MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417166171 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2024.05913

Dynamic Portfolio Choice with Intertemporal Hedging and Transaction Costs

2025· article· en· W4417166171 on OpenAlexaffabout
Johannes Muhle‐Karbe, James Sefton, Xiaofei Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioTransaction costPortfolio optimizationReplicating portfolioTrading strategyPrice discoveryMerton's portfolio problemCapital asset pricing modelAlgorithmic tradingProxy (statistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When returns are partially predictable and trading is costly, utility-maximizing investors track a target portfolio at a constant trading speed. The target portfolio is optimal for a frictionless market, where asset returns are scaled back to account for trading costs and volatilities are adjusted to proxy the “execution risk” of holding assets that are costly to trade and exposed to volatile states. The trading speed solves an optimal execution problem, which describes how the legacy portfolio inherited from the past is traded toward the target portfolio in an optimal manner. Unlike for period-by-period mean-variance preferences, the target portfolio hedges changes in investment opportunities, and both it and the trading speed are linked and depend on execution risk. We set the problem out first in an “absolute” framework—price shocks independent of the price level, and investors have CARA preferences—and then in a “relative” framework, with price shocks scaled by price levels and CRRA preferences. We illustrate the practical implications of these results in a model where market return predictions are based on a short-term momentum and a long-term value signal. This paper was accepted by Kay Giesecke, finance. Funding: X. Shi acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through Discovery [Grant RGPIN-2024-04569] and Discovery Launch Supplement [DGECR-2024-00444]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05913 .

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207