Portfolio Optimization for Extreme Risks with Maximum Diversification: An Empirical Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heavy tailedness and interconnectedness widely exist in stock returns and large insurance claims, which contributes to huge losses for financial institutions. Diversification ratio (DR) measures the degree of diversification using the Value-at-Risk, which is known to capture extreme risks better than variance. The portfolio optimization strategy based on DR maximizes the effect of diversification for extreme risks. In this paper, we empirically examine the DR strategy by using more than 350 S&P 500 stocks under the assumption that the stock losses are modeled with a flexible multivariate heavy-tailed model. This assumption is verified empirically. The performance of DR strategy is compared with four benchmark strategies: equally weighted portfolio, minimum-variance portfolio, extreme risk index portfolio, and most diversified portfolio. The performance of comparison includes annualized portfolio return, modified Sharpe ratio, maximum drawdown, portfolio concentration, portfolio turnover, and the degree of diversification. DR outperforms other strategies. In particular, DR shows the highest return and maintains the highest level of diversification during the global financial crisis of 2007–2009.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it