Asset Allocation, Performance Measurement and Downside Risk
- Art: Diplomarbeit
- Autor: Alexandra Elisabeth Janovsky
- Abgabedatum: Januar 2001
- Umfang: 117 Seiten
- Dateigröße: 695,1 KB
- Note: 1,0
- Institution / Hochschule: Universität Wien Österreich
- ISBN (eBook): 978-3-8324-3221-8
-
ISBN (Paperback) :
978-3-8324-3221-8 P - ISBN (CD) :978-3-8324-3221-8 CD
- Sprache: Englisch
- Prämierung:
- Arbeit zitieren: Janovsky, Alexandra Elisabeth Januar 2001: Asset Allocation, Performance Measurement and Downside Risk, Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag
- Schlagworte: Portfoliomanagement, Risikomessung, Extreme Value Theory, Korrelationen, Value-at-Risk
In den Warenkorb
58,00 €
Diplomarbeit von Alexandra Elisabeth Janovsky
Abstract:
Investors should not and in fact do not hold a single asset, they hold groups or portfolios of assets. An important aspect in portfolio theory is that the risk of a portfolio is more complex than the risk of its components. It depends on how much the assets represented in the portfolio move together, that is, on the correlation between the single assets. In portfolio theory, there are several definitions of risk: First of all, the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) relies on the beta factor of an asset relative to the market as a measure for the asset’s risk. On the other hand, also downside risk can be used in order to determine a portfolio’s risk. The kind of risk in question is market risk, which is the risk of losses arising from adverse movements in market prices or rates. Market risk can be subdivided into interest rate risk, equity price risk, exchange rate risk and commodity price risk.
For many investment decisions, there is a minimum return that has to be reached in order to meet different criteria. Returns above this minimum acceptable return ensure that these goals are reached and thus are not considered risky. Standard deviation captures the risk associated with achieving the mean, while downside risk assumes that only those returns that fall below the minimal acceptable return incur risk. One has to distinguish between good and bad volatility. Good volatility is dispersion above the minimal acceptable return, the farther above the minimal acceptable return, the better it is.
One way of measuring downside risk is to consider the shortfall probability or chances of falling below the minimal acceptable return. Another possibility is measuring downside variance, i.e. variance of the returns falling below the minimal acceptable return.
As a consequence, downside variance is very sensitive to the estimate of the mean of the return function, while standard deviation does not suffer from this problem. Thus the calculation of downside deviation is more difficult than the calculation of standard deviation.
The quality of the calculation also depends on the choice of differencing interval of the time series. The calculation of downside risk assumes that financial time series follow either a normal or lognormal distribution.
Finally, there is no universal risk measure for the many broad categories of risk. For example, standard deviation captures the risk of not achieving the mean, beta captures the risk of investing in the assets available in the market, and downside deviation captures the risk of not achieving the minimal acceptable return necessary to accomplish some goal. They all provide useful information, but none of them provides all the information necessary to manage risk in every situation.
Table of Contents:
| 1. | Introduction | 3 |
| 2. | Asset Allocation in a Downside Risk Framework | 4 |
| 2.1 | Expected Return | 4 |
| 2.2 | Variance and Standard Deviation | 4 |
| 2.3 | The Benefits of International Diversification | 5 |
| 2.4 | The Investment Process | 7 |
| 2.4.1 | Portfolio Selection | 7 |
| 2.4.2 | Asset Allocation Based on Alternative Risk Measures | 11 |
| 2.4.2.1 | Downside Risk Measures | 11 |
| 2.4.2.2 | Downside Risk Optimization | 12 |
| 3. | Estimation of Correlation and Volatility | 15 |
| 3.1 | Correlation | 16 |
| 3.1.1 | Computation of Correlation | 16 |
| 3.1.2 | Properties of Correlation | 16 |
| 3.1.3 | Forecasting Correlation | 18 |
| 3.1.3.1 | Simple Moving Averages | 18 |
| 3.1.3.2 | Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) | 18 |
| 3.1.3.3 | Factor Models | 19 |
| 3.1.4 | The Influence of Correlation on Portfolio Weights | 19 |
| 3.1.5 | Autocorrelation | 24 |
| 3.2 | Volatility | 25 |
| 3.2.1 | Calculation of Volatility | 25 |
| 3.2.2 | Properties of Volatility | 25 |
| 3.2.3 | Forecasting Volatility | 27 |
| 3.2.3.1 | Simple Moving Average (SMA) | 27 |
| 3.2.3.2 | Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) | 28 |
| 3.2.3.3 | ARCH(p) | 29 |
| 3.2.3.4 | GARCH (p,q) | 30 |
| 3.2.3.5 | Exponential General Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (EGARCH) | 30 |
| 3.2.3.6 | Multivariate Density Estimation (MDE) | 31 |
| 3.3 | The Link between Correlation and Volatility | 32 |
| 3.4 | The Influence of Volatility on Portfolio Weights | 32 |
| 4. | Performance Measurement | 35 |
| 4.1 | Traditional Performance Measures | 36 |
| 4.1.1 | Jensen Index | 36 |
| 4.1.2 | Treynor Index | 40 |
| 4.1.3 | Sharpe Ratio | 41 |
| 4.2 | Limitations of Traditional Performance Measures | 43 |
| 4.3 | Traditional Performance Measures Using Downside Risk Measures | 44 |
| 5. | Value at Risk | 45 |
| 5.1 | Definition of Value at Risk | 46 |
| 5.2 | Value at Risk as a Performance Evaluation Tool | 47 |
| 5.4 | Value at Risk as a Long Term Risk Measure | 48 |
| 5.5 | Limitations of Value at Risk | 51 |
| 5.5.1 | Aggregation Problems in Value at Risk | 51 |
| 5.5.2 | Tail-Fatness | 52 |
| 5.5.3 | Estimation Error in Value at Risk | 53 |
| 5.5.4 | Model Performance | 53 |
| 6. | New Risk Management Tools | 57 |
| 6.1 | Extreme Value Theory | 58 |
| 6.2 | Expected Shortfall | 59 |
| 6.3 | Maximum Loss | 60 |
| 6.4 | Factors at Risk | 62 |
| 7. | Empirical Part | 63 |
| 7.1 | Data Description | 64 |
| 7.2 | Autocorrelation | 72 |
| 7.3 | Estimation of Correlation and Volatility | 79 |
| 7.4 | Asset Allocation | 87 |
| 7.5 | Performance Measurement | 89 |
| 7.5.1 | Performance Measurement based on the Jensen and Treynor Indices | 89 |
| 7.5.2 | Performance Measurement based on the Sharpe Ratio | 89 |
| 7.5.3 | Performance Measurement Based on Value at Risk | 90 |
| 7.5.4 | Performance Measurement Based on Maximum Loss | 92 |
| 8. | Summary and Conclusion | 93 |
| A | Appendix | 94 |
| A.1 | Approaches to Measure Value at Risk | 95 |
| A.1.1 | Delta-Normal Approach | 95 |
| A.1.2 | Delta-Gamma Approach | 98 |
| A.1.3 | Full Valuation | 100 |
| A.1.3.1 | Historical Simulation | 100 |
| A.1.3.2 | Structured Monte Carlo Simulation | 101 |
| A.1.4 | Stress Testing | 102 |
| References | 103 | |
| List of Abbreviations | 107 | |
| List of Tables | 110 |
In den Warenkorb
58,00 €
Link zur Arbeit:
http://www.diplom.de/ean/9783832432218
Arbeit zitieren:
Janovsky, Alexandra Elisabeth Januar 2001: Asset Allocation, Performance Measurement and Downside Risk, Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag
Schlagworte:
Portfoliomanagement, Risikomessung, Extreme Value Theory, Korrelationen, Value-at-Risk



