IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1908.05002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is being `Robust' beneficial?: A perspective from the Indian market

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed Bilal Girach
  • Shashank Oberoi
  • Siddhartha P. Chakrabarty

Abstract

The problem of data uncertainty has motivated the incorporation of robust optimization in various arenas, beyond the Markowitz portfolio optimization. This work presents the extension of the robust optimization framework for the minimization of downside risk measures, such as Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR). We perform an empirical study of VaR and CVaR frameworks, with respect to their robust counterparts, namely, Worst-Case VaR and Worst-Case CVaR, using the market data as well as the simulated data. After discussing the practical usefulness of the robust optimization approaches from various standpoints, we infer various takeaways. The robust models in the case of VaR and CVaR minimization exhibit superior performance with respect to their base versions in the cases involving higher number of stocks and simulated setup respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed Bilal Girach & Shashank Oberoi & Siddhartha P. Chakrabarty, 2019. "Is being `Robust' beneficial?: A perspective from the Indian market," Papers 1908.05002, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1908.05002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.05002
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas J. Linsmeier & Neil D. Pearson, 1996. "Risk Measurement: An Introduction to Value at Risk," Finance 9609004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Acerbi, Carlo & Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "On the coherence of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1487-1503, July.
    3. Laurent El Ghaoui & Maksim Oks & Francois Oustry, 2003. "Worst-Case Value-At-Risk and Robust Portfolio Optimization: A Conic Programming Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 543-556, August.
    4. Churlzu Lim & Hanif Sherali & Stan Uryasev, 2010. "Portfolio optimization by minimizing conditional value-at-risk via nondifferentiable optimization," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 391-415, July.
    5. R.H. Tütüncü & M. Koenig, 2004. "Robust Asset Allocation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 157-187, November.
    6. Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean‐Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228, July.
    7. Xiongwei Ju & Neil D. Pearson, 1998. "Using Value-at-Risk to Control Risk Taking: How Wrong Can you Be?," Finance 9810002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Shushang Zhu & Masao Fukushima, 2009. "Worst-Case Conditional Value-at-Risk with Application to Robust Portfolio Management," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 1155-1168, October.
    9. Linsmeier, Thomas J. & Pearson, Neil D., 1996. "Risk measurement: an introduction to value at risk," ACE Reports 14796, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics.
    10. Jang Ho Kim & Woo Chang Kim & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2014. "Recent Developments in Robust Portfolios with a Worst-Case Approach," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 103-121, April.
    11. Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell & Uryasev, Stanislav, 2002. "Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1443-1471, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mohammed Bilal Girach & Shashank Oberoi & Siddhartha P. Chakrabarty, 2021. "Is Being “Robust” Beneficial? A Perspective from the Indian Market," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 28(4), pages 469-497, December.
    2. Sehgal, Ruchika & Sharma, Amita & Mansini, Renata, 2023. "Worst-case analysis of Omega-VaR ratio optimization model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Amita Sharma & Sebastian Utz & Aparna Mehra, 2017. "Omega-CVaR portfolio optimization and its worst case analysis," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(2), pages 505-539, March.
    4. Maria Scutellà & Raffaella Recchia, 2013. "Robust portfolio asset allocation and risk measures," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 204(1), pages 145-169, April.
    5. Zhilin Kang & Zhongfei Li, 2018. "An exact solution to a robust portfolio choice problem with multiple risk measures under ambiguous distribution," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 87(2), pages 169-195, April.
    6. Martin Branda & Max Bucher & Michal Červinka & Alexandra Schwartz, 2018. "Convergence of a Scholtes-type regularization method for cardinality-constrained optimization problems with an application in sparse robust portfolio optimization," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 503-530, June.
    7. Han, Yingwei & Li, Ping & Xia, Yong, 2017. "Dynamic robust portfolio selection with copulas," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 190-200.
    8. Jang Ho Kim & Woo Chang Kim & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2014. "Recent Developments in Robust Portfolios with a Worst-Case Approach," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 103-121, April.
    9. Alireza Ghahtarani & Ahmed Saif & Alireza Ghasemi, 2022. "Robust portfolio selection problems: a comprehensive review," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3203-3264, September.
    10. Alireza Ghahtarani & Ahmed Saif & Alireza Ghasemi, 2021. "Robust Portfolio Selection Problems: A Comprehensive Review," Papers 2103.13806, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    11. Lotfi, Somayyeh & Zenios, Stavros A., 2018. "Robust VaR and CVaR optimization under joint ambiguity in distributions, means, and covariances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 556-576.
    12. Maillet, Bertrand & Tokpavi, Sessi & Vaucher, Benoit, 2015. "Global minimum variance portfolio optimisation under some model risk: A robust regression-based approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 289-299.
    13. Steve Zymler & Daniel Kuhn & Berç Rustem, 2013. "Worst-Case Value at Risk of Nonlinear Portfolios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 172-188, July.
    14. Benati, S. & Conde, E., 2022. "A relative robust approach on expected returns with bounded CVaR for portfolio selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(1), pages 332-352.
    15. Jiang, Chun-Fu & Peng, Hong-Yi & Yang, Yu-Kuan, 2016. "Tail variance of portfolio under generalized Laplace distribution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 282(C), pages 187-203.
    16. Asimit, Alexandru V. & Bignozzi, Valeria & Cheung, Ka Chun & Hu, Junlei & Kim, Eun-Seok, 2017. "Robust and Pareto optimality of insurance contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 720-732.
    17. Shushang Zhu & Masao Fukushima, 2009. "Worst-Case Conditional Value-at-Risk with Application to Robust Portfolio Management," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 1155-1168, October.
    18. Huang, Jinbo & Ding, Ashley & Li, Yong & Lu, Dong, 2020. "Increasing the risk management effectiveness from higher accuracy: A novel non-parametric method," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    19. Kolm, Petter N. & Tütüncü, Reha & Fabozzi, Frank J., 2014. "60 Years of portfolio optimization: Practical challenges and current trends," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 356-371.
    20. James Ming Chen, 2018. "On Exactitude in Financial Regulation: Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Expectiles," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:1908.05002. 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.