MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2566917254 · doi:10.3390/jrfm10010001

Portfolio Optimization and Mortgage Choice

2017· article· en· W2566917254 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maj-Britt Nordfang, Mogens Steffensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStrategiske Forskningsråd
KeywordsStylized factPortfolioInterest rateEconometricsEconomicsExpected utility hypothesisStochastic controlActuarial scienceFinancial economicsOptimal controlMonetary economicsMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the optimal mortgage choice of an investor in a simple bond market with a stochastic interest rate and access to term life insurance. The study is based on advances in stochastic control theory, which provides analytical solutions to portfolio problems with a stochastic interest rate. We derive the optimal portfolio of a mortgagor in a simple framework and formulate stylized versions of mortgage products offered in the market today. This allows us to analyze the optimal investment strategy in terms of optimal mortgage choice. We conclude that certain extreme investors optimally choose either a traditional fixed rate mortgage or an adjustable rate mortgage, while investors with moderate risk aversion and income prefer a mix of the two. By matching specific investor characteristics to existing mortgage products, our study provides a better understanding of the complex and yet restricted mortgage choice faced by many household investors. In addition, the simple analytical framework enables a detailed analysis of how changes to market, income and preference parameters affect the optimal mortgage choice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis→French-language works237,207→