ROBUST ASSET ALLOCATION FOR LONG-TERM TARGET-BASED INVESTING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores dynamic mean-variance (MV) asset allocation over long horizons. This is equivalent to target-based investing with a quadratic loss penalty for deviations from the target level of terminal wealth. We provide a number of illustrative examples in a setting with a risky stock index and a risk-free asset. Our underlying model is very simple: the value of the risky index is assumed to follow a geometric Brownian motion diffusion process and the risk-free interest rate is specified to be constant. We impose realistic constraints on the leverage ratio and trading frequency. In many of our examples, the MV optimal strategy has a standard deviation of terminal wealth less than half that of a constant proportion strategy which has the same expected value of terminal wealth, while the probability of shortfall is reduced by a factor of two to three. We investigate the robustness of the model through resampling experiments using historical data dating back to 1926. These experiments also show much lower standard deviation and shortfall probability for the MV optimal strategy relative to a constant proportion strategy with approximately the same expected terminal wealth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".