"KLICing" there and back again: Portfolio selection using the empirical likelihood divergence and Hellinger distance
Stutzer (2000, 2003) proposes the decay-rate maximizing portfolio selection rule wherein the investor selects the asset mix that maximizes the rate at which the probability of shortfall decays to zero. A close examination of this rule reveals that it ranks portfolios by computing the divergence, in the Kullback-Leibler sense, between the unweighted portfolio return distribution and a tilted distribution meaned at the predetermined target or benchmark rate of return selected by or imposed upon the investor. This result implies, in the IID case, that Stutzer's rules can be written as a benchmark constrained Kullback-Leibler-based optimization problem with an endogenous utility interpretation. Here we expand on this idea by introducing two closely related portfolio selection rules based on the empirical likelihood divergence and the Hellinger-Matusita distance. The first of these is the reversed Kullback-Leibler divergence and the second is proportional to the average of the two divergences. The theoretical and in-sample properties of the new criteria suggest them to be competitive with and in some cases better than existing methods, especially in terms of skewness preference.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Pyle, David H & Turnovsky, Stephen J, 1970. "Safety-First and Expected Utility Maximization in Mean-Standard Deviation Portfolio Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 52(1), pages 75-81, February.
- William J. Baumol, 1963. "An Expected Gain-Confidence Limit Criterion for Portfolio Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 174-182, October.
- Stutzer, Michael, 2003. "Portfolio choice with endogenous utility: a large deviations approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 116(1-2), pages 365-386.
- Levy, Haim & Sarnat, Marshall, 1972. "Safety First — An Expected Utility Principle," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(03), pages 1829-1834, June.
- Basu, Ayanendranath & Park, Chanseok & Lindsay, Bruce G. & Li, Haihong, 2004. "Some variants of minimum disparity estimation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 741-763, May.
- C. W. Granger & E. Maasoumi & J. Racine, 2004. "A Dependence Metric for Possibly Nonlinear Processes," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(5), pages 649-669, 09.
- M. Ryan Haley & Charles Whiteman, 2008. "Generalized Safety First and a New Twist on Portfolio Performance," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4-6), pages 457-483.
- Fred Hanssmann, 1968. "Probability of Survival as an Investment Criterion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 33-48, September.
- Bawa, Vijay S., 1978. "Safety-First, Stochastic Dominance, and Optimal Portfolio Choice," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(02), pages 255-271, June.
- Rabin, Matthew, 1997.
"Psychology and Economics,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt8jd5z5j2, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Stutzer, Michael, 1996. " A Simple Nonparametric Approach to Derivative Security Valuation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(5), pages 1633-52, December.
- Fishburn, Peter C, 1977. "Mean-Risk Analysis with Risk Associated with Below-Target Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 116-26, March.
- M. Ryan Haley & Todd B. Walker, 2010. "Alternative tilts for nonparametric option pricing," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 983-1006, October.
- Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1993.
"Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle,"
NBER Working Papers
4369, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Benartzi, Shlomo & Thaler, Richard H, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92, February.
- Walker, Todd B & Haley, M. Ryan, 2009. "Alternative Tilts for Nonparametric Option Pricing," MPRA Paper 17140, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- John C. Robertson & Ellis W. Tallman & Charles H. Whiteman, 2002.
"Forecasting using relative entropy,"
2002-22, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
- Haley, M. Ryan & McGee, M. Kevin, 2006. "Tilting safety first and the Sharpe portfolio," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 173-180, September.
- Bawa, Vijay S, 1976. "Admissible Portfolios for All Individuals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1169-83, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:empfin:v:18:y:2011:i:2:p:341-352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.