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

Portfolio selection models: A review and new directions

Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) is based upon the classical Markowitz model which uses variance as a risk measure. A generalization of this approach leads to mean-risk models, in which a return distribution is characterized by the expected value of return (desired to be large) and a risk value (desired to be kept small). Portfolio choice is made by solving an optimization problem, in which the portfolio risk is minimized and a desired level of expected return is specified as a constraint. The need to penalize different undesirable aspects of the return distribution led to the proposal of alternative risk measures, notably those penalizing only the downside part (adverse) and not the upside (potential). The downside risk considerations constitute the basis of the Post Modern Portfolio Theory (PMPT). Examples of such risk measures are lower partial moments, Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR). We revisit these risk measures and the resulting mean-risk models. We discuss alternative models for portfolio selection, their choice criteria and the evolution of MPT to PMPT which incorporates: utility maximization and stochastic dominance

Mean-risk models using two risk measures: A multi-objective approach

This paper proposes a model for portfolio optimisation, in which distributions are characterised and compared on the basis of three statistics: the expected value, the variance and the CVaR at a specified confidence level. The problem is multi-objective and transformed into a single objective problem in which variance is minimised while constraints are imposed on the expected value and CVaR. In the case of discrete random variables, the problem is a quadratic program. The mean-variance (mean-CVaR) efficient solutions that are not dominated with respect to CVaR (variance) are particular efficient solutions of the proposed model. In addition, the model has efficient solutions that are discarded by both mean-variance and mean-CVaR models, although they may improve the return distribution. The model is tested on real data drawn from the FTSE 100 index. An analysis of the return distribution of the chosen portfolios is presented

Portfolio selection problems in practice: a comparison between linear and quadratic optimization models

Several portfolio selection models take into account practical limitations on the number of assets to include and on their weights in the portfolio. We present here a study of the Limited Asset Markowitz (LAM), of the Limited Asset Mean Absolute Deviation (LAMAD) and of the Limited Asset Conditional Value-at-Risk (LACVaR) models, where the assets are limited with the introduction of quantity and cardinality constraints. We propose a completely new approach for solving the LAM model, based on reformulation as a Standard Quadratic Program and on some recent theoretical results. With this approach we obtain optimal solutions both for some well-known financial data sets used by several other authors, and for some unsolved large size portfolio problems. We also test our method on five new data sets involving real-world capital market indices from major stock markets. Our computational experience shows that, rather unexpectedly, it is easier to solve the quadratic LAM model with our algorithm, than to solve the linear LACVaR and LAMAD models with CPLEX, one of the best commercial codes for mixed integer linear programming (MILP) problems. Finally, on the new data sets we have also compared, using out-of-sample analysis, the performance of the portfolios obtained by the Limited Asset models with the performance provided by the unconstrained models and with that of the official capital market indices

Relative Robust Portfolio Optimization

Considering mean-variance portfolio problems with uncertain model parameters, we contrast the classical absolute robust optimization approach with the relative robust approach based on a maximum regret function. Although the latter problems are NP-hard in general, we show that tractable inner and outer approximations exist in several cases that are of central interest in asset management

Processing second-order stochastic dominance models using cutting-plane representations

This is the post-print version of the Article. The official published version can be accessed from the links below. Copyright @ 2011 Springer-VerlagSecond-order stochastic dominance (SSD) is widely recognised as an important decision criterion in portfolio selection. Unfortunately, stochastic dominance models are known to be very demanding from a computational point of view. In this paper we consider two classes of models which use SSD as a choice criterion. The first, proposed by Dentcheva and Ruszczyński (J Bank Finance 30:433–451, 2006), uses a SSD constraint, which can be expressed as integrated chance constraints (ICCs). The second, proposed by Roman et al. (Math Program, Ser B 108:541–569, 2006) uses SSD through a multi-objective formulation with CVaR objectives. Cutting plane representations and algorithms were proposed by Klein Haneveld and Van der Vlerk (Comput Manage Sci 3:245–269, 2006) for ICCs, and by Künzi-Bay and Mayer (Comput Manage Sci 3:3–27, 2006) for CVaR minimization. These concepts are taken into consideration to propose representations and solution methods for the above class of SSD based models. We describe a cutting plane based solution algorithm and outline implementation details. A computational study is presented, which demonstrates the effectiveness and the scale-up properties of the solution algorithm, as applied to the SSD model of Roman et al. (Math Program, Ser B 108:541–569, 2006).This study was funded by OTKA, Hungarian National Fund for Scientific Research, project 47340; by Mobile Innovation Centre, Budapest University of Technology, project 2.2; Optirisk Systems, Uxbridge, UK and by BRIEF (Brunel University Research Innovation and Enterprise Fund)

Dynamic asset (and liability) management under market and credit risk

We introduce a modelling paradigm which integrates credit risk and market risk in describing the random dynamical behaviour of the underlying fixed income assets. We then consider an asset and liability management (ALM) problem and develop a mul- tistage stochastic programming model which focuses on optimum risk decisions. These models exploit the dynamical multiperiod structure of credit risk and provide insight into the corrective recourse decisions whereby issues such as the timing risk of default is appropriately taken into consideration. We also present a index tracking model in which risk is measured (and optimised) by the CVaR of the tracking portfolio in relation to the index. Both in- and out-of-sample (backtesting) experiments are undertaken to validate our approach. In this way we are able to demonstrate the feasibility and flexibility of the chosen framework

Optimally chosen small portfolios are better than large ones

One of the fundamental principles in portfolio selection models is minimization of risk through diversification of the investment. However, this principle does not necessarily translate into a request for investing in all the assets of the investment universe. Indeed, following a line of research started by Evans and Archer almost fifty years ago, we provide here further evidence that small portfolios are sufficient to achieve almost optimal in-sample risk reduction with respect to variance and to some other popular risk measures, and very good out-of-sample performances. While leading to similar results, our approach is significantly different from the classical one pioneered by Evans and Archer. Indeed, we describe models for choosing the portfolio of a prescribed size with the smallest possible risk, as opposed to the random portfolio choice investigated in most of the previous works. We find that the smallest risk portfolios generally require no more than 15 assets. Furthermore, it is almost always possible to find portfolios that are just 1% more risky than the smallest risk portfolios and contain no more than 10 assets. Furthermore, the optimal small portfolios generally show a better performance than the optimal large ones. Our empirical analysis is based on some new and on some publicly available benchmark data sets often used in the literature

Tracking Error: a multistage portfolio model

We study multistage tracking error problems. Different tracking error measures, commonly used in static models, are discussed as well as some problems which arise when we move from static to dynamic models. We are interested in dynamically replicating a benchmark using only a small subset of assets, considering transaction costs due to rebalancing and introducing a liquidity component in the portfolio. We formulate and solve a multistage tracking error model in a stochastic programming framework. We numerically test our model by dynamically replicating the MSCI Euro index. We consider an increasing number of scenarios and assets and show the superior performance of the dynamically optimized tracking portfolio over static strategies.

Multi-Period Trading via Convex Optimization

We consider a basic model of multi-period trading, which can be used to evaluate the performance of a trading strategy. We describe a framework for single-period optimization, where the trades in each period are found by solving a convex optimization problem that trades off expected return, risk, transaction cost and holding cost such as the borrowing cost for shorting assets. We then describe a multi-period version of the trading method, where optimization is used to plan a sequence of trades, with only the first one executed, using estimates of future quantities that are unknown when the trades are chosen. The single-period method traces back to Markowitz; the multi-period methods trace back to model predictive control. Our contribution is to describe the single-period and multi-period methods in one simple framework, giving a clear description of the development and the approximations made. In this paper we do not address a critical component in a trading algorithm, the predictions or forecasts of future quantities. The methods we describe in this paper can be thought of as good ways to exploit predictions, no matter how they are made. We have also developed a companion open-source software library that implements many of the ideas and methods described in the paper