MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999060724 · doi:10.1002/asmb.2002

Goal achieving probabilities of cone‐constrained mean‐variance portfolios

2013· article· en· W1999060724 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantal Labbé, François Watier

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalHEC Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProbabilistic logicInvestment strategyPortfolioVariance (accounting)Financial marketProject portfolio managementEconomicsCone (formal languages)Expected utility hypothesisMathematical economicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationEconometricsFinanceMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we establish closed‐form formulas for key probabilistic properties of the cone‐constrained optimal mean‐variance strategy, in a continuous market model driven by a multidimensional Brownian motion and deterministic coefficients. In particular, we compute the probability to obtain to a point, during the investment horizon, where the accumulated wealth is large enough to be fully reinvested in the money market, and safely grow there to meet the investor's financial goal at terminal time. We conclude that the result of Li and Zhou [Ann. Appl. Prob., v.16, pp.1751–1763, (2006)] in the unconstrained case carries over when conic constraints are present: the former probability is lower bounded by 80% no matter the market coefficients, trading constraints, and investment goal. We also compute the expected terminal wealth given that the investor's goal is underachieved, for both the mean‐variance strategy and the aforementioned hybrid strategy where transfer to the money market occurs if it allows to safely achieve the goal. The former probabilities and expectations are also provided in the case where all risky assets held are liquidated if financial distress is encountered. These results provide investors with novel practical tools to support portfolio decision‐making and analysis. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Stochastic Models in Business and IndustrySame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207