The Robustness of Portfolio Optimization Models: An Empirical Comparative Analysis

The optimization of investment portfolios is a topic of major importance in financial decision making, and many relevant models can be found in the literature. These models extend the traditional mean-variance framework using a variety of other risk-return measures. Existing comparative studies have adopted a rather restrictive approach, focusing solely on the minimum risk portfolio without considering the whole set of efficient portfolios, which are also relevant for investors. This chapter focuses on the performance of the whole efficient set. To this end, the authors examine the out-of-sample robustness of efficient portfolios derived by popular optimization models, namely the traditional mean-variance model, mean-absolute deviation, conditional value at risk, and a multi-objective model. Tests are conducted using data for S&P 500 stocks over the period 2005-2016. The results are analyzed through novel performance indicators representing the deviations between historical (estimated) efficient frontiers, actual out-of-sample efficient frontiers, and realized out-of-sample portfolio results. The Robustness of Portfolio Optimization Models: An Empirical Comparative Analysis

[1]  H. Konno,et al.  Mean-absolute deviation portfolio optimization model and its applications to Tokyo stock market , 1991 .

[2]  Ralph E. Steuer,et al.  An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming , 1983, Math. Program..

[3]  Victor DeMiguel,et al.  Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy? , 2009 .

[4]  Ralph E. Steuer,et al.  Value of information in portfolio selection, with a Taiwan stock market application illustration , 2016, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  R. Mansini,et al.  A comparison of MAD and CVaR models with real features , 2008 .

[6]  Stanislav Uryasev,et al.  Conditional Value-at-Risk for General Loss Distributions , 2002 .

[7]  W. Ogryczak,et al.  LP solvable models for portfolio optimization: a classification and computational comparison , 2003 .

[8]  Blockchain for Islamic Financial Services Institutions , 2019, FinTech as a Disruptive Technology for Financial Institutions.

[9]  Konstantinos Liagkouras,et al.  Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms for Portfolio Management: A comprehensive literature review , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[10]  Andrew E. B. Lim,et al.  Conditional value-at-risk in portfolio optimization: Coherent but fragile , 2011, Oper. Res. Lett..

[11]  Mar Arenas Parra,et al.  Socially Responsible Investment: A multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  P. Krokhmal,et al.  Portfolio optimization with conditional value-at-risk objective and constraints , 2001 .

[13]  Maria Grazia Speranza,et al.  Twenty years of linear programming based portfolio optimization , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  Frank J. Fabozzi,et al.  60 Years of portfolio optimization: Practical challenges and current trends , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  G. Szegö Measures of risk , 2002 .

[16]  Manfred Gilli,et al.  Optimal enough? , 2010, J. Heuristics.

[17]  Philippe Artzner,et al.  Coherent Measures of Risk , 1999 .

[18]  Frank J. Fabozzi,et al.  Robust portfolios: contributions from operations research and finance , 2010, Ann. Oper. Res..