A robust optimization approach to asset-liability management under time-varying investment opportunities

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.01.025Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper presents an asset liability management model based on robust optimization techniques. The model explicitly takes into consideration the time-varying aspect of investment opportunities. The emphasis of the proposed approach is on computational tractability and practical appeal. Computational studies with real market data study the performance of robust-optimization-based strategies, and compare it to the performance of the classical stochastic programming approach.

Highlights

► The asset-liability problem is approached with tools from robust optimization. ► Future returns are modeled as uncertain parameters in an optimization problem. ► Resulting formulations are computationally tractable. ► Computational experiments suggest robust strategies lead to lower variability.

Introduction

Asset-liability management (ALM) is one of the classical problems in financial risk management. Typically, ALM involves the management of assets in such a way as to earn adequate returns while maintaining a comfortable surplus of assets over existing and future liabilities. This problem is faced by a number of financial services companies, such as pension funds and insurance companies. As we will explain in more detail later, the problem of finding optimal ALM policies is computationally challenging, and many of the approaches for implementation described in the literature are too computationally intensive to implement in practice. In this paper, we propose and study the performance of a robust-optimization-based approach for handling the classical ALM problem. Our focus is on computational tractability and practical implementation.

Analytical solutions for optimal dynamic investment strategies of the ALM type are available for some limited cases (see, for example, the classical papers of Samuelson, 1969, Merton, 1969; or, more recently, Kim and Omberg, 1996, Wachter, 2002). However, mostly numerical methods are used in practice. These numerical approaches fall into three broad categories. The first is dynamic programming—the state space is discretized and the optimal allocation strategy is found by backward induction (see, for example, Barberis, 2000, Detemple and Rindisbacher, 2008). The second category is simulation-based approaches (see, for example, Brandt et al., 2005, Boender, 1997). The third category, prevalent in the operations research and practitioner literature, is stochastic programming techniques (see Ferstl and Weissensteiner, 2011, Consiglio et al., 2006, Boender et al., 2005, Kouwenberg, 2001, Ziemba and Mulvey, 1998, among others). The latter techniques usually focus on finding optimal investment rules over a set of scenarios for the future returns on the assets and the liabilities of the company.

While such methods have been successfully applied in some instances (Gondzio and Kouwenberg, 2001, Consigli and Dempster, 1998, Consiglio et al., 2008, Escudero et al., 2009), they are still difficult to use in practice for several reasons. First, ALM is inherently a multiperiod problem, and the number of scenarios needed to represent reality satisfactorily increases exponentially with the number of time periods under consideration. Thus, the dimension of the optimization problem, and correspondingly its computational difficulty, increases. Many of the papers that suggest scenario-based approaches for ALM adopt approximations to the state space or relaxations of the optimization problem to make the problem manageable in practice (see, for example, Bogentoft et al., 2001). Second, the scenario generation itself requires sophisticated statistical techniques, which is a deterrent to practitioners who need to make decisions in a short amount of time. Finally, often little is known about the specific distributions of future uncertainties in the ALM problem, and little data are available for estimating the probability distributions of these uncertainties. In many cases, it may be preferable to provide general information about the uncertainties, such as means, ranges, and deviations, rather than generating specific scenarios.

This paper adopts a numerical approach, robust optimization, that can be classified in its own category, but has overlap with the dynamic programming and stochastic programming approaches. Specifically, robust optimization can be used to address the same type of problems as dynamic programming and stochastic programming do; however, it takes a worst-case approach to optimization formulations. (For detailed discussion of the relationships among the three numerical methods, see chapter 10 in Fabozzi et al., 2007.) This is not as restrictive as it sounds at first. The robust optimization approach solves an optimization problem assuming that the uncertain input data belong to an uncertainty set, and finds the optimal solution if the uncertainties take their worst-case values within that uncertainty set. As we will explain in more detail in Section 3, the shape and the size of the uncertainty set can be used to vary the degree of conservativeness of the solution and to represent an investor’s risk preferences.

In industry, robust optimization has been used only in asset management, and primarily to incorporate the uncertainty introduced by estimation errors into the mean–variance portfolio allocation framework. For example, Goldfarb and Iyengar (2003) consider robust mean–variance portfolio allocation strategies under various ellipsoidal and interval uncertainty sets for the input parameters (means and covariance matrices) derived from regression analysis. Ceria and Stubbs (2006) introduce the zero-net alpha-adjustment robust framework to reduce the conservativeness of robust mean–variance strategies under ellipsoidal uncertainty sets for the input parameters. Robust investment strategies in a multiperiod setting have been studied by Ben-Tal et al. (2000) and Bertsimas and Pachamanova, 2008.

Given the fact that ALM is concerned with ensuring a level of minimum guaranteed performance to meet future liabilities, robust-optimization-based strategies that place special emphasis on the worst-case realizations of uncertainties are particularly appealing in the ALM context.

We propose a tractable robust approach to ALM for pension funds. Our contributions can be briefly summarized as follows. First, we derive the robust counterpart of the ALM problem when future uncertainties are represented by ellipsoidal sets. These uncertainty sets can be naturally generated from statistical factor models for the uncertain variables in the problem. Second, we model the time-varying aspect of asset returns and interest rates by presenting a case study of the robust counterpart when asset returns and interest rates follow a vector-autoregressive (VAR) process. Finally, we design numerical experiments to study the performance of the robust ALM model, and benchmark it against the performance of another ALM strategy used in practice, a stochastic programming formulation. (We are primarily concerned with benchmarking our approach against traditional stochastic programming approaches since stochastic programming approaches are most widely used in practice.)

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the ALM model for pension funds. A brief primer on robust optimization is given in Section 3, and a general robust formulation of the ALM model for pension funds is derived in Section 4. Section 5 presents an example of the robust formulation under specific assumptions on the dynamics of asset returns and interest rates. Computational experiments with real market data are presented in Section 6. Section 7 summarizes our findings.

Notation: In the paper, we use tilde (˜) to denote randomness; e.g., z˜ denotes random variable z. Boldface is used to denote vectors; boldface and capital letters are used to denote matrices. For example, a is a vector and A is a matrix.

Section snippets

ALM model for pension funds

A typical pension fund collects premiums from sponsors or currently active employees, pays pensions to retired employees, and also invests available funds. The fund manages assets so that at each time period the total value of all assets exceeds the company’s future liabilities. At the same time, the fund minimizes the contribution rate by the sponsor and active employees of the fund (see, for example, Bogentoft et al., 2001). Therefore, the ALM problem for a pension fund is to determine an

A brief primer on robust optimization

As we mentioned in the introduction, robust optimization addresses data uncertainty in optimization problems from the perspective of computational tractability. It assumes that the random data belong to an uncertainty set that is mapped out from the probability distribution of uncertain factors. The robust counterpart of the underlying problem involves the worst-case outcome of the stochastic data within the uncertainty set, and is typically a tractable optimization problem with no random

Robust ALM formulation

The two uncertain parameters in the ALM formulation are the asset returns Rt (including the return on the riskless asset Rt0) and the value of the future liabilities Lt at each point in time t. The latter depends on the realized changes in interest rates between time 0 and time t.

In this section, we derive the general form of the robust counterpart of problem (PR). We show an example of the robust formulation for a specific VAR process for interest rates and asset returns in Section 5. We

Robust ALM formulation under time-varying investment opportunities

Theorem 1 shows the general form of the robust counterpart of the ALM problem for a pension fund. The exact robust counterpart can be derived for different assumptions on the dynamics of the underlying asset price and interest rate processes. In this section, we show explicitly how it can be done for time-varying investment opportunities modeled with a vector-autoregressive process. Specifically, we use an unrestricted, stationary VAR (1) process similar to the process adopted in Ferstl and

Computational experiments

This section contains a computational study of the behavior of robust strategies for ALM with real market data. Following a computational example in Ferstl and Weissensteiner (2011), we use a sample period of 80 quarters (between 1988.Q1 and 2007.Q4) of the data set from Goyal and Welch (2008) to estimate the parameters of a VAR (1) process as described in Section 5. The parameters of the model areA=0.886139000.000108660.000006840.33359000-0.054659700.015859602.638640000.127296000.55746100;c=

Concluding remarks

This article presented a robust optimization approach to the ALM pension fund problem, and explicitly presented a formulation that allows for incorporating considerations of time-varying investment opportunities that can be modeled with a VAR process. As the computational results in Section 6 illustrated, there are advantages to using the robust optimization approach to ALM. Specifically, the robust optimization approach appears to reduce variability in general, and results in smaller

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Ike Mathur and an anonymous referee for very thoughtful comments and suggestions.

References (39)

  • R. Kouwenberg

    Scenario generation and stochastic programming models for asset liability management

    European Journal of Operational Research

    (2001)
  • N.C. Barberis

    Investing for the long run when returns are predictable

    The Journal of Finance

    (2000)
  • A. Ben-Tal et al.

    Robust modeling of multi-stage portfolio problems

  • A. Ben-Tal et al.

    Robust convex optimization

    Mathematics of Operations Research

    (1998)
  • A. Ben-Tal et al.

    Robust solutions of linear programming problems contaminated with uncertain data

    Mathematical Programming

    (2000)
  • Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A., 2001. Lectures on Modern Convex Optimization: Analysis, Algorithms, and Engineering...
  • Bertsimas et al.

    The price of robustness

    Operations Research

    (2004)
  • G. Boender et al.

    A scenario approach of ALM

  • E. Bogentoft et al.

    Asset/liability management for pension funds using CVaR constraints

    Journal of Risk Finance

    (2001)
  • Cited by (39)

    • Operational research and artificial intelligence methods in banking

      2023, European Journal of Operational Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Robustness issues are of crucial importance for decision-making in the banking sector due to the deep uncertainties that affect the decision environment. Methodologies such as stochastic and robust optimization (Bakker et al., 2020) are particularly well-suited in this context, and they have been extensively used in various areas of financial decision-making, including banking (Mulvey & Erkan, 2006; Mukuddem-Petersen and Petersen, 2008; Gülpinara & Pachamanova, 2013; Chehrazi et al., 2019). As the banking sector evolves, new regulatory requirements are imposed, and different risks emerge (e.g., climate risk, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc.; Battiston et al., 2017; 2021; Rizwan et al., 2020), while new challenges arise in enhancing and improving existing modeling formulations and optimization approaches.

    • Development of a new asset liability Management model with liquidity and inflation risks based on the Lower Partial Moment

      2022, Expert Systems with Applications
      Citation Excerpt :

      Many pension funds receive contributions from their members that comprise the total assets of the funds, and thus, investment returns must meet the future payments and liabilities. While asset management includes investment decisions, liability management involves management of future pensions (Haneveld, Streutker, & Vlerk, 2010, Yang, Gondzio, & Grothey, 2011, Gülpinar & Pachamanova, 2013, Toukourou & Dufresne, 2015). ALM attempts to determine good strategy in assets assignment and contribution rate specification in a way that meets both current and future obligations (Toukourou & Dufresne 2015).

    • Robust multi-period portfolio selection based on downside risk with asymmetrically distributed uncertainty set

      2020, European Journal of Operational Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      As is well known, VaR is not coherent and in fact can be viewed as the zero-order moment of a random variable, whereas LPM is a first-order moment and MLPM is a coherent risk measure.2 Our work is related to Gulpinar, Canakoglu, and Pachamanova (2014); Gulpinar and Pachamanova (2013) and Gulpinar, Pachamanova, and Canakoglu (2016), where the multi-period Asset-Liability Management under uncertainty are considered. However, there exist some important differences between these work and our studies.

    • Asset liability management for open pension schemes using multistage stochastic programming under Solvency-II-based regulatory constraints

      2017, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Yao et al. (2013) investigated a continuous-time mean–variance ALM problem with endogenous liabilities in a general market. Gülpinar and Pachamanova (2013) developed a multi-period robust optimization model to address the ALM problem of a pension fund. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, previous works assume simple regulatory requirements, which are not suitable for the actual decision-making process of an OPPO.

    • Developing of an asset/liability allocation model for banks

      2024, Afro-Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text