The evolution of project portfolio selection methods: from incremental to radical innovation

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify how project portfolio selection (PPS) methods have evolved and which approaches are more suitable for radical innovation projects. This paper addressed the following research question: how have the selection approaches evolved to better fit within radical innovation conditions? The current literature offers a number of selection approaches with different and, in some cases, conflicting nature. Therefore, there is a lack of understanding regarding when and how to use these approaches in order to select a specific type of innovation projects ( from incremental to more radical ones). Design/methodology/approach – Given the nature of the research question, the authors perform a systematic literature review method and analyze 48 portfolio selection approaches. The authors then classified and characterized these articles in order to identify techniques, tools, required data and types of examined projects, among other aspects. Findings – The authors identify four key features related to the selection of radical innovation projects: dynamism, interdependency management, uncertainty treatment and required input data. Based on the content analysis, the authors identified that approaches based on different sources and nature of data are more appropriated for uncertain conditions, such as behavioral methods, information gap theory, real options and integrated approaches. Originality/value – The research provides a comprehensive framework about PPS methods and how they have been evolving over time. This portfolio selection framework considers the particular aspects of incremental and radical innovation projects. The authors hope that the framework contributes to reinvigorating the literature on selection approaches for innovation projects

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

Theory and Applications of Robust Optimization

In this paper we survey the primary research, both theoretical and applied, in the area of Robust Optimization (RO). Our focus is on the computational attractiveness of RO approaches, as well as the modeling power and broad applicability of the methodology. In addition to surveying prominent theoretical results of RO, we also present some recent results linking RO to adaptable models for multi-stage decision-making problems. Finally, we highlight applications of RO across a wide spectrum of domains, including finance, statistics, learning, and various areas of engineering.Comment: 50 page

Which heuristics can aid financial-decision-making?

© 2015 Elsevier Inc. We evaluate the contribution of Nobel Prize-winner Daniel Kahneman, often in association with his late co-author Amos Tversky, to the development of our understanding of financial decision-making and the evolution of behavioural finance as a school of thought within Finance. Whilst a general evaluation of the work of Kahneman would be a massive task, we constrain ourselves to a more narrow discussion of his vision of financial-decision making compared to a possible alternative advanced by Gerd Gigerenzer along with numerous co-authors. Both Kahneman and Gigerenzer agree on the centrality of heuristics in decision making. However, for Kahneman heuristics often appear as a fall back when the standard von-Neumann-Morgenstern axioms of rational decision-making do not describe investors' choices. In contrast, for Gigerenzer heuristics are simply a more effective way of evaluating choices in the rich and changing decision making environment investors must face. Gigerenzer challenges Kahneman to move beyond substantiating the presence of heuristics towards a more tangible, testable, description of their use and disposal within the ever changing decision-making environment financial agents inhabit. Here we see the emphasis placed by Gigerenzer on how context and cognition interact to form new schemata for fast and frugal reasoning as offering a productive vein of new research. We illustrate how the interaction between cognition and context already characterises much empirical research and it appears the fast and frugal reasoning perspective of Gigerenzer can provide a framework to enhance our understanding of how financial decisions are made

Real estate portfolio construction and estimation risk

The use of MPT in the construction real estate portfolios has two serious limitations when used in an ex-ante framework: (1) the intertemporal instability of the portfolio weights and (2) the sharp deterioration in performance of the optimal portfolios outside the sample period used to estimate asset mean returns. Both problems can be traced to wide fluctuations in sample means Jorion (1985). Thus the use of a procedure that ignores the estimation risk due to the uncertain in mean returns is likely to produce sub-optimal results in subsequent periods. This suggests that the consideration of the issue of estimation risk is crucial in the use of MPT in developing a successful real estate portfolio strategy. Therefore, following Eun & Resnick (1988), this study extends previous ex-ante based studies by evaluating optimal portfolio allocations in subsequent test periods by using methods that have been proposed to reduce the effect of measurement error on optimal portfolio allocations