MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399828862 · doi:10.1142/9789811285530_0014

Time to wealth goals in capital accumulation

2024· book-chapter· en· W4399828862 on OpenAlex
Leonard C. MacLean, William T. Ziemba, Yuming Li

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Scientific series in finance · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicState Capitalism and Financial Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital (architecture)EconomicsBusinessNatural resource economicsHistoryAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the problem of investment of capital in risky assets in a dynamic capital market in continuous time. The model controls risk, and in particular the risk associated with errors in the estimation of asset returns. The framework for investment risk is a geometric Brownian motion model for asset prices, with random rates of return. The information filtration process and the capital allocation decisions are considered separately. The filtration is based on a Bayesian model for asset prices, and an (empirical) Bayes estimator for current price dynamics is developed from the price history. Given the conditional price dynamics, investors allocate wealth to achieve their financial goals efficiently over time. The price updating and wealth reallocations occur when control limits on the wealth process are attained. A Bayesian fractional Kelly strategy is optimal at each rebalancing, assuming that the risky assets are jointly lognormal distributed. The strategy minimizes the expected time to the upper wealth limit while maintaining a high probability of reaching that goal before falling to a lower wealth limit. The fractional Kelly strategy is a blend of the log-optimal portfolio and cash and is equivalently represented by a negative power utility function, under the multivariate lognormal distribution assumption. By rebalancing when control limits are reached, the wealth goals approach provides greater control over downside risk and upside growth. The wealth goals approach with random rebalancing times is compared to the expected utility approach with fixed rebalancing times in an asset allocation problem involving stocks, bonds, and cash.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.012

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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