Stability analysis of portfolio management with conditional value-at-risk

Abstract

We examine the stability of a portfolio management model based on the conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) measure; the model controls risk exposure of international investment portfolios. We use a moment-matching method to generate discrete distributions (scenario sets) of asset returns and exchange rates so that their statistical properties match corresponding values estimated from historical data. First, we establish that the scenario generation procedure does not bias the results of the optimization program, and we determine the required number of scenarios to attain stable solutions. We then investigate the sensitivity of the CVaR model to mis-specifications in the statistics of stochastic parameters: mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, as well as correlations. The results are most sensitive to estimation errors in the means of the stochastic parameters (asset returns and currency exchange rates). Mis-specifications in the standard deviation, skewness and correlations of the random parameters also have considerable impact on the solutions. The effect of mis-specifications in the values of kurtosis, although less than that of the other statistics, is still not negligible.Portfolio management, Stability analysis, Impact of higher-order moments, Estimation errors, Conditional value-at-risk,

A sensitivity analysis of short-term hydropower planning using stochastic programming

“…For that reason the stability requirement has to be fulfilled. For this problem in-sample stability is tested: first, several trees with different number of scenarios are generated, then the optimization problem is solved for each tree and finally solutions are compared [16]. Based on the simulation results, ten scenarios seem sufficient to get stable results.…”

Planning for charters: A stochastic maritime fleet composition and deployment problem

“…Whichever scenario generation method is used, an important but often overlooked question is how the properties of the uncertain phenomena affect the stochastic program, see discussions in, e.g., Kallberg and Ziemba [10], Chopra and Ziemba [3], Kaut et al [11], Lium et al [14], Pantuso et al [21].…”

“…The relatively long-term (P-1 plus P-2) charter is effectively w v − w v for ship type v; and the short-term (P-1 only or P-2 only) charters are w v and w ⊕ v for the first and second periods, respectively. Also note that, Expression (1.a) together with Constraints (6) and (11) ensure that for each ship type v, w ⊕ v and w v will never be simultaneously positive in an optimal solution, i.e., at least one will be zero. Constraints (11) - (15) …”

Corporate hedging: an answer to the “how” question

“…Secondly, there is a tradeoff between the number of stages and the number of outcomes per stage, and we know from e.g. Kaut et al (2007) that even in a single-period model the required number of scenarios for a stable solution is likely to be large. 5 Although this is interesting for future research, multiple stages introduce additional difficulties, and to focus on the challenges already inherent in the corporate hedging problem, in this study we work in a single-period framework.…”

“…The initial project value, corresponding to the present value of expected future cash flows, is 1334 million SEK (MSEK) at the date of the (first) hedging decision. We use 10,000 scenarios in all studied hedging problems, which have been chosen to maintain simulation efficiency while implying in and out-of-sample stability as defined in Kaut et al (2007). 13 For the purpose of reducing the variance in the scenarios, we sample with the latin hypercube technique and use antithetic variates (see e.g.…”