2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.08.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Portfolio selection: An extreme value approach

Abstract: We show theoretically that lower tail dependence (χ), a measure of the probability that a portfolio will suffer large losses given that the market does, contains important information for risk-averse investors. We then estimate χ for a sample of DJIA stocks and show that it differs systematically from other risk measures including variance, semi-variance, skewness, kurtosis, beta, and coskewness. In out-of-sample tests, portfolios constructed to have low values of χ outperform the market index, the mean return… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
(70 reference statements)
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One of these challenges is the need for diversification strategies that account for strong drawdowns and increasing dependence of asset returns in crisis periods. This has raised the relevance of non-Gaussian models, tail dependence, and quantile based risk measures in portfolio optimization [5,8,9,10,11,12,17,21,24,26,35,38,39,44].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of these challenges is the need for diversification strategies that account for strong drawdowns and increasing dependence of asset returns in crisis periods. This has raised the relevance of non-Gaussian models, tail dependence, and quantile based risk measures in portfolio optimization [5,8,9,10,11,12,17,21,24,26,35,38,39,44].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2) 이 외에도 왼쪽꼬리위험이 주식수익률과 유의한 양(+)의 관계를 가짐을 보여준 Iqbal et al(2013), Atilgan and Demirtas(2013), Chen et al(2014), Bollerslev et al(2015) 등을 참조할 수 있다. 그러나 일부 연구들은 꼬리위험과 기대수익률간에 음(-)의 관계를 보고한다 (DiTraglia and Gerlach, 2013;Baltussen et al, 2018;Long et al, 2019).…”
unclassified
“…To assess the vegetation changes in the DPR, we reproduced a 250-m-resolution FVC dataset (CD FVC) using the improved pixel bipartite model 53 , 54 based on a 250-m-resolution constructed normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) dataset (CD NDVI) for 1982-2018 (for more details about the CD NDVI dataset, see Supplementary Note 3 ): where (or ) and (or ) correspond to the NDVI values representing surfaces with a fully covered dense vegetation and bare soils, respectively. To reduce the uncertainty and randomness involved in determining extreme NDVI values 55 , we first selected the NDVI values (NDVI > 0) at the 5% and 95% percentiles from the surface grid values as the annual and for each year, respectively, and then calculated the multiyear average and values as the bare soil pixel ( ) and the fully vegetated pixel ( ) in the study area for the period from 1982 to 2018.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%