A MARKOVIAN APPROXIMATED SOLUTION TO A PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT PROBLEM



Fig. 20. Yield location and spread measures.

To quantify a risk level associated with this policy,
two popular risk measures, Valuc-at-Risk (VaR)
and Conditional Valuc-at-Risk15 (CVaR) can be
approximately calculated from the histogram. The
/J-VaR of a portfolio is the lowest- amount-
a such
that, with probability
β the loss will not- exceed
α; here

.9-VaR ≈ 30,000.

The /J-CVaR is the conditional expectation of
losses above the amount- α; here

.9-CVa-R. ≈ 34,000.

These measures disqualify the policy of maximis-
ing the expected yield as a fund manager’s ob-
jective function. No manager would accept- such a
high risk in controlling a pension fund.

A different- strategy has to be considered. Sup-
pose that the manager will use a “constrained”
strategy: t⅛ιt = .5,
U∙2,t = .02.τf (i.c., non optimal
with respect- to the expected value criterion). Wc
can see from Figure 21 (lower panel) that, for
the same initial outlay .τo = $40,000, the yield
distribution (represented by the light- histogram)
is more concentrated and less skewed than the
unconstrained one (upper panel). The mean for
this portfolio is $84,100 (mcdian=58,710) and the
standard deviation diminishes to $45,563 from
$168,000 for the unconstrained policy. The dark
histogram represents the final fund’s yield dis-
tribution for the constrained strategy applied to
.τo = 60,000. In this ease, the mean value is

Fig. 21. Fund yield spread.

$109,013 (mcdian=93,000) and the standard de-
viation $63,322. Overall, the risk of performing
worse than investing in the secure asset- alone is
much less under a constrained strategy. The risk
of scoring less than .τ0 is, for .τ0 = 40,000

.9-VaR ≈ 13,000 and .9-CVaR ≈ 17,000;

whereas for .τ0 = 60,000,

.9-VaR ≈ 21,000 and .9-CVaR ≈ 30,000.

Suppose now that the fund manager would like to
advertise their pension fund as paying an amount
for an initial outlay .tq∙16 It is clear from
the histograms in Figure 21 that an expected
value maximisation policy (constrained or not)
cannot- be used for this purpose. Instead, we will
examine the policy determined as a solution to
the stochastic optimal control problem with the
objective function given as

J(0,.τ(0)ρu) =IE ^7r(.ττ)∣ .τ(0) = .τo^ (37)
where

1 ( x ʃ (∙'fτ -⅛)5 if xτ > xτ■ ∕o8

This criterion reflects the manager’s wish to dis-
pose of sufficient- funds to meet- the target-
xτ∙ At
the same time, it- docs not- prompt- the manager to
accumulate (much) more than needed.

15Soo [1] for a static portfolio analysis based on VaR and
raR.

10In other words, the manager will sell a ten year “bond7
Sio fɑɪ' -ro-

ll




More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. The name is absent
4. An Empirical Analysis of the Curvature Factor of the Term Structure of Interest Rates
5. The name is absent
6. AMINO ACIDS SEQUENCE ANALYSIS ON COLLAGEN
7. Real Exchange Rate Misalignment: Prelude to Crisis?
8. Fiscal Insurance and Debt Management in OECD Economies
9. A Unified Model For Developmental Robotics
10. AGRICULTURAL TRADE LIBERALIZATION UNDER NAFTA: REPORTING ON THE REPORT CARD
11. Dual Inflation Under the Currency Board: The Challenges of Bulgarian EU Accession
12. The name is absent
13. Økonomisk teorihistorie - Overflødig information eller brugbar ballast?
14. The name is absent
15. Notes on an Endogenous Growth Model with two Capital Stocks II: The Stochastic Case
16. Family, social security and social insurance: General remarks and the present discussion in Germany as a case study
17. Getting the practical teaching element right: A guide for literacy, numeracy and ESOL teacher educators
18. Trade Liberalization, Firm Performance and Labour Market Outcomes in the Developing World: What Can We Learn from Micro-LevelData?
19. BEN CHOI & YANBING CHEN
20. Name Strategy: Its Existence and Implications