A Continuous Time Framework for Sequential Goal-Based Wealth Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop a continuous time framework for sequential goals-based wealth management. A stochastic factor process drives asset price dynamics and the client’s goal amount and income. We prove the weak dynamic programming principle for the value function of our control problem, which we show to be the unique viscosity solution of the corresponding Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation. We develop an equivalent and computationally efficient representation of the Hamiltonian, which yields the optimal portfolio within a factor-dependent opportunity set defined by the maximum and minimum variance hypersurfaces. Our analysis shows that it is optimal to fund an expiring goal up to the level where the marginal benefit of additional fundedness is exceeded by the opportunity cost of diverting wealth from future goals. An all-or-nothing investor is more risk averse toward an approaching goal deadline if well funded, but more risk seeking if not on track with upcoming goals, compared with an investor with flexible goals. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, finance. Funding: This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Discovery Grant RGPIN-2020-06290] and Fi-Tek.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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 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".