A process control approach to investment risk

The problem of misdirected investment strategies based on erroneous forecasts is the motivation for a Process Control (PC) approach to volatility and risk. Upper and lower limits on the capital accumulation process are used to determine if the current investment strategy continues. If a limit is reached then rebalancing occurs, where returns are re-estimated, new limits are established and a new strategy is determined. This variable planning horizon approach is compared to the standard Value-at-Risk (VaR) methodology, where the time horizon is fixed. In an application to asset allocation involving stocks, bonds and cash, it is shown that for any VaR strategy there exists process control limits so that the corresponding PC strategy has greater expected return with equivalent downside risk. The advantage in the process control approach comes from intervening when the wealth process deviates significantly from expectations.

[1]  W. Whitt,et al.  Portfolio choice and the Bayesian Kelly criterion , 1996, Advances in Applied Probability.

[2]  Suleyman Basak,et al.  Value-at-Risk Based Risk Management: Optimal Policies and Asset Prices , 1999 .

[3]  K. Arrow The Role of Securities in the Optimal Allocation of Risk-bearing , 1964 .

[4]  J. Doob Stochastic processes , 1953 .

[5]  Philippe Jorion,et al.  How Informative are Value-at-Risk Disclosures? , 2002 .

[6]  L. C. G. Rogers,et al.  The relaxed investor and parameter uncertainty , 2001, Finance Stochastics.

[7]  William T. Ziemba,et al.  A Dynamic Asset Allocation Model with Downside Risk Control , 2000 .

[8]  R. C. Merton,et al.  Continuous-Time Finance , 1990 .

[9]  W. Ziemba,et al.  The Effect of Errors in Means, Variances, and Covariances on Optimal Portfolio Choice , 1993 .

[10]  William T. Ziemba,et al.  Time to wealth goals in capital accumulation , 2005 .

[11]  W. Ziemba,et al.  Growth versus security in dynamic investment analysis , 1992 .

[12]  John L. Kelly,et al.  A new interpretation of information rate , 1956, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[13]  William T. Ziemba,et al.  Growth versus security tradeoffs indynamic investment analysis , 1999, Ann. Oper. Res..

[14]  Philippe Jorion Value at risk: the new benchmark for controlling market risk , 1996 .

[15]  J. Pratt RISK AVERSION IN THE SMALL AND IN THE LARGE11This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant NSF-G24035). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .