MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366365000 · doi:10.1080/14697688.2023.2199781

Optimal asset allocation under search frictions and stochastic interest rate

2023· article· en· W4366365000 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

VenueQuantitative Finance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBellman equationAsset (computer security)Stochastic controlExponential utilityInterest rateLogarithmViscosity solutionMathematical optimizationAsset allocationCox–Ingersoll–Ross modelStochastic differential equationMarket liquidityMathematical economicsEconomicsEconometricsComputer scienceMathematicsOptimal controlApplied mathematicsFinancePortfolio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate an optimal asset allocation problem in a financial market consisting of one risk-free asset, one liquid risky asset and one illiquid risky asset. The liquidity risk stems from the asset that cannot be traded continuously, and the trading opportunities are captured by a Poisson process with constant intensity. Also, it is assumed that the interest rate is stochastically varying and follows the Cox–Ingersoll–Ross model. The performance functional of the decision maker is selected as the expected logarithmic utility of the total wealth at terminal time. The dynamic programming principle coupled with the Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation has been adopted to solve this stochastic optimal control problem. In order to reduce the dimension of the problem, we introduce the proportion of the wealth invested in the illiquid risky asset and derive the semi-analytical form of the value function using a separation principle. A finite difference method is employed to solve the controlled partial differential equation satisfied by a function which is an important component of the value function. The numerical examples and their economic interpretations are then discussed.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.201 · 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