IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v296y2022i1p368-387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Portfolio optimization with behavioural preferences and investor memory

Author

Listed:
  • Harris, Richard D. F.
  • Mazibas, Murat

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the performance of behavioural portfolio strategies. We incorporate the short-term and long-term memory of the investor, thus recasting the behavioural portfolio choice process in a dynamic setting. We evaluate the out-of-sample performance of a behavioural investor in relation to both a naïve investor who invests in an equally weighted portfolio and a rational investor, who maximises expected mean-variance utility. We report a number of findings. First, from an expected utility perspective, neither the rational investor nor the CPT investor achieves a risk-adjusted return or certainty equivalent return that significantly outperforms that of the naïve investor. Second, from a CPT utility perspective, the behavioural investor outperforms both the rational and naïve investors. Third, the CPT investor typically displays highly concentrated, lottery-like asset allocations, low turnover and highly stable portfolio allocations. Fourth, the addition of the investor's memory into the portfolio choice process increases both diversification and turnover, leading to improved investment performance. Finally, by allocating more weight to positively skewed assets and increasing portfolio concentration, the probability weighting function has more impact than the utility function on the behavioural investor's performance. Our results are robust to the choice of reference return, estimation sample size, probability estimates, the probability weighting function and portfolio weight constraints.

Suggested Citation

  • Harris, Richard D. F. & Mazibas, Murat, 2022. "Portfolio optimization with behavioural preferences and investor memory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(1), pages 368-387.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:296:y:2022:i:1:p:368-387
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.04.044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721003799
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.04.044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Best, Michael J & Grauer, Robert R, 1991. "On the Sensitivity of Mean-Variance-Efficient Portfolios to Changes in Asset Means: Some Analytical and Computational Results," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 4(2), pages 315-342.
    2. Bi, Junna & Jin, Hanqing & Meng, Qingbin, 2018. "Behavioral mean-variance portfolio selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 644-663.
    3. Xue Dong He & Xun Yu Zhou, 2011. "Portfolio Choice Under Cumulative Prospect Theory: An Analytical Treatment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 315-331, February.
    4. Ledoit, Olivier & Wolf, Michael, 2003. "Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 603-621, December.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Hwang, Inchang & Xu, Simon & In, Francis, 2018. "Naive versus optimal diversification: Tail risk and performance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 372-388.
    7. Nestor Gandelman & Ruben Hernandez-Murillo, 2015. "Risk Aversion at the Country Level," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 97(1), pages 53-66.
    8. Kolm, Petter N. & Tütüncü, Reha & Fabozzi, Frank J., 2014. "60 Years of portfolio optimization: Practical challenges and current trends," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 356-371.
    9. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    10. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    11. Ravi Jagannathan & Tongshu Ma, 2003. "Risk Reduction in Large Portfolios: Why Imposing the Wrong Constraints Helps," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1651-1683, August.
    12. Raj Chetty, 2006. "A New Method of Estimating Risk Aversion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1821-1834, December.
    13. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    14. Elton, Edwin J & Gruber, Martin J, 1973. "Estimating the Dependence Structure of Share Prices-Implications for Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 28(5), pages 1203-1232, December.
    15. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2008. "Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2066-2100, December.
    16. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    17. Victor DeMiguel & Lorenzo Garlappi & Francisco J. Nogales & Raman Uppal, 2009. "A Generalized Approach to Portfolio Optimization: Improving Performance by Constraining Portfolio Norms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 798-812, May.
    18. Balduzzi, Pierluigi & Lynch, Anthony W., 1999. "Transaction costs and predictability: some utility cost calculations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 47-78, April.
    19. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    20. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    21. Shefrin, Hersh & Statman, Meir, 2000. "Behavioral Portfolio Theory," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 127-151, June.
    22. repec:bla:jfinan:v:58:y:2003:i:4:p:1651-1684 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    24. Fulga, Cristinca, 2016. "Portfolio optimization under loss aversion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 310-322.
    25. Enrico Giorgi & Thorsten Hens & János Mayer, 2007. "Computational aspects of prospect theory with asset pricing applications," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 267-281, May.
    26. Zsolt Ugray & Leon Lasdon & John Plummer & Fred Glover & James Kelly & Rafael Martí, 2007. "Scatter Search and Local NLP Solvers: A Multistart Framework for Global Optimization," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 328-340, August.
    27. Grinblatt, Mark & Han, Bing, 2005. "Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 311-339, November.
    28. Jobson, J D & Korkie, Bob M, 1981. "Performance Hypothesis Testing with the Sharpe and Treynor Measures," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 36(4), pages 889-908, September.
    29. Nicholas Barberis & Abhiroop Mukherjee & Baolian Wang, 2016. "Prospect Theory and Stock Returns: An Empirical Test," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(11), pages 3068-3107.
    30. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    31. A. Chekhlov & S. Uryasev & M. Zabarankin, 2004. "Portfolio Optimization With Drawdown Constraints," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Panos M Pardalos & Athanasios Migdalas & George Baourakis (ed.), Supply Chain And Finance, chapter 13, pages 209-228, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhang, Cheng & Gong, Xiaomin & Zhang, Jingshu & Chen, Zhiwei, 2023. "Dynamic portfolio allocation for financial markets: A perspective of competitive-cum-compensatory strategy," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Fortin, Ines & Hlouskova, Jaroslava, 2024. "Prospect theory and asset allocation," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 214-240.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    2. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    3. Zhong, Xiaoling & Wang, Junbo, 2018. "Prospect theory and corporate bond returns: An empirical study," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-48.
    4. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    5. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    6. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    8. Stephen G Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2021. "Household Portfolio Underdiversification and Probability Weighting: Evidence from the Field," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4524-4563.
    9. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2020. "Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 473-501, January.
    10. Arvanitis, Stelios & Scaillet, Olivier & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2020. "Spanning analysis of stock market anomalies under prospect stochastic dominance," Working Papers unige:134101, University of Geneva, Geneva School of Economics and Management.
    11. Montone, Maurizio, 2023. "Beta, value, and growth: Do dichotomous risk-preferences explain stock returns?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. B. Douglas Bernheim & Charles Sprenger, 2020. "On the Empirical Validity of Cumulative Prospect Theory: Experimental Evidence of Rank‐Independent Probability Weighting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1363-1409, July.
    13. Levy, Haim & Wiener, Zvi, 2013. "Prospect theory and utility theory: Temporary versus permanent attitude toward risk," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-23.
    14. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    15. De Giorgi, Enrico G. & Legg, Shane, 2012. "Dynamic portfolio choice and asset pricing with narrow framing and probability weighting," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 951-972.
    16. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    17. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    18. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    19. Baars, Maren & Mohrschladt, Hannes, 2021. "An alternative behavioral explanation for the MAX effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 868-886.
    20. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:296:y:2022:i:1:p:368-387. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.