Generalized safety first and a new twist on portfolio performance

M. Ryan Haley, Charles H. Whiteman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

□ We propose a Generalization of Roy's (1952) Safety First (SF) principle and relate it to the IID versions of Stutzer's (Stutzer's 2000, 2003) Portfolio Performance Index and underperformance probability Decay-Rate Maximization criteria. Like the original SF, the Generalized Safety First (GSF) rule seeks to minimize an upper bound on the probability of ruin (or shortfall, more generally) in a single drawing from a return distribution. We show that this upper bound coincides with what Stutzer showed will maximize the rate at which the probability of shortfall in the long-run average return shrinks to zero in repeated drawings from the return distribution. Our setup is simple enough that we can illustrate via direct calculation a deep result from Large Deviations theory: in the IID case the GSF probability bound and the decay rate correspond to the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the one-shot portfolio distribution and the "closest" mean-shortfall distribution. This enables us to produce examples in which minimizing the upper bound on the underperformance probability does not lead to the same decision as minimizing the underperformance probability itself, and thus that the decay-rate maximizing strategy may require the investor to take positions that do not minimize the probability of shortfall in each successive period. It also makes clear that the relationship between the marginal distribution of the one-period portfolio return and the mean-shortfall distribution is the same as that between the source density and the target density in importance sampling. Thus Geweke's (1989) measure of Relative Numerical Efficiency can be used as a measure of the quality of the divergence measure. Our interpretation of the decay rate maximizing criterion in terms of a one-shot problem enables us to use the tools of importance sampling to develop a "performance index" (standard error) for the Portfolio Performance Index (PPI). It turns out that in a simple stock portfolio example, portfolios within one (divergence) standard error of one another can have very different weights on individual securities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)457-483
Number of pages27
JournalEconometric Reviews
Volume27
Issue number4-6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2008

Fingerprint

Safety-first
Portfolio performance
Twist
Decay
Underperformance
Upper bound
Performance index
Divergence
Importance sampling
Standard error
Return distribution
Large deviations
Kullback-Leibler divergence
Investors
Probability of ruin

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

@article{7e81460a128d4af8aeb306ca00d3e6d4,
title = "Generalized safety first and a new twist on portfolio performance",
abstract = "□ We propose a Generalization of Roy's (1952) Safety First (SF) principle and relate it to the IID versions of Stutzer's (Stutzer's 2000, 2003) Portfolio Performance Index and underperformance probability Decay-Rate Maximization criteria. Like the original SF, the Generalized Safety First (GSF) rule seeks to minimize an upper bound on the probability of ruin (or shortfall, more generally) in a single drawing from a return distribution. We show that this upper bound coincides with what Stutzer showed will maximize the rate at which the probability of shortfall in the long-run average return shrinks to zero in repeated drawings from the return distribution. Our setup is simple enough that we can illustrate via direct calculation a deep result from Large Deviations theory: in the IID case the GSF probability bound and the decay rate correspond to the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the one-shot portfolio distribution and the {"}closest{"} mean-shortfall distribution. This enables us to produce examples in which minimizing the upper bound on the underperformance probability does not lead to the same decision as minimizing the underperformance probability itself, and thus that the decay-rate maximizing strategy may require the investor to take positions that do not minimize the probability of shortfall in each successive period. It also makes clear that the relationship between the marginal distribution of the one-period portfolio return and the mean-shortfall distribution is the same as that between the source density and the target density in importance sampling. Thus Geweke's (1989) measure of Relative Numerical Efficiency can be used as a measure of the quality of the divergence measure. Our interpretation of the decay rate maximizing criterion in terms of a one-shot problem enables us to use the tools of importance sampling to develop a {"}performance index{"} (standard error) for the Portfolio Performance Index (PPI). It turns out that in a simple stock portfolio example, portfolios within one (divergence) standard error of one another can have very different weights on individual securities.",
author = "Haley, {M. Ryan} and Whiteman, {Charles H.}",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/07474930801960360",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "457--483",
journal = "Econometric Reviews",
issn = "0747-4938",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "4-6",

}

Generalized safety first and a new twist on portfolio performance. / Haley, M. Ryan; Whiteman, Charles H.

In: Econometric Reviews, Vol. 27, No. 4-6, 01.07.2008, p. 457-483.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Generalized safety first and a new twist on portfolio performance

AU - Haley, M. Ryan

AU - Whiteman, Charles H.

PY - 2008/7/1

Y1 - 2008/7/1

N2 - □ We propose a Generalization of Roy's (1952) Safety First (SF) principle and relate it to the IID versions of Stutzer's (Stutzer's 2000, 2003) Portfolio Performance Index and underperformance probability Decay-Rate Maximization criteria. Like the original SF, the Generalized Safety First (GSF) rule seeks to minimize an upper bound on the probability of ruin (or shortfall, more generally) in a single drawing from a return distribution. We show that this upper bound coincides with what Stutzer showed will maximize the rate at which the probability of shortfall in the long-run average return shrinks to zero in repeated drawings from the return distribution. Our setup is simple enough that we can illustrate via direct calculation a deep result from Large Deviations theory: in the IID case the GSF probability bound and the decay rate correspond to the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the one-shot portfolio distribution and the "closest" mean-shortfall distribution. This enables us to produce examples in which minimizing the upper bound on the underperformance probability does not lead to the same decision as minimizing the underperformance probability itself, and thus that the decay-rate maximizing strategy may require the investor to take positions that do not minimize the probability of shortfall in each successive period. It also makes clear that the relationship between the marginal distribution of the one-period portfolio return and the mean-shortfall distribution is the same as that between the source density and the target density in importance sampling. Thus Geweke's (1989) measure of Relative Numerical Efficiency can be used as a measure of the quality of the divergence measure. Our interpretation of the decay rate maximizing criterion in terms of a one-shot problem enables us to use the tools of importance sampling to develop a "performance index" (standard error) for the Portfolio Performance Index (PPI). It turns out that in a simple stock portfolio example, portfolios within one (divergence) standard error of one another can have very different weights on individual securities.

AB - □ We propose a Generalization of Roy's (1952) Safety First (SF) principle and relate it to the IID versions of Stutzer's (Stutzer's 2000, 2003) Portfolio Performance Index and underperformance probability Decay-Rate Maximization criteria. Like the original SF, the Generalized Safety First (GSF) rule seeks to minimize an upper bound on the probability of ruin (or shortfall, more generally) in a single drawing from a return distribution. We show that this upper bound coincides with what Stutzer showed will maximize the rate at which the probability of shortfall in the long-run average return shrinks to zero in repeated drawings from the return distribution. Our setup is simple enough that we can illustrate via direct calculation a deep result from Large Deviations theory: in the IID case the GSF probability bound and the decay rate correspond to the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between the one-shot portfolio distribution and the "closest" mean-shortfall distribution. This enables us to produce examples in which minimizing the upper bound on the underperformance probability does not lead to the same decision as minimizing the underperformance probability itself, and thus that the decay-rate maximizing strategy may require the investor to take positions that do not minimize the probability of shortfall in each successive period. It also makes clear that the relationship between the marginal distribution of the one-period portfolio return and the mean-shortfall distribution is the same as that between the source density and the target density in importance sampling. Thus Geweke's (1989) measure of Relative Numerical Efficiency can be used as a measure of the quality of the divergence measure. Our interpretation of the decay rate maximizing criterion in terms of a one-shot problem enables us to use the tools of importance sampling to develop a "performance index" (standard error) for the Portfolio Performance Index (PPI). It turns out that in a simple stock portfolio example, portfolios within one (divergence) standard error of one another can have very different weights on individual securities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=45849100553&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=45849100553&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/07474930801960360

DO - 10.1080/07474930801960360

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:45849100553

VL - 27

SP - 457

EP - 483

JO - Econometric Reviews

JF - Econometric Reviews

SN - 0747-4938

IS - 4-6

ER -