DOCSLIB.ORG

Dynamic Asset Allocation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dynamic Asset Allocation Dynamic Asset Allocation Claus Munk Until August 2012: Aarhus University, e-mail: [email protected] From August 2012: Copenhagen Business School, e-mail: [email protected] this version: July 3, 2012 The document contains graphs in color, use color printer for best results. Contents Preface v 1 Introduction to asset allocation 1 1.1 Introduction . .1 1.2 Investor classes and motives for investments . .1 1.3 Typical investment advice . .3 1.4 How do individuals allocate their wealth? . .3 1.5 An overview of the theory of optimal investments . .3 1.6 The future of investment management and services . .3 1.7 Outline of the rest . .3 1.8 Notation . .3 2 Preferences 5 2.1 Introduction . .5 2.2 Consumption plans and preference relations . .6 2.3 Utility indices . .9 2.4 Expected utility representation of preferences . 10 2.5 Risk aversion . 16 2.6 Utility functions in models and in reality . 20 2.7 Preferences for multi-date consumption plans . 26 2.8 Exercises . 33 3 One-period models 37 3.1 Introduction . 37 3.2 The general one-period model . 37 3.3 Mean-variance analysis . 43 3.4 A numerical example . 49 3.5 Mean-variance analysis with constraints . 49 3.6 Estimation . 49 i ii Contents 3.7 Critique of the one-period framework . 49 3.8 Exercises . 50 4 Discrete-time multi-period models 51 4.1 Introduction . 51 4.2 A multi-period, discrete-time framework for asset allocation . 51 4.3 Dynamic programming in discrete-time models . 54 5 Introduction to continuous-time modelling 59 5.1 Introduction . 59 5.2 The basic continuous-time setting . 59 5.3 Dynamic programming in continuous-time models . 62 5.4 Loss from suboptimal strategies . 66 5.5 Exercises . 67 6 Asset allocation with constant investment opportunities 69 6.1 Introduction . 69 6.2 General utility function . 70 6.3 CRRA utility function . 72 6.4 Logarithmic utility . 75 6.5 Discussion of the optimal investment strategy for CRRA utility . 76 6.6 The life-cycle . 78 6.7 Loss due to suboptimal investments . 80 6.8 Infrequent rebalancing of the portfolio . 81 6.9 Exercises . 84 7 Stochastic investment opportunities: the general case 85 7.1 Introduction . 85 7.2 General utility functions . 86 7.3 CRRA utility . 93 7.4 Logarithmic utility . 105 7.5 How costly are deviations from the optimal investment strategy? . 105 7.6 Exercises . 107 8 The martingale approach 111 8.1 The martingale approach in complete markets . 111 8.2 Complete markets and constant investment opportunities . 115 8.3 Complete markets and stochastic investment opportunities . 119 8.4 The martingale approach with portfolio constraints . 120 8.5 Exercises . 127 9 Numerical methods for solving dynamic asset allocation problems 129 Contents iii 10 Asset allocation with stochastic interest rates 131 10.1 Introduction . 131 10.2 One-factor Vasicek interest rate dynamics . 132 10.3 One-factor CIR dynamics . 135 10.4 A numerical example . 137 10.5 Two-factor Vasicek model . 143 10.6 Other studies with stochastic interest rates . 146 10.7 Exercises . 149 11 Asset allocation with stochastic market prices of risk 153 11.1 Introduction . 153 11.2 Mean reversion in stock returns . 153 11.3 Stochastic volatility . 160 11.4 More . 164 11.5 Exercises . 164 12 Inflation risk and asset allocation with no risk-free asset 167 12.1 Introduction . 167 12.2 Real and nominal price dynamics . 167 12.3 Constant investment opportunities . 169 12.4 General stochastic investment opportunities . 172 12.5 Hedging real interest rate risk without real bonds . 172 13 Labor income 179 13.1 Introduction . 179 13.2 A motivating example . 179 13.3 Exogenous income in a complete market . 181 13.4 Exogenous income in incomplete markets . 189 13.5 Endogenous labor supply and income . 191 13.6 More . 194 14 Consumption and portfolio choice with housing 195 15 Other variations of the problem... 197 15.1 Multiple and/or durable consumption goods . 197 15.2 Uncertain time of death; insurance . 197 16 International asset allocation 199 17 Non-standard assumptions on investors 201 17.1 Preferences with habit formation . 201 17.2 Recursive utility . 203 17.3 Model/parameter uncertainty, incomplete information, learning . 210 17.4 Ambiguity aversion . 210 17.5 Other objective functions . 210 17.6 Consumption and portfolio choice for non-price takers . 210 iv Contents 17.7 Non-utility based portfolio choice . 210 17.8 Allowing for bankruptcy . 211 18 Trading and information imperfections 213 18.1 Trading constraints . 213 18.2 Transaction costs . 213 A Results on the lognormal distribution 219 B Stochastic processes and stochastic calculus 223 B.1 Introduction . 223 B.2 What is a stochastic process? . 224 B.3 Brownian motions . 231 B.4 Diffusion processes . 234 B.5 It^oprocesses . 237 B.6 Stochastic integrals . 237 B.7 It^o'sLemma . 241 B.8 Important diffusion processes . ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Portfolio Selection Under Exponential and Quadratic Utility
    Portfolio Selection Under Exponential and Quadratic Utility Steven T. Buccola The production or marketing portfolio that is optimal under the assumption of quadratic utility may or may not be optimal under the assumption of exponential utility. In certain cases, the necessary and sufficient condition for an identical solution is that absolute risk aversion coefficients associated with the two utility functions be the same. In other cases, equality of risk aversion coefficients is a sufficient condition only. A comparison is made between use of exponential and quadratic utility in the analysis of a California farmer's marketing problem. A large number of utility functional forms difference. Under other conditions, the have been proposed for use in selecting opti- choice has a significant impact on optimal mal portfolios of risky prospects [Tsaing]. For behavior. purposes of both theoretical and applied eco- Suppose an analyst is studying a continu- nomic research, attention has primarily been ously divisible set of alternative production directed to the quadratic and exponential or marketing options offering approximately forms. After enjoying widespread use in the normally-distributed returns, and that he 1950s and 1960s, the quadratic form came wishes to select the portfolio of these options under criticism by Pratt and others and lost with highest expected utility. The analyst is much of its reputability. In contrast the expo- considering using an exponential utility func- nential form has become increasingly popu- tion U = -exp(-Xx), X > 0, or a quadratic lar, due in large measure to its mathematical utility function U = x -vx,v, > 0, x < /2v, tractability [Attanasi and Karlinger; O'Con- where U is utility and x is wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilitarianism, Expected Utility Theory, Catastrophic Risks JEL-Classification: Q54
    EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY AND THE TYRANNY OF CATASTROPHIC RISKS WOLFGANG BUCHHOLZ∗ AND MICHAEL SCHYMURAy FIRST VERSION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2010 THIS VERSION: DECEMBER 06, 2010 ABSTRACT - Expected Utility theory is not only applied to individual choices but also to eth- ical decisions, e.g. in cost-benefit analysis of climate change policy measures that affect future generations. In this context the crucial question arises whether EU theory is able to deal with "catastrophic risks", i.e. risks of high, but very unlikely losses, in an ethically appealing way. In this paper we show that this is not the case. Rather, if in the framework of EU theory a plausi- ble level of risk aversion is assumed, a "tyranny of catastrophic risk" (TCR) emerges, i.e. project evaluation may be dominated by the catastrophic event even if its probability is negligibly small. With low degrees of risk aversion, however the catastrophic risk eventually has no impact at all when its probability goes to zero which is ethically not acceptable as well. Keywords: Utilitarianism, Expected Utility Theory, Catastrophic Risks JEL-Classification: Q54 ∗University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, D-93053 Regensburg, Germany; Email: [email protected] yCentre for European Economic Research (ZEW), L7,1, D-68161 Mannheim, Germany; Email: [email protected]. The authors express their thank for helpful comments from John Roemer (Yale University), Martin Weitzman (Harvard University) and Kenneth Arrow (Stanford University). Furthermore this paper has benefited from the discussions at the 18th EAERE Annual Confer- ence in Rome and the 16th World Congress of the International Economic Association in Beijing.
    [Show full text]
  • Utility with Decreasing Risk Aversion
    144 UTILITY WITH DECREASING RISK AVERSION GARY G. VENTER Abstract Utility theory is discussed as a basis for premium calculation. Desirable features of utility functions are enumerated, including decreasing absolute risk aversion. Examples are given of functions meeting this requirement. Calculating premiums for simplified risk situations is advanced as a step towards selecting a specific utility function. An example of a more typical portfolio pricing problem is included. “The large rattling dice exhilarate me as torrents borne on a precipice flowing in a desert. To the winning player they are tipped with honey, slaying hirri in return by taking away the gambler’s all. Giving serious attention to my advice, play not with dice: pursue agriculture: delight in wealth so acquired.” KAVASHA Rig Veda X.3:5 Avoidance of risk situations has been regarded as prudent throughout history, but individuals with a preference for risk are also known. For many decision makers, the value of different potential levels of wealth is apparently not strictly proportional to the wealth level itself. A mathematical device to treat this is the utility function, which assigns a value to each wealth level. Thus, a 50-50 chance at double or nothing on your wealth level may or may not be felt equivalent to maintaining your present level; however, a 50-50 chance at nothing or the value of wealth that would double your utility (if such a value existed) would be equivalent to maintaining the present level, assuming that the utility of zero wealth is zero. This is more or less by definition, as the utility function is set up to make such comparisons possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Power Utility and a Suggested Alternative: Resurrecting Exponential Utility
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The Case Against Power Utility and a Suggested Alternative: Resurrecting Exponential Utility Alpanda, Sami and Woglom, Geoffrey Amherst College, Amherst College July 2007 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5897/ MPRA Paper No. 5897, posted 23 Nov 2007 06:09 UTC The Case against Power Utility and a Suggested Alternative: Resurrecting Exponential Utility Sami Alpanda Geoffrey Woglom Amherst College Amherst College Abstract Utility modeled as a power function is commonly used in the literature despite the fact that it is unbounded and generates asset pricing puzzles. The unboundedness property leads to St. Petersburg paradox issues and indifference to compound gambles, but these problems have largely been ignored. The asset pricing puzzles have been solved by introducing habit formation to the usual power utility. Given these issues, we believe it is time re-examine exponential utility. Exponential utility was abandoned largely because it implies increasing relative risk aversion in a cross-section of individuals and non- stationarity of the aggregate consumption to wealth ratio, contradicting macroeconomic data. We propose an alternative preference specification with exponential utility and relative habit formation. We show that this utility function is bounded, consistent with asset pricing facts, generates near-constant relative risk aversion in a cross-section of individuals and a stationary ratio of aggregate consumption to wealth. Keywords: unbounded utility, asset pricing puzzles, habit formation JEL Classification: D810, G110 1 1. Introduction Exponential utility functions have been mostly abandoned from economic theory despite their analytical convenience. On the other hand, power utility, which is also highly tractable, has become the workhorse of modern macroeconomics and asset pricing.
    [Show full text]
  • Pareto Utility
    Theory Dec. (2013) 75:43–57 DOI 10.1007/s11238-012-9293-8 Pareto utility Masako Ikefuji · Roger J. A. Laeven · Jan R. Magnus · Chris Muris Received: 2 September 2011 / Accepted: 3 January 2012 / Published online: 26 January 2012 © The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In searching for an appropriate utility function in the expected utility framework, we formulate four properties that we want the utility function to satisfy. We conduct a search for such a function, and we identify Pareto utility as a func- tion satisfying all four desired properties. Pareto utility is a flexible yet simple and parsimonious two-parameter family. It exhibits decreasing absolute risk aversion and increasing but bounded relative risk aversion. It is applicable irrespective of the prob- ability distribution relevant to the prospect to be evaluated. Pareto utility is therefore particularly suited for catastrophic risk analysis. A new and related class of generalized exponential (gexpo) utility functions is also studied. This class is particularly relevant in situations where absolute risk tolerance is thought to be concave rather than linear. Keywords Parametric utility · Hyperbolic absolute risk aversion (HARA) · Exponential utility · Power utility M. Ikefuji Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan M. Ikefuji Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] R. J. A. Laeven (B) · J. R. Magnus Department of Econometrics & Operations Research, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] J. R. Magnus e-mail: [email protected] C.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of the Arrow–Pratt Measure of Risk-Tolerance for Predictable Forward Utility Processes
    Finance Stoch https://doi.org/10.1007/s00780-020-00444-1 Evolution of the Arrow–Pratt measure of risk-tolerance for predictable forward utility processes Moris S. Strub1 · Xun Yu Zhou2 Received: 18 September 2019 / Accepted: 26 August 2020 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract We study the evolution of the Arrow–Pratt measure of risk-tolerance in the framework of discrete-time predictable forward utility processes in a complete semi- martingale financial market. An agent starts with an initial utility function, which is then sequentially updated forward at discrete times under the guidance of a martin- gale optimality principle. We mostly consider a one-period framework and first show that solving the associated inverse investment problem is equivalent to solving some generalised integral equations for the inverse marginal function or for the conjugate function, both associated with the forward utility. We then completely characterise the class of forward utility pairs that can have a time-invariant measure of risk-tolerance and thus a preservation of preferences in time. Next, we show that in general, pref- erences vary over time and that whether the agent becomes more or less tolerant to risk is related to the curvature of the measure of risk-tolerance of the forward utility pair. Finally, to illustrate the obtained general results, we present an example in a bi- nomial market model where the initial utility function belongs to the SAHARA class, and we find that this class is analytically tractable and stable in the sense that all the subsequent utility functions belong to the same class as the initial one.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Exponential Utility Functions
    ,~ j,;' I) ':;l) . G rio"". 0 • 0 (? _.0 o I') Q () l% a 9(;' o Q estimatiqg "ExPC?ttenti~1 ·:U····:t·····~·I·····I:·I·+u·· ;F;";;u::·:n6',.t5"'·;~:n·'.' ·s.. ·, .' ..., .'.: :','. ..•. ".. '..'. ;. ~':,,;'V~ ..' .'. o c:::::::> ' ,;", o o (b~s. ) EconOm:ics, .Statistics'·Oftd (OOfI,ati,tS /} o i_JS~~n;'~~t'~C:'T" " o .j o i) " (> C. "French " State Un I vers" I ty, and -­ ~~ ~ from Agric~ltur;al Economic Research, Janucrry 1978" \/01. 30, No. 1 ~~'~....' .. ' .. exponential.utility fun~tion for money has 10ng att:racted attentic;m fromAtheorists~~ because it exhibits\~oni"creasing absolute, risk aversion. j\lso, under certain con- ~ ditions, it generates an expected utility functi()n that is maximizable in a quadratic 1 program. However, "this "'functiona,l form presents 'estimation problems. Logarithmic • transformation of an exponential uti 1i,t,y, function does not conform to the Von Neumann­ Horgenste~ axioms. Hence', it cannot be used as ,.a basis for best fit in statistical analysis. A criterion is described that can be used to select a best-flt exponential uti 1ity.fun.ction, and its appl.ica,ti~!!c"",L~I.J~~~er utJ1ity an~,,~J~!s. is (~en~~~.~~r.~~ed ,~-».,.....'~\ ~ ....,.,." .,-~~ '1\, ~.... jt-~ .. -~..,q,·""·"~.""""11!"~""""'"""'\.'<'..".tft4._ ... 1' ,,''-,. < ~ i\ ,c,( ~--~""..-~,."".... .... ,~. '" ~. "~:"''''.jq''K>''''~~''l;:' ", " & ' (J 11' 1 i ,~ r.~ .... ' t ' .'~ >':J ~rr 1 C >J '¥ ~r ~1 f' if! 1 t::' ~ t,n t; ~,l IG " Canputerized simulation o Computers c Economic analysis Est imates 1\, Exponential functions " ~ogarlthm functions Risk ~Statistical analysis Utility routines 1711. IdenEifier./Open-Eaded Titnu (;:::; Absolute risk aversion Compute r app,l i cat i ens' Logari thmi c traosformatian Honey (/ Von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms )) ~ 12-A, 12-8 PB .
    [Show full text]
  • Cardinal Sins: Utility Specification and the Measurement of Risk Aversion
    19 Eisenhauer, International Journal of Applied Economics, 13(2), September 2016, 19-29 Cardinal Sins: Utility Specification and the Measurement of Risk Aversion Joseph G. Eisenhauer* University of Detroit Mercy ___________________________________________________________________________ Abstract: In contrast to the ideal of allowing empirical data to reveal individual preferences, economists have frequently resorted to constructing preference functions with convenient parameters and then using data merely to estimate the magnitude of the parameters. In particular, it has become common practice for researchers seeking to measure risk aversion to select an arbitrary utility specification and assume that the same functional form applies to all individuals in a given sample. This note illustrates the prevalence of this practice and how unreliable such an approach may be. Using a recently developed data set from Thailand, empirical results for the Pratt-Arrow coefficients of risk aversion are compared across isoelastic and exponential utility functions. The latter are estimated to be, on average, more than five times larger than the former, suggesting the possibility of enormous distortions in empirical studies that assume specific cardinal utility functions. Keywords: risk aversion, utility function, isoelastic, exponential, representative agent JEL Classification: D810 ___________________________________________________________________________ 1. Introduction Although utility is canonically described as an ordinal ranking of preferences over goods and services, economists have frequently adopted specific functional forms that yield cardinal measures (Barnett, 2003). As early as the 18th century, Bernoulli (1738) used a logarithmic utility function to illustrate the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth in his explanation of risk aversion. This tendency has become increasingly prevalent since Pratt (1964) and Arrow (1965) introduced quantitative measures of risk aversion.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk
    RISK AVERSION, WEALTH, AND BACKGROUND RISK Luigi Guiso Monica Paiella European University Institute, University of Naples Parthenope Ente Luigi Einaudi Abstract We use household survey data to construct a direct measure of absolute risk aversion based on the maximum price a consumer is willing to pay for a risky security. We relate this measure to consumer’s endowments and attributes and to measures of background risk and liquidity constraints. We find that risk aversion is a decreasing function of the endowment—thus rejecting CARA preferences. We estimate the elasticity of risk aversion to consumption at about 0.7, below the unitary value predicted by CRRA utility. We also find that households’ attributes are of little help in predicting their degree of risk aversion, which is characterized by massive unexplained heterogeneity. We show that the consumer’s environment affects risk aversion. Individuals who are more likely to face income uncertainty or to become liquidity constrained exhibit a higher degree of absolute risk aversion, consistent with recent theories of attitudes toward risk in the presence of uninsurable risks. (JEL: D1, D8) 1. Introduction The relationship between wealth and a consumer’s attitude toward risk—as indi- cated, for instance, by the degree of absolute risk aversion or of absolute risk tolerance—is central to many fields of economics. As argued by Kenneth Arrow more than 35 years ago, “the behavior of these measures as wealth varies is of the greatest importance for prediction of economic reactions in the presence of uncertainty” (1970, p. 35). The editor in charge of this paper was Jordi Galí Acknowledgments: We thank Chris Carroll, Pierre-André Chiappori, Christian Gollier, Michaelis Haliassos, Winfried Koeniger, Wilko Letterie, John Pratt, Andrea Tiseno, and Richard Zeckhauser for very valuable discussion and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 — Risk and Risk Aversion
    Chapter 2 — Risk and Risk Aversion The previous chapter discussed risk and introduced the notion of risk aversion. This chapter examines those concepts in more detail. In particular, it answers questions like, when can we say that one prospect is riskier than another or one agent is more averse to risk than another? How is risk related to statistical measures like variance? Risk aversion is important in finance because it determines how much of a given risk a person is willing to take on. Consider an investor who might wish to commit some funds to a risk project. Suppose that each dollar invested will return x dollars. Ignoring time and any other prospects for investing, the optimal decision for an agent with wealth w is to choose the amount k to invest to maximize [uw (+− kx( 1) )]. The marginal benefit of increasing investment gives the first order condition ∂u 0 = = u′( w +− kx( 1)) ( x − 1) (1) ∂k At k = 0, the marginal benefit isuw′( ) [ x − 1] which is positive for all increasing utility functions provided the risk has a better than fair return, paying back on average more than one dollar for each dollar committed. Therefore, all risk averse agents who prefer more to less should be willing to take on some amount of the risk. How big a position they might take depends on their risk aversion. Someone who is risk neutral, with constant marginal utility, would willingly take an unlimited position, because the right-hand side of (1) remains positive at any chosen level for k. For a risk-averse agent, marginal utility declines as prospects improves so there will be a finite optimum.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Period Portfolio Choice and Asset Pricing
    Part I Single-Period Portfolio Choice and Asset Pricing 1 Chapter 1 Expected Utility and Risk Aversion Asset prices are determined by investors’ risk preferences and by the distrib- utions of assets’ risky future payments. Economists refer to these two bases of prices as investor "tastes" and the economy’s "technologies" for generating asset returns. A satisfactory theory of asset valuation must consider how in- dividuals allocate their wealth among assets having different future payments. This chapter explores the development of expected utility theory, the standard approach for modeling investor choices over risky assets. We first analyze the conditions that an individual’spreferences must satisfy to be consistent with an expected utility function. We then consider the link between utility and risk aversion and how risk aversion leads to risk premia for particular assets. Our final topic examines how risk aversion affects an individual’s choice between a risky and a risk-free asset. Modeling investor choices with expected utility functions is widely used. However, significant empirical and experimental evidence has indicated that 3 4 CHAPTER 1. EXPECTED UTILITY AND RISK AVERSION individuals sometimes behave in ways inconsistent with standard forms of ex- pected utility. These findings have motivated a search for improved models of investor preferences. Theoretical innovations both within and outside the expected utility paradigm are being developed, and examples of such advances are presented in later chapters of this book. 1.1 Preferences when Returns Are Uncertain Economists typically analyze the price of a good or service by modeling the nature of its supply and demand. A similar approach can be taken to price an asset.
    [Show full text]
  • An Approximate Solution for the Power Utility Optimization Under Predictable Returns Arxiv:1911.06552V3 [Q-Fin.PM] 21 Jan 2021
    An approximate solution for the power utility optimization under predictable returns Dmytro Ivasiuk Department of Statistics, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt(Oder), Germany E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This work presents an approximate single period solution of the portfolio choice problem for the investor with a power utility function and the predictable returns. Assuming that gross portfolio returns approximately follow a log-normal distribu- tion, it was possible to derive the optimal weights. As it is known, the log-normal distribution seems to be a good proxy of the normal distribution in case if the stan- dard deviation of the last one is way much smaller than its mean. Thus, succeeding to model the behaviour of asset returns as a multivariate normal (conditional nor- mal) distribution (what is a popular way to proceed in academic literature) would be the case to apply the ideas discussed in this work. Besides, the paper provides a simulation study comparing the derived result to the well-know numerical solution. Keywords: CRRA, power utility, utility optimization, numerical solution, log-normal distribution. 1 Introduction The current paper discusses portfolio optimization as the utility of wealth maximization. The classical problem stands for deriving the value function given by the whole investment period with the use of the Bellman backward method (see Pennacchi, 2008; Brandt, 2009). One can find it as the typical solution for the investment strategies for different types of utility functions (see Bodnar et al., 2015a,b). However, most of the time, it is hard arXiv:1911.06552v3 [q-fin.PM] 21 Jan 2021 to succeed and to derive an analytical solution.
    [Show full text]