IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1209.6439.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The best gain-loss ratio is a poor performance measure

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Biagini
  • Mustafa Pinar

Abstract

The gain-loss ratio is known to enjoy very good properties from a normative point of view. As a confirmation, we show that the best market gain-loss ratio in the presence of a random endowment is an acceptability index and we provide its dual representation for general probability spaces. However, the gain-loss ratio was designed for finite $\Omega$, and works best in that case. For general $\Omega$ and in most continuous time models, the best gain-loss is either infinite or fails to be attained. In addition, it displays an odd behaviour due to the scale invariance property, which does not seem desirable in this context. Such weaknesses definitely prove that the (best) gain-loss is a poor performance measure.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Biagini & Mustafa Pinar, 2012. "The best gain-loss ratio is a poor performance measure," Papers 1209.6439, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2012.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1209.6439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.6439
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John H. Cochrane & Jesus Saa-Requejo, 2000. "Beyond Arbitrage: Good-Deal Asset Price Bounds in Incomplete Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 79-119, February.
    2. Fabio Bellini & Marco Frittelli, 2002. "On the Existence of Minimax Martingale Measures," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Carr, Peter & Geman, Helyette & Madan, Dilip B., 2001. "Pricing and hedging in incomplete markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 131-167, October.
    4. Aytaç Ílhan & Mattias Jonsson & Ronnie Sircar, 2005. "Optimal investment with derivative securities," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 585-595, October.
    5. PInar, Mustafa Ç. & Salih, AslIhan & CamcI, Ahmet, 2010. "Expected gain-loss pricing and hedging of contingent claims in incomplete markets by linear programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(3), pages 770-785, March.
    6. Antonio E. Bernardo & Olivier Ledoit, 2000. "Gain, Loss, and Asset Pricing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 144-172, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sara Biagini & Jocelyne Bion-Nadal, 2012. "Dynamic quasi-concave performance measures," Papers 1212.3958, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Klöppel Susanne & Schweizer Martin, 2007. "Dynamic utility-based good deal bounds," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 25(4), pages 285-309, October.
    2. Ibáñez, Alfredo, 2008. "Factorization of European and American option prices under complete and incomplete markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 311-325, February.
    3. Jocelyne Bion-Nadal, 2007. "Bid-Ask Dynamic Pricing in Financial Markets with Transaction Costs and Liquidity Risk," Papers math/0703074, arXiv.org.
    4. Takuji Arai & Masaaki Fukasawa, 2011. "Convex risk measures for good deal bounds," Papers 1108.1273, arXiv.org.
    5. Alfredo Ibáñez, 2005. "Option-Pricing in Incomplete Markets: The Hedging Portfolio plus a Risk Premium-Based Recursive Approach," Computing in Economics and Finance 2005 216, Society for Computational Economics.
    6. Sascha Desmettre & Christian Laudagé & Jörn Sass, 2020. "Good-Deal Bounds for Option Prices under Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall Constraints," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Chen, Chang-Chih & Chang, Chia-Chien & Sun, Edward W. & Yu, Min-Teh, 2022. "Optimal decision of dynamic wealth allocation with life insurance for mitigating health risk under market incompleteness," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(2), pages 727-742.
    8. Bion-Nadal, Jocelyne, 2009. "Bid-ask dynamic pricing in financial markets with transaction costs and liquidity risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 738-750, December.
    9. Marroquı´n-Martı´nez, Naroa & Moreno, Manuel, 2013. "Optimizing bounds on security prices in incomplete markets. Does stochastic volatility specification matter?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(3), pages 429-442.
    10. Fong, Wai Mun, 2010. "A stochastic dominance analysis of yen carry trades," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1237-1246, June.
    11. Hanno Lustig & Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh & Adrien Verdelhan, 2013. "The Wealth-Consumption Ratio," The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 3(1), pages 38-94.
    12. Dong‐Hyun Ahn & H. Henry Cao & Stéphane Chrétien, 2009. "Portfolio Performance Measurement: a No Arbitrage Bounds Approach," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 15(2), pages 298-339, March.
    13. Bakshi, Gurdip & Chabi-Yo, Fousseni, 2011. "Variance Bounds on the Permanent and Transitory Components of Stochastic Discount Factors," Working Paper Series 2011-11, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    14. Takuji Arai, 2016. "Good deal bounds with convex constraints: --- examples and proofs ---," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2016-017, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    15. Maria Arduca & Cosimo Munari, 2021. "Risk measures beyond frictionless markets," Papers 2111.08294, arXiv.org.
    16. Joao Amaro de Matos & Ana Lacerda, 2004. "Dry markets and superreplication bounds of American derivatives," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp461, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    17. Wayne King Ming Chan, 2015. "RAROC-Based Contingent Claim Valuation," PhD Thesis, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, number 3-2015, January-A.
    18. Voelzke, Jan, 2015. "Weakening the Gain–Loss-Ratio measure to make it stronger," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 58-66.
    19. Michael B. Walker, 2014. "Modelling the Bid and Ask Prices of Illiquid CDSs," Papers 1403.1509, arXiv.org.
    20. Pal, Soumik, 2007. "Computing strategies for achieving acceptability: A Monte Carlo approach," Stochastic Processes and their Applications, Elsevier, vol. 117(11), pages 1587-1605, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1209.6439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.