Time to wealth goals in capital accumulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".