Optimal portfolio choice with benchmarks

References

• Adrian, T., & Brunnermeier, M. K. (2011). CoVaR. Tech. Rep.. National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel Devant le Risque: Critique des Axiomes et Postulats de l’école Américaine [Behaviour of the rational agent in a risky situation: Criticism on axioms and assertions that were made by the American school]. Econometrica, 21(4), 503–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basak, S., & Shapiro, A. (2001). Value-at-risk-based risk management: Optimal policies and asset prices. Review of Financial studies, 14(2), 371–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basak, S., Shapiro, A., & Teplá, L. (2006). Risk management with benchmarking. Management Science, 52(4), 542–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkelaar, A., Kouwenberg, R., & Post, T. (2004). Optimal portfolio choice under loss aversion. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 973–987.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, C., Boyle, P. P., & Vanduffel, S. (2014). Explicit representation of cost-efficient strategies. Finance, 35(2), 5–55.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, C., Chen, J. S., & Vanduffel, S. (2014). Optimal portfolios under worst-case scenarios. Quantitative Finance, 14(4), 657–671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, C., Chen, J. S., & Vanduffel, S. (2015). Rationalizing investors’ choices. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 59, 10–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, C., Maj, M., & Vanduffel, S. (2011). Improving the design of financial products in a multidimensional Black-Scholes market. North American Actuarial Journal, 15(1), 77–96.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, C., Moraux, F., Rüschendorf, L., & Vanduffel, S. (2015). Optimal payoffs under state-dependent preferences. Quantitative Finance, 15(7), 1157–1173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, C., & Tang, J. (2016). Simplified hedge for path-dependent derivatives. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 19(07), 1650045.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, C., & Vanduffel, S. (2014). Financial bounds for insurance claims. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 81(1), 27–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, C., Vanduffel, S., & Ye, J. (2018). Optimal portfolio under state-dependent expected utility. (SSRN Working Paper).
   Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, M. H. (1997). Violations of monotonicity in judgment and decision making. In A. A. J. Marley (Ed.), Choice, decision, and measurement: Essays in honor of R. Duncan Luce (pp. 73–100). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, M. H., & Navarrette, J. (1998). Testing descriptive utility theories: Violations of stochastic dominance and cumulative independence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 49–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björk, T. (2004). Arbitrage theory in continuous time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, S. (1999). Reaching goals by a deadline: Digital options and continuous-time active portfolio management. Advances in Applied Probability, 31(2), 551–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairns, A., Blake, D., & Dowd, K. (2006). Stochastic lifestyling: Optimal dynamic asset allocation for defined contribution pension plans. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30(5), 843–877.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlier, G., & Dana, R.-A. (2011). Optimal demand for contingent claims when agents have law-invariant utilities. Mathematical Finance, 21(2), 169–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cvitanić, J., Goukasian, L., & Zapatero, F. (2003). Monte Carlo computation of optimal portfolios in complete markets. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 27(6), 971–986.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel, K., Grinblatt, M., Titman, S., & Wermers, R. (1997). Measuring mutual fund performance with characteristic-based benchmarks. Journal of Finance, 52(3), 1035–1058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• d’Aspremont, A. (2004). Shape constrained optimization with applications in finance and engineering (Ph.D. thesis), Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Deelstra, G., Grasselli, M., & Koehl, P.-F. (2003). Optimal investment strategies in the presence of a minimum guarantee. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 33(1), 189–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dentcheva, D. (2006). Probabilistic and randomized methods for design under uncertainty, chap. Optimization models with probabilistic constraints (pp. 49–97). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, Y., & Sircar, R. (2014). Time-inconsistent portfolio investment problems. In Stochastic analysis and applications 2014 (pp. 239–281). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dybvig, P. (1988). Inefficient dynamic portfolio strategies or how to throw away a million dollars in the stock market. Review of Financial Studies, 1(1), 67–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, W. (1955). The prediction of decisions among bets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 201–214.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edwards, W. (1962). Subjective probabilities inferred from decisions. Psychology Review, 69(2), 109–135.
   Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., & Schlesinger, H. (2011). Economic and financial decisions under risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Floudas, C. A., & Pardalos, P. M. (2009). Encyclopedia of optimization (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, M. A. (1981). On sufficiency of the Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 80(2), 545–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson, M. A. (1999). Invexity and the Kuhn-Tucker theorem. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 236(2), 594–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, X. D., & Zhou, X. Y. (2011). Portfolio choice via quantiles. Mathematical Finance, 21(2), 203–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inada, K.-I. (1963). On a two-sector model of economic growth: Comments and a generalization. Review of Economic Studies, 30(2), 119–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, H. (2008). First degree stochastic dominance violations: Decision weights and bounded rationality. Economic Journal, 118, 759–774.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, H., & Markowitz, H. M. (1979). Approximating expected utility by a function of mean and variance. The American Economic Review, 69(3), 308–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lioui, A., & Poncet, P. (2001). On optimal portfolio choice under stochastic interest rates. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(11), 1841–1865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes, L. L. (1987). Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 255–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes, L. L., & Oden, G. C. (1999). The role of aspiration level in risky choice: A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43(2), 286–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machina, M. J. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. Economic Perspectives, 1(1), 121–154.
   Google Scholar
• Machina, M. J. (1995). Non-expected utility and the robustness of the classical insurance paradigm. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 20, 9–50.
   Google Scholar
• Machina, M. J. (2004). Nonexpected utility theory. In J. T. Teugels & B. Sundt (Eds.), Encyclopedia of actuarial science (Vol. 2, pp. 1173–1179). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Markowitz, H. M. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz, H. M., Todd, G. P., & Sharpe, W. F. (2000). Mean-variance analysis in portfolio choice and capital markets. Frank J. Fabozzi Series. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• MATLAB™. (2013). R2013b (8.2.0.701) ed. Natick, MA: The Mathworks Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. (1969). Lifetime portfolio selection under uncertainty: The continuous-time case. Review of Economics and Statistics, 51(3), 247–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. (1971). Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. Journal of Economic Theory, 3, 373–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nocedal, J., & Wright, S. (2006). Numerical optimization. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Platen, E., & Heath, D. (2006). A benchmark approach to quantitative finance (No. 13 in Springer Finance), Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Quiggin, J. (1993). Generalized expected utility theory - The rank-dependent model. The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Roll, R. (1992). A mean/variance analysis of tracking error. Journal of Portfolio Management, 18(4), 13–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rüschendorf, L., & Wolf, V. (2015). Cost-efficiency in multivariate Lévy models. Dependence Modeling, 3(1), 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shefrin, H. M., & Statman, M. (2000). Behavioral portfolio theory. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 35(2), 127–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepla, L. (2001). Optimal investment with minimum performance constraints. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(10), 1629–1645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Hammerstein, E. A., Lütkebohmert, E., Rüschendorf, L., & Wolf, V. (2014). Optimality of payoffs in Lévy models. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 17(6), 1450041.
   Google Scholar
• von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yaari, M. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica, 55(1), 95–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar