MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504052917 · doi:10.1137/100810034

Time-Consistent Portfolio Management

2012· article· en· W1504052917 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscountingDynamic inconsistencyEconomicsPortfolioConsumption (sociology)Mathematical economicsHyperbolic discountingTime preferenceLife insuranceCommitEconometricsMathematicsActuarial scienceMicroeconomicsComputer scienceFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the portfolio management problem for an investor with finite time horizon who is allowed to consume and take out life insurance. Natural assumptions, such as different discount rates for consumption and life insurance, lead to time inconsistency. This situation can also arise when the investor is in fact a group, the members of which have different utilities and/or different discount rates. As a consequence, the optimal strategies are not implementable. We focus on hyperbolic discounting, which has received much attention lately, especially in the area of behavioral finance. Following [I. Ekeland and T. A. Pirvu, Math. Financ. Econ., 2 (2008), pp. 57–86], we consider the resulting problem as a leader-follower game between successive selves, each of whom can commit for an infinitesimally small amount of time. We then define policies as subgame perfect equilibrium strategies. Policies are characterized by an integral equation which is shown to have a solution in the case of constant relative risk aversion utilities. Our results can be extended for more general preferences as long as the equations admit solutions. Numerical simulations reveal that for the Merton problem with hyperbolic discounting, the consumption increases up to a certain time, after which it decreases; this pattern does not occur in the case of exponential discounting and is therefore known in the literature as the “consumption puzzle.” Other numerical experiments explore the effect of time varying aggregation rate on the insurance premium.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it