用确定性等价曲线比较收益-风险和直接效用最大化组合优化方法

H. Vu
{"title":"用确定性等价曲线比较收益-风险和直接效用最大化组合优化方法","authors":"H. Vu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1354383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mean-Risk portfolio optimization method proposes an efficient frontier that consists of portfolios not dominated by any portfolio. Consequently, this method reduces the choice set by excluding inefficient portfolios. Different risk measures offer different efficient frontiers, which can be interpreted as different optimal choice sets. The question is whether these different risk measures lead to significantly different efficient frontiers for the investors, and which risk measure should be used. My purpose is to present a method to assess the effect of the choice set reduction from different Return-Risk models and to answer the question presented earlier. The most important contribution of the paper is the creation of a two-dimensional space “Risk-Aversion – Certainty Equivalence (CE)” as a platform for comparisons. The curves, representing different risk-averse investors and different models, on this space are called “Certainty Equivalence Curves (CEC)”. The empirical analysis shows that the Mean-Variance method is very effective in ranking portfolios for exponential utility investors. Therefore, it is not recommended to use more complicated methods such as Mean-CVaR.","PeriodicalId":280702,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Econometric Studies of Derivatives Markets (Topic)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Return-Risk and Direct Utility Maximization Portfolio Optimization Methods by ‘Certainty Equivalence Curves’\",\"authors\":\"H. Vu\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1354383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mean-Risk portfolio optimization method proposes an efficient frontier that consists of portfolios not dominated by any portfolio. Consequently, this method reduces the choice set by excluding inefficient portfolios. Different risk measures offer different efficient frontiers, which can be interpreted as different optimal choice sets. The question is whether these different risk measures lead to significantly different efficient frontiers for the investors, and which risk measure should be used. My purpose is to present a method to assess the effect of the choice set reduction from different Return-Risk models and to answer the question presented earlier. The most important contribution of the paper is the creation of a two-dimensional space “Risk-Aversion – Certainty Equivalence (CE)” as a platform for comparisons. The curves, representing different risk-averse investors and different models, on this space are called “Certainty Equivalence Curves (CEC)”. The empirical analysis shows that the Mean-Variance method is very effective in ranking portfolios for exponential utility investors. Therefore, it is not recommended to use more complicated methods such as Mean-CVaR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":280702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Econometric Studies of Derivatives Markets (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Econometric Studies of Derivatives Markets (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1354383\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Econometric Studies of Derivatives Markets (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1354383","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

平均风险投资组合优化方法提出了一个由不受任何投资组合支配的投资组合组成的有效边界。因此,该方法通过排除低效率的投资组合来减少选择集。不同的风险度量提供不同的有效边界,这可以解释为不同的最优选择集。问题是这些不同的风险度量是否会导致投资者的有效边界显著不同,以及应该使用哪种风险度量。我的目的是提出一种方法来评估从不同的回报-风险模型中选择集减少的影响,并回答前面提出的问题。本文最重要的贡献是创建了一个二维空间“风险厌恶-确定性等价(CE)”作为比较平台。在这个空间中,代表不同风险规避投资者和不同模型的曲线被称为“确定性等价曲线(CEC)”。实证分析表明,均值方差法对指数效用投资者的投资组合排序是非常有效的。因此,不建议使用更复杂的方法,如Mean-CVaR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Return-Risk and Direct Utility Maximization Portfolio Optimization Methods by ‘Certainty Equivalence Curves’
Mean-Risk portfolio optimization method proposes an efficient frontier that consists of portfolios not dominated by any portfolio. Consequently, this method reduces the choice set by excluding inefficient portfolios. Different risk measures offer different efficient frontiers, which can be interpreted as different optimal choice sets. The question is whether these different risk measures lead to significantly different efficient frontiers for the investors, and which risk measure should be used. My purpose is to present a method to assess the effect of the choice set reduction from different Return-Risk models and to answer the question presented earlier. The most important contribution of the paper is the creation of a two-dimensional space “Risk-Aversion – Certainty Equivalence (CE)” as a platform for comparisons. The curves, representing different risk-averse investors and different models, on this space are called “Certainty Equivalence Curves (CEC)”. The empirical analysis shows that the Mean-Variance method is very effective in ranking portfolios for exponential utility investors. Therefore, it is not recommended to use more complicated methods such as Mean-CVaR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信