×

Good deal indices in asset pricing: actuarial and financial implications. (English) Zbl 07766359

Summary: We integrate into a single optimization problem a risk measure, beyond the variance, and either arbitrage-free real market quotations or financial pricing rules generated by an arbitrage-free stochastic pricing model. A sequence of investment strategies such that the couple (expected return, risk) diverges to \(( + \infty , - \infty )\) will be called a good deal (GD). The existence of such a sequence is equivalent to the existence of an alternative sequence of strategies such that the couple (risk, price) diverges to \(( - \infty , - \infty )\). Moreover, by appropriately adding the riskless asset, every GD may generate a new one only composed of strategies priced at one. We will see that GDs often exist in practice, and the main objective of this paper will be to measure the GD size. The provided GD indices will equal an optimal ratio between both risk and price, and there will exist alternative interpretations of these indices. They also provide the minimum relative (per dollar) price modification that prevents the existence of GDs. Moreover, they will be a crucial instrument to detect those securities or marketed claims that are over- or underpriced. Many classical actuarial and financial optimization problems may generate wrong solutions if the used market quotations or stochastic pricing models do not prevent the existence of GDs. This fact is illustrated in the paper, and we point out how the provided GD indices may be useful to overcome this caveat. Numerical experiments are also included.
{© 2017 The Authors. International Transactions in Operational Research © 2017 International Federation of Operational Research Societies}

MSC:

90-XX Operations research, mathematical programming

References:

[1] Ahn, D., Boudoukh, J., Richardson, M., Whitelaw, R.F., 1999. Optimal risk management using options. The Journal of Finance54, 359-375.
[2] Anderson, E.J., Nash, P., 1987. Linear Programming in Infinite‐Dimensional Spaces. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. · Zbl 0632.90038
[3] Arrow, K.J., 1963. Uncertainty and the welfare of medical care. American Economic Review53, 941-973.
[4] Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.M., Heath, D., 1999. Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance9, 203-228. · Zbl 0980.91042
[5] Balbás, A., Balbás, B., Balbás, R., 2016a. Outperforming benchmarks with their derivatives: theory and empirical evidence. The Journal of Risk18, 4, 25-52.
[6] Balbás, A., Balbás, B., Balbás, R., 2016b. Good deals and benchmarks in robust portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research250, 666-678. · Zbl 1346.91198
[7] Balbás, A., Balbás, R., 2009. Compatibility between pricing rules and risk measures: the \(C C V a R\). Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias, RACSAM103, 251-264. · Zbl 1181.91069
[8] Balbás, A., Balbás, R., Garrido, J., 2010. Extending pricing rules with general risk functions. European Journal of Operational Research201, 23-33. · Zbl 1177.91143
[9] Balbás, A., Longarela, I.R., Lucia, J., 1999. How financial theory applies to catastrophe‐linked derivatives. An empirical test of several pricing models. Journal of Risk and Insurance66, 4, 551-582.
[10] Balbás, A., Longarela, I.R., Pardo, A., 2000. Integration and arbitrage in the Spanish financial markets: an empirical approach. Journal of Futures Markets20, 4, 321-344.
[11] Ballestero, E., Bravo, M., Perez‐Gladish, B., Arenas‐Parra, M., Pla‐Santamaria, D., 2012. Socially responsible investment: a multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives. European Journal of Operational Research216, 487-494.
[12] Ballestero, E., Romero, C., 1996. Portfolio selection: a compromise programming solution. Journal of the Operational Research Society47, 1377-1386. · Zbl 0863.90013
[13] Bondarenko, O., 2014. Why are put options so expensive?Quarterly Journal of Finance4, 3, 1450015‐1-1450015‐50.
[14] Borch, K., 1960. An attempt to determine the optimum amount of stop loss reinsurance. Transactions of the 16th International Congress of Actuaries I, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 597-610.
[15] Chen, Z., Knez, P.J., 1995. Measurement of market integration and arbitrage. The Review of Financial Studies8, 2, 287-325.
[16] Constantinides, G.M., Czerwonko, M., Jackwerth, J.C., Perrakis, S., 2011. Are options on index futures profitable for risk‐averse investors? Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance66, 1407-1437.
[17] Dash, G.H., Kajiji, N., 2014. On multiobjective combinatorial optimization and dynamic interim hedging of efficient portfolios. International Transactions in Operational Research21, 899-918. · Zbl 1309.90063
[18] Davis, M.H.A., Panas, V.G., Zariphopoulou, T., 1993. European option pricing with transaction costs. Siam Journal of Control and Optimization31, 470-493. · Zbl 0779.90011
[19] Duffie, D., 1988. Security Markets: Stochastic Models. Academic Press, Boston, MA. · Zbl 0661.90001
[20] Dupacová, J., Kopa, M., 2014. Robustness of optimal portfolios under risk and stochastic dominance constraints. European Journal of Operational Research234, 434-441. · Zbl 1304.91190
[21] Goovaerts, M.J., Laeven, R., 2008. Actuarial risk measures for financial derivative pricing. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics42, 540-547. · Zbl 1152.91444
[22] Guan, G., Liang, Z., 2014. Optimal reinsurance and investment strategies for insurer under interest rate and inflation risks. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics55, 105-115. · Zbl 1296.91155
[23] Harrison, J., Kreps, D., 1979. Martingales and arbitrage in multiperiod securities markets. Journal of Economic Theory20, 381-408. · Zbl 0431.90019
[24] Haugh, M.B., Lo, A.W., 2001. Asset allocation and derivatives. Quantitative Finance1, 45-72. · Zbl 1405.91694
[25] Kamara, A., Miller, T.W., 1995. Daily and intradaily tests of European put‐call parity. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis30, 4, 519-541.
[26] Kempf, A., Korn, O., 1998. Trading system and market integration. Journal of Financial Intermediation7, 220-239.
[27] Luenberger, D.G., 2001. Projection pricing. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications109, 1-25. · Zbl 0972.91058
[28] Peng, X., Wang, W., 2016. Optimal investment and risk control for an insurer under inside information. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics69, 104-116. · Zbl 1369.91166
[29] Prisman, E.Z., 1986. Valuation of risky assets in arbitrage free economies with frictions. The Journal of Finance41, 3, 545-556.
[30] Rockafellar, R.T., Uryasev, S., 2000. Optimization of conditional‐value‐at‐risk. The Journal of Risk2, 21-42.
[31] Rockafellar, R.T., Uryasev, S., Zabarankin, M., 2006. Generalized deviations in risk analysis. Finance and Stochastics10, 51-74. · Zbl 1150.90006
[32] Sawaragi, Y., Nakayama, H., Tanino, T., 1985. Theory of Multiobjective Optimization. Elsevier, Orlando, FL. · Zbl 0566.90053
[33] Schaeffer, H.H., 1971. Topological Vector Spaces. Springer, New York. · Zbl 0217.16002
[34] Stoyanov, S.V., Rachev, S.T., Fabozzi, F.J., 2007. Optimal financial portfolios. Applied Mathematical Finance14, 401-436. · Zbl 1151.91542
[35] Wang, S.S., 2000. A class of distortion operators for pricing financial and insurance risks. Journal of Risk and Insurance67, 15-36.
[36] Weng, C., Zhuang, S.C., 2017. CDF formulation for solving an optimal reinsurance problem. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal5, 395-418. · Zbl 1401.91200
[37] Zhao, P., Xiao, Q., 2016. Portfolio selection problem with value‐at‐risk constraints under non‐extensive statistical mechanics. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics298, 74-91.
[38] Zhuang, S.C., Weng, C., Tan, K.S., Assa, H., 2016. Marginal indemnification function formulation for optimal reinsurance. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics67, 65-76. · Zbl 1348.91196
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.