MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416981161 · doi:10.1002/cfp2.70019

Solving the Net Worth Optimization Problem

2025· article· en· W4416981161 on OpenAlexaff
Paul D. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Planning Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioPortfolio optimizationBalance sheetAsset (computer security)Quadratic programmingQuadratic equationNet worthAsset allocationCapital assetCapital asset pricing model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The mean–variance optimization (MVO) model of Harry M. Markowitz is the foundation of quantitative portfolio construction and asset allocation. While Markowitz originally developed MVO for forming portfolios of tradable assets in isolation, it has been adapted for creating portfolios of tradable assets in the presence of non‐tradable assets and liabilities. In a series of publications, Paul D. Kaplan and Thomas M. Idzorek further extend MVO to the household economic balance sheet. The extended MVO model is the net worth optimization (NWO) model. In NWO, human capital is modeled as an asset mix held long, and, as in surplus optimization, liabilities are modeled as an asset mix held short. NWO operates in terms of net worth returns rather than in the returns on the financial assets. Kaplan and Idzorek maximize an approximation for expected utility developed by Haim Levy and Harry M. Markowitz. In this article, I show how to achieve this by combining existing quadratic programming techniques with nonlinear equation solution techniques in a novel way. I also discuss and demonstrate how NWO differs from the discretionary wealth approach (DWA) introduced by Jarrod Wilcox.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinancial Planning ReviewSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207