November  2020, 16(6): 3065-3081. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019094

Mean-CVaR portfolio selection model with ambiguity in distribution and attitude

1. 

Fujian Province University Key Laboratory of Computational Science, School of Mathematical Sciences, Huaqiao University, Fujian, China

2. 

Sun Yat-sen Business School, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

* Corresponding author: Zhongfei Li

Received  November 2018 Revised  March 2019 Published  July 2019

Fund Project: The first author was supported in part by the Program for Innovative Research Team in Science and Technology in Fujian Province University, and Quanzhou High-Level Talents Support Plan (No. 2017ZT012), and the Scientific Research Foundation of Huaqiao University (No. 18BS311). The third author was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71721001) and the Natural Science Research Team of Guangdong Province of China (No. 2014A030312003)

In this paper, we develop $ \alpha $-robust (maxmin) models, where the Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) is to be optimized under ambiguity in distribution, mean returns, and covariance matrix. Our models allow the investor to distinguish ambiguity and ambiguity attitude with different levels of ambiguity aversion. For the case when there is a risk-free asset and short-selling is allowed, we obtain the analytic solution for the $ \alpha $-robust CVaR optimization model subject to a minimum mean return constraint. Moreover, we also derive a closed-form portfolio rule for the $ \alpha $-robust mean-CVaR optimization problem in a market without the risk-less asset. The results obtained from solving the numerical example show that if an investor is more ambiguity-averse, his investment strategy will always be more conservative.

Citation: Zhilin Kang, Xingyi Li, Zhongfei Li. Mean-CVaR portfolio selection model with ambiguity in distribution and attitude. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (6) : 3065-3081. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019094
References:
[1]

G. Bayraksan and D. K. Love, Data-driven stochastic programming using phi-divergences, in The Operations Research Revolution, INFORMS, 2015, 1–19. doi: 10.1287/educ.2015.0134.  Google Scholar

[2]

A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski, Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs, Ops. Research Letters, 25 (1999), 1-13.  doi: 10.1016/S0167-6377(99)00016-4.  Google Scholar

[3]

M. J. Best and R. R. Grauer, Sensitivity analysis for mean-variance portfolio problems, Mgmt. Science, 37 (1991), 980-989.   Google Scholar

[4]

P. BossaertsP. GhirardatoS. Guarnaschelli and W. R. Zame, Ambiguity in asset markets: Theory and experiment, The Review of Finan. Studies, 23 (2010), 1325-1359.  doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhp106.  Google Scholar

[5]

J. ChengR. ChenH. NajmA. PinarC. Safta and J. P. Watso, Distributionally robust optimization with principal component analysis, SIAM J. on Optimization, 28 (2018), 1817-1841.  doi: 10.1137/16M1075910.  Google Scholar

[6]

E. Delage and Y. Ye, Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems, Ops. Research, 58 (2010), 595-612.  doi: 10.1287/opre.1090.0741.  Google Scholar

[7]

D. Ellsberg, Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75 (1961), 643-669.  doi: 10.2307/1884324.  Google Scholar

[8]

P. M. Esfahani and D. Kuhn, Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations, Math. Programming, 171 (2018), 115-166.  doi: 10.1007/s10107-017-1172-1.  Google Scholar

[9]

C. R. Fox and A. Tversky, Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (1995), 585-603.  doi: 10.2307/2946693.  Google Scholar

[10]

P. GhirardatoF. Maccheroni and M. Marinacci, Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude, J. of Econ. Theory, 118 (2004), 133-173.  doi: 10.1016/j.jet.2003.12.004.  Google Scholar

[11]

I. Gilboa and D. Schmeidler, Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior, J. of Math. Econ., 18 (1989), 141-153.  doi: 10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9.  Google Scholar

[12]

C. Heath and A. Tversky, Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty, J. of Risk and Uncertainty, 4 (1991), 5-28.  doi: 10.1007/BF00057884.  Google Scholar

[13]

R. Jiang and Y. Guan, Data-driven chance constrained stochastic program, Math. Programming, 158 (2016), 291-327.  doi: 10.1007/s10107-015-0929-7.  Google Scholar

[14]

Z. KangX. LiZ. Li and S. Zhu, Data-driven robust mean-CVaR portfolio selection under distribution ambiguity, Quant. Finan., 19 (2019), 105-121.  doi: 10.1080/14697688.2018.1466057.  Google Scholar

[15]

Z. Kang and Z. Li, An exact solution to a robust portfolio choice problem with multiple risk measures under ambiguous distribution, Math. Methods of Ops. Research, 87 (2018), 169-195.  doi: 10.1007/s00186-017-0614-0.  Google Scholar

[16]

B. LiD. Li and D. Xiong, Alpha-robust mean-variance reinsurance-investment strategy, J. of Econ. Dynamics and Control, 70 (2016), 101-123.  doi: 10.1016/j.jedc.2016.07.001.  Google Scholar

[17]

B. LiL. Wang and D. Xiong, Robust utility maximization with extremely ambiguity-loving and ambiguity-aversion preferences, Stochastics, 90 (2018), 524-538.  doi: 10.1080/17442508.2017.1371176.  Google Scholar

[18]

J. LiuZ. ChenA. Lisser and Z. Xu, Closed-Form optimal portfolios of distributionally robust mean-CVaR problems with unknown mean and variance, Appl. Math. & Optimization, 79 (2019), 671-693.  doi: 10.1007/s00245-017-9452-y.  Google Scholar

[19]

S. LotfiM. Salahi and F. Mehrdoust, Adjusted robust mean-value-at-risk model: Less conservative robust portfolios, Optimization and Engineering, 18 (2017), 467-497.  doi: 10.1007/s11081-016-9340-3.  Google Scholar

[20]

S. Lotfi and S. A. Zenios, Robust VaR and CVaR optimization under joint ambiguity in distributions, means, and covariances, European J. of Oper. Research, 269 (2018), 556-576.  doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.02.003.  Google Scholar

[21]

A. B. Paç and M. Ç. Pinar, Robust portfolio choice with CVaR and VaR under distribution and mean return ambiguity, TOP, 22 (2014), 875-891.  doi: 10.1007/s11750-013-0303-y.  Google Scholar

[22]

I. Popescu, Robust mean-covariance solutions for stochastic optimization, Ops. Research, 55 (2007), 98–112. doi: 10.1287/opre.1060.0353.  Google Scholar

[23]

A. G. Quaranta and A. Zaffaroni, Robust optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk and portfolio selection, J. of Banking & Finance, 32 (2008), 2046-2056.  doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.025.  Google Scholar

[24]

K. Ruan and M. Fukushima, Robust portfolio selection with a combined WCVaR and factor model, J. of Indust. & Mgmt. Optimization, 8 (2012), 343-362.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.343.  Google Scholar

[25]

W. WiesemannD. Kuhn and M. Sim, Distributionally robust convex optimization, Ops. Research, 62 (2014), 1358-1376.  doi: 10.1287/opre.2014.1314.  Google Scholar

[26]

S. Zhu and M. Fukushima, Worst-case conditional value-at-risk with application to robust portfolio management, Ops. Research, 57 (2009), 1155-1168.  doi: 10.1287/opre.1080.0684.  Google Scholar

[27]

W. Zhu and H. Shao, Closed-form solutions for extremely-case distortion risk measures and applications to robust portfolio management, 2018. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3103458. Google Scholar

show all references

References:
[1]

G. Bayraksan and D. K. Love, Data-driven stochastic programming using phi-divergences, in The Operations Research Revolution, INFORMS, 2015, 1–19. doi: 10.1287/educ.2015.0134.  Google Scholar

[2]

A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski, Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs, Ops. Research Letters, 25 (1999), 1-13.  doi: 10.1016/S0167-6377(99)00016-4.  Google Scholar

[3]

M. J. Best and R. R. Grauer, Sensitivity analysis for mean-variance portfolio problems, Mgmt. Science, 37 (1991), 980-989.   Google Scholar

[4]

P. BossaertsP. GhirardatoS. Guarnaschelli and W. R. Zame, Ambiguity in asset markets: Theory and experiment, The Review of Finan. Studies, 23 (2010), 1325-1359.  doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhp106.  Google Scholar

[5]

J. ChengR. ChenH. NajmA. PinarC. Safta and J. P. Watso, Distributionally robust optimization with principal component analysis, SIAM J. on Optimization, 28 (2018), 1817-1841.  doi: 10.1137/16M1075910.  Google Scholar

[6]

E. Delage and Y. Ye, Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems, Ops. Research, 58 (2010), 595-612.  doi: 10.1287/opre.1090.0741.  Google Scholar

[7]

D. Ellsberg, Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75 (1961), 643-669.  doi: 10.2307/1884324.  Google Scholar

[8]

P. M. Esfahani and D. Kuhn, Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations, Math. Programming, 171 (2018), 115-166.  doi: 10.1007/s10107-017-1172-1.  Google Scholar

[9]

C. R. Fox and A. Tversky, Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (1995), 585-603.  doi: 10.2307/2946693.  Google Scholar

[10]

P. GhirardatoF. Maccheroni and M. Marinacci, Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude, J. of Econ. Theory, 118 (2004), 133-173.  doi: 10.1016/j.jet.2003.12.004.  Google Scholar

[11]

I. Gilboa and D. Schmeidler, Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior, J. of Math. Econ., 18 (1989), 141-153.  doi: 10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9.  Google Scholar

[12]

C. Heath and A. Tversky, Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty, J. of Risk and Uncertainty, 4 (1991), 5-28.  doi: 10.1007/BF00057884.  Google Scholar

[13]

R. Jiang and Y. Guan, Data-driven chance constrained stochastic program, Math. Programming, 158 (2016), 291-327.  doi: 10.1007/s10107-015-0929-7.  Google Scholar

[14]

Z. KangX. LiZ. Li and S. Zhu, Data-driven robust mean-CVaR portfolio selection under distribution ambiguity, Quant. Finan., 19 (2019), 105-121.  doi: 10.1080/14697688.2018.1466057.  Google Scholar

[15]

Z. Kang and Z. Li, An exact solution to a robust portfolio choice problem with multiple risk measures under ambiguous distribution, Math. Methods of Ops. Research, 87 (2018), 169-195.  doi: 10.1007/s00186-017-0614-0.  Google Scholar

[16]

B. LiD. Li and D. Xiong, Alpha-robust mean-variance reinsurance-investment strategy, J. of Econ. Dynamics and Control, 70 (2016), 101-123.  doi: 10.1016/j.jedc.2016.07.001.  Google Scholar

[17]

B. LiL. Wang and D. Xiong, Robust utility maximization with extremely ambiguity-loving and ambiguity-aversion preferences, Stochastics, 90 (2018), 524-538.  doi: 10.1080/17442508.2017.1371176.  Google Scholar

[18]

J. LiuZ. ChenA. Lisser and Z. Xu, Closed-Form optimal portfolios of distributionally robust mean-CVaR problems with unknown mean and variance, Appl. Math. & Optimization, 79 (2019), 671-693.  doi: 10.1007/s00245-017-9452-y.  Google Scholar

[19]

S. LotfiM. Salahi and F. Mehrdoust, Adjusted robust mean-value-at-risk model: Less conservative robust portfolios, Optimization and Engineering, 18 (2017), 467-497.  doi: 10.1007/s11081-016-9340-3.  Google Scholar

[20]

S. Lotfi and S. A. Zenios, Robust VaR and CVaR optimization under joint ambiguity in distributions, means, and covariances, European J. of Oper. Research, 269 (2018), 556-576.  doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.02.003.  Google Scholar

[21]

A. B. Paç and M. Ç. Pinar, Robust portfolio choice with CVaR and VaR under distribution and mean return ambiguity, TOP, 22 (2014), 875-891.  doi: 10.1007/s11750-013-0303-y.  Google Scholar

[22]

I. Popescu, Robust mean-covariance solutions for stochastic optimization, Ops. Research, 55 (2007), 98–112. doi: 10.1287/opre.1060.0353.  Google Scholar

[23]

A. G. Quaranta and A. Zaffaroni, Robust optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk and portfolio selection, J. of Banking & Finance, 32 (2008), 2046-2056.  doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.025.  Google Scholar

[24]

K. Ruan and M. Fukushima, Robust portfolio selection with a combined WCVaR and factor model, J. of Indust. & Mgmt. Optimization, 8 (2012), 343-362.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.343.  Google Scholar

[25]

W. WiesemannD. Kuhn and M. Sim, Distributionally robust convex optimization, Ops. Research, 62 (2014), 1358-1376.  doi: 10.1287/opre.2014.1314.  Google Scholar

[26]

S. Zhu and M. Fukushima, Worst-case conditional value-at-risk with application to robust portfolio management, Ops. Research, 57 (2009), 1155-1168.  doi: 10.1287/opre.1080.0684.  Google Scholar

[27]

W. Zhu and H. Shao, Closed-form solutions for extremely-case distortion risk measures and applications to robust portfolio management, 2018. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3103458. Google Scholar

Figure 1.  The left panel shows that $ k(\alpha) $ and $ b(\alpha) $ are decreasing in $ \alpha $. The efficient frontier lines for $ \alpha $-robust CVaR model are shown in the right panel. The steepest line (Dash-dot line, black) and flattest line (Solid line, blue) correspond to the cases $ \alpha = 0.5 $ and $ \alpha = 1 $, respectively. ($ H = 0.4722 $, $ r_f = 1.01 $, $ \gamma_1 = 0.0001 $, $ \gamma_2 = 1.2 $, $ \beta = 0.95 $)
Figure 2.  Efficient frontiers of the $ \alpha $-maxmin mean-CVaR model with different parameter $ \alpha $. The $ \alpha $-maxmin portfolio CVaR in the $ x $-axis ($ \alpha $-maxmin portfolio return in the $ y $-axis) is a convex mixture between the worst-case and best-case values of CVaR risk measures (expected return)
Figure 3.  Effects of $ \alpha $ (the level of ambiguity aversion) on the $ \alpha $-maxmin portfolio return and $ \alpha $-maxmin portfolio CVaR
Figure 4.  Effect of $ \alpha $ (the level of ambiguity aversion) on the composition of efficient portfolios from the $ \alpha $-maxmin mean-CVaR model. The percentage allocation of assets 1-3 in the optimal allocation $ x^* $ have been illustrated in different colors
Figure 5.  The variations of optimal portfolio strategies under different levels of ambiguity $ \gamma_1 $ (for a given $ \gamma_2 = 1.2 $) and $ \gamma_2 $ (for a given $ \gamma_1 = 0.0001 $). The percentage allocation of assets 1-3 in the optimal allocation $ x^* $ have been illustrated in different colors
[1]

Federico Rodriguez Hertz, Zhiren Wang. On $ \epsilon $-escaping trajectories in homogeneous spaces. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 329-357. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020365

[2]

Mathew Gluck. Classification of solutions to a system of $ n^{\rm th} $ order equations on $ \mathbb R^n $. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5413-5436. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020246

[3]

Lei Liu, Li Wu. Multiplicity of closed characteristics on $ P $-symmetric compact convex hypersurfaces in $ \mathbb{R}^{2n} $. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020378

[4]

Yichen Zhang, Meiqiang Feng. A coupled $ p $-Laplacian elliptic system: Existence, uniqueness and asymptotic behavior. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1419-1438. doi: 10.3934/era.2020075

[5]

Aihua Fan, Jörg Schmeling, Weixiao Shen. $ L^\infty $-estimation of generalized Thue-Morse trigonometric polynomials and ergodic maximization. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 297-327. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020363

[6]

Denis Bonheure, Silvia Cingolani, Simone Secchi. Concentration phenomena for the Schrödinger-Poisson system in $ \mathbb{R}^2 $. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020447

[7]

Lihong Zhang, Wenwen Hou, Bashir Ahmad, Guotao Wang. Radial symmetry for logarithmic Choquard equation involving a generalized tempered fractional $ p $-Laplacian. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020445

[8]

Mokhtar Bouloudene, Manar A. Alqudah, Fahd Jarad, Yassine Adjabi, Thabet Abdeljawad. Nonlinear singular $ p $ -Laplacian boundary value problems in the frame of conformable derivative. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020442

[9]

Thabet Abdeljawad, Mohammad Esmael Samei. Applying quantum calculus for the existence of solution of $ q $-integro-differential equations with three criteria. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020440

[10]

Wenjun Liu, Yukun Xiao, Xiaoqing Yue. Classification of finite irreducible conformal modules over Lie conformal algebra $ \mathcal{W}(a, b, r) $. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2020123

[11]

Zuliang Lu, Fei Huang, Xiankui Wu, Lin Li, Shang Liu. Convergence and quasi-optimality of $ L^2- $norms based an adaptive finite element method for nonlinear optimal control problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1459-1486. doi: 10.3934/era.2020077

[12]

Li-Bin Liu, Ying Liang, Jian Zhang, Xiaobing Bao. A robust adaptive grid method for singularly perturbed Burger-Huxley equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1439-1457. doi: 10.3934/era.2020076

[13]

Haixiang Yao, Ping Chen, Miao Zhang, Xun Li. Dynamic discrete-time portfolio selection for defined contribution pension funds with inflation risk. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020166

[14]

Reza Lotfi, Zahra Yadegari, Seyed Hossein Hosseini, Amir Hossein Khameneh, Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber. A robust time-cost-quality-energy-environment trade-off with resource-constrained in project management: A case study for a bridge construction project. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020158

[15]

Jie Li, Xiangdong Ye, Tao Yu. Mean equicontinuity, complexity and applications. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 359-393. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020167

[16]

Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi. A new methodology for solving bi-criterion fractional stochastic programming. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/naco.2020054

[17]

Zonghong Cao, Jie Min. Selection and impact of decision mode of encroachment and retail service in a dual-channel supply chain. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020167

[18]

Suhaib Abduljabbar Altamir, Zakariya Yahya Algamal. Improving whale optimization algorithm for feature selection with a time-varying transfer function. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 87-98. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020017

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366

Article outline

Figures and Tables

[Back to Top]