This version: December 3, 2009
|
|
- Diana Deirdre Perry
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Rethinking risk capital allocation in a RORAC framework Arne Buch a, Gregor Dorfleitner b,*, Maximilian Wimmer b a d-fine GmbH, Opernplatz 2, Frankfurt, Germany b Department of Finance, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany This version: December 3, 2009 Abstract This paper considers the economic optimization problem of a firm with several subbusinesses striving for its optimal RORAC. An insightful example shows that the implementation of a classical gradient capital allocation can be suboptimal if division managers are allowed to venture into all business whose marginal RORAC exceeds the firm s RORAC. The marginal RORAC requirements are then refined by adding a risk correction term that takes into account the interdependencies of the risks of different lines of business. It is shown that this approach can guarantee that the optimal RORAC will be achieved eventually. JEL classification: C61; D81; D82; G21; G22 Keywords: Risk capital allocation; Gradient allocation principle; Coherent risk measures; Performance measurement; RORAC * Corresponding author. Tel.: ; fax: addresses: gregor.dorfleitner@wiwi.uni-regensburg.de (G. Dorfleitner), maximilian.wimmer@wiwi.uni-regensburg.de (M. Wimmer). 1
2 1. Introduction The allocation of risk capital in financial firms for the purpose of performance measurement and risk-return optimization is well established in theory as well as in practice. While the use of economic capital 1 and its decomposition into a sum of single contributions of sub-businesses has become a standard approach in many banks (see Rosen and Saunders, 2010) and insurance companies (see Myers and Read, 2001), the academic world is still discussing methodological aspects and to an extent, even the significance of this concept. There are several strands of literature which deal with risk capital allocation from various points of view. Most articles can be attributed to the mathematical finance context in which rigorous arguments and axiomatics are the main concern (e.g. Denault, 2001; Kalkbrener, 2005; Tasche, 2004; Buch and Dorfleitner, 2008). Another strand of literature has a definite insurance-linked perspective (e.g. Dhaene et al., 2003; Furman and Zitikis, 2008; Gatzert and Schmeiser, 2008) and seeks to explore the advantages of risk capital allocation for insurance companies. A third strand looks at risk capital allocation from a more financial economics point of view (e.g. Merton and Perold, 1993; Stoughton and Zechner, 2007) and is therefore more closely related to the question concerning why capital allocation is a sensible procedure from an economic perspective. In any case, a sound risk capital allocation framework requires at least two theoretical fundaments, namely a proper definition of a risk measure and an allocation principle. The combination of these two items yields a concrete allocation rule. In addition, several ad hoc allocation rules, like e.g. the covariance allocation rule 2, exist without explicit reference to 1 Throughout this paper we will use the terms risk capital and economic capital synonymously since the risk capital to be allocated by an internal procedure is actually economic capital. This economic capital is calculated by using a risk measure. 2 See e.g. Kalkbrener (2005), who also points out the shortcomings of this allocation rule. Urban et al. (2004) use the covariance principle for calculating relative weights of each segment independently of the overall portfolio risk measure. 2
3 the combination of a risk measure and an allocation principle. Much attention has recently been drawn to coherent risk measures (Artzner et al., 1999), which have several economically favourable properties, and to the Euler allocation principle (Tasche, 2008; Rosen and Saunders, 2010), sometimes also called the gradient allocation principle. The Euler allocation principle is well-suited for firms with homogeneous sub-businesses consisting of a continuum of single contracts whereas in the case of few large single contracts an incremental allocation (Merton and Perold, 1993) seems to be more appropriate, where the risk capital allocated to subbusinesses is derived from looking at the firm with and without the sub-business under consideration and allocating economic capital proportional to the difference in overall risk capital. While many contributions examine technical aspects of risk capital allocation in deep detail and very rigorously, the actual economic justification is mostly verbal. Typically it is stated that the allocation is necessary to control risks ex ante by assigning limits to individual business units and its necessity for performance measurement is emphasized. On the other hand, capital allocation is also subject to criticism. In fact, Gründl and Schmeiser (2007) argue that capital allocation is senseless at all and that firms should rather refrain from using it. Even if one does not want to follow this argument the question emerges concerning why the optimum amounts of every line of business are not more adequately directly optimized by the headquarters. This paper focuses on financial firms with different lines of business for which the managerial decision concerns whether to expand or reduce rather than to create newly or abandon completely. Therefore we base our considerations on the gradient allocation principle. We do not restrict ourselves, however, to certain specific risk measures or distributional assumptions. Our approach comprises banks and insurance companies, both of which are subject to risk capital allocation. In banks the economic capital to be allocated could cover credit risk and 3
4 market or interest rate risk (Alessandri and Drehmann, 2009; Breuer et al., 2009) or classically credit risk in a portfolio context (Rosen and Saunders, 2010) while in insurance companies risk capital could be allocated in different lines of insurance contracts (Urban et al., 2004). Here, we aim at economic justification of risk capital allocation with a rather mathematical finance argumentation which is well suited to the many rather axiomatic contributions on risk measures and economic capital in the literature. The contribution of Stoughton and Zechner (2007) is the first to actually consider an economic optimization problem. The authors show that if the firm as a whole pursues maximization of the economic value added it is consistent with allocating capital to the sub-businesses, that are characterized by private information of managers, and letting them maximize the economic value added, based on the allocated capital. However, due to the restriction to normally distributed risks and a very specific incremental value-at-risk allocation rule, that is basically identical with the covariance allocation, their results are only of limited usefulness for practical applications. To our knowledge there is no contribution which shows the necessity of capital allocation in a general setting without restricting the probability distribution of losses and the risk measure chosen, or which argues in such a setting that capital allocation could be sensible when pursuing a maximization problem. In this paper we fill the gap by developing a procedure concerning capital allocation that is designed to maximize the RORAC of a company. Our analysis is based on the work of Tasche (2004) who, however, is not able to achieve the goal of solving a maximization problem due to too simplistic assumptions. We assume the segment managers to have superior knowledge concerning the possible profits induced by segment reductions or expansion while the risk of the portfolio is calculated centrally by the headquarters. Based on this we question RORAC maximization utilizing naive risk capital allocation and develop a more sophisticated rule for RORAC maximization. 4
5 The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Firstly, we introduce and clarify some notations in section 2. In section 3 we continue with an example showing how a classical risk allocation to sub-businesses can impede a company to attain its optimal RORAC. A refined approach is introduced in section 4 to guarantee that a segment s expansion does not lead to a reduction of a company s overall RORAC, and in section 5 the paper is concluded with an economic discussion of our findings. 2. Notation and preliminaries The risk of a position or a firm is related to the variability of its net worth over the next period. Let the fluctuations of the future be represented by the set X of integrable random variables on the probability space [Ω, A, P]. The risk associated with X X is then quantified by a risk measure ρ; Formally, this measure is a mapping of X into the real numbers R. Artzner et al. (1997) have introduced and justified four desirable axioms defining the coherence of a risk measure. In this spirit, Acerbi and Tasche (2002) show that a certain definition of the Expected Shortfall fulfills the coherence axioms even for discontinuous profit functions. Although coherent risk measures have attracted a lot of attention in the last decade, other classes of risk measures such as spectral risk measures are also discussed in the literature (cf. Acerbi, 2002; Adam et al., 2008). Each class comprises its own set of axioms. However, we do not restrict the risk measure ρ to a certain class; instead we will highlight in the remainder of this article whatever axioms are needed in the places in which they are actually required. More concretely, we consider a firm with n lines of business (subsequently called segments or sub-businesses). Let the vector u = (u 1,..., u n ) U R n symbolize the units of each line. We call u the portfolio. Let us represent the expected profit generated by a portfolio u by the profit function m(u) (with m : U R). The risk in the firm is represented by the pair of variables (X, u), where X = (X 1,..., X n ) 5
6 X n is referred to as the portfolio base. In contrast to Fischer (2003), who defines X k as the actual future period profit of asset k N := {1,..., n}, we interpret the random variable X k as the deviation of the actual future period profit of asset k from its expected future period profit (so E(X k ) = 0) and u k as the number of units held for that type of asset. The future period profit is equal to its expected profit plus its fluctuation, i.e. m(u) + X(u), where X(u) := k N u k X k. The risk capital of portfolio u is assumed to be ρ(m(u) + X(u)). If the risk measure is translation invariant then we have ρ(m(u) + X(u)) = ρ(x(u)) m(u). The term ρ(m(u) + X(u)) can be interpreted as economic capital, which according to Hull (2007) is defined as the amount of capital required to cover the risk of unexpected losses. This implies that the expected losses are already accounted for, here as a part of m(u). Further, we define the function ρ X : R n R by ρ X : u ρ(x(u)) for ease of notation. The variable ρ X (u) therefore represents the risk associated with portfolio u given portfolio base X. Additionally, for a given risk measure ρ and portfolio base X, we let P ρ X = {(X, u) u U} be the set of risky portfolios where U satisfies the following two conditions. Firstly, ρ X is differentiable at every u U. Secondly, we have ρ X (u) 0 for all u U. Next we define a return function linking the yield and the risk dimension of the firm. Definition 2.1. Let ρ be a risk measure, X be a portfolio base, and m be a profit function. Then the function r ρ X m : U R defined as r ρ X m : u m(u) ρ X (u) m(u) is called return function associated with m, X, and ρ. The return function r ρ X m can be interpreted as the return on risk adjusted capital (RORAC). It represents the ratio of the expected profit margin due to business to the extent given by u and the economic capital due to the corresponding risk of the portfolio u. 6
7 The natural optimization problem for the management of a shareholder-oriented financial firm would be to maximize r ρ X m (u) and therefore employ the limited equity capital in the most beneficial way. Clearly, if both the profit function and the risk function are known to the headquarters, it can directly optimize the firm s RORAC. In this case, both capital allocation, and division managers become superfluous. Hence, throughout this paper it is assumed that the headquarters can evaluate the risk of the whole portfolio. We regard this as realistic since risk modeling and risk calculations indeed take place at the headquarters. However, in general the return function m is unknown on the corporate level except at the present portfolio extent u. Additionally, we model the profit function as the sum of the sub-business profits, i.e. m(u 1,..., u n ) = k N m k (u k ). We can assume that the return m(u + ɛe k ), where e k denotes the kth unit vector, is known to the kth segment for at least some ɛ. This depicts the idea that the segments know much better than the headquarters which profit margins can be generated by signing additional business of the same kind due to their direct negotiations with the their business partners. The risk capital ρ X (u) of a firm is assumed to depend on the total portfolio fluctuations, but has to be fully allocated to the portfolio positions (X 1, u 1 ),..., (X n, u n ) in the current period. The rule for applying risk capital is called an allocation principle, and is defined as follows. Definition 2.2. Let the set of risky portfolios P be defined as a set of pairs (X, u), with X X n, u R n, and n N + = N\{0}. Given a risk measure ρ, an allocation principle on 7
8 P is defined as a mapping A ρ : P R n A ρ : (X, u) A ρ 1(X, u). A ρ n(x, u) such that k N A ρ k (X, u) = ρ X(u). The expression A ρ k (X, u)/u k =: a k (u) is called the per-unit risk contribution of position k. Definition 2.3. For a given risk measure ρ and portfolio base X, the mapping A ρ : P ρ X R n defined as A ρ : (X, u) A ρ (X, u) = u ρ X (u) is called the gradient allocation principle associated with ρ on PX. ρ Here, denotes the Hadamard or component-wise product. Thus, A ρ (X, u) is a vector. Evidently, according to Euler s theorem, if ρ is homogeneous, the gradient allocation principle A ρ is an allocation principle on P ρ X. Given the notion of a per-unit risk contribution one can define the marginal RORAC by m(u) u k. a k (u) m(u) u k With the above-mentioned additive structure of m the marginal RORAC is simplified to m k(u k ) a k (u) m k (u k). This ratio expresses the expected additional profits in relation to the additional risk capital for the additional business. It is natural to state that a business extension is useful for every segment k whenever its marginal RORAC is higher than the present RORAC. Based on this idea we define the notion of suitability for performance measurement of an allocation principle. This term was coined by Tasche (2004) and therefore we adhere to it. However, 8
9 it turns out below that it is not sufficient for an allocation principle simply to fulfill the following definition. Definition 2.4. Let U be a non-empty set in R n and r : U R, be some function on U. An allocation principle A ρ is called suitable for performance measurement with ρ X if there holds: 1. For all portfolios u U and for all differentiable profit functions m : U R with ρ X (u) 0 and k N the inequality m k(u k )ρ X (u) > m(u)a k (u) (1) implies that there is an ɛ > 0 such that for all τ (0, ɛ) we have r(u) < r(u + τe k ). 2. For all portfolios u U and for all differentiable profit functions m : U R with ρ X (u) 0 and k N the inequality m k(u k )ρ X (u) < m(u)a k (u) (2) implies that there is an ɛ > 0 such that for all τ (0, ɛ) we have r(u τe k ) > r(u). Remark 2.5. Note that if a k (u) m k(u k ) > 0 and r ρ X m (u) > 0, it is easy to verify that equation (1) is equivalent to m k(u k ) a k (u) m k (u k) > rρ X m (u) 9
10 and that equation (2) is equivalent to m k(u k ) a k (u) m k (u k) < rρ X m (u). The following theorem, which has been proofed for linear profit functions in Tasche (2004), links the concepts of suitability for performance measurement with the gradient allocation principle: Theorem 2.6. Let U be a non-empty set in R n and r ρ X m : U R be a return function on U. Let ρ X : U R be a function that is partially differentiable in U with continuous derivatives. Then A ρ is suitable for performance measurement with ρ X if and only if A ρ = A ρ. Proof. Sufficiency: We have r ρ X m (u) u k = (ρ X (u) m k (u k )) 2 ( ρ X (u)m k(u k ) m(u) ρ X(u) u k ). (3) If a k (u) = ρ X(u) u k then ρ X (u)m k(u k ) > m(u)a k (u) implies that ρ X (u)m k(u k ) m(u)a k (u) > 0. (4) Equation (4) in conjunction with equation (3) implies that r ρ X m (u) u k > 0. Hence, there is an ɛ > 0 such that for all τ (0, ɛ) we have r(u) < r(u + τe k ). 10
11 Analogously (by replacing > through < ), part 2. in Definition 2.4 is proved. Necessity: The proof of the necessity exactly follows the steps of Tasche (2004) with m(u) = m u. Note that Theorem 2.6 can be seen as an additional justification for the gradient allocation principle. Since firms strive to maximize their return as stated above, the next lemma gives sufficient conditions to ensure that the return function r ρ X m has a finite global maximum. Lemma 2.7. Let R R n 0 be a closed convex set. Assume that there holds: (a) The profit function m is differentiable, positive, and concave on R. (b) The risk function ρ X is differentiable and positive on R. Moreover, ρ X is positive homogeneous, and sub-additive, hence convex, on R. (c) For all k N we have lim uk m k(u k ) = 0. Then, the return function r ρ X m either attains its global maximum in the interior of R where r ρ X m = 0, or on some boundary point of R. Proof. Clearly, r ρ X m is pseudoconcave, as its numerator is concave and its denominator is convex. Therefore, each local maximum of r ρ X m is also a global maximum on R (Cambini and Martein, 2009). Since r ρ X m is defined on the convex set R, we have to consider two cases: Case 1: R is compact. In this case, r ρ X m either attains its global maximum in the interior of R where r ρ X m = 0, or on some boundary point of R. Case 2: R is not compact. Note that since r ρ X m (u) u k =m k(u k )(ρ X (u) m k (u k )) 1 ( ) ρx (u) m k (u k ) m u k(u k ) (ρ X (u) m k (u k )) 2, k 11
12 and by assumption (c), m k (u k ) ( ρ X (u) u k m k(u k ) ) (ρ X (u) m k (u k )) 2 m k (u > 1 k)(ρ X (u) m k (u k )) 1 for u k sufficiently large, we have r ρ X m (u) u k < 0 for u k sufficiently large. Therefore, the return r ρ X m is reduced when increasing u k, if u k is sufficiently large. Hence, we can safely ignore all portfolios exceeding a certain u k and thus fall back upon case 1. While the adherence to condition (a) of Lemma 2.7 is straightforward in an economic context, and condition (b) is necessary for ρ X to be a coherent risk measure, it is advisable to briefly discuss condition (c). This assumption corresponds to the decreasing profitability of additional business of the same kind. Moreover, we assume the marginal profits as to eventually converge to zero. We regard this assumption as uncritical from a theoretical viewpoint as we assume an incomplete market, i.e. we implicitly assume that X(u) cannot be traded on the capital market at a unique price. From a practical point of view such behavior also seems realistic as one has to offer better conditions when expanding into a market, which is becoming increasingly satiated. 3. An example for failing capital allocation Consider a firm with two risky segments. Let (X 1, X 2 ) be multivariate normally distributed with zero mean and variance 1. Let the correlation γ between the two assets be 0.5. The firm now strives to improve its RORAC in each period until it obtains its optimal RORAC. Let (u (1) 1, u (1) 2 ) = (1.5, 1.7) in the first period. Let the risk measure be the value-at-risk (VaR) at 12
13 the 99.97% level. 3 Let the profit functions m k, k = 1, 2 be defined by m 1 : u 1 log(u ), and m 2 : u 2 log(u ). Then ρ X (u (1) ) = 3.43 u γu 1 u 2 + u 2 2 = The per-unit risk contribution a k (u (1) ), k = 1, 2 is then a 1 (u (1) ) = ρ X(u) u 1 (u (1) 1, u (1) 2 ) = and a 2 (u) = ρ X(u) u 2 (u (1) 1, u (1) 2 ) = The RORAC for the present portfolio is r ρ X m (u (1) ) = %. Marginal RORAC analysis according to the above ratio leads to m 1(u (1) 1 ) a 1 (u (1) ) m 1(u (1) 1 ) 2(u (1) 2 ) m = % and a 2 (u (1) ) m 2(u (1) 2 ) = %. We assume that the firm follows a marginal RORAC expansion or reduction strategy, respectively, i.e., that segments whose marginal RORAC exceeds the firm s overall RORAC will expand, while segments whose marginal RORAC falls below the firm s RORAC will reduce their business. Therefore segment 1 would expand and segment 2 would reduce. However they do not know to which extent. We assume an extension and reduction, respectively, to the new values (u (2) 1, u (2) 2 ) = 3 Note that the VaR in general is not a coherent risk measure since it fails to meet the sub-additivity property (see e.g. Tasche, 2002). However, when restricted to the multinormal distribution it is in fact sub-additive (Artzner et al., 1999). 13
14 (1.85, 1.55). The new RORAC now is r ρ X m (u (2) ) = % and thus has decreased slightly although the intention was to increase it. In fact the real optimum of r ρ X m (u opt ) = % at (u opt 1, u opt 2 ) = (1.6555, ) has been missed, as Figure 1 displays. Figure 1: Contour plots of the return function r ρ X m as defined in section 3 and the sequence of portfolios calculated in section 3. The boxes indicate the feasible regions where m i (u i +ɛ i ) m i (u i ) ɛ i a i (u) (m i (u i +ɛ i ) m i (u i > r(u). It is possible for a firm to swap between portfolios )) 1 and 2 all the time u opt Now since the functions m k are known to the segments one could consider a more sophisticated allocation: Instead of approximating the additional yield by ɛ k m k(u k ) one can use m k (u k + ɛ k ) m k (u k ) and divide it by the approximated additional risk capital ɛ k a k (u) (m k (u k + ɛ k ) m k (u k )). 14
15 In fact the values above of the new (u (2) 1, u (2) 2 ) were chosen in such a way that the sophisticated marginal RORAC of the extension was still higher than the original RORAC (segment 1: %) and the marginal RORAC of the reduction was still smaller than the original RORAC (segment 2: %). In the next period, the per-unit risk contributions become a 1 (u (2) ) = ρ X(u) u 1 (u (2) 1, u (2) 2 ) = and a 2 (u (2) ) = ρ X(u) u 2 (u (2) 1, u (2) 2 ) = , and the marginal RORACs are m 1(u (2) 1 ) a 1 (u (2) ) m 1(u (2) 1 ) 2(u (2) 2 ) m = % and a 2 (u (2) ) m 2(u (2) 2 ) = %. This time, segment 1 would reduce and segment 2 would expand. In fact, the new portfolio for period 3 could be (u (3) 1, u (3) 2 ) = (1.5, 1.7), where we started in period 1. In this case, the sophisticated marginal RORAC of the reduction was still smaller than the RORAC (segment 1: %) and the marginal RORAC of the extension was still higher than the RORAC (segment 2: %). Therefore, this example proves that proceeding in the way described above does not necessarily lead the firm to the optimum. 4. A refined approach Definition 2.4 merely states that if a section s marginal RORAC exceeds the firm s RORAC, then there is an ɛ k such that the expansion by ɛ k units increases the firm s RORAC, i.e., that r(u + ɛ k e k ) > r(u), but provides no conditions on the size of ɛ k. As the example in the previous section indicates, this can lead to over-expanding a section s business and hence 15
16 to a decline of the firm s RORAC. The following theorem fills this gap by ensuring that an expansion cannot reduce the firm s RORAC. Theorem 4.1. Let H(u) = [ ] 2 ρ X (u) u i u j be the Hessian of ρx (u). Assume that H(u) is bounded on a convex set R R n 0. Let Λ max u R λ max (H(u)) be an upper bound for the largest eigenvalue of H(u), u R. If u R, u + ɛ R, m(u) > 0, r(u) > 0, and if for all k N there holds m k (u k + ɛ k ) m k (u k ) (ɛ k a k (u) ɛ2 k Λ) (m k(u k + ɛ k ) m k (u k )) r(u), (5) with strict inequality given for at least one k N, than there also holds r(u + ɛ) > r(u). (6) Proof. Equation (5) is equivalent 4 to m k (u k + ɛ k )ρ X (u) m k (u k )ρ X (u) m(u)ɛ k ρ X (u) u k 1 2 ɛ2 km(u)λ 0. Summing up over all k N, we derive m(u + ɛ)ρ X (u) m(u)ρ X (u) m(u)ɛ ρ X (u) 1 2 m(u)ɛ ɛλ > 0, (7) since m(u) = n i=1 m i (u i ). Clearly, as ρ X is convex, H is positive definite and therefore Λ > 0. Moreover, since by the Rayleigh-Ritz-Theorem (Horn and Johnson, 1990) Λ max ɛ 0 ɛ H(υ)ɛ ɛ ɛ, the inequality 1 2 m(u)ɛ ɛλ 1 2 m(u)ɛ H(υ)ɛ 4 Notice that the denominator of the LHS of equation (5) must be positive: If it were negative, the numerator also has to be negative, because the whole LHS needs to be positive since r(u) > 0. However, if the numerator of the LHS is negative, the denominator of the LHS is clearly positive, which is a contradiction. 16
17 holds for all υ R. Therefore, equation (7) yields m(u + ɛ)ρ X (u) m(u)ρ X (u) m(u)ɛ ρ X (u) 1 2 m(u)ɛ H(υ)ɛ > 0, which is equivalent 5 to m(u + ɛ) ρ X (u) + ɛ ρ X (u) ɛ H(υ)ɛ m(u + ɛ) > m(u) ρ X (u) m(u). (8) Note that according to the Mean Value Theorem (Nocedal and Wright, 2006) there is some υ [u, u + ɛ] such that ρ X (u + ɛ) = ρ X (u) + ɛ ρ X (u) ɛ H(υ )ɛ. Letting υ = υ in equation (8) yields r(u + ɛ) > r(u). Note that the additional term of 1 2 ɛ2 kλ in equation (5) is quadratic on ɛ k. While it vanishes for small values of ɛ k, it decreases the marginal RORAC with the size of the expansion. Theorem 4.1 gives rise to the following algorithm: Algorithm 4.1. Start with i = 1 and an arbitrary u (1) R R n 0. Let α (0, 0.5]. 1. For each k N check if m k(u (i) k )/(a(i) k m k(u (i) k )) = > r(u (i) ): < a) If = holds, set ɛ (i) k = 0. b) If > holds, calculate ɛ (i) k,max = max ɛ(i) k > 0 such that equation (5) is fulfilled and u (i) k + ɛ(i) k,max R. Choose ɛ (i) k [α ɛ (i) k,max, (1 α) ɛ(i) k,max ]. c) If < holds, calculate ɛ (i) k,min = min ɛ(i) k < 0 such that equation (5) is fulfilled and u (i) k + ɛ(i) k,min R. Choose ɛ (i) k [α ɛ (i) k,min, (1 α) ɛ(i) k,min ]. 5 A same argument as in the footnote above shows that the denominator of the LHS of equation (8) has to be positive. 17
18 2. If ɛ (i) k = 0 for all k N, terminate. Otherwise, set u (i+1) = u (i) + ɛ (i). 3. Set i = i + 1 and continue with step 1. It is noteworthy to show that the algorithm guarantees convergence to the optimal RORAC, which is carried out in the following corollary. Corollary 4.2. Assume that the conditions (a) (c) of Lemma 2.7 apply and max u R r ρ X m (u) lies in the interior of R R 0. Then Algorithm 4.1 converges, i.e., lim i u (i) = u opt, where r ρ X m (u opt ) = max u R r ρ X m (u). Proof. We refer to the Convergence Theorem A from Zangwill (1969) to show the convergence of Algorithm 4.1. Clearly, the algorithm terminates at critical points of r ρ X m (u). Since r ρ X m pseudoconcave, each critical point is a global maximum (Cambini and Martein, 2009). Hence it suffices to show: 1. Compactness: By assumption (c) of Lemma 2.7, ɛ k < 0 for u k sufficiently large, since the sign of ɛ k follows the sign of rρ X m (u) u K (cf. proof of Theorem 2.6). Therefore, to show that the sequence of points generated by Algorithm 4.1 is bounded, we only need to show that ɛ k is bounded if rρ X m (u) u k > 0: Due to the concavity of m, there holds is m k (u k + ɛ k ) m k (u k ) ɛ k m k(u k ). Therefore, equation (5) yields m k(u k ) a k (u) ɛ kλ m k (u k) rρ X m (u). Clearly, the right hand side is bounded from below, since the algorithm creates an increasing sequence of return function values, and r ρ X m (u (1) ) > 0 as m(u (1) ) > 0. On the other hand, m k(u k ) is bounded from above, and therefore ɛ k is bounded from above. 18
19 2. Adaption: Follows directly from the proposition of Theorem Closedness: Holds since ɛ k is chosen from a closed set. Example (continued) Let us return to the example from section 3. Let R = {(u 1, u 2 ) : u 1 1, u 2 1}. Since the eigenvalues of the Hessian H(u) of ρ X (u) are 0 and (u u 2 2)/(u u u 1 u 2 ) 3/2, we can use the upper bound Λ = H(1, 1) = Figure 2: Contour plots of the return function r ρ X m as defined in section 3 and a sequence of portfolios generated by Algorithm 4.1. The boxes indicate the feasible regions according to equation (5) with R = {(u 1, u 2 ) : u 1 1, u 2 1}. The sequence of portfolios converges to u opt u opt Starting again at (u (1) 1, u (1) 2 ) = (1.5, 1.7), we choose ɛ (i) k = 0.5 ɛ (i) k,max or ɛ(i) k respectively, for each k = 1, 2 in each step. In the first period, equation (5) yields = 0.5 ɛ (i) k,min, ɛ (1) 1,max = and ɛ (1) 2,min =
20 Thus, we can calculate u (2) 1 = u (1) ɛ(1) 1,max = and u (2) 2 = u (1) ɛ(1) 2,min = The new RORAC becomes r ρ X m (u (2) ) = %. For the next period, the maximum step sizes become ɛ (2) 1,max = and ɛ (2) 2,min = , which leads to new values of u (3) 1 = u (2) ɛ(2) 1,max = and u (3) 2 = u (2) ɛ(2) 2,min = , and to a RORAC of r ρ X m (u (3) ) = %. Figure 2 shows the progress of the portfolios u (i) for i = 1, 2, Concluding discussion The main advantage of a classical RORAC capital allocation is its straightforward implementation in firms. The headquarters calculates the firm s overall risk according to its risk model once every period and therewith the overall RORAC. The headquarters also supplies to each segment its individual per-unit risk contribution. With these two parameters, the overall RORAC and the individual per-unit risk contribution, each segment can decide individually whether an additional business is profitable by calculating the marginal RORAC the business yields. Yet, traditional capital allocation with the gradient approach in the marginal RORAC framework linearizes the risk function embedded and can lead to over-expansions and over-reductions of businesses and may even lead to a reduction of the overall RORAC, as highlighted in the example in section 3. 20
21 The approach suggested by Theorem 4.1 is similar. However, instead of using the linear approximation ɛ k a k (u) of the risk function for the calculation of the marginal RORAC, the risk is adjusted by the additional risk correction term (RCT) 1 2 ɛ2 kλ in the denominator. Now, instead of venturing all business whose marginal RORAC exceeds the overall RORAC, only those businesses are undertaken whose marginal RORAC with RTC exceeds the overall RORAC to prevent the overall RORAC from decreasing. Compared with the classical RORAC allocation, the only new parameter in this model is Λ in the RCT. For simple risk structures like those shown in the example above, Λ can be calculated analytically. In most cases however, especially if the overall risk is computed with Monte Carlo simulations, Λ needs to be estimated numerically. Note that Λ does not need to be fixed for all periods. Hence, a viable approach could be to let R = {u U : u u m} be some neighborhood of u allowing each segment a change by at most m units per period. On the one hand, this ensures that the computation of Λ is technically feasible; on the other hand, it also warrants that Λ does not become so large as to restrict the segments in their individual business too much. At a first glance, Algorithm 4.1 looks technical. However, it can also be interpreted from an economical standpoint. Each step in the algorithm corresponds to one period (e.g. one month, one quarter, or one year) in a firm s lifecycle. At the beginning of each period, the headquarters publishes the firm s current RORAC and the per-unit risk contributions for each segment. Those segments, whose marginal RORACs equal the firm s RORAC, should neither expand nor reduce their business; if the marginal RORACs of all segments equal the firm s RORAC, the firm has obtained its optimal RORAC. All the other segments should either expand or reduce their business, depending on whether their marginal RORAC exceeds or falls below the firm s RORAC. However, their allowance in venturing into new business or giving up existing business is limited to the cases where the marginal RORAC with RTC 21
22 exceeds or falls below the firm s RORAC. The minimal bound for ɛ k in Algorithm 4.1 is needed to ensure that the segments actually move in the right direction and to exclude the possibility that the segments simply maintain their current business as long as they have not reached their individual optimal RORAC. The main advantage of our approach is stated in Corollary 4.2. While the example in section 3 showed that a classical RORAC allocation may prevent a firm from attaining its optimal RORAC, our approach ensures that the optimal RORAC if existent will eventually be obtained. To achieve this goal, we have used most of the axioms for a coherent risk measure according to Artzner et al. (1997): We needed translation invariance to split up the risk in the denominator of the return function in Definition 2.1, homogeneity to ensure that the gradient allocation principle is well-defined, and homogeneity as well as sub-additivity in Lemma 2.7 to ensure the existence of an optimal RORAC. References Acerbi, C., Spectral measures of risk: A coherent representation of subjective risk aversion. Journal of Banking & Finance 26, Acerbi, C. and Tasche, D., On the coherence of expected shortfall. Journal of Banking & Finance 26, Adam, A., Houkari, M., and Laurent, J.-P., Spectral risk measures and portfolio selection. Journal of Banking & Finance 32, Alessandri, P. and Drehmann, M., An economic capital model integrating credit and interest rate risk in the banking book. Journal of Banking & Finance, forthcoming. 22
23 Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., and Heath, D., Thinking coherently. Risk 10, Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., and Heath, D., Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance 9, Breuer, T., Jandačka, M., Rheinberger, K., and Summer, M., Does adding up of economic capital for market- and credit risk amount to conservative risk assessment? Journal of Banking & Finance, forthcoming. Buch, A. and Dorfleitner, G., Coherent risk measures, coherent capital allocations and the gradient allocation principle. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 42, Cambini, A. and Martein, L., Generalized Convexity and Optimization. Springer: New York. Denault, M., Coherent allocation of risk capital. Journal of Risk 4, Dhaene, J., Goovaerts, M., and Kaas, R., Economic capital allocation derived from risk measures. North American Actuarial Journal 7, Fischer, T., Risk capital allocation by coherent risk measures based on one-sided moments. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 32, Furman, E. and Zitikis, R., Weighted risk capital allocations. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 43, Gatzert, N. and Schmeiser, H., Combining fair pricing and capital requirements for non-life insurance companies. Journal of Banking & Finance 32, Gründl, H. and Schmeiser, H., Capital allocation for insurance companies What good is it? Journal of Risk and Insurance 74,
24 Horn, R. A. and Johnson, C. R., Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Hull, J. C., Risk Management and Financial Institutions. Prentice Hall International: Upper Saddle River. Kalkbrener, M., An axiomatic approach to capital allocation. Mathematical Finance 15, Merton, R. and Perold, A., Theory of risk capital in financial firms. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 6, Myers, S. C. and Read, J. A., Capital allocation for insurance companies. Journal of Risk and Insurance 68, Nocedal, J. and Wright, S. J., Numerical Optimization. Springer series in operations research and financial engineering, Springer: New York. Rosen, D. and Saunders, D., Risk factor contributions in portfolio credit risk models. Journal of Banking & Finance 34, forthcoming. Stoughton, N. and Zechner, J., Optimal capital allocation using RAROC and EVA. Journal of Financial Intermediation 16, Tasche, D., Expected shortfall and beyond. Journal of Banking & Finance 26, Tasche, D., Allocating portfolio economic capital to sub-portfolios. in Economic Capital: A Practitioner Guide, ed. by A. Dev, Risk Books: London, Tasche, D., Capital allocation to business units and sub-portfolios: the Euler principle. in Pillar II in the new basel accord: The challenge of economic capital, ed. by A. Resti, Risk Books: London,
25 Urban, M., Dittrich, J., Klüppelberg, C., and Stölting, R., Allocation of risk capital to insurance portfolios. Blätter DGVFM 26, Zangwill, W. I., Nonlinear Programming. Prentice-Hall International Series in Management, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs. 25
A class of coherent risk measures based on one-sided moments
A class of coherent risk measures based on one-sided moments T. Fischer Darmstadt University of Technology November 11, 2003 Abstract This brief paper explains how to obtain upper boundaries of shortfall
More informationYao s Minimax Principle
Complexity of algorithms The complexity of an algorithm is usually measured with respect to the size of the input, where size may for example refer to the length of a binary word describing the input,
More informationA generalized coherent risk measure: The firm s perspective
Finance Research Letters 2 (2005) 23 29 www.elsevier.com/locate/frl A generalized coherent risk measure: The firm s perspective Robert A. Jarrow a,b,, Amiyatosh K. Purnanandam c a Johnson Graduate School
More informationSOLVENCY AND CAPITAL ALLOCATION
SOLVENCY AND CAPITAL ALLOCATION HARRY PANJER University of Waterloo JIA JING Tianjin University of Economics and Finance Abstract This paper discusses a new criterion for allocation of required capital.
More informationIEOR E4602: Quantitative Risk Management
IEOR E4602: Quantitative Risk Management Risk Measures Martin Haugh Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Columbia University Email: martin.b.haugh@gmail.com Reference: Chapter 8
More informationMeasures of Contribution for Portfolio Risk
X Workshop on Quantitative Finance Milan, January 29-30, 2009 Agenda Coherent Measures of Risk Spectral Measures of Risk Capital Allocation Euler Principle Application Risk Measurement Risk Attribution
More informationRisk based capital allocation
Proceedings of FIKUSZ 10 Symposium for Young Researchers, 2010, 17-26 The Author(s). Conference Proceedings compilation Obuda University Keleti Faculty of Business and Management 2010. Published by Óbuda
More informationEuler Allocation: Theory and Practice
Euler Allocation: Theory and Practice Dirk Tasche August 2007 Abstract arxiv:0708.2542v1 [q-fin.pm] 19 Aug 2007 Despite the fact that the Euler allocation principle has been adopted by many financial institutions
More information3 Arbitrage pricing theory in discrete time.
3 Arbitrage pricing theory in discrete time. Orientation. In the examples studied in Chapter 1, we worked with a single period model and Gaussian returns; in this Chapter, we shall drop these assumptions
More informationAllocating Portfolio Economic Capital to Sub-Portfolios
Allocating Portfolio Economic Capital to Sub-Portfolios Dirk Tasche July 12, 2004 Abstract Risk adjusted performance measurement for a portfolio involves calculating the contributions to total economic
More informationA new approach for valuing a portfolio of illiquid assets
PRIN Conference Stochastic Methods in Finance Torino - July, 2008 A new approach for valuing a portfolio of illiquid assets Giacomo Scandolo - Università di Firenze Carlo Acerbi - AbaxBank Milano Liquidity
More informationMathematics in Finance
Mathematics in Finance Steven E. Shreve Department of Mathematical Sciences Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA shreve@andrew.cmu.edu A Talk in the Series Probability in Science and Industry
More informationConditional Value-at-Risk, Spectral Risk Measures and (Non-)Diversification in Portfolio Selection Problems A Comparison with Mean-Variance Analysis
Conditional Value-at-Risk, Spectral Risk Measures and (Non-)Diversification in Portfolio Selection Problems A Comparison with Mean-Variance Analysis Mario Brandtner Friedrich Schiller University of Jena,
More informationOptimal Allocation of Policy Limits and Deductibles
Optimal Allocation of Policy Limits and Deductibles Ka Chun Cheung Email: kccheung@math.ucalgary.ca Tel: +1-403-2108697 Fax: +1-403-2825150 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Calgary,
More informationUniversity of Konstanz Department of Economics. Maria Breitwieser.
University of Konstanz Department of Economics Optimal Contracting with Reciprocal Agents in a Competitive Search Model Maria Breitwieser Working Paper Series 2015-16 http://www.wiwi.uni-konstanz.de/econdoc/working-paper-series/
More informationForecast Horizons for Production Planning with Stochastic Demand
Forecast Horizons for Production Planning with Stochastic Demand Alfredo Garcia and Robert L. Smith Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109 December
More informationBargaining and Competition Revisited Takashi Kunimoto and Roberto Serrano
Bargaining and Competition Revisited Takashi Kunimoto and Roberto Serrano Department of Economics Brown University Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A. Working Paper No. 2002-14 May 2002 www.econ.brown.edu/faculty/serrano/pdfs/wp2002-14.pdf
More informationOptimizing S-shaped utility and risk management
Optimizing S-shaped utility and risk management Ineffectiveness of VaR and ES constraints John Armstrong (KCL), Damiano Brigo (Imperial) Quant Summit March 2018 Are ES constraints effective against rogue
More informationPart 3: Trust-region methods for unconstrained optimization. Nick Gould (RAL)
Part 3: Trust-region methods for unconstrained optimization Nick Gould (RAL) minimize x IR n f(x) MSc course on nonlinear optimization UNCONSTRAINED MINIMIZATION minimize x IR n f(x) where the objective
More informationTwo-Dimensional Bayesian Persuasion
Two-Dimensional Bayesian Persuasion Davit Khantadze September 30, 017 Abstract We are interested in optimal signals for the sender when the decision maker (receiver) has to make two separate decisions.
More informationStatistical Methods in Financial Risk Management
Statistical Methods in Financial Risk Management Lecture 1: Mapping Risks to Risk Factors Alexander J. McNeil Maxwell Institute of Mathematical Sciences Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh 2nd Workshop on
More informationAxioma Research Paper No January, Multi-Portfolio Optimization and Fairness in Allocation of Trades
Axioma Research Paper No. 013 January, 2009 Multi-Portfolio Optimization and Fairness in Allocation of Trades When trades from separately managed accounts are pooled for execution, the realized market-impact
More informationFinite Memory and Imperfect Monitoring
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department Finite Memory and Imperfect Monitoring Harold L. Cole and Narayana Kocherlakota Working Paper 604 September 2000 Cole: U.C.L.A. and Federal Reserve
More informationPricing Dynamic Solvency Insurance and Investment Fund Protection
Pricing Dynamic Solvency Insurance and Investment Fund Protection Hans U. Gerber and Gérard Pafumi Switzerland Abstract In the first part of the paper the surplus of a company is modelled by a Wiener process.
More informationRisk measures: Yet another search of a holy grail
Risk measures: Yet another search of a holy grail Dirk Tasche Financial Services Authority 1 dirk.tasche@gmx.net Mathematics of Financial Risk Management Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences
More informationThe Optimization Process: An example of portfolio optimization
ISyE 6669: Deterministic Optimization The Optimization Process: An example of portfolio optimization Shabbir Ahmed Fall 2002 1 Introduction Optimization can be roughly defined as a quantitative approach
More informationReferences. H. Föllmer, A. Schied, Stochastic Finance (3rd Ed.) de Gruyter 2011 (chapters 4 and 11)
General references on risk measures P. Embrechts, R. Frey, A. McNeil, Quantitative Risk Management, (2nd Ed.) Princeton University Press, 2015 H. Föllmer, A. Schied, Stochastic Finance (3rd Ed.) de Gruyter
More informationCHOICE THEORY, UTILITY FUNCTIONS AND RISK AVERSION
CHOICE THEORY, UTILITY FUNCTIONS AND RISK AVERSION Szabolcs Sebestyén szabolcs.sebestyen@iscte.pt Master in Finance INVESTMENTS Sebestyén (ISCTE-IUL) Choice Theory Investments 1 / 65 Outline 1 An Introduction
More informationAndreas Wagener University of Vienna. Abstract
Linear risk tolerance and mean variance preferences Andreas Wagener University of Vienna Abstract We translate the property of linear risk tolerance (hyperbolical Arrow Pratt index of risk aversion) from
More informationOnline Appendix Optimal Time-Consistent Government Debt Maturity D. Debortoli, R. Nunes, P. Yared. A. Proofs
Online Appendi Optimal Time-Consistent Government Debt Maturity D. Debortoli, R. Nunes, P. Yared A. Proofs Proof of Proposition 1 The necessity of these conditions is proved in the tet. To prove sufficiency,
More informationFast Convergence of Regress-later Series Estimators
Fast Convergence of Regress-later Series Estimators New Thinking in Finance, London Eric Beutner, Antoon Pelsser, Janina Schweizer Maastricht University & Kleynen Consultants 12 February 2014 Beutner Pelsser
More informationQuantitative Risk Management
Quantitative Risk Management Asset Allocation and Risk Management Martin B. Haugh Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Columbia University Outline Review of Mean-Variance Analysis
More informationMartingale Pricing Theory in Discrete-Time and Discrete-Space Models
IEOR E4707: Foundations of Financial Engineering c 206 by Martin Haugh Martingale Pricing Theory in Discrete-Time and Discrete-Space Models These notes develop the theory of martingale pricing in a discrete-time,
More informationA new approach to backtesting and risk model selection
A new approach to backtesting and risk model selection Jacopo Corbetta (École des Ponts - ParisTech) Joint work with: Ilaria Peri (University of Greenwich) June 18, 2016 Jacopo Corbetta Backtesting & Selection
More informationLecture 7: Bayesian approach to MAB - Gittins index
Advanced Topics in Machine Learning and Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture 7: Bayesian approach to MAB - Gittins index Lecturer: Yishay Mansour Scribe: Mariano Schain 7.1 Introduction In the Bayesian approach
More informationu (x) < 0. and if you believe in diminishing return of the wealth, then you would require
Chapter 8 Markowitz Portfolio Theory 8.7 Investor Utility Functions People are always asked the question: would more money make you happier? The answer is usually yes. The next question is how much more
More informationCapital Allocation Principles
Capital Allocation Principles Maochao Xu Department of Mathematics Illinois State University mxu2@ilstu.edu Capital Dhaene, et al., 2011, Journal of Risk and Insurance The level of the capital held by
More informationRichardson Extrapolation Techniques for the Pricing of American-style Options
Richardson Extrapolation Techniques for the Pricing of American-style Options June 1, 2005 Abstract Richardson Extrapolation Techniques for the Pricing of American-style Options In this paper we re-examine
More informationA No-Arbitrage Theorem for Uncertain Stock Model
Fuzzy Optim Decis Making manuscript No (will be inserted by the editor) A No-Arbitrage Theorem for Uncertain Stock Model Kai Yao Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Stock model is used to describe
More informationJournal of Computational and Applied Mathematics. The mean-absolute deviation portfolio selection problem with interval-valued returns
Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 235 (2011) 4149 4157 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cam
More informationMaturity as a factor for credit risk capital
Maturity as a factor for credit risk capital Michael Kalkbrener Λ, Ludger Overbeck y Deutsche Bank AG, Corporate & Investment Bank, Credit Risk Management 1 Introduction 1.1 Quantification of maturity
More informationMATH 5510 Mathematical Models of Financial Derivatives. Topic 1 Risk neutral pricing principles under single-period securities models
MATH 5510 Mathematical Models of Financial Derivatives Topic 1 Risk neutral pricing principles under single-period securities models 1.1 Law of one price and Arrow securities 1.2 No-arbitrage theory and
More information( ) = R + ª. Similarly, for any set endowed with a preference relation º, we can think of the upper contour set as a correspondance  : defined as
6 Lecture 6 6.1 Continuity of Correspondances So far we have dealt only with functions. It is going to be useful at a later stage to start thinking about correspondances. A correspondance is just a set-valued
More informationCharacterization of the Optimum
ECO 317 Economics of Uncertainty Fall Term 2009 Notes for lectures 5. Portfolio Allocation with One Riskless, One Risky Asset Characterization of the Optimum Consider a risk-averse, expected-utility-maximizing
More information4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS
4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS Marek Rutkowski School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney Semester 2, 2016 M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 1 / 87 General Single-Period
More informationExecutive Summary: A CVaR Scenario-based Framework For Minimizing Downside Risk In Multi-Asset Class Portfolios
Executive Summary: A CVaR Scenario-based Framework For Minimizing Downside Risk In Multi-Asset Class Portfolios Axioma, Inc. by Kartik Sivaramakrishnan, PhD, and Robert Stamicar, PhD August 2016 In this
More information3.2 No-arbitrage theory and risk neutral probability measure
Mathematical Models in Economics and Finance Topic 3 Fundamental theorem of asset pricing 3.1 Law of one price and Arrow securities 3.2 No-arbitrage theory and risk neutral probability measure 3.3 Valuation
More informationCOMBINING FAIR PRICING AND CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
COMBINING FAIR PRICING AND CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES NADINE GATZERT HATO SCHMEISER WORKING PAPERS ON RISK MANAGEMENT AND INSURANCE NO. 46 EDITED BY HATO SCHMEISER CHAIR FOR
More informationClassic and Modern Measures of Risk in Fixed
Classic and Modern Measures of Risk in Fixed Income Portfolio Optimization Miguel Ángel Martín Mato Ph. D in Economic Science Professor of Finance CENTRUM Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. C/ Nueve
More informationINTERIM CORRELATED RATIONALIZABILITY IN INFINITE GAMES
INTERIM CORRELATED RATIONALIZABILITY IN INFINITE GAMES JONATHAN WEINSTEIN AND MUHAMET YILDIZ A. We show that, under the usual continuity and compactness assumptions, interim correlated rationalizability
More informationGMM for Discrete Choice Models: A Capital Accumulation Application
GMM for Discrete Choice Models: A Capital Accumulation Application Russell Cooper, John Haltiwanger and Jonathan Willis January 2005 Abstract This paper studies capital adjustment costs. Our goal here
More informationUniversity of California Berkeley
University of California Berkeley Improving the Asmussen-Kroese Type Simulation Estimators Samim Ghamami and Sheldon M. Ross May 25, 2012 Abstract Asmussen-Kroese [1] Monte Carlo estimators of P (S n >
More informationCOHERENT VAR-TYPE MEASURES. 1. VaR cannot be used for calculating diversification
COHERENT VAR-TYPE MEASURES GRAEME WEST 1. VaR cannot be used for calculating diversification If f is a risk measure, the diversification benefit of aggregating portfolio s A and B is defined to be (1)
More informationA Preference Foundation for Fehr and Schmidt s Model. of Inequity Aversion 1
A Preference Foundation for Fehr and Schmidt s Model of Inequity Aversion 1 Kirsten I.M. Rohde 2 January 12, 2009 1 The author would like to thank Itzhak Gilboa, Ingrid M.T. Rohde, Klaus M. Schmidt, and
More informationMossin s Theorem for Upper-Limit Insurance Policies
Mossin s Theorem for Upper-Limit Insurance Policies Harris Schlesinger Department of Finance, University of Alabama, USA Center of Finance & Econometrics, University of Konstanz, Germany E-mail: hschlesi@cba.ua.edu
More information2 Modeling Credit Risk
2 Modeling Credit Risk In this chapter we present some simple approaches to measure credit risk. We start in Section 2.1 with a short overview of the standardized approach of the Basel framework for banking
More informationOn Existence of Equilibria. Bayesian Allocation-Mechanisms
On Existence of Equilibria in Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms Northwestern University April 23, 2014 Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms In allocation mechanisms, agents choose messages. The messages determine
More informationKIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
KIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES KYOTO INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/index.html Discussion Paper No. 657 The Buy Price in Auctions with Discrete Type Distributions Yusuke Inami
More informationLecture Quantitative Finance Spring Term 2015
implied Lecture Quantitative Finance Spring Term 2015 : May 7, 2015 1 / 28 implied 1 implied 2 / 28 Motivation and setup implied the goal of this chapter is to treat the implied which requires an algorithm
More informationOn the 'Lock-In' Effects of Capital Gains Taxation
May 1, 1997 On the 'Lock-In' Effects of Capital Gains Taxation Yoshitsugu Kanemoto 1 Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113 Japan Abstract The most important drawback
More informationAuctions That Implement Efficient Investments
Auctions That Implement Efficient Investments Kentaro Tomoeda October 31, 215 Abstract This article analyzes the implementability of efficient investments for two commonly used mechanisms in single-item
More informationINTRODUCTION TO ARBITRAGE PRICING OF FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES
INTRODUCTION TO ARBITRAGE PRICING OF FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES Marek Rutkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science Warsaw University of Technology 00-661 Warszawa, Poland 1 Call and Put Spot Options
More informationVirtual Demand and Stable Mechanisms
Virtual Demand and Stable Mechanisms Jan Christoph Schlegel Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne, Switzerland jschlege@unil.ch Abstract We study conditions for the existence of stable
More informationKing s College London
King s College London University Of London This paper is part of an examination of the College counting towards the award of a degree. Examinations are governed by the College Regulations under the authority
More informationOptimal capital allocation principles
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Optimal capital allocation principles Jan Dhaene and Andreas Tsanakas and Valdez Emiliano and Vanduffel Steven University of Connecticut 23. January 2009 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13574/
More informationMS-E2114 Investment Science Lecture 5: Mean-variance portfolio theory
MS-E2114 Investment Science Lecture 5: Mean-variance portfolio theory A. Salo, T. Seeve Systems Analysis Laboratory Department of System Analysis and Mathematics Aalto University, School of Science Overview
More informationIEOR E4703: Monte-Carlo Simulation
IEOR E4703: Monte-Carlo Simulation Other Miscellaneous Topics and Applications of Monte-Carlo Martin Haugh Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Columbia University Email: martin.b.haugh@gmail.com
More informationPrudence, risk measures and the Optimized Certainty Equivalent: a note
Working Paper Series Department of Economics University of Verona Prudence, risk measures and the Optimized Certainty Equivalent: a note Louis Raymond Eeckhoudt, Elisa Pagani, Emanuela Rosazza Gianin WP
More informationOn the Lower Arbitrage Bound of American Contingent Claims
On the Lower Arbitrage Bound of American Contingent Claims Beatrice Acciaio Gregor Svindland December 2011 Abstract We prove that in a discrete-time market model the lower arbitrage bound of an American
More informationCapital allocation: a guided tour
Capital allocation: a guided tour Andreas Tsanakas Cass Business School, City University London K. U. Leuven, 21 November 2013 2 Motivation What does it mean to allocate capital? A notional exercise Is
More information1 Overview. 2 The Gradient Descent Algorithm. AM 221: Advanced Optimization Spring 2016
AM 22: Advanced Optimization Spring 206 Prof. Yaron Singer Lecture 9 February 24th Overview In the previous lecture we reviewed results from multivariate calculus in preparation for our journey into convex
More informationSolving dynamic portfolio choice problems by recursing on optimized portfolio weights or on the value function?
DOI 0.007/s064-006-9073-z ORIGINAL PAPER Solving dynamic portfolio choice problems by recursing on optimized portfolio weights or on the value function? Jules H. van Binsbergen Michael W. Brandt Received:
More informationMultistage risk-averse asset allocation with transaction costs
Multistage risk-averse asset allocation with transaction costs 1 Introduction Václav Kozmík 1 Abstract. This paper deals with asset allocation problems formulated as multistage stochastic programming models.
More informationValue at Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Marginal Risk Contribution, in: Szego, G. (ed.): Risk Measures for the 21st Century, p , Wiley 2004.
Rau-Bredow, Hans: Value at Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Marginal Risk Contribution, in: Szego, G. (ed.): Risk Measures for the 21st Century, p. 61-68, Wiley 2004. Copyright geschützt 5 Value-at-Risk,
More informationAn Application of Extreme Value Theory for Measuring Financial Risk in the Uruguayan Pension Fund 1
An Application of Extreme Value Theory for Measuring Financial Risk in the Uruguayan Pension Fund 1 Guillermo Magnou 23 January 2016 Abstract Traditional methods for financial risk measures adopts normal
More informationAuction Prices and Asset Allocations of the Electronic Security Trading System Xetra
Auction Prices and Asset Allocations of the Electronic Security Trading System Xetra Li Xihao Bielefeld Graduate School of Economics and Management Jan Wenzelburger Department of Economics University of
More informationDynamic Risk Management in Electricity Portfolio Optimization via Polyhedral Risk Functionals
Dynamic Risk Management in Electricity Portfolio Optimization via Polyhedral Risk Functionals A. Eichhorn and W. Römisch Humboldt-University Berlin, Department of Mathematics, Germany http://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~romisch
More informationUsing Monte Carlo Integration and Control Variates to Estimate π
Using Monte Carlo Integration and Control Variates to Estimate π N. Cannady, P. Faciane, D. Miksa LSU July 9, 2009 Abstract We will demonstrate the utility of Monte Carlo integration by using this algorithm
More informationEfficiency in Decentralized Markets with Aggregate Uncertainty
Efficiency in Decentralized Markets with Aggregate Uncertainty Braz Camargo Dino Gerardi Lucas Maestri December 2015 Abstract We study efficiency in decentralized markets with aggregate uncertainty and
More informationPAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV
GAME THEORY SOLUTION SET 1 WINTER 018 PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV Introduction For suggested solution to problem 4, last year s suggested solutions by Tsz-Ning Wong were used who I think used suggested
More informationPortfolio selection with multiple risk measures
Portfolio selection with multiple risk measures Garud Iyengar Columbia University Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Joint work with Carlos Abad Outline Portfolio selection and risk measures
More informationGame Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012
Game Theory Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 22 COOPERATIVE GAME THEORY Correlated Strategies and Correlated
More informationBounds on some contingent claims with non-convex payoff based on multiple assets
Bounds on some contingent claims with non-convex payoff based on multiple assets Dimitris Bertsimas Xuan Vinh Doan Karthik Natarajan August 007 Abstract We propose a copositive relaxation framework to
More informationStandard Risk Aversion and Efficient Risk Sharing
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Standard Risk Aversion and Efficient Risk Sharing Richard M. H. Suen University of Leicester 29 March 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86499/ MPRA Paper
More informationExtraction capacity and the optimal order of extraction. By: Stephen P. Holland
Extraction capacity and the optimal order of extraction By: Stephen P. Holland Holland, Stephen P. (2003) Extraction Capacity and the Optimal Order of Extraction, Journal of Environmental Economics and
More informationCompetitive Outcomes, Endogenous Firm Formation and the Aspiration Core
Competitive Outcomes, Endogenous Firm Formation and the Aspiration Core Camelia Bejan and Juan Camilo Gómez September 2011 Abstract The paper shows that the aspiration core of any TU-game coincides with
More informationPORTFOLIO THEORY. Master in Finance INVESTMENTS. Szabolcs Sebestyén
PORTFOLIO THEORY Szabolcs Sebestyén szabolcs.sebestyen@iscte.pt Master in Finance INVESTMENTS Sebestyén (ISCTE-IUL) Portfolio Theory Investments 1 / 60 Outline 1 Modern Portfolio Theory Introduction Mean-Variance
More informationINSURANCE VALUATION: A COMPUTABLE MULTI-PERIOD COST-OF-CAPITAL APPROACH
INSURANCE VALUATION: A COMPUTABLE MULTI-PERIOD COST-OF-CAPITAL APPROACH HAMPUS ENGSNER, MATHIAS LINDHOLM, AND FILIP LINDSKOG Abstract. We present an approach to market-consistent multi-period valuation
More informationMarkets Do Not Select For a Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk
Markets Do Not Select For a Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk Thorsten Hens a Klaus Reiner Schenk-Hoppé b October 4, 003 Abstract Tobin 958 has argued that in the face of potential capital
More informationAsset Allocation Model with Tail Risk Parity
Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference 2017 Asset Allocation Model with Tail Risk Parity Hirotaka Kato Graduate School of Science and Technology Keio University,
More informationConditional Value-at-Risk: Theory and Applications
The School of Mathematics Conditional Value-at-Risk: Theory and Applications by Jakob Kisiala s1301096 Dissertation Presented for the Degree of MSc in Operational Research August 2015 Supervised by Dr
More informationChapter 7: Portfolio Theory
Chapter 7: Portfolio Theory 1. Introduction 2. Portfolio Basics 3. The Feasible Set 4. Portfolio Selection Rules 5. The Efficient Frontier 6. Indifference Curves 7. The Two-Asset Portfolio 8. Unrestriceted
More informationGame Theory: Normal Form Games
Game Theory: Normal Form Games Michael Levet June 23, 2016 1 Introduction Game Theory is a mathematical field that studies how rational agents make decisions in both competitive and cooperative situations.
More informationA NEW NOTION OF TRANSITIVE RELATIVE RETURN RATE AND ITS APPLICATIONS USING STOCHASTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS. Burhaneddin İZGİ
A NEW NOTION OF TRANSITIVE RELATIVE RETURN RATE AND ITS APPLICATIONS USING STOCHASTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS Burhaneddin İZGİ Department of Mathematics, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
More informationBudget Setting Strategies for the Company s Divisions
Budget Setting Strategies for the Company s Divisions Menachem Berg Ruud Brekelmans Anja De Waegenaere November 14, 1997 Abstract The paper deals with the issue of budget setting to the divisions of a
More informationModel Risk: A Conceptual Framework for Risk Measurement and Hedging
Model Risk: A Conceptual Framework for Risk Measurement and Hedging Nicole Branger Christian Schlag This version: January 15, 24 Both authors are from the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
More informationPORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION AND EXPECTED SHORTFALL MINIMIZATION FROM HISTORICAL DATA
PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION AND EXPECTED SHORTFALL MINIMIZATION FROM HISTORICAL DATA We begin by describing the problem at hand which motivates our results. Suppose that we have n financial instruments at hand,
More informationRevenue Equivalence and Income Taxation
Journal of Economics and Finance Volume 24 Number 1 Spring 2000 Pages 56-63 Revenue Equivalence and Income Taxation Veronika Grimm and Ulrich Schmidt* Abstract This paper considers the classical independent
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2 Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar MIT October 14, 2009 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria Mixed Strategies
More informationUnraveling versus Unraveling: A Memo on Competitive Equilibriums and Trade in Insurance Markets
Unraveling versus Unraveling: A Memo on Competitive Equilibriums and Trade in Insurance Markets Nathaniel Hendren October, 2013 Abstract Both Akerlof (1970) and Rothschild and Stiglitz (1976) show that
More information