Skip to main content

Portfolio Optimization via a Surrogate Risk Measure: Conditional Desirability Value at Risk (CDVaR)

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Learning and Intelligent Optimization (LION 12 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11353))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A risk measure that specifies minimum capital requirements is the amount of cash that must be added to a portfolio to make its risk acceptable to regulators. The 2008 financial crisis highlighted the demise of the most widely used risk measure, Value-at-Risk. Unlike the Conditional VaR model of Rockafellar & Uryasev, VaR ignores the possibility of abnormal returns and is not even a coherent risk measure as defined by Pflug. Both VaR and CVaR portfolio optimizers use asset-price return histories. Our novelty here is introducing an annual Desirability Value (DV) for a company and using the annual differences of DVs in CVaR optimization, instead of simply utilizing annual stock-price returns. The DV of a company is the perpendicular distance from the fundamental position of that company to the best separating hyperplane \(H_0\) that separates profitable companies from losers during training. Thus, we introduce both a novel coherent surrogate risk measure, Conditional-Desirability-Value-at-Risk (CDVaR) and a direction along which to reduce (downside) surrogate risk, the perpendicular to \(H_0\). Since it is a surrogate measure, CDVaR optimization does not produce a cash amount as the risk measure. However, the associated CVaR (or VaR) is trivially computable. Our machine-learning-fundamental-analysis-based CDVaR portfolio optimization results are comparable to those of mainstream price-returns-based CVaR optimizers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Our DV is not related to the desirability function of [14].

  2. 2.

    We have both the V(ijk) and the E(ijk) columns.

  3. 3.

    Using relative returns of DV does produce very similar results.

  4. 4.

    Even though the EWP consists of stocks from BIST 50, we make the comparison to the more popular sister index BIST 100.

  5. 5.

    T is referred to as the portfolio cycle length, which is 10.5 months in our case.

References

  1. Acerbi, C., Tasche, D.: Expected shortfall: a natural coherent alternative to value at risk. Econ. Notes 31(2), 379–388 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alpaydin, E.: Introduction to Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Artzner, P.: Coherent measures of risk. Math. Financ. 9, 203–228 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. http://bigpara.hurriyet.com.tr/borsa/gecmis-kapanislar (2018)

  5. Baronyan, S.R., Boduroğlu, I.I., Sener, E.: Investigation of stochastic pairs trading strategies under different volatility regimes. Manch. Sch. 78, 114–134 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.2010.02204.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boduroğlu, I.I., Erenay, Z.: A machine learning model for predicting a financial crisis in Turkey: Turkish economic stability index. Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl. 21(1), 5–20 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Çobandağ-Güloğlu Z., Weber G.W. (2017) Risk Modeling in Optimization Problems via Value at Risk, Conditional Value at Risk, and Its Robustification. In: Pinto A., Zilberman D. (eds) Modeling, Dynamics, Optimization and Bioeconomics II. DGS 2014. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 195. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  8. Computational Finance, Abu-Mostafa, Y. (Ed.): Computational Finance 1999, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Elton, E.J., Gruber, M.J., Brown, S.J., Goetzman, W.N.: Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis, 7th edn. Wiley, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. http://www.finnet.gen.tr/urun/fma (2018)

  11. Freitas, F.D., De Souza, A.F., de Almeida, A.R.: Prediction-based portfolio optimization model using neural networks. Neurocomputing 72(10–12), 155–2170 (2009). ISSN 0925–2312, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2008.08.019

  12. GAMS Development Corp.: GAMS: The Solver Manuals, GAMS Development Corp. Washington (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hannoun, H.: The Basel III Capital Framework: a decisive breakthrough. BoJ-BIS High Level Seminar on Financial Regulatory Reform: Implications for Asia and the Pacific. Hong Kong SAR, 22 Nov 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harington, J.: The desirability function. Ind. Quality Control 21, 494–498 (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S.: Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hull, J.: Risk Management and Financial Institutions. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Karaçor, A.G., Erkan, T.E.: In: Çelebi N. (ed.) On the Comparison of Quantitative Predictabilities of Dierent Financial Instruments, Chapter in Intelligent Techniques for Data Analysis in Diverse Settings (Advances in Data Mining and Database Management), p. 282 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ince, H., Trafalis, T.B.: Kernel methods for short-term portfolio management. Expert Syst. with Appl. 30(3), 535–542 (2006). ISSN 0957–4174, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2005.10.008

  19. International Financial Reporting Standards: www.iasb.org/IFRS+Summaries (2008)

  20. Johnson, T., Maxwell, P.A.R.: Homogeneous Risk Classifications for Industry Studies, Wiley Online Library (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.1976.tb01570.x

  21. Ch, G.: Pflug, Some remarks on the value-at-risk and conditional-value-at-risk. In: Uryasev, S. (ed.) Probabilistic Constrained Optimization, Methodology and Applications. Kluwer (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Press, E.: Analyzing Financial Statements, Lebahar-Friedman (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rockafellar, R.T., Uryasev, S.: Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J. Risk (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rosenthal, R.E.: GAMS: A User’s Guide, GAMS Development Corp. Washington (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Scherer, B., Martin, D.: Intro to Modern Portfolio Optimization with NuOPT and \(S^{+}\) Bayes. Springer (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Trading Economics Web Page (2018). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate

  27. Vos, E.: Risk, return, price: small unlisted businesses examined. J. SEAANZ 3(1–2), 12–120 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ziemba, W.T.: The symmetric downside-risk sharpe ratio. J. Portf. Manag. 32(1), 108–122 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Attila Odabaşı initialized the author’s thoughts on using machine learning techniques in fundamental analysis. Ahmet Boyalı did the initial calculations in the machine learning problem. Murat G. Aktaş, CEO of Finnet Corp., provided us with guidance along with balance sheet data. Selahaddin Yıldırım wrote the Python code that handled the portfolio bookkeeping. The author is also grateful to the organizers of the LION 12 Conference at Kalamata. He also thanks the three anonymous referees, as well as Wolfgang Hörmann and Sevda Akyüz for reading the paper and providing him with ideas for a better presentation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to İ. İlkay Boduroğlu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Boduroğlu, İ.İ. (2019). Portfolio Optimization via a Surrogate Risk Measure: Conditional Desirability Value at Risk (CDVaR). In: Battiti, R., Brunato, M., Kotsireas, I., Pardalos, P. (eds) Learning and Intelligent Optimization. LION 12 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11353. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05348-2_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05348-2_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05347-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05348-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics