A multiobjective credibilistic portfolio selection model. Empirical study in the Latin American Integrated Market

[EN] This paper extends the stochastic mean-semivariance model to a fuzzy multiobjective model, where apart from return and risk, also liquidity is considered to measure the performance of a portfolio. Uncertainty of future return and liquidity of each asset are modeled using L-R type fuzzy numbers that belong to the power reference function family. The decision process of this novel approach takes into account not only the multidimensional nature of the portfolio selection problem but also realistic constraints by investors. Particularly, it optimizes the expected return, the semivariance and the expected liquidity of a given portfolio, considering cardinality constraint and upper and lower bound constraints. The constrained portfolio optimization problem resulting is solved using the algorithm NSGA-II. As a novelty, in order to select the optimal portfolio, this study defines the credibilistic Sortino ratio as the ratio between the credibilistic risk premium and the credibilistic semivariance. An empirical study is included to show the effectiveness and efficiency of the model in practical applications using a data set of assets from the Latin American Integrated Market.García García, F.; Gonzalez-Bueno, J.; Guijarro, F.; Oliver-Muncharaz, J. (2020). A multiobjective credibilistic portfolio selection model. Empirical study in the Latin American Integrated Market. Enterpreneurship and Sustainability Issues. 8(2):1027-1046. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.2(62)S102710468

Multiobjective strategies for New Product Development in the pharmaceutical industry

New Product Development (NPD) constitutes a challenging problem in the pharmaceutical industry, due to the characteristics of the development pipeline. Formally, the NPD problem can be stated as follows: select a set of R&D projects from a pool of candidate projects in order to satisfy several criteria (economic profitability, time to market) while coping with the uncertain nature of the projects. More precisely, the recurrent key issues are to determine the projects to develop once target molecules have been identified, their order and the level of resources to assign. In this context, the proposed approach combines discrete event stochastic simulation (Monte Carlo approach) with multiobjective genetic algorithms (NSGAII type, Non-Sorted Genetic Algorithm II) to optimize the highly combinatorial portfolio management problem. In that context, Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are particularly attractive for treating this kind of problem, due to their ability to directly lead to the so-called Pareto front and to account for the combinatorial aspect. This work is illustrated with a study case involving nine interdependent new product candidates targeting three diseases. An analysis is performed for this test bench on the different pairs of criteria both for the bi- and tricriteria optimization: large portfolios cause resource queues and delays time to launch and are eliminated by the bi- and tricriteria optimization strategy. The optimization strategy is thus interesting to detect the sequence candidates. Time is an important criterion to consider simultaneously with NPV and risk criteria. The order in which drugs are released in the pipeline is of great importance as with scheduling problems

Multiobjective strategies for New Product Development in the pharmaceutical industry

New Product Development (NPD) constitutes a challenging problem in the pharmaceutical industry, due to the characteristics of the development pipeline. Formally, the NPD problem can be stated as follows: select a set of R&D projects from a pool of candidate projects in order to satisfy several criteria (economic profitability, time to market) while coping with the uncertain nature of the projects. More precisely, the recurrent key issues are to determine the projects to develop once target molecules have been identified, their order and the level of resources to assign. In this context, the proposed approach combines discrete event stochastic simulation (Monte Carlo approach) with multiobjective genetic algorithms (NSGAII type, Non-Sorted Genetic Algorithm II) to optimize the highly combinatorial portfolio management problem. In that context, Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are particularly attractive for treating this kind of problem, due to their ability to directly lead to the so-called Pareto front and to account for the combinatorial aspect. This work is illustrated with a study case involving nine interdependent new product candidates targeting three diseases. An analysis is performed for this test bench on the different pairs of criteria both for the bi- and tricriteria optimization: large portfolios cause resource queues and delays time to launch and are eliminated by the bi- and tricriteria optimization strategy. The optimization strategy is thus interesting to detect the sequence candidates. Time is an important criterion to consider simultaneously with NPV and risk criteria. The order in which drugs are released in the pipeline is of great importance as with scheduling problems

Evaluation of equity mutual funds’ performance using a multicriteria methodology

The evaluation of the performance of mutual funds has been a very interesting research topic for not only researchers, but also for managers of financial, banking and investment institutions. In this study a well-known MCDA method based on the theory of outranking relations, the PROMETHEE II method (Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluations; [Brans and Vincke (1985)]) is used to develop outranking models for mutual funds’ performance. This method is applied on real-world data of mutual funds derived from the Association of Greek Institutional Investors. The results of the PROMETHEE II method are indicative of ranking the funds from the best to the worst ones according to their performance.peer-reviewe

Selecting socially responsible portfolios: A fuzzy multicriteria approach

[EN] We propose a multi-objective approach for portfolio selection, which allows investors to consider not only return and downside risk criteria but also to include environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores in the investment decision-making process. Owing to the uncertain environment of portfolio selection, the return and ESG score of each asset are considered as independent L-R power fuzzy variables. To make the model more realistic, we take budget, floor ceiling and cardinality constraints into account. In order to select the optimal portfolio along the efficient frontier, we apply the Sortino ratio in a credibilistic environment. The subsequent empirical application uses a data set from Bloomberg's ESG Data in combination with US Dow Jones Industrial Average data. The experimental results show that the proposed model offers promising results for socially responsible investors seeking ethical and sustainability goals beyond the return-risk trade-off and its ability to beat the benchmarkGarcía García, F.; Gonzalez-Bueno, J.; Oliver-Muncharaz, J.; Riley, N. (2019). Selecting socially responsible portfolios: A fuzzy multicriteria approach. Sustainability. 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092496S119Ballestero, E., Pérez-Gladish, B., & Garcia-Bernabeu, A. (2014). The Ethical Financial Question and the MCDM Framework. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 3-22. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11836-9_1Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229-246. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00243-0ARRIBAS, I., GARCÍA, F., GUIJARRO, F., OLIVER, J., & TAMOŠIŪNIENĖ, R. (2016). MASS APPRAISAL OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE USING MULTILEVEL MODELLING. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 20(1), 77-87. doi:10.3846/1648715x.2015.1134702García, 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.2018.6394Xidonas, P., Doukas, H., Mavrotas, G., & Pechak, O. (2015). Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model. Annals of Operations Research, 247(2), 395-413. doi:10.1007/s10479-015-1820-xMiralles-Quirós, M. del M., & Miralles-Quirós, J. L. (2015). Improving Diversification Opportunities for Socially Responsible Investors. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2), 339-351. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2691-4JERÓNIMO SILVESTRE, W., ANTUNES, P., & LEAL FILHO, W. (2016). THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY TYPOLOGY: ANALYSING SUSTAINABILITY DRIVERS AND FOSTERING SUSTAINABILITY AT ENTERPRISES. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2), 513-533. doi:10.3846/20294913.2016.1213199Rahman, S., Lee, C.-F., & Xiao, Y. (2016). The investment performance, attributes, and investment behavior of ethical equity mutual funds in the US: an empirical investigation. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 49(1), 91-116. doi:10.1007/s11156-016-0581-1Bouslah, K., Kryzanowski, L., & M’Zali, B. (2013). The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(4), 1258-1273. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.12.004Petrillo, A., De Felice, F., García-Melón, M., & Pérez-Gladish, B. (2016). Investing in socially responsible mutual funds: Proposal of non-financial ranking in Italian market. Research in International Business and Finance, 37, 541-555. doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.01.027Fowler, S. J., & Hope, C. (2007). A Critical Review of Sustainable Business Indices and their Impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(3), 243-252. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9590-2Jankalová, M., & Jankal, R. (2017). The assessment of corporate social responsibility: approaches analysis. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 4(4), 441-459. doi:10.9770/jesi.2017.4.4(4)Smaliukienė, R., & Monni, S. (2019). A step-by-step approach to social marketing in energy transition. Insights into Regional Development, 1(1), 19-32. doi:10.9770/ird.2019.1.1(2)Anagnostopoulos, T., Skouloudis, A., Khan, N., & Evangelinos, K. (2018). Incorporating Sustainability Considerations into Lending Decisions and the Management of Bad Loans: Evidence from Greece. Sustainability, 10(12), 4728. doi:10.3390/su10124728Charlo, M., Moya, I., & Muñoz, A. (2017). Financial Performance of Socially Responsible Firms: The Short- and Long-Term Impact. Sustainability, 9(9), 1622. doi:10.3390/su9091622De Colle, S., & York, J. G. (2008). Why Wine is not Glue? The Unresolved Problem of Negative Screening in Socially Responsible Investing. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(S1), 83-95. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9949-zDerwall, J., & Koedijk, K. (2009). Socially Responsible Fixed-Income Funds. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 36(1-2), 210-229. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5957.2008.02119.xWu, J., Lodorfos, G., Dean, A., & Gioulmpaxiotis, G. (2015). The Market Performance of Socially Responsible Investment during Periods of the Economic Cycle - Illustrated Using the Case of FTSE. Managerial and Decision Economics, 38(2), 238-251. doi:10.1002/mde.2772Chang, C. E., & Doug Witte, H. (2010). Performance Evaluation of U.S. Socially Responsible Mutual Funds: Revisiting Doing Good and Doing Well. American Journal of Business, 25(1), 9-24. doi:10.1108/19355181201000001Cortez, M. C., Silva, F., & Areal, N. (2008). The Performance of European Socially Responsible Funds. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 573-588. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9959-xInvesting in Socially Responsible Mutual Fundshttps://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=fnce_papersJones, S., van der Laan, S., Frost, G., & Loftus, J. (2007). The Investment Performance of Socially Responsible Investment Funds in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 181-203. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9412-6Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9), 1723-1742. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.039Bauer, R., Koedijk, K., & Otten, R. (2005). International evidence on ethical mutual fund performance and investment style. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(7), 1751-1767. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004.06.035Brzeszczyński, J., & McIntosh, G. (2013). Performance of Portfolios Composed of British SRI Stocks. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 335-362. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1541-xGoldreyer, E. F., & Diltz, J. D. (1999). The performance of socially responsible mutual funds: incorporating sociopolitical information in portfolio selection. Managerial Finance, 25(1), 23-36. doi:10.1108/03074359910765830Hamilton, S., Jo, H., & Statman, M. (1993). Doing Well While Doing Good? The Investment Performance of Socially Responsible Mutual Funds. Financial Analysts Journal, 49(6), 62-66. doi:10.2469/faj.v49.n6.62Revelli, C., & Viviani, J.-L. (2014). Financial performance of socially responsible investing (SRI): what have we learned? A meta-analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 158-185. doi:10.1111/beer.12076McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: a Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127. doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4011987El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388-2406. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007Attig, N., El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Suh, J. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Credit Ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 679-694. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1714-2Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1-23. doi:10.1002/smj.2131Hallerbach, 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)00172-3Steuer, 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/s10479-006-0137-1Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., & Cañal-Fernández, V. (2012). A fuzzy multi-objective approach for sustainable investments. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12), 10904-10915. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.034Calvo, 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/s10479-014-1561-2Li, Z. F., Minor, D., Wang, J., & Yu, C. (2018). A Learning Curve of the Market: Chasing Alpha of Socially Responsible Firms. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3224796Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Cañal-Fernández, V., & Obam-Eyang, P. N. (2018). Multi-criteria analysis of the GRI sustainability reports: an application to Socially Responsible Investment. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(10), 1576-1598. doi:10.1057/s41274-017-0229-0Gasser, 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.2016.10.043Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-xGupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., & Saxena, A. (2013). Hybrid optimization models of portfolio selection involving financial and ethical considerations. Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 318-337. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2012.08.014Baoding 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.2002.800692Barak, S., Abessi, M., & Modarres, M. (2013). Fuzzy turnover rate chance constraints portfolio model. European Journal of Operational Research, 228(1), 141-147. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.01.036Huang, X. (2006). Fuzzy chance-constrained portfolio selection. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 177(2), 500-507. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.027Vercher, 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.2015.05.020Gupta, 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.2012.12.002Mohebbi, N., & Najafi, A. A. (2018). Credibilistic multi-period portfolio optimization based on scenario tree. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 492, 1302-1316. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2017.11.058Jalota, 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.2016.11.014García, 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.2019.8317Markowitz, 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/bf02282055Sortino, F. A., & van der Meer, R. (1991). Downside risk. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 17(4), 27-31. doi:10.3905/jpm.1991.409343Vercher, 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.2012.2227487Liagkouras, 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/s0219622015300013Deb, 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:10.1109/4235.996017Gupta, 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_2Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual Fund Performance. The Journal of Business, 39(S1), 119. doi:10.1086/29484

A review of asset management literature on multi-asset systems

This article gives an overview of the literature on asset management for multi-unit systems with an emphasis on two multi-asset categories: fleet (a system of homogeneous assets) and portfolio (a system of heterogeneous assets). As asset systems become more complicated, researchers have employed different terms to refer to their specific problems. With an objective to facilitate readers in searching conducive studies to their interests, this paper establishes a novel classification scheme for multi-unit systems in accordance with essential features such as diversity of assets and intervention options. Moreover, discerning differences in characteristics between cross-component and cross-asset interactions, we select three types of potential multi-component dependencies (performance, stochastic, and resource) and extend their notions to be applicable to multi-asset systems. The investigation into these dependencies enables the identification of problems that could exist in real industrial settings but are yet to be determined in academia. Ultimately, we delve into modelling approaches adopted by previous researchers. This comprehensive information allows us to offer the insights into the current trends in multi-asset maintenance. We expect that the output of this review paper will not only stress research gaps on multi-asset systems, but more importantly help systematise future studies on this aspect

Screening and Sufficiency in Multiobjective Decision Problems with Large Alternative Sets

Portfolio selection problems with combinatorially-large alternative sets can be impossible to evaluate precisely on a reasonable timescale. When portfolios require complex modeling for performance assessment, prohibitive computational processing times can result. Eliminating a small number of alternatives through an intelligent screening process can greatly reduce the number of alternative combinations, thereby decreasing a problem\u27s evaluation time and cost. A methodology was developed for the class of hierarchical portfolio selection problems in which multiple objectives are all judged on the same sub-objectives. First, a novel capability-based alternative screening process was devised to identify and remove poor alternatives, thereby reducing the number of portfolios. Then, a performance-based portfolio screening process was explored to estimate portfolio sufficiency according to the performance requirements of the decision maker. Following the establishment of a set of sufficient portfolios, the analyst can employ higher resolution post-analysis methods to choose a final solution. Finally, the methodology was applied to a portfolio selection problem in which the United States Strategic Command attempts to select an ideal mix of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. After deconstructing the actual objective hierarchy, a set of representative alternatives were evaluated and a variety of screening procedures were applied to demonstrate significant reduction in the number of possible portfolios