Skip to main content
Log in

Asset liability management modelling with risk control by stochastic dominance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Asset Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An Asset Liability Management model with a novel strategy for controlling the risk of underfunding is presented in this article. The basic model involves multi-period decisions (portfolio rebalancing) and deals with the usual uncertainty of investment returns and future liabilities. Therefore, it is well suited to a stochastic programming approach. A stochastic dominance concept is applied to control the risk of underfunding through modelling a chance constraint. A small numerical example and an out-of-sample backtest are provided to demonstrate the advantages of this new model, which includes stochastic dominance constraints, over the basic model and a passive investment strategy. Adding stochastic dominance constraints comes with a price. This complicates the structure of the underlying stochastic program. Indeed, the new constraints create a link between variables associated with different scenarios of the same time stage. This destroys the usual tree structure of the constraint matrix in the stochastic program and prevents the application of standard stochastic programming approaches, such as (nested) Benders decomposition and progressive hedging. Instead, we apply a structure-exploiting interior point method to this problem. The specialized interior point solver, object-oriented parallel solver, can deal efficiently with such problems and outperforms the industrial strength commercial solver CPLEX on our test problem set. Computational results on medium-scale problems with sizes reaching about one million variables demonstrate the efficiency of the specialized solution technique. The solution time for these non-trivial asset liability models appears to grow sublinearly with the key parameters of the model, such as the number of assets and the number of realizations of the benchmark portfolio, which makes the method applicable to truly large-scale problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Birge, J.R. and Louveaux, F. (1997) Introduction to Stochastic Programming. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, D. (1951) Comparison of experiments, in J. Neyman (ed) Second Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. and Probability. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, pp. 93–102.

  • Bogentoft, E., Romeijn, H.E. and Uryasev, S. (2001) Asset/liability management for pension funds using CVaR constraints. The Journal of Risk Finance 3 (1): 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cariňo, D.R. et al (1994) The Russell–Yasuda Kasai model: An asset/liability model for a Japanese insurance company using multistage stochastic programming. Interfaces 24: 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cariňo, D.R. and Ziemba, W.T. (1998) Formulation of the Russell–Yasuda Kasai financial model. Operations Research 46 (4): 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Consigli, G. and Dempster, M.A.H. (1998) Dynamic stochastic programming for asset-liability management. Annals of Operation Research 81: 131–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, M.A., Germano, M., Medova, E.A., Rietbergen, M.I., Sandrini, F. and Scrownston, M. (2007) Designing minimum guaranteed return funds. Quantitative Finance 7: 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentcheva, D., Henrion, R. and Ruszczyński, A. (2007) Stability and sensitivity of optimization problems with first order stochastic dominance constraints. SIAM Journal of Optimization 18 (1): 322–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentcheva, D. and Ruszczyński, A. (2003) Optimization with stochastic dominance constraints. SIAM Journal of Optimization 14 (2): 548–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentcheva, D. and Ruszczyński, A. (2004) Optimality and duality theory for stochastic optimization problems with nonlinear dominance constraints. Mathematical Programming 99: 329–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentcheva, D. and Ruszczyński, A. (2006) Portfolio optimization with stochastic dominance constraints. Journal of Banking Finance 30: 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentcheva, D. and Ruszczyński, A. (2009) Optimization with multivariate stochastic dominance constraints. Mathematical Programming 117: 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fábián, C.I. and Veszpremi, A. (2008) Algorithms for handling CVaR constraints in dynamic stochastic programming models with applications to finance. Journal of Risk 10 (3): 111–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fábián, C.I., Mitra, G. and Roman, D. (2009) Processing second-order stochastic dominance models using cutting-plane representations. Mathematical Programming 1–25, doi: 10.1007/s10107-009-0326-1.

  • Gollmer, R., Gotzes, U., Neise, F. and Schultz, R. (2007) Risk Modeling Via Stochastic Dominance in Power Systems With Dispersed Generation. Department of Mathematics, University of Duisburg-Essen. Technical report.

  • Gollmer, R., Gotzes, U. and Schultz, R. (2009) A note on second-order stochastic dominance constraints induced by mixed-integer linear recourse. Mathematical Programming, published online February 2009, 1–12.

  • Gollmer, R., Neise, F. and Schultz, R. (2008) Stochastic programs with first-order dominance constraints induced by mixed-integer linear recourse. SIAM Journal on Optimization 19: 552–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondzio, J. and Grothey, A. (2007a) Parallel interior point solver for structured quadratic programs: Application to financial planning problems. Annals of OR 152 (1): 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondzio, J. and Grothey, A. (2007b) Solving nonlinear portfolio optimization problems with the primal-dual interior point method. European Journal of Operational Research 181 (3): 1019–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondzio, J. and Grothey, A. (2009) Exploiting structure in parallel implementation of interior point methods for optimization. Computational Management Science 6: 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadar, J. and Russell, W.R. (1969) Rules for ordering uncertain prospects. American Economic Review 59: 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanoch, G. and Levy, H. (1969) The efficiency analysis of choices involving risk. Review of Economics Studies 36: 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ILOG. Ilog cplex 10.0. http://www.ilog.com.

  • Kall, P. and Wallace, S.W. (1994) Stochastic Programming. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krokhmal, P., Palmquist, J. and Uryasev, S. (2001) Portfolio optimization with conditional value-at-risk objective and constraints. Journal of Risk 4 (2): 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusy, M.I. and Ziemba, W.T. (1986) A bank asset and liability management model. Operations Research 34 (3): 356–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, H. (1992) Stochastic dominance and expected utility: Survey and analysis. Management Science 38 (4): 555–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H.M. (1959) Portfolio Selection, Efficient Diversification of Investments. New York: John Wiley& Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyan, N., Rudolf, G. and Ruszczyński, A. (2006) Relaxations of linear programming problems with first order stochastic dominance constraints. Operations Research Letters 34: 653–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogryczak, W. and Ruszczyński, A. (2002) Dual stochastic dominance and related mean-risk models. SIAM Journal of Optimization 13 (1): 60–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyle, D.H. (1971) On the theory of financial intermediation. Journal of Finance 26: 737–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockafellar, R.T. and Wets, R.J.-B. (1991) Scenarios and policy aggregation in optimization under uncertainty. Mathematics of Operations Research 16 (1): 119–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, D., Darby-Dowman, K. and Mitra, G. (2006) Portfolio construction based on stochastic dominance and target return distributions. Mathematical Programming 108: 541–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruszczyński, A. and Shapiro, A. (2006) Optimization of convex risk functions. Mathematics of Operation Research 31 (3): 433–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruszczyński, A. and Vanderbei, R.J. (2003) Frontiers of stochastic nondominated portfolios. Econometrica 71 (4): 1287–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziemba, W.T. and Mulvey, J.M. (1998) Worldwide Asset and Liability Modeling, Publications of the Newton Institute Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr Marco Colombo for help with the efficient set up of the problem in OOPS. We are also grateful to two anonymous referees whose comments helped us to improve the presentation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

1has recently been awarded a PhD in Optimization at the University of Edinburgh. She received her BSc in Computational Maths in China, and subsequently graduated with MSc in Financial Maths with distinction in Edinburgh, UK. Her main research interests are risk measures and management, stochastic dominance and stochastic programming.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, X., Gondzio, J. & Grothey, A. Asset liability management modelling with risk control by stochastic dominance. J Asset Manag 11, 73–93 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jam.2010.8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jam.2010.8

Keywords

Navigation