Evaluating Markowitz-based risk measurement approaches for making profitable investment decisions

Zahra Moeini Najafabadi, Mehdi Khashei, Mehdi Bijari

Article ID: 1003
Vol 1, Issue 1, 2018

VIEWS - 262 (Abstract) 193 (PDF)

Abstract


Risk is one of the most important factors in making desired profitable investment decisions. It is the main reason that why numerous financial researchers have interested in risk assessment, from the past to the present. The literature of risk measurement approaches for financial decision making has dramatically expanded since the early work of Markowitz. Konno, Cai and Teo risk assessment approaches are the most well-known and widely-used methods, developed based on the basic concepts of the Markowitz model. Although, all of these approaches have unlike advantages for measuring the risk and making profitable investment decisions, none of them are not universal method, which can be applied in all circumstances with desired performance. On the other hand, each of these methods may yield higher or lower performance rates than other those methods in various situations and different data sets. In this regard, and due to the lack of suitable research in order to compare risk measurement methods, the aim of this paper is to evaluate four aforementioned Markowitz-based risk measurement methods in different investment decision making situations. Empirical results of using these methods in stock market indicate that Markowitz, Konno, Cai and Teo techniques can achieve, %-6.77, %-6.49, %2.85 and %-6.89 rate of return, respectively. Therefore, the Cai technique may be more appropriate risk measurement approach among aforementioned methods for making investment decisions in stock markets.

Keywords


Financial decision Making; Risk measurement; Markowitz-based methods; Investment decisions; Rate of return; Stock market

Full Text:

PDF


References


1. Frajtová-Michalíková, K., T. Klieštik, and H. Musa, Comparison of nonparametric methods for estimating the level of risk in finance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2015. 24: p. 228-236.

2. Alexander, G.J. and A.M. Baptista, A comparison of VaR and CVaR constraints on portfolio selection with the mean-variance model. Management science, 2004. 50(9): p. 1261-1273.

3. Righi, M.B. and D. Borenstein, A simulation comparison of risk measures for portfolio optimization. Finance Research Letters, 2017.

4. Spuchľakova, E., K.F. Michalikova, and M. Misankova, Risk of the collective investment and investment portfolio. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2015. 26: p. 167-173.

5. Liu, M. and Y. Gao, An algorithm for portfolio selection in a frictional market. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2006. 182(2): p. 1629-1638.

6. Oloko, T.F., Portfolio diversification between developed and developing stock markets: The case of US and UK investors in Nigeria. Research in International Business and Finance, 2017.

7. Jin, H., J.-A. Yan, and X.Y. Zhou. Continuous-time mean–risk portfolio selection. in Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics. 2005. Elsevier.

8. Egozcue, M., et al., Do investors like to diversify? A study of Markowitz preferences. European Journal of Operational Research, 2011. 215(1): p. 188-193.

9. Jin, X., Downside and upside risk spillovers from China to Asian stock markets: A CoVaR-copula approach. Finance Research Letters, 2017.

10. Markowitz, H., Portfolio selection. The journal of finance, 1952. 7(1): p. 77-91.

11. Konno, H. and H. Yamazaki, Mean-absolute deviation portfolio optimization model and its applications to Tokyo stock market. Management science, 1991. 37(5): p. 519-531.

12. Konno, H. and T. Koshizuka, Mean-absolute deviation model. IIE Transactions, 2005. 37(10): p. 893-900.

13. Cai, X., et al. Portfolio optimization under l∞ risk measure. in Decision and Control, 1996., Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on. 1996. IEEE.

14. Cai, X., et al., Portfolio optimization under a minimax rule. Management Science, 2000. 46(7): p. 957-972.

15. Teo, K.L. and X. Yang, Portfolio selection problem with minimax type risk function. Annals of Operations Research, 2001. 101(1-4): p. 333-349.

16. Tehran Stock Exchang, http://www.tsetmc.com/.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/bam.v1i1.1003

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License

This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.