MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755439746 · doi:10.1142/s2424786317500219

Dynamic mean variance asset allocation: Tests for robustness

2017· article· en· W2755439746 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBondAsset allocationEconometricsPortfolioVolatility (finance)Investment strategyEconomicsMathematicsMarket liquidityFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a portfolio consisting of a risk-free bond and an equity index which follows a jump diffusion process. Parameters for the inflation-adjusted return of the stock index and the risk-free bond are determined by examining 89 years of data. The optimal dynamic asset allocation strategy for a long-term pre-commitment mean variance (MV) investor is determined by numerically solving a Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman partial integro-differential equation. The MV strategy is mathematically equivalent to minimizing the quadratic shortfall of the target terminal wealth. We incorporate realistic constraints on the strategy: discrete rebalancing (yearly), maximum leverage, and no trading if insolvent. Extensive synthetic market tests and resampled backtests of historical data indicate that the multi-period MV strategy achieves approximately the same expected terminal wealth as a constant weight strategy, but with much smaller variance and probability of shortfall.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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