On Relation Betweeen Expected Regret and Conditional Value-at-Risk
The paper compares portfolio optimization approaches with expected regret and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) performance functions. The expected regret is defined as an average portfolio underperformance comparing to a fixed target or some benchmark portfolio. For continuous distributions, CVaR is defined as the expected loss exceeding α-Value-at Risk (VaR), i.e., the mean of the worst (1-α) 100% losses in a specified time period. However, generally, CVaR is the weighted average of VaR and losses exceeding VaR. Optimization of CVaR can be performed using linear programming. We formally prove that a portfolio with a continuous loss distribution, which minimizes CVaR, can be obtained by doing a line search with respect to the threshold in the expected regret. An optimal portfolio in CVaR sense is also optimal in the expected regret sense for some threshold in the regret function. The inverse statement is also valid, i.e., if a portfolio minimizes the expected regret, this portfolio can be found by doing a line search with respect to the CVaR confidence level. A portfolio, optimal in expected regret sense, is also optimal in CVaR sense for some confidence level. The relation of the expected regret and CVaR minimization approaches is explained with a numerical example.
KeywordsLine Search Portfolio Optimization Decision Vector Benchmark Portfolio Inverse Statement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Acerbi, C, C. Nordio and C. Sirtori (2001): Expected shortfall as a tool for financial risk management. Working paper, http://www.gloriamundi.org.
- Acerbi, C, and D. Tasche (2001): On the coherence of expected shortfall. Working paper, http://www.gloriamundi.org.
- Artzner, P., F. Delbaen, J.M. Eber, and D. Heat (1997): Thinking Coherently, Risk, Vol. 10, 68–71.Google Scholar
- Brooke, A., D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, and R. Rosenthal (1992): GAMS, A User’s Guide. Redwood City, CA: Scientific Press.Google Scholar
- Cariño, D.R. and W.T. Ziemba (1998): Formulation of the Russell-Yasuda Kasai Financial Planning Model, Operations Research. Vol. 46, No. 4, 443–449.Google Scholar
- Embrechts, P. (1999): Extreme Value Theory as a Risk Management Tool, North American Actuarial Journal, vol. 3.Google Scholar
- ILOG (1997): CPLEX, 6.0 ed. Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
- Hurliman, W. (2001): Conditional Value-at-Risk bounds for Compound Poisson Risks and Normal Approximation. MPS: Applied mathematics/0201009. Working Paper, www.mathpreprints.com/math/Preprint/werner.huerlimann/20020111/1/.
- Krokhmal, P., J. Palmquist, and S. Uryasev (2002): Portfolio Optimization with Conditional Value-at-Risk Objective and Constraints. The Journal of Risk, Vol. 4, No. 2.Google Scholar
- Markowitz, H.M. (1952): Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance. Vol. 7, No. 1, 77–91.Google Scholar
- Krokhmal. P., J. Palmquist, and S. Uryasev (2002): Portfolio Optimization with Conditional Value-At-Risk Objective and Constraints. The Journal of Risk, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2002.Google Scholar
- Pflug, G. Ch. (2000): Some Remarks on the Value-at-Risk and the Conditional Value-at-Risk. In. Uryasev S. (Ed.) Probabilistic Constrained Optimization: Methodology and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Prekopa, A. (1995): Stochastic Programming, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Rockafellar, R.T. and S. Uryasev (2000): Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk. The Journal of Risk, Vol. 2, No. 3.Google Scholar
- Ziemba, W.T. and J.M. Mulvey (Eds.) (1998): Worldwide Asset and Liability Modeling, Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
- Zenios, S.A. (Eds.) (1996): Financial Optimization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar