Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper develops an approximate closed-form optimal portfolio allocation formula for a spot asset whose variance follows a GARCH(1,1) process. We consider an investor with constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) utility who wants to maximize the expected utility from terminal wealth under a Heston and Nandi (2000) GARCH (HN-GARCH) model. Based on an approximation of the log returns from Campbell and Viceira (1999), we obtain closed formulas for the optimal investment strategy, the value function and the optimal terminal wealth. We find the optimal strategy is independent of the development of the risky asset, and the solution converges to that of a continuous-time Heston stochastic volatility model (Kraft, 2005), albeit under additional conditions. For a daily trading scenario, the optimal solutions are quite robust to variations in the parameters, while the numerical wealth equivalent loss (WEL) analysis shows good performance of the Heston solution, with a quite inferior performance of the Merton solution.The solution is extended to two dimensions under the multivariate affine GARCH in Escobar-Anel et al. (2020).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".