Computational Management Science

, Volume 16, Issue 1–2, pp 71–95 | Cite as

Sensitivity analysis of Mixed Tempered Stable parameters with implications in portfolio optimization

  • Asmerilda Hitaj
  • Lorenzo MercuriEmail author
  • Edit Rroji
Original Paper


This paper investigates the use, in practical financial problems, of the Mixed Tempered Stable distribution both in its univariate and multivariate formulation. In the univariate context, we study the dependence of a given coherent risk measure on the distribution parameters. The latter allows to identify the parameters that seem to have a greater influence on the given measure of risk. The multivariate Mixed Tempered Stable distribution enters in a portfolio optimization problem built considering a real market dataset of seventeen hedge fund indexes. We combine the flexibility of the multivariate Mixed Tempered Stable distribution, in capturing different tail behaviors, with the ability of the ARMA-GARCH model in capturing the time dependence observed in the data.


Mixed Tempered Stable distribution Sensitivity analysis Portfolio optimization 



The authors would like to thank the Editor and three anonymous Referees for their helpful comments. All remaining errors are responsibility of the authors. This research is part of the project “Advanced Methods for Portfolio Optimization” (Number 35364), which is financially supported by the “MIUR-DAAD Joint Mobility Program (2nd Edition)”.


  1. Anderson TW, Darling DA (1954) A test of goodness of fit. J Am Stat Assoc 49(268):765–769Google Scholar
  2. Artzner P, Delbaen F, Eber J, Heath D (1999) Coherent measures of risk. Math Financ 9:203–228Google Scholar
  3. Barndorff-Nielsen O, Kent J, Sørensen M (1982) Normal variance-mean mixtures and z distributions. Int Stat Rev 50:145–159Google Scholar
  4. Bianchi ML, Tassinari GL, Fabozzi FJ (2016) riding with the four horsemen and the multivariate normal tempered stable model. Int J Theor Appl Financ 19:1650027Google Scholar
  5. Chaussé P (2010) Computing generalized method of moments and generalized empirical likelihood with R. J Stat Softw 34(11):1–35Google Scholar
  6. Choueifaty Y, Coignard Y (2008) Towards maximum diversification. J Portf Manag 35:40–51Google Scholar
  7. Daníelsson J, de Vries C, Jorgensen B, Samorodnitsky G, Mandira S (2012) Fat tails, VaR and subadditivity. J Econom 172(2):283–291Google Scholar
  8. Eberlein E (2001) Application of generalized hyperbolic Lévy motions to finance. In: Lévy processes. Springer, pp 319–336Google Scholar
  9. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 7:1–26Google Scholar
  10. Fallahgoul H, Kim YS, Fabozzi FJ, Park J (2017) Quanto option pricing with Lévy models, working paper. Available at SSRNGoogle Scholar
  11. Francq C, Zakoïan JM (2004) Maximum likelihood estimation of pure GARCH and ARMA-GARCH processes. Bernoulli 10:605–637Google Scholar
  12. Hansen LP (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50:1029–1054Google Scholar
  13. Hitaj A, Hubalek F, Mercuri L, Rroji E (2018) Multivariate mixed tempered stable distribution. Int Sta Rev.
  14. Hitaj A, Martellini L, Zambruno G (2012) Optimal hedge fund allocation with improved estimates for coskewness and cokurtosis parameters. J Altern Invest 14:6–16Google Scholar
  15. Hitaj A, Mercuri L (2013) Portfolio allocation using multivariate variance gamma models. Fin Markets Portfolio Mgmt 27:65–99Google Scholar
  16. Hitaj A, Mercuri L, Rroji E (2015) Portfolio selection with independent component analysis. Financ Res Lett 15:146–159Google Scholar
  17. Hitaj A, Zambruno G (2016) Are Smart Beta strategies suitable for hedge fund portfolios? Rev Financ Econ 29:37–51Google Scholar
  18. Jondeau E, Poon S, Rockinger M (2007) Financial modeling under non-Gaussian distributions. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim YS, Giacometti R, Rachev ST, Fabozzi FJ, Mignacca D (2012) Measuring financial risk and portfolio optimization with a non-Gaussian multivariate model. Ann Oper Res 201:325–343Google Scholar
  20. Kim YS, Rachev ST, Bianchi ML, Fabozzi FJ (2010) Tempered stable and tempered infinitely divisible GARCH models. J Bank Financ 34:2096–2109Google Scholar
  21. Kim YS, Rachev ST, Bianchi ML, Fabozzi FJ (2010) Computing VaR and AVaR in infinitely divisible distributions. Probab Math Stat 30:223–245Google Scholar
  22. Madan DB, Carr PP, Chang EC (1998) The variance gamma process and option pricing. Rev Financ 2:79–105Google Scholar
  23. Maillard S, Roncalli T, Teiletche J (2010) On the properties of equally-weighted risk contributions portfolios. J Portf Manag 36:60–70Google Scholar
  24. Mainik G, Mitov G, Rüschendorf L (2015) Portfolio optimization for heavy-tailed assets: Extreme Risk Index vs. Markowitz. J Emp Financ 32:115–134Google Scholar
  25. Marsaglia G, Marsaglia J (2004) Evaluating the Anderson–Darling distribution. J Stat Softw 9:1–5Google Scholar
  26. Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J Financ 7:77–91Google Scholar
  27. Mercuri L, Rroji E (2018) Option pricing in an exponential MixedTS Lévy process. Ann Oper Res 260(1):353–374Google Scholar
  28. Mercuri L, Rroji E (2018) Risk parity for Mixed Tempered Stable distributed sources of risk. Ann Oper Res 260(1):375–393Google Scholar
  29. Newey WK, West KD (1987) A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55(3):703–708Google Scholar
  30. Qian E (2006) On the financial interpretation of risk contribution: risk budgets do add up. J Invest Manag 4:41–51Google Scholar
  31. Rachev ST, Kim YS, Bianchi ML, Fabozzi F (2011) Financial models with Lévy processes and volatility clustering, vol 187. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  32. Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S (2000) Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J Risk 2:21–41Google Scholar
  33. Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S (2002) Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. J Bank Financ 26:1443–1471Google Scholar
  34. Rroji E, Mercuri L (2015) Mixed Tempered Stable distribution. Quant Financ 15:1559–1569Google Scholar
  35. Satchell S (2016) Derivatives and hedge funds. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Shi X, Kim A (2015) Coherent risk measure and normal mixture distributions with application in portfolio optimization and risk allocation, working paper. Available at SSRN 2548057Google Scholar
  37. Stoyanov S, Rachev S, Fabozzi F (2013) CVaR sensitivity with respect to tail thickness. J Bank Financ 37(3):977–988Google Scholar
  38. Stoyanov S, Rachev S, Fabozzi F (2013) Sensitivity of portfolio VaR and CVaR to portfolio return characteristics. Ann Oper Res 205(1):169–187Google Scholar
  39. Yamai Y, Yoshiba T (2005) Value-at-risk versus expected shortfall: a practical perspective. J Bank Financ 29:997–1015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics and Quantitative MethodsUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative MethodsUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  3. 3.Japan Science and Technology Agency CRESTTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations