论文标题
投资组合选择的强大优化方法:计算和比较分析
Robust Optimization Approaches for Portfolio Selection: A Computational and Comparative Analysis
论文作者
论文摘要
投资组合选择领域是一个活跃的研究主题,它结合了来自各个领域的要素和方法,例如优化,决策分析,风险管理,数据科学,预测等。对未来资产回报的深度不确定性的建模和处理是分析投资组合选择模型成功的主要问题。最近,强大的优化(RO)模型引起了这一领域的引起极大的兴趣。 RO基于对不确定风险参数的概率分布的相对一般性假设,为投资组合优化提供了一个可计算的框架。因此,RO将传统线性和非线性模型(例如众所周知的均值变化模型)扩展了框架,并通过形式和分析方法将不确定性纳入建模过程中。就不确定参数与其名义值的偏差而言,现有模型的强大对应物可以被认为是最坏情况的重建。尽管在文献中提出了多种RO模型,该文献重点介绍了有关资产回报的各种风险措施和不同类型的不确定性集,但对其绩效的分析经验评估尚未以全面的方式进行。这项研究的目的是填补文献中的这一空白。更具体地说,我们根据流行的风险措施考虑了不同类型的RO模型,并在2005 - 2016年期间使用来自美国市场的数据对其绩效进行了广泛的比较分析。
The field of portfolio selection is an active research topic, which combines elements and methodologies from various fields, such as optimization, decision analysis, risk management, data science, forecasting, etc. The modeling and treatment of deep uncertainties for future asset returns is a major issue for the success of analytical portfolio selection models. Recently, robust optimization (RO) models have attracted a lot of interest in this area. RO provides a computationally tractable framework for portfolio optimization based on relatively general assumptions on the probability distributions of the uncertain risk parameters. Thus, RO extends the framework of traditional linear and non-linear models (e.g., the well-known mean-variance model), incorporating uncertainty through a formal and analytical approach into the modeling process. Robust counterparts of existing models can be considered as worst-case re-formulations as far as deviations of the uncertain parameters from their nominal values are concerned. Although several RO models have been proposed in the literature focusing on various risk measures and different types of uncertainty sets about asset returns, analytical empirical assessments of their performance have not been performed in a comprehensive manner. The objective of this study is to fill in this gap in the literature. More specifically, we consider different types of RO models based on popular risk measures and conduct an extensive comparative analysis of their performance using data from the US market during the period 2005-2016.