilistic Fuzzy DEA Approach for Portfolio Efficiency Evaluation and Rebalancing Toward Benchmark Portfolios Using Positive and Negative Returns. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 22(3), 824-843. doi:10.1007/s40815-020-00801-4Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., & Saxena, A. (2010). A hybrid approach to asset allocation with simultaneous consideration of suitability and optimality. Information Sciences, 180(11), 2264-2285. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.02.007Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., Yadav, S., & Kumar, A. (2020). Intuitionistic fuzzy optimistic and pessimistic multi-period portfolio optimization models. Soft Computing, 24(16), 11931-11956. doi:10.1007/s00500-019-04639-3Gupta, P., Mittal, G., & Mehlawat, M. K. (2013). Expected value multiobjective portfolio rebalancing model with fuzzy parameters. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 52(2), 190-203. doi:10.1016/j.insmatheco.2012.12.002Heidari-Fathian, H., & Davari-Ardakani, H. (2019). Bi-objective optimization of a project selection and adjustment problem under risk controls. Journal of Modelling in Management, 15(1), 89-111. doi:10.1108/jm2-07-2018-0106Hilkevics, S., & Semakina, V. (2019). The classification and comparison of business ratios analysis methods. Insights into Regional Development, 1(1), 48-57. doi:10.9770/ird.2019.1.1(4)Huang, X. (2006). Fuzzy chance-constrained portfolio selection. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 177(2), 500-507. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.027Huang, X. (2008). Mean-semivariance models for fuzzy portfolio selection. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 217(1), 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.cam.2007.06.009Huang, X. (2009). A review of credibilistic portfolio selection. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 8(3), 263-281. doi:10.1007/s10700-009-9064-3Huang, X. (2010). Portfolio Analysis. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11214-0Huang, X. (2017). A review of uncertain portfolio selection. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(6), 4453-4465. doi:10.3233/jifs-169211Huang, X., & Di, H. (2016). Uncertain portfolio selection with background risk. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 276, 284-296. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2015.12.018Huang, X., & Wang, X. (2019). International portfolio optimization based on uncertainty theory. Optimization, 70(2), 225-249. doi:10.1080/02331934.2019.1705821Huang, X., & Yang, T. (2020). How does background risk affect portfolio choice: An analysis based on uncertain mean-variance model with background risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 111, 105726. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.105726Jalota, H., Thakur, M., & Mittal, G. (2017). Modelling and constructing membership function for uncertain portfolio parameters: A credibilistic framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 71, 40-56. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.014Jalota, H., Thakur, M., & Mittal, G. (2017). A credibilistic decision support system for portfolio optimization. Applied Soft Computing, 59, 512-528. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.054Kaplan, P. D., & Alldredge, R. H. (1997). Semivariance in Risk-Based Index Construction. The Journal of Investing, 6(2), 82-87. doi:10.3905/joi.1997.408419Konno, H., & Yamazaki, H. (1991). Mean-Absolute Deviation Portfolio Optimization Model and Its Applications to Tokyo Stock Market. Management Science, 37(5), 519-531. doi:10.1287/mnsc.37.5.519Li, B., Zhu, Y., Sun, Y., Aw, G., & Teo, K. L. (2018). Multi-period portfolio selection problem under uncertain environment with bankruptcy constraint. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 56, 539-550. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2017.12.016Li, H.-Q., & Yi, Z.-H. (2019). Portfolio selection with coherent Investor’s expectations under uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications, 133, 49-58. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.008Li, X., & Qin, Z. (2014). Interval portfolio selection models within the framework of uncertainty theory. Economic Modelling, 41, 338-344. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2014.05.036Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2015). Efficient Portfolio Construction with the Use of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Best Practices and Performance Metrics. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 14(03), 535-564. doi:10.1142/s0219622015300013Liu, B. (2004). Uncertainty Theory. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39987-2Baoding Liu, & Yian-Kui Liu. (2002). Expected value of fuzzy variable and fuzzy expected value models. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 10(4), 445-450. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2002.800692Liu, N., Chen, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Optimizing portfolio selection problems under credibilistic CVaR criterion. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 34(1), 335-347. doi:10.3233/jifs-171298Liu, Y.-J., & Zhang, W.-G. (2018). Multiperiod Fuzzy Portfolio Selection Optimization Model Based on Possibility Theory. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 17(03), 941-968. doi:10.1142/s0219622018500190Mansour, N., Cherif, M. S., & Abdelfattah, W. (2019). Multi-objective imprecise programming for financial portfolio selection with fuzzy returns. Expert Systems with Applications, 138, 112810. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.07.027Markowitz, H. (1952). PORTFOLIO SELECTION*. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.xMarkowitz, H., Todd, P., Xu, G., & Yamane, Y. (1993). Computation of mean-semivariance efficient sets by the Critical Line Algorithm. Annals of Operations Research, 45(1), 307-317. doi:10.1007/bf02282055Martin, R. D., Rachev, S. (Zari), & Siboulet, F. (2003). Phi-alpha optimal portfolios and extreme risk management. Wilmott, 2003(6), 70-83. doi:10.1002/wilm.42820030619Mehlawat, M. K. (2016). Credibilistic mean-entropy models for multi-period portfolio selection with multi-choice aspiration levels. Information Sciences, 345, 9-26. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2016.01.042Mehlawat, M. K., Gupta, P., Kumar, A., Yadav, S., & Aggarwal, A. (2020). Multiobjective Fuzzy Portfolio Performance Evaluation Using Data Envelopment Analysis Under Credibilistic Framework. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 28(11), 2726-2737. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2020.2969406Mehralizade, R., Amini, M., Sadeghpour Gildeh, B., & Ahmadzade, H. (2020). Uncertain random portfolio selection based on risk curve. Soft Computing, 24(17), 13331-13345. doi:10.1007/s00500-020-04751-9Moeini, M. (2019). Solving the index tracking problem: a continuous optimization approach. Central European Journal of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10100-019-00633-0Narkunienė, J., & Ulbinaitė, A. (2018). Comparative analysis of company performance evaluation methods. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(1), 125-138. doi:10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(10)Palanikumar, K., Latha, B., Senthilkumar, V. S., & Karthikeyan, R. (2009). Multiple performance optimization in machining of GFRP composites by a PCD tool using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). Metals and Materials International, 15(2), 249-258. doi:10.1007/s12540-009-0249-7Pflug, G. C. (2000). Some Remarks on the Value-at-Risk and the Conditional Value-at-Risk. Probabilistic Constrained Optimization, 272-281. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3150-7_15Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2000). Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. The Journal of Risk, 2(3), 21-41. doi:10.21314/jor.2000.038Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2002). Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1443-1471. doi:10.1016/s0378-4266(02)00271-6Rubio, A., Bermúdez, J. D., & Vercher, E. (2016). Forecasting portfolio returns using weighted fuzzy time series methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 75, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2016.03.007Saborido, R., Ruiz, A. B., Bermúdez, J. D., Vercher, E., & Luque, M. (2016). Evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms for fuzzy portfolio selection. Applied Soft Computing, 39, 48-63. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.11.005Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual Fund Performance. The Journal of Business, 39(S1), 119. doi:10.1086/294846Sharpe, W. F. (1994). The Sharpe Ratio. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 21(1), 49-58. doi:10.3905/jpm.1994.409501Sortino, F. A., & Price, L. N. (1994). Performance Measurement in a Downside Risk Framework. The Journal of Investing, 3(3), 59-64. doi:10.3905/joi.3.3.59Srinivas, N., & Deb, K. (1994). Muiltiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, 2(3), 221-248. doi:10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221Vercher, E., & Bermúdez, J. D. (2012). Fuzzy Portfolio Selection Models: A Numerical Study. Financial Decision Making Using Computational Intelligence, 253-280. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3773-4_10Vercher, E., & Bermudez, J. D. (2013). A Possibilistic Mean-Downside Risk-Skewness Model for Efficient Portfolio Selection. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 21(3), 585-595. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2012.2227487Vercher, E., & Bermúdez, J. D. (2015). Portfolio optimization using a credibility mean-absolute semi-deviation model. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(20), 7121-7131. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.05.020Vercher, E., Bermúdez, J. D., & Segura, J. V. (2007). Fuzzy portfolio optimization under downside risk measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 158(7), 769-782. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2006.10.026Wang, S., & Zhu, S. (2002). Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 1(4), 361-377. doi:10.1023/a:1020907229361Yue, W., & Wang, Y. (2017). A new fuzzy multi-objective higher order moment portfolio selection model for diversified portfolios. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 465, 124-140. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2016.08.009Yue, W., Wang, Y., & Xuan, H. (2018). Fuzzy multi-objective portfolio model based on semi-variance–semi-absolute deviation risk measures. Soft Computing, 23(17), 8159-8179. doi:10.1007/s00500-018-3452-yZadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-xZhai, J., & Bai, M. (2018). Mean-risk model for uncertain portfolio selection with background risk. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 330, 59-69. doi:10.1016/j.cam.2017.07.038Zhao, Z., Wang, H., Yang, X., & Xu, F. (2020). CVaR-cardinality enhanced indexation optimization with tunable short-selling constraints. Applied Economics Letters, 28(3), 201-207. doi:10.1080/13504851.2020.174015

R&D project selection: which criteria should we use?

Many companies around the world lay on R&D their chances to be profitable and still standing in a dynamic market. Tokeep the changes going, many ideas surge and some are transformed into projects. Since the resources are limited, organizations are obliged to select only the most suitable projects to attend their objectives. This is an old practice. However, project portfolio characteristics has changed. The portfolio objectives of today go beyond profit: strategy, environment and society has also become import, along with manyother decision criteria. The computational power was also enhanced, making multidata decision approaches feasible, even forsmall-profitable organizations. On the last half century, many author shave proposed multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods for project portfolio selection (PPS) on Research and Development (R&D). However, only a few gave importance to the criteria used, which would be a central issue on any multicriteria decision. Thus, in order to contribute to R&D PPS field of study, this thesis investigates two propositions: (1) most criteria used in R&D PPS may be represented by a smaller list of criteria, and (2) the criteria used in R&D PPS can be selected in a fuzzy environment, according to their influence and importance. To do so, we explore the 227 criteria used in R&D PPS from 1970 to 2019, summarizing them in a list of 23 criteria with broader scopes and 8 criteria groups. We have also performed a Systematic Literature Review to get to the initial 227 criteria and to lighten the research opportunities in MCDM-based R&D PPS explored by this thesis. We also propose a novel MCDM approach for criteria selection, that integrates Fuzzy-based DEMATEL and Fuzzy-AHP Extend Analysis methods. Experts from a representative electrical-public Brazilian R&D organization have built and validated bothlist and method. Experts from other representative public Brazilian R&D organizations have also contributed in other research steps. All involved organizations manage together R&D portfolios valued around US$ 5 billion each year, which account for 38% of all Brazilian annually expenditures in R&D projects. In a overall manner, the results provide guidance on the topic and facilitate knowledge accumulation and creation concerning the criteria selectionprocessinMCDM-basedR&D PPS

A Decision Support Tool for the Selection of Promoting Actions to Encourage Collaboration in Projects for the Agriculture Sector

[EN] Development and innovation agencies promote consortiums of agricultural stakeholders to collaborate in the proposal of projects for public calls. To achieve this partnerships, these agencies should select between different promoting actions to be performed with two objectives: maximize the number of project proposals presented and minimize the resources invested. To support agencies with these decisions, a computer tool based on a multi-objective integer linear programming model is proposed. To deal with the two objectives the weighting sum method is implemented. The model is validated in different scenarios by means a realistic case of an agency in Brittany (France). The results show the conflict between the two objectives considered and the dependency of the solutions on the scenarios defined. As a conclusion it can be stated that: 1) decision-makers should be careful in defining the weights of each objective and 2) the impact of the different promoting actions on the level of stakeholders¿ participation should be precisely estimated.The authors acknowledge the support of the project 691249, RUCAPS: "Enhancing and implementing knowledge based ICT solutions within high risk and uncertain conditions for agriculture production systems", funded by the European Union¿s research and innovation programme under the H2020 Marie Sk¿odowska-Curie Actions.Alemany Díaz, MDM.; Alarcón Valero, F.; Pérez Perales, D.; Guyon, C. (2020). A Decision Support Tool for the Selection of Promoting Actions to Encourage Collaboration in Projects for the Agriculture Sector. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. 598:534-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62412-5_44S534545598European Comission Funded Programs. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020Zoie, C., Radulescu, M.: Decision analysis for the project selection problem under risk. IFAC Proc. 34(8), 445–450 (2001)Sadi-Nezhad, S.: A state-of-art survey on project selection using MCDM techniques. J. Project Manage. 2, 1–10 (2017)Caballero, H.C., Chopra, S., Schmidt, E.K.: Project portfolio selection using mathematical programming and optimization methods. In: Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012–North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Newtown Square, PA, Project Management Institute (2012)Ahmad, B., Haq, I.: Project selection techniques, relevance and applications in Pakistan. Int. J. Technol. Res. 4, 52–60 (2016)Inuiguchi, M., Ramı́k, J.: Possibilistic linear programming: a brief review of fuzzy mathematical programming and a comparison with stochastic programming in portfolio selection problem. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 111(1), 3–28 (2000)Stewart, R., Mohamed, S.: IT/IS projects selection using multi-criteria utility theory. Log. Inf. Manage. 15(4), 254–270 (2002)Alzober, W., Yaakub, A.R.: Integrated model for MCDM: selection contractor in Malaysian construction industry. In: Applied Mechanics and Materials 548, pp. 1587–1595. Trans Tech Publications (2014)Adhikary, P., Roy, P.K., Mazumdar, A.: Optimal renewable energy project selection: a multi-criteria optimization technique approach. Global J. Pure Appl. Math. 11(5), 3319–3329 (2015)Strang, K.D.: Portfolio selection methodology for a nuclear project. Project Manage. J. 42(2), 81–93 (2011)Benjamin, C.O.: A linear goal-programming model for public-sector project selection. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 36(1), 13–23 (1985)Coronado, J.R., Pardo-Mora, E.M., Valero, M.: A multi-objective model for selection of projects to finance new enterprise SMEs in Colombia. J. Ind. Eng. Manage. 4(3), 407–417 (2011)Mat, N.A.C., Cheung, Y.: Partner selection: criteria for successful collaborative network. In: 20th Australian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 631–641 (2009)Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H.: Collaborative Networks. In: Wang, K., Kovacs, G.L., Wozny, M., Fang, M. (eds.) PROLAMAT 2006. IIFIP, vol. 207, pp. 26–40. Springer, Boston, MA (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34403-9_4Paixão, M., Sbragia, R., Kruglianskas, I.: Factors for selecting partners in innovation projects–evidences from alliances in the Brazilian petrochemical leader. Rev. Admin. Innov. São Paulo 11(2), 241–272 (2014)Duisters, D., Duysters, G., de Man, A.P.: The partner selection process: steps, effectiveness, governance. Ann. Hematol. 2, 7–25 (2011)Zhang, X.: Criteria for selecting the private-sector partner in public-private partnerships. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131(6), 631–644 (2005

Computing the Mean-Variance-Sustainability Nondominated Surface by ev-MOGA

[EN] Despite the widespread use of the classical bicriteria Markowitz mean-variance framework, a broad consensus is emerging on the need to include more criteria for complex portfolio selection problems. Sustainable investing, also called socially responsible investment, is becoming a mainstream investment practice. In recent years, some scholars have attempted to include sustainability as a third criterion to better reflect the individual preferences of those ethical or green investors who are willing to combine strong financial performance with social benefits. For this purpose, new computational methods for optimizing this complex multiobjective problem are needed. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) have been recently used for portfolio selection, thus extending the mean-variance methodology to obtain a mean-variance-sustainability nondominated surface. In this paper, we apply a recent multiobjective genetic algorithm based on the concept of epsilon-dominance called ev-MOGA. This algorithm tries to ensure convergence towards the Pareto set in a smart distributed manner with limited memory resources. It also adjusts the limits of the Pareto front dynamically and prevents solutions belonging to the ends of the front from being lost. Moreover, the individual preferences of socially responsible investors could be visualised using a novel tool, known as level diagrams, which helps investors better understand the range of values attainable and the tradeoff between return, risk, and sustainability.This work was funded by "Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad" (Spain), research project RTI2018-096904B-I00, and "Conselleria de Educacion, Cultura y DeporteGeneralitat Valenciana" (Spain), research project AICO/2019/055Garcia-Bernabeu, A.; Salcedo-Romero-De-Ávila, J.; Hilario Caballero, A.; Pla Santamaría, D.; Herrero Durá, JM. (2019). Computing the Mean-Variance-Sustainability Nondominated Surface by ev-MOGA. Complexity. 2019:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6095712S1122019Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77. doi:10.2307/2975974Hirschberger, M., Steuer, R. E., Utz, S., Wimmer, M., & Qi, Y. (2013). Computing the Nondominated Surface in Tri-Criterion Portfolio Selection. Operations Research, 61(1), 169-183. doi:10.1287/opre.1120.1140Utz, S., Wimmer, M., Hirschberger, M., & Steuer, R. E. (2014). Tri-criterion inverse portfolio optimization with application to socially responsible mutual funds. European Journal of Operational Research, 234(2), 491-498. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.024Utz, S., Wimmer, M., & Steuer, R. E. (2015). Tri-criterion modeling for constructing more-sustainable mutual funds. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 331-338. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.035Qi, Y., Steuer, R. E., & Wimmer, M. (2015). An analytical derivation of the efficient surface in portfolio selection with three criteria. Annals of Operations Research, 251(1-2), 161-177. doi:10.1007/s10479-015-1900-yGasser, S. M., Rammerstorfer, M., & Weinmayer, K. (2017). Markowitz revisited: Social portfolio engineering. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(3), 1181-1190. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.10.043Qi, Y. (2018). On outperforming social-screening-indexing by multiple-objective portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research, 267(1-2), 493-513. doi:10.1007/s10479-018-2921-0Nathaphan, S., & Chunhachinda, P. (2010). Estimation Risk Modeling in Optimal Portfolio Selection: An Empirical Study from Emerging Markets. Economics Research International, 2010, 1-10. doi:10.1155/2010/340181DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2007). Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/NPortfolio Strategy? Review of Financial Studies, 22(5), 1915-1953. doi:10.1093/rfs/hhm075Metaxiotis, K., & Liagkouras, K. (2012). Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms for Portfolio Management: A comprehensive literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(14), 11685-11698. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.04.053Bertsimas, D., & Shioda, R. (2007). Algorithm for cardinality-constrained quadratic optimization. Computational Optimization and Applications, 43(1), 1-22. doi:10.1007/s10589-007-9126-9Chang, T.-J., Yang, S.-C., & Chang, K.-J. (2009). Portfolio optimization problems in different risk measures using genetic algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10529-10537. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.062Woodside-Oriakhi, M., Lucas, C., & Beasley, J. E. (2011). Heuristic algorithms for the cardinality constrained efficient frontier. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(3), 538-550. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.030Chen, B., Lin, Y., Zeng, W., Xu, H., & Zhang, D. (2017). The mean-variance cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problem using a local search-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. Applied Intelligence, 47(2), 505-525. doi:10.1007/s10489-017-0898-zLiagkouras, K. (2019). A new three-dimensional encoding multiobjective evolutionary algorithm with application to the portfolio optimization problem. Knowledge-Based Systems, 163, 186-203. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2018.08.025Kaucic, M., Moradi, M., & Mirzazadeh, M. (2019). Portfolio optimization by improved NSGA-II and SPEA 2 based on different risk measures. Financial Innovation, 5(1). doi:10.1186/s40854-019-0140-6Silva, Y. L. T. V., Herthel, A. B., & Subramanian, A. (2019). A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for a class of mean-variance portfolio selection problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 133, 225-241. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.018Anagnostopoulos, K. P., & Mamanis, G. (2009). Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for complex portfolio optimization problems. Computational Management Science, 8(3), 259-279. doi:10.1007/s10287-009-0113-8Ehrgott, M., Klamroth, K., & Schwehm, C. (2004). An MCDM approach to portfolio optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 155(3), 752-770. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00881-0Steuer, R. E., Qi, Y., & Hirschberger, M. (2006). Suitable-portfolio investors, nondominated frontier sensitivity, and the effect of multiple objectives on standard portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research, 152(1), 297-317. doi:10.1007/s10479-006-0137-1Anagnostopoulos, K. P., & Mamanis, G. (2010). A portfolio optimization model with three objectives and discrete variables. Computers & Operations Research, 37(7), 1285-1297. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2009.09.009Hallerbach, W. (2004). A framework for managing a portfolio of socially responsible investments. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), 517-529. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00172-3Ballestero, E., Bravo, M., Pérez-Gladish, B., Arenas-Parra, M., & Plà-Santamaria, D. (2012). Socially Responsible Investment: A multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(2), 487-494. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.011Cabello, J. M., Ruiz, F., Pérez-Gladish, B., & Méndez-Rodríguez, P. (2014). Synthetic indicators of mutual funds’ environmental responsibility: An application of the Reference Point Method. European Journal of Operational Research, 236(1), 313-325. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.11.031Calvo, C., Ivorra, C., & Liern, V. (2014). Fuzzy portfolio selection with non-financial goals: exploring the efficient frontier. Annals of Operations Research, 245(1-2), 31-46. doi:10.1007/s10479-014-1561-2Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., Deb, K., & Zitzler, E. (2002). Combining Convergence and Diversity in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization. Evolutionary Computation, 10(3), 263-282. doi:10.1162/106365602760234108Blasco, X., Herrero, J. M., Sanchis, J., & Martínez, M. (2008). A new graphical visualization of n-dimensional Pareto front for decision-making in multiobjective optimization. Information Sciences, 178(20), 3908-3924. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2008.06.01

An intelligent system for risk classification of stock investment projects

The proposed paper demonstrates that a hybrid fuzzy neural network can serve as a risk classifier of stock investment projects. The training algorithm for the regular part of the network is based on bidirectional incremental evolution proving more efficient than direct evolution. The approach is compared with other crisp and soft investment appraisal and trading techniques, while building a multimodel domain representation for an intelligent decision support system. Thus the advantages of each model are utilised while looking at the investment problem from different perspectives. The empirical results are based on UK companies traded on the London Stock Exchange

Multi crteria decision making and its applications : a literature review

This paper presents current techniques used in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and their applications. Two basic approaches for MCDM, namely Artificial Intelligence MCDM (AIMCDM) and Classical MCDM (CMCDM) are discussed and investigated. Recent articles from international journals related to MCDM are collected and analyzed to find which approach is more common than the other in MCDM. Also, which area these techniques are applied to. Those articles are appearing in journals for the year 2008 only. This paper provides evidence that currently, both AIMCDM and CMCDM are equally common in MCDM

Fuzzy Logic and Its Uses in Finance: A Systematic Review Exploring Its Potential to Deal with Banking Crises

The major success of fuzzy logic in the field of remote control opened the door to its application in many other fields, including finance. However, there has not been an updated and comprehensive literature review on the uses of fuzzy logic in the financial field. For that reason, this study attempts to critically examine fuzzy logic as an effective, useful method to be applied to financial research and, particularly, to the management of banking crises. The data sources were Web of Science and Scopus, followed by an assessment of the records according to pre-established criteria and an arrangement of the information in two main axes: financial markets and corporate finance. A major finding of this analysis is that fuzzy logic has not yet been used to address banking crises or as an alternative to ensure the resolvability of banks while minimizing the impact on the real economy. Therefore, we consider this article relevant for supervisory and regulatory bodies, as well as for banks and academic researchers, since it opens the door to several new research axes on banking crisis analyses using artificial intelligence techniques

A methodology for the selection of new technologies in the aviation industry

The purpose of this report is to present a technology selection methodology to quantify both tangible and intangible benefits of certain technology alternatives within a fuzzy environment. Specifically, it describes an application of the theory of fuzzy sets to hierarchical structural analysis and economic evaluations for utilisation in the industry. The report proposes a complete methodology to accurately select new technologies. A computer based prototype model has been developed to handle the more complex fuzzy calculations. Decision-makers are only required to express their opinions on comparative importance of various factors in linguistic terms rather than exact numerical values. These linguistic variable scales, such as ‘very high’, ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’ and ‘very low’, are then converted into fuzzy numbers, since it becomes more meaningful to quantify a subjective measurement into a range rather than in an exact value. By aggregating the hierarchy, the preferential weight of each alternative technology is found, which is called fuzzy appropriate index. The fuzzy appropriate indices of different technologies are then ranked and preferential ranking orders of technologies are found. From the economic evaluation perspective, a fuzzy cash flow analysis is employed. This deals quantitatively with imprecision or uncertainties, as the cash flows are modelled as triangular fuzzy numbers which represent ‘the most likely possible value’, ‘the most pessimistic value’ and ‘the most optimistic value’. By using this methodology, the ambiguities involved in the assessment data can be effectively represented and processed to assure a more convincing and effective decision- making process when selecting new technologies in which to invest. The prototype model was validated with a case study within the aviation industry that ensured it was properly configured to meet the

Solving multiple-criteria R&D project selection problems with a data-driven evidential reasoning rule

In this paper, a likelihood based evidence acquisition approach is proposed to acquire evidence from experts'assessments as recorded in historical datasets. Then a data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model is introduced to R&D project selection process by combining multiple pieces of evidence with different weights and reliabilities. As a result, the total belief degrees and the overall performance can be generated for ranking and selecting projects. Finally, a case study on the R&D project selection for the National Science Foundation of China is conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed model. The data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model for project evaluation and selection (1) utilizes experimental data to represent experts' assessments by using belief distributions over the set of final funding outcomes, and through this historic statistics it helps experts and applicants to understand the funding probability to a given assessment grade, (2) implies the mapping relationships between the evaluation grades and the final funding outcomes by using historical data, and (3) provides a way to make fair decisions by taking experts' reliabilities into account. In the data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model, experts play different roles in accordance with their reliabilities which are determined by their previous review track records, and the selection process is made interpretable and fairer. The newly proposed model reduces the time-consuming panel review work for both managers and experts, and significantly improves the efficiency and quality of project selection process. Although the model is demonstrated for project selection in the NSFC, it can be generalized to other funding agencies or industries.Comment: 20 pages, forthcoming in International Journal of Project Management (2019

Investment Risk Appraisal

Standard financial techniques neglect extreme situations and regards large market shifts as too unlikely to matter. This approach may account for what occurs most of the time in the market, but the picture it presents does not reflect the reality, as the major events happen in the rest of the time and investors are ‘surprised’ by ‘unexpected’ market movements. An alternative fuzzy approach permits fluctuations well beyond the probability type of uncertainty and allows one to make fewer assumptions about the data distribution and market behaviour. Fuzzifying the present value criteria, we suggest a measure of the risk associated with each investment opportunity and estimate the project’s robustness towards market uncertainty. The procedure is applied to thirty-five UK companies and a neural network solution to the fuzzy criterion is provided to facilitate the decision-making process. Finally, we discuss the grounds for classical asset pricing model revision and argue that the demand for relaxed assumptions appeals for another approach to modelling the market environment