The Impact of Financial Crises on the Asset Allocation: Classical Theory Versus Behavioral Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to compare the portfolio optimization generated by the behavioral portfolio theory (BPT) and the mean variance theory (MVT) by investigating the impact of the global financial crisis on the asset allocation. We use data from the Canadian Stock Exchange over the 2002–2015 period. By comparing both approaches, we show that for any level of aspiration and admissible failure, the BPT optimal portfolio will always contain a part of the mean–variance frontier. Thus, in the case of higher degree of risk aversion induced by typical BPT investors, the security set is located on the upper right of the Markowitz frontier. However, even if the optimal portfolios of MVT and BPT may coincide, MVT investors associated with an extremely low degree of risk aversion will not systematically choose BPT optimal portfolios. Our results also indicate the period of financial crisis generate huge losses in MVT portfolio values that implies a lower expected return and a higher level of risk. Furthermore, we point out the absence of the BPT optimal portfolio when potential losses are higher during the 2008 global financial crisis. JEL: G11, G17, G40
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".