Optimal HARA Investments with Terminal VaR Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the impact of Value at Risk (VaR) constraints on investors with hyperbolic absolute risk aversion (HARA) risk preferences. We derive closed-form representations for the “triplet”: optimal investment, terminal wealth, and value function, via extending the Bellman-based methodology from constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) utilities to HARA utilities. In the numerical part, we compare our solution (HARA-VaR) to three critical embedded cases, namely, CRRA, CRRA-VaR, and HARA, assessing the influence of key parameters like the VaR probability and floor on the optimal wealth distribution and allocations. The comparison highlights a stronger impact of VaR on a CRRA-VaR investor compared to a HARA-VaR (HV). This is in terms of not only lower Sharpe ratios but also higher tail risk and lower returns on wealth. The HV analysis demonstrates that combining both, capital guarantee and VaR, may lead to a correction of the partially adverse effects of the VaR constraint on the risk appetite. Moreover, the HV portfolio strategy also does not show the high kurtosis observed for the PV strategy. A wealth-equivalent loss (WEL) analysis is also implemented demonstrating that, for a HV investor, losses would be more serious if adopting a CRRA-VaR strategy as compared to a HARA strategy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".