IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mil/wpdepa/2018-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Portfolio Management Using Prospect Theory: Comparing Genetic Algorithms and Particle Swarm Optimization

Author

Listed:
  • Seyedehzahra NEMATOLLAHI
  • Giancarlo MANZI

Abstract

In this work, we compare the performance of two metaheuristic optimization algorithms, namely the Genetic Algorithms (GA) and the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), in finding an optimized investing portfolio. This comparison is based on two performance criteria: the consistency and quality of the solution and the speed of convergence of these two algorithms. These metaheuristic algorithms will be developed further to specify the weights of assets in an optimal portfolio, which is a portfolio with a maximum level of return (or a minimum level of risk) using a portfolio optimization model. We chose the prospect theory portfolio optimization as our background model. The prospect theory model is the main behavioral alternative to the expected utility theory and is still a relatively new subject in the financial literature. A mean‐variance portfolio optimization is also considered as a benchmark to our behavioral model. The performance of these two models has been evaluated in practice using several criteria such as the CPU time and the ratio between the portfolio mean returns

Suggested Citation

  • Seyedehzahra NEMATOLLAHI & Giancarlo MANZI, 2018. "Portfolio Management Using Prospect Theory: Comparing Genetic Algorithms and Particle Swarm Optimization," Departmental Working Papers 2018-03, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    • Handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2018-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.demm.unimi.it/files/wp/2018/DEMM-2018_03wp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Edwin J. Elton & Martin J. Gruber, 1997. "Modern Portfolio Theory, 1950 to Date," New York University, Leonard N. Stern School Finance Department Working Paper Seires 97-3, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business-.
    3. Elton, Edwin J. & Gruber, Martin J., 1997. "Modern portfolio theory, 1950 to date," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(11-12), pages 1743-1759, December.
    4. 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..
    5. John Silberholz & Bruce Golden, 2010. "Comparison of Metaheuristics," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Michel Gendreau & Jean-Yves Potvin (ed.), Handbook of Metaheuristics, chapter 0, pages 625-640, Springer.
    6. Wenbo Hu & Alec Kercheval, 2010. "Portfolio optimization for student t and skewed t returns," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 91-105.
    7. N. Grishina & C. A. Lucas & P. Date, 2017. "Prospect theory–based portfolio optimization: an empirical study and analysis using intelligent algorithms," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 353-367, March.
    8. Shefrin, Hersh & Statman, Meir, 2000. "Behavioral Portfolio Theory," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 127-151, June.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Massimiliano Kaucic & Filippo Piccotto & Gabriele Sbaiz & Giorgio Valentinuz, 2023. "Optimal Portfolio with Sustainable Attitudes under Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 13(4), pages 1-4.
    2. Peter P. Wakker, 2023. "The correct formula of 1979 prospect theory for multiple outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 183-187, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Francesco Cesarone & Massimiliano Corradini & Lorenzo Lampariello & Jessica Riccioni, 2023. "A new behavioral model for portfolio selection using the Half-Full/Half-Empty approach," Papers 2312.10749, arXiv.org.
    5. Chao Gong & Chunhui Xu & Ji Wang, 2018. "An Efficient Adaptive Real Coded Genetic Algorithm to Solve the Portfolio Choice Problem Under Cumulative Prospect Theory," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(1), pages 227-252, June.
    6. Michael J. Best & Robert R. Grauer, 2017. "Humans, Econs and Portfolio Choice," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(02), pages 1-30, June.
    7. Kuo-Hwa Chang & Michael Nayat Young, 2019. "Portfolios Optimizations of Behavioral Stocks with Perception Probability Weightings," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 20(2), pages 817-845, November.
    8. Hungerford, Ashley & Rosch, Stephanie, 2016. "The Effect of Crop Insurance Premium Subsidies on Soybean Producers' Risk Management Portfolios," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235341, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Andrea Lippi & Laura Barbieri & Mariacristina Piva & Werner De Bondt, 2018. "Time-varying risk behavior and prior investment outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 471-483, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Enrico Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2006. "Making prospect theory fit for finance," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 20(3), pages 339-360, September.
    12. Carole Bernard & Jit Seng Chen & Steven Vanduffel, 2014. "Optimal portfolios under worst-case scenarios," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 657-671, April.
    13. Stefan Zeisberger, 2022. "Do people care about loss probabilities?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 185-213, October.
    14. Zamri Ahmad & Haslindar Ibrahim & Jasman Tuyon, 2017. "Institutional investor behavioral biases: syntheses of theory and evidence," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(5), pages 578-603, May.
    15. L. Rüschendorf & Steven Vanduffel, 2020. "On the construction of optimal payoffs," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(1), pages 129-153, June.
    16. Hübner, Georges & Lejeune, Thomas, 2021. "Mental accounts with horizon and asymmetry preferences," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    17. Christian Wolff & Thorsten Lehnert & Cokki Versluis, 2009. "A Cumulative Prospect Theory Approach to Option Pricing," LSF Research Working Paper Series 09-03, Luxembourg School of Finance, University of Luxembourg.
    18. Hsin, Chin-Wen & Peng, Shu-Cing, 2023. "Investor propensity to speculate and price delay in emerging markets," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    19. Michael Best & Robert Grauer & Jaroslava Hlouskova & Xili Zhang, 2014. "Loss-Aversion with Kinked Linear Utility Functions," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 44(1), pages 45-65, June.
    20. Qizhu Liang & Jie Xiong, 2017. "Stochastic maximum principle under probability distortion," Papers 1710.11432, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2018.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Portfolio management; Prospect theory; Optimization; Genetic algorithms; Particle swarm optimization;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G17 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Financial Forecasting and Simulation
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mil:wpdepa:2018-03. 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: DEMM Working Papers (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damilit.html .

    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.